Of all melanoma patients who develop distant metastasis over time, 41% were initially diagnosed with stage I/II. More accurate prognostic models are needed to select patients for potential (neo)adjuvant therapy. We hypothesise that histopathological features in whole slide images (WSIs) from primary early-stage melanomas provide additional information beyond American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage. We utilised data from the population-based Dutch Early-Stage Melanoma (D-ESMEL) study. This included a discovery set (n=328) of case-control sets matched on follow-up time and known prognostic features (i.e. Breslow thickness, ulceration, age, and sex) and a validation cohort based on >5,500 patients following a nested case-control (NCC) design with stage-matched controls (n=266). We developed an end-to-end deep learning workflow to automatically extract relevant patches from WSIs and predict patient-level metastatic risk based on histopathological features independent of AJCC stage. The discovery set served as a training set for the workflow using 10-fold cross-validation. The prognostic performance of this model and its independence from clinical risk factors was evaluated in the validation cohort using odds ratios (OR) and the weighted C-index. We achieved a balanced accuracy of 0.88 (mean: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.77-0.85) in the best validation fold of the discovery set. In the validation cohort, metastatic risk predictions from the deep learning model were an independent prognostic factor (adjusted OR: 1.97; p<0.01). Combining the deep learning predictions (C-index: 0.86) with AJCC stage (C-index: 0.80) yielded the highest C-index of 0.87, significantly improving the C-index compared to AJCC stage alone (p<0.001). Our histopathology-based deep learning model was rigorously evaluated in a population-based cohort and demonstrated added prognostic value beyond AJCC stage. Further investigations of the underlying biological features could improve clinical decision making and patient outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ouwerkerk et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: