Researcher profile

Henrik Grönberg

Henrik Grönberg contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
4topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Using deep learning to detect patients at risk for prostate cancer despite benign biopsies

Background: Transrectal ultrasound guided systematic biopsies of the prostate is a routine procedure to establish a prostate cancer diagnosis. However, the 10-12 prostate core biopsies only sample a relatively small volume of the prostate, and tumour lesions in regions between biopsy cores can be missed, leading to a well-known low sensitivity to detect clinically relevant cancer. As a proof-of-principle, we developed and validated a deep convolutional neural network model to distinguish between morphological patterns in benign prostate biopsy whole slide images from men with and without established cancer. Methods: This study included 14,354 hematoxylin and eosin stained whole slide images from benign prostate biopsies from 1,508 men in two groups: men without an established prostate cancer (PCa) diagnosis and men with at least one core biopsy diagnosed with PCa. 80% of the participants were assigned as training data and used for model optimization (1,211 men), and the remaining 20% (297 men) as a held-out test set used to evaluate model performance. An ensemble of 10 deep convolutional neural network models was optimized for classification of biopsies from men with and without established cancer. Hyperparameter optimization and model selection was performed by cross-validation in the training data . Results: Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC) was estimated as 0.727 (bootstrap 95% CI: 0.708-0.745) on biopsy level and 0.738 (bootstrap 95% CI: 0.682 - 0.796) on man level. At a specificity of 0.9 the model had an estimated sensitivity of 0.348. Conclusion: The developed model has the ability to detect men with risk of missed PCa due to under-sampling of the prostate. The proposed model has the potential to reduce the number of false negative cases in routine systematic prostate biopsies and to indicate men who could benefit from MRI-guided re-biopsy.

preprint2020arXiv

Detection of Perineural Invasion in Prostate Needle Biopsies with Deep Neural Networks

Background: The detection of perineural invasion (PNI) by carcinoma in prostate biopsies has been shown to be associated with poor prognosis. The assessment and quantification of PNI is; however, labor intensive. In the study we aimed to develop an algorithm based on deep neural networks to aid pathologists in this task. Methods: We collected, digitized and pixel-wise annotated the PNI findings in each of the approximately 80,000 biopsy cores from the 7,406 men who underwent biopsy in the prospective and diagnostic STHLM3 trial between 2012 and 2014. In total, 485 biopsy cores showed PNI. We also digitized more than 10% (n=8,318) of the PNI negative biopsy cores. Digitized biopsies from a random selection of 80% of the men were used to build deep neural networks, and the remaining 20% were used to evaluate the performance of the algorithm. Results: For the detection of PNI in prostate biopsy cores the network had an estimated area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.98 (95% CI 0.97-0.99) based on 106 PNI positive cores and 1,652 PNI negative cores in the independent test set. For the pre-specified operating point this translates to sensitivity of 0.87 and specificity of 0.97. The corresponding positive and negative predictive values were 0.67 and 0.99, respectively. For localizing the regions of PNI within a slide we estimated an average intersection over union of 0.50 (CI: 0.46-0.55). Conclusion: We have developed an algorithm based on deep neural networks for detecting PNI in prostate biopsies with apparently acceptable diagnostic properties. These algorithms have the potential to aid pathologists in the day-to-day work by drastically reducing the number of biopsy cores that need to be assessed for PNI and by highlighting regions of diagnostic interest.