Large pretrained transformers are increasingly being developed as generalised foundation models which can underpin powerful task-specific artificial intelligence models. Histopathology foundation models show promise across many tasks, but analyses have been limited by arbitrary hyperparameters that were not tuned to the specific task/dataset. We report the most rigorous single-task validation conducted to date of a histopathology foundation model, and the first performed in ovarian cancer subtyping. Attention-based multiple instance learning classifiers were compared using vision transformer and ResNet features generated through varied preprocessing and pretraining procedures. The training set consisted of 1864 whole slide images from 434 ovarian carcinoma cases at Leeds Hospitals. Five-class classification performance was evaluated through five-fold cross-validation, and these cross-validation models were ensembled for evaluation on a hold-out test set and an external set from the Transcanadian study. Reporting followed the TRIPOD+AI checklist. The vision transformer-based histopathology foundation model, UNI, performed best in every evaluation, with five-class balanced accuracies of 88% and 93% in hold-out internal and external testing, compared to the best ResNet model scores of 68% and 81%, respectively. Normalisations and augmentations aided the generalisability of ResNet-based models, but these still did not match the performance of UNI, which gave the best external performance in any ovarian cancer subtyping study to date. Histopathology foundation models offer a clear benefit to subtyping, improving classification performance to a degree where clinical utility is tangible, albeit with an increased computational burden. Such models could provide a second opinion in challenging cases and may improve the accuracy, objectivity, and efficiency of pathological diagnoses overall.

For many patients, current ovarian cancer treatments offer limited clinical benefit. For some therapies, it is not possible to predict patients' responses, potentially exposing them to the adverse effects of treatment without any therapeutic benefit. As part of the automated prediction of treatment effectiveness in ovarian cancer using histopathological images (ATEC23) challenge, we evaluated the effectiveness of deep learning to predict whether a course of treatment including the antiangiogenic drug bevacizumab could contribute to remission or prevent disease progression for at least 6 months in a set of 282 histopathology whole slide images (WSIs) from 78 ovarian cancer patients. Our approach used a pretrained Hierarchical Image Pyramid Transformer (HIPT) to extract region-level features and an attention-based multiple instance learning (ABMIL) model to aggregate features and classify whole slides. The optimal HIPT-ABMIL model had an internal balanced accuracy of 60.2% +- 2.9% and an AUC of 0.646 +- 0.033. Histopathology-specific model pretraining was found to be beneficial to classification performance, though hierarchical transformers were not, with a ResNet feature extractor achieving similar performance. Due to the dataset being small and highly heterogeneous, performance was variable across 5-fold cross-validation folds, and there were some extreme differences between validation and test set performance within folds. The model did not generalise well to tissue microarrays, with accuracy worse than random chance. It is not yet clear whether ovarian cancer WSIs contain information that can be used to accurately predict treatment response, with further validation using larger, higher-quality datasets required.

The number of international benchmarking competitions is steadily increasing in various fields of machine learning (ML) research and practice. So far, however, little is known about the common practice as well as bottlenecks faced by the community in tackling the research questions posed. To shed light on the status quo of algorithm development in the specific field of biomedical imaging analysis, we designed an international survey that was issued to all participants of challenges conducted in conjunction with the IEEE ISBI 2021 and MICCAI 2021 conferences (80 competitions in total). The survey covered participants' expertise and working environments, their chosen strategies, as well as algorithm characteristics. A median of 72% challenge participants took part in the survey. According to our results, knowledge exchange was the primary incentive (70%) for participation, while the reception of prize money played only a minor role (16%). While a median of 80 working hours was spent on method development, a large portion of participants stated that they did not have enough time for method development (32%). 25% perceived the infrastructure to be a bottleneck. Overall, 94% of all solutions were deep learning-based. Of these, 84% were based on standard architectures. 43% of the respondents reported that the data samples (e.g., images) were too large to be processed at once. This was most commonly addressed by patch-based training (69%), downsampling (37%), and solving 3D analysis tasks as a series of 2D tasks. K-fold cross-validation on the training set was performed by only 37% of the participants and only 50% of the participants performed ensembling based on multiple identical models (61%) or heterogeneous models (39%). 48% of the respondents applied postprocessing steps.

The rapid growth of digital pathology in recent years has provided an ideal opportunity for the development of artificial intelligence-based tools to improve the accuracy and efficiency of clinical diagnoses. One of the significant roadblocks to current research is the high level of visual variability across digital pathology images, causing models to generalise poorly to unseen data. Stain normalisation aims to standardise the visual profile of digital pathology images without changing the structural content of the images. In this chapter, we explore different techniques which have been used for stain normalisation in digital pathology, with a focus on approaches which utilise generative adversarial networks (GANs). Typically, GAN-based methods outperform non-generative approaches but at the cost of much greater computational requirements. However, it is not clear which method is best for stain normalisation in general, with different GAN and non-GAN approaches outperforming each other in different scenarios and according to different performance metrics. This is an ongoing field of study as researchers aim to identify a method which efficiently and effectively normalises pathology images to make AI models more robust and generalisable.

Purpose - To characterise and assess the quality of published research evaluating artificial intelligence (AI) methods for ovarian cancer diagnosis or prognosis using histopathology data. Methods - A search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and WHO-ICTRP was conducted up to 19/05/2023. The inclusion criteria required that research evaluated AI on histopathology images for diagnostic or prognostic inferences in ovarian cancer. The risk of bias was assessed using PROBAST. Information about each model of interest was tabulated and summary statistics were reported. PRISMA 2020 reporting guidelines were followed. Results - 1573 records were identified, of which 45 were eligible for inclusion. There were 80 models of interest, including 37 diagnostic models, 22 prognostic models, and 21 models with other diagnostically relevant outcomes. Models were developed using 1-1375 slides from 1-776 ovarian cancer patients. Model outcomes included treatment response (11/80), malignancy status (10/80), stain quantity (9/80), and histological subtype (7/80). All models were found to be at high or unclear risk of bias overall, with most research having a high risk of bias in the analysis and a lack of clarity regarding participants and predictors in the study. Research frequently suffered from insufficient reporting and limited validation using small sample sizes. Conclusion - Limited research has been conducted on the application of AI to histopathology images for diagnostic or prognostic purposes in ovarian cancer, and none of the associated models have been demonstrated to be ready for real-world implementation. Key aspects to help ensure clinical translation include more transparent and comprehensive reporting of data provenance and modelling approaches, as well as improved quantitative performance evaluation using cross-validation and external validations.