Stain variation is a phenomenon observed when distinct pathology laboratories stain tissue slides that exhibit similar but not identical color appearance. Due to this color shift between laboratories, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) trained with images from one lab often underperform on unseen images from the other lab. Several techniques have been proposed to reduce the generalization error, mainly grouped into two categories: stain color augmentation and stain color normalization. The former simulates a wide variety of realistic stain variations during training, producing stain-invariant CNNs. The latter aims to match training and test color distributions in order to reduce stain variation. For the first time, we compared some of these techniques and quantified their effect on CNN classification performance using a heterogeneous dataset of hematoxylin and eosin histopathology images from 4 organs and 9 pathology laboratories. Additionally, we propose a novel unsupervised method to perform stain color normalization using a neural network. Based on our experimental results, we provide practical guidelines on how to use stain color augmentation and stain color normalization in future computational pathology applications.

Tumor budding is a promising and cost-effective biomarker with strong prognostic value in colorectal cancer. However, challenges related to interobserver variability persist. Such variability may be reduced by immunohistochemistry and computer-aided tumor bud selection. Development of computer algorithms for this purpose requires unequivocal examples of individual tumor buds. As such, we undertook a large-scale, international, and digital observer study on individual tumor bud assessment. From a pool of 46 colorectal cancer cases with tumor budding, 3000 tumor bud candidates were selected, largely based on digital image analysis algorithms. For each candidate bud, an image patch (size 256 × 256 µm) was extracted from a pan cytokeratin-stained whole-slide image. Members of an International Tumor Budding Consortium (n = 7) were asked to categorize each candidate as either (1) tumor bud, (2) poorly differentiated cluster, or (3) neither, based on current definitions. Agreement was assessed with Cohen's and Fleiss Kappa statistics. Fleiss Kappa showed moderate overall agreement between observers (0.42 and 0.51), while Cohen's Kappas ranged from 0.25 to 0.63. Complete agreement by all seven observers was present for only 34% of the 3000 tumor bud candidates, while 59% of the candidates were agreed on by at least five of the seven observers. Despite reports of moderate-to-substantial agreement with respect to tumor budding grade, agreement with respect to individual pan cytokeratin-stained tumor buds is moderate at most. A machine learning approach may prove especially useful for a more robust assessment of individual tumor buds.

Tumor budding is a long-established independent adverse prognostic marker in colorectal cancer, yet methods for its assessment have varied widely. In an effort to standardize its reporting, a group of experts met in Bern, Switzerland, in 2016 to reach consensus on a single, international, evidence-based method for tumor budding assessment and reporting (International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference [ITBCC]). Tumor budding assessment using the ITBCC criteria has been validated in large cohorts of cancer patients and incorporated into several international colorectal cancer pathology and clinical guidelines. With the wider reporting of tumor budding, new issues have emerged that require further clarification. To better inform researchers and health-care professionals on these issues, an international group of experts in gastrointestinal pathology participated in a modified Delphi process to generate consensus and highlight areas requiring further research. This effort serves to re-affirm the importance of tumor budding in colorectal cancer and support its continued use in routine clinical practice.

The digitalization of clinical workflows and the increasing performance of deep learning algorithms are paving the way towards new methods for tackling cancer diagnosis. However, the availability of medical specialists to annotate digitized images and free-text diagnostic reports does not scale with the need for large datasets required to train robust computer-aided diagnosis methods that can target the high variability of clinical cases and data produced. This work proposes and evaluates an approach to eliminate the need for manual annotations to train computer-aided diagnosis tools in digital pathology. The approach includes two components, to automatically extract semantically meaningful concepts from diagnostic reports and use them as weak labels to train convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for histopathology diagnosis. The approach is trained (through 10-fold cross-validation) on 3’769 clinical images and reports, provided by two hospitals and tested on over 11’000 images from private and publicly available datasets. The CNN, trained with automatically generated labels, is compared with the same architecture trained with manual labels. Results show that combining text analysis and end-to-end deep neural networks allows building computer-aided diagnosis tools that reach solid performance (micro-accuracy = 0.908 at image-level) based only on existing clinical data without the need for manual annotations.

Tumour budding in colorectal cancer, defined as single tumour cells or small clusters containing four or fewer tumour cells, is a robust and independent biomarker of aggressive tumour biology. On the basis of published data in the literature, the evidence is certainly in favour of reporting tumour budding in routine practice. One important aspect of implementing tumour budding has been to establish a standardised and evidence‐based scoring method, as was recommended by the International Tumour Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) in 2016. Further developments have aimed at establishing methods for automated tumour budding assessment. A digital approach to scoring tumour buds has great potential to assist in performing an objective budding count but, like the manual consensus method, must be validated and standardised. The aim of the present review is to present general considerations behind the ITBCC scoring method, and a broad overview of the current situation and challenges regarding automated tumour budding detection methods.