SpaCRD: Multimodal Deep Fusion of Histology and Spatial Transcriptomics for Cancer Region Detection
Organizations: School of Information Science and Engineering, Yunnan University, Kunming 650500, China · Yunnan Key Laboratory of Intelligent Systems and Computing, Yunnan University, Kunming 650500, China · School of Information Engineering, Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073, China · School of Artificial Intelligence, School of Computer Science, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430072, China
Abstract
Accurate detection of cancer tissue regions (CTR) enables deeper analysis of the tumor microenvironment and offers crucial insights into treatment response. Traditional CTR detection methods, which typically rely on the rich cellular morphology in histology images, are susceptible to a high rate of false positives due to morphological similarities across different tissue regions. The groundbreaking advances in spatial transcriptomics (ST) provide detailed cellular phenotypes and spatial localization information, offering new opportunities for more accurate cancer region detection. However, current methods are unable to effectively integrate histology images with ST data, especially in the context of cross-sample and cross-platform/batch settings for accomplishing the CTR detection. To address this challenge, we propose SpaCRD, a transfer learning-based method that deeply integrates histology images and ST data to enable reliable CTR detection across diverse samples, platforms, and batches. Once trained on source data, SpaCRD can be readily generalized to accurately detect cancerous regions across samples from different platforms and batches. The core of SpaCRD is a category-regularized variational reconstruction-guided bidirectional cross-attention fusion network, which enables the model to adaptively capture latent co-expression patterns between histological features and gene expression from multiple perspectives. Extensive benchmark analysis on 23 matched histology-ST datasets spanning various disease types, platforms, and batches demonstrates that SpaCRD consistently outperforms existing eight state-of-the-art methods in CTR detection.
Figures & tables
| Metric | Method | Cross-samples | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRC_A1 | CRC_A2 | CRC_B1 | CRC_B2 | CRC_C1 | CRC_C2 | CRC_D1 | CRC_D2 | CRC_E1 | CRC_E2 | CRC_G1 | CRC_G2 | ||
| AUC | SimpleNet | 0.491 0.163 | 0.518 0.098 | 0.488 0.036 | 0.481 0.055 | 0.440 0.047 | 0.488 0.070 | 0.518 0.050 | 0.435 0.036 | 0.429 0.129 | 0.580 0.103 | 0.506 0.082 | 0.463 0.047 |
| Spatial-ID | 0.594 0.068 | 0.563 0.091 | 0.518 0.016 | 0.496 0.043 | 0.513 0.057 | 0.503 0.082 | 0.510 0.029 | 0.526 0.040 | 0.457 0.109 | 0.453 0.093 | 0.458 0.042 | 0.525 0.033 | |
| STAGE | 0.544 0.088 | 0.516 0.116 | 0.517 0.037 | 0.520 0.078 | 0.488 0.084 | 0.502 0.059 | 0.498 0.086 | 0.490 0.055 | 0.354 0.129 | 0.466 0.086 | 0.488 0.106 | 0.537 0.117 | |
| STANDS | 0.540 0.045 | 0.530 0.043 | 0.466 0.030 | 0.506 0.021 | 0.587 0.053 | 0.549 0.057 | 0.564 0.053 | 0.510 0.022 | 0.609 0.075 | 0.643 0.098 | 0.504 0.027 | 0.600 0.070 | |
| TESLA | 0.496 0.016 | 0.527 0.004 | 0.436 0.006 | 0.548 0.007 | 0.716 0.011 | 0.593 0.002 | 0.664 0.006 | 0.582 0.036 | 0.517 0.007 | 0.635 0.024 | 0.662 0.004 | 0.721 0.006 | |
| Metric | Method | Cross-samples | Cross-platforms&batches | |||||||||
| STHBC_A | STHBC_B | STHBC_C | STHBC_D | STHBC_E | STHBC_F | STHBC_G | STHBC_H | ViHBC | XeHBC | IDC | ||
| AUC | SimpleNet | 0.536 0.126 | 0.468 0.157 | 0.476 0.132 | 0.528 0.143 | 0.429 0.122 | 0.536 0.063 | 0.571 0.101 | 0.454 0.132 | 0.468 0.076 | 0.531 0.106 | 0.612 0.098 |
| Spatial-ID | 0.544 0.045 | 0.534 0.135 | 0.471 0.083 | 0.451 0.085 | 0.477 0.102 | 0.496 0.107 | 0.558 0.094 | 0.438 0.117 | 0.436 0.067 | 0.593 0.081 | 0.502 0.080 | |
| STAGE | 0.536 0.126 | 0.468 0.157 | 0.476 0.132 | 0.528 0.143 | 0.429 0.122 | 0.536 0.063 | 0.571 0.101 | 0.474 0.190 | 0.444 0.067 | 0.575 0.054 | 0.605 0.068 | |
| STANDS | 0.535 0.053 | 0.449 0.058 | 0.510 0.008 | 0.507 0.038 | 0.524 0.027 | 0.575 0.036 | 0.564 0.046 | 0.451 0.072 | 0.629 0.102 | 0.532 0.037 | 0.466 0.092 | |
| TESLA | 0.724 0.008 | 0.586 0.018 | 0.551 0.012 | 0.605 0.011 | 0.627 0.002 | 0.705 0.022 | 0.697 0.014 | 0.729 0.009 | 0.672 0.025 | 0.748 0.026 | 0.576 0.021 | |
| Extractor | Cross-samples | Cross-platforms&batches | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STHBC | CRC | 10XHBC | IDC | XeHBC | |||||||||||
| AUC | AP | F1 | AUC | AP | F1 | AUC | AP | F1 | AUC | AP | F1 | AUC | AP | F1 | |
| w/ Swin-Tiny | 0.880 | 0.923 | 0.838 | 0.820 | 0.795 | 0.793 | 0.689 | 0.751 | 0.728 | 0.501 | 0.601 | 0.601 | 0.718 | 0.465 | 0.501 |
| w/ ResNet50 | 0.878 | 0.908 | 0.836 | 0.830 | 0.800 | 0.794 | 0.637 | 0.697 | 0.701 | 0.596 | 0.649 | 0.657 | 0.656 | 0.698 | 0.691 |
| w/ HIPT | 0.885 | 0.912 | 0.827 | 0.822 | 0.796 | 0.793 | 0.784 | 0.829 | 0.786 | 0.399 | 0.525 | 0.546 | 0.771 | 0.736 | 0.742 |
| w/ UNI (ours) | 0.929 | 0.946 | 0.880 | 0.869 | 0.854 | 0.810 | 0.900 | 0.930 | 0.867 | 0.891 | 0.914 | 0.854 | 0.931 | 0.859 | 0.795 |
| Model | HBC(eleven datasets) | CRC(twelve datasets) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | AP | F1 | AUC | AP | F1 | |
| Image-based | 0.789 | 0.752 | 0.733 | 0.606 | 0.557 | 0.553 |
| ST-based | 0.832 | 0.815 | 0.747 | 0.782 | 0.793 | 0.755 |
| w/o BCA | 0.849 | 0.833 | 0.788 | 0.797 | 0.774 | 0.759 |
| w/o RVAE | 0.887 | 0.898 | 0.817 | 0.831 | 0.816 | 0.795 |
| w/o VRBCA | 0.815 | 0.796 | 0.734 | 0.771 | 0.746 | 0.717 |
| Metric | Parameter | Parameter | ||||
| 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 1.0 | |
| AUC | 0.908 | 0.923 | 0.916 | 0.863 | 0.923 | 0.920 |
| AP | 0.912 | 0.934 | 0.929 | 0.895 | 0.934 | 0.931 |
| F1 | 0.843 | 0.869 | 0.863 | 0.828 | 0.869 | 0.867 |
| Metric | Parameter | neighboring spots | ||||
| 0.0 | 0.1 | 1.0 | 4 | 6 | 10 | |
| Datasets | Tissue | Spots | Cancer Ratio | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| STHBC_A | Breast cancer (Invasive cancer & Cancer in situ) | 346 | 89.9% | ST |
| STHBC_B | Breast cancer (Invasive cancer) | 295 | 22.0% | |
| STHBC_C | Breast cancer (Invasive cancer) | 176 | 73.9% | |
| STHBC_D | Breast cancer (Invasive cancer) | 306 | 48.1% | |
| STHBC_E | Breast cancer (Invasive cancer) | 587 | 57.9% | |
| STHBC_F | Breast cancer (Invasive cancer) | 691 | 85.7% |
| Method | Params | Training Time (s) | Inference Time (s) | Memory Usage (MB) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SpaCRD (Ours) | 8.70M | 33.86 | 1.15 | 535.68 |
| MEATRD | 48.61M | 1378.70 | 13.35 | 8401.39 |
| STANDS | 68.19M | 986.77 | 12.89 | 18426.91 |
| SpaCell-Plus | 1.72M | 44.25 | 0.06 | 94.14 |
| iStar | 2.41M | 222.03 | 11.98 | 325.15 |
| TESLA | 5.68M | 5790.68 | 18.71 | 7619.64 |
| Training data | ViHBC | XeHBC | IDC | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AUC | AP | F1 | AUC | AP | F1 | AUC | AP | F1 | |
| C (176 spots) | 0.861 0.029 | 0.882 0.035 | 0.817 0.018 | 0.875 0.022 | 0.749 0.047 | 0.731 0.038 | 0.779 0.034 | 0.783 0.36 | 0.757 0.41 |
| D (306 spots) | 0.888 0.016 | 0.913 0.016 | 0.863 0.010 | 0.911 0.016 | 0.820 0.037 | 0.759 0.025 | 0.867 0.021 | 0.886 0.26 | 0.833 0.36 |
| Full (3,481 spots) | 0.900 0.029 | 0.930 0.037 | 0.867 0.014 | 0.931 0.008 | 0.859 0.021 | 0.795 0.013 | 0.891 0.006 | 0.914 0.006 | 0.854 0.008 |
Medical Image Analysis
Medical image analysis uses computational methods to interpret clinical images, measure anatomy and disease, and support diagnosis and treatment.
See all 292 papers