Abstract
Objective: Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer are one of the most important indicators of the immune response within the tumor microenvironment. They play a particularly significant prognostic and predictive role in triple-negative and HER2-positive subtypes. However, substantial inter-observer variability has been reported in TIL scoring among pathologists, which limits its reliability in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the agreement between artificial intelligence (AI) models and pathologists in TIL scoring and to compare this agreement using different statistical approaches, thereby assessing the potential of AI integration into pathology practice. Materials and Methods: Digitized histopathological images of breast cancer cases were included in the study. Tumor regions annotated by pathologists were evaluated for both stromal TIL percentage and the proportion of stromal tumor area within each ROI, with assessments performed independently by three pathologists and two AI models. Agreement was assessed among pathologists, between pathologists and AI, and between AI models. Statistical analyses included intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Cohen and Fleiss kappa, correlation tests, and Bland-Altman analysis. In addition, categorical agreement was examined using different cut-off values. Results: Inter-pathologist agreement was high, with an ICC of 0.81. In contrast, the global agreement between pathologists and AI models was lower (ICC 0.41). Pairwise comparisons of pathologist-AI agreement yielded substantially lower ICC values (0.12-0.21), although this improved to 0.53 when three pathologists were assessed jointly with a single AI model. The strongest categorical agreement was observed with dichotomized TIL scores (≤10% vs. >10%), whereas multi-category classifications were associated with a marked reduction in kappa values. Spearman correlation coefficients between pathologists and AI models ranged from moderate to good (ρ = 0.48-0.81). Agreement between the two AI models themselves was moderate, with an ICC of 0.64
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the University of Health Sciences Haydarpaşa Numune Training and Research Hospital (approval no. HNEAH-GOAEK/KK/2025/60, dated April 22, 2025).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available due to patient privacy and institutional restrictions, but may be available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request and with permission from the relevant institution.
