Journal of Pathology Informatics Journal of Pathology Informatics
Contact us | Home | Login   |  Users Online: 761  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 


ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 1  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 29

Using image analysis as a tool for assessment of prognostic and predictive biomarkers for breast cancer: How reliable is it?


1 Analytic Microscopy Core, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
2 Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; Department of Graduate Medical Education, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
3 Department of Graduate Medical Education, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
4 Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; Department of Anatomic Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA
5 Analytic Microscopy Core, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; Department of Anatomic Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL, USA

Correspondence Address:
Marilyn M Bui
Analytic Microscopy Core, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL; Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL; Department of Anatomic Pathology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2153-3539.74186

Rights and Permissions

Background : Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) are important and well-established prognostic and predictive biomarkers for breast cancers and routinely tested on patient's tumor samples by immunohistochemical (IHC) study. The accuracy of these test results has substantial impact on patient management. A critical factor that contributes to the result is the interpretation (scoring) of IHC. This study investigates how computerized image analysis can play a role in a reliable scoring, and identifies potential pitfalls with common methods. Materials and Methods : Whole slide images of 33 invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) (10 ER and 23 HER2) were scored by pathologist under the light microscope and confirmed by another pathologist. The HER2 results were additionally confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The scoring criteria were adherent to the guidelines recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists. Whole slide stains were then scored by commercially available image analysis algorithms from Definiens (Munich, Germany) and Aperio Technologies (Vista, CA, USA). Each algorithm was modified specifically for each marker and tissue. The results were compared with the semi-quantitative manual scoring, which was considered the gold standard in this study. Results : For HER2 positive group, each algorithm scored 23/23 cases within the range established by the pathologist. For ER, both algorithms scored 10/10 cases within range. The performance of each algorithm varies somewhat from the percentage of staining as compared to the pathologist's reading. Conclusions : Commercially available computerized image analysis can be useful in the evaluation of ER and HER2 IHC results. In order to achieve accurate results either manual pathologist region selection is necessary, or an automated region selection tool must be employed. Specificity can also be gained when strict quality assurance by a pathologist is invested. Quality assurance of image analysis by pathologists is always warranted. Automated image analysis should only be used as adjunct to pathologist's evaluation.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed5986    
    Printed258    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded1131    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 28    

Recommend this journal