A methodology for comprehensive breast cancer Ki67 labeling index with intra-tumor heterogeneity appraisal based on hexagonal tiling of digital image analysis data

Digital image analysis (DIA) enables higher accuracy, reproducibility, and capacity to enumerate cell populations by immunohistochemistry; however, the most unique benefits may be obtained by evaluating the spatial distribution and intra-tissue variance of markers. The proliferative activity of breast cancer tissue, estimated by the Ki67 labeling index (Ki67 LI), is a prognostic and predictive biomarker requiring robust measurement methodologies. We performed DIA on whole-slide images (WSI) of 302 surgically removed Ki67-stained breast cancer specimens; the tumour classifier algorithm was used to automatically detect tumour tissue but was not trained to distinguish between invasive and non-invasive carcinoma cells. The WSI DIA-generated data were subsampled by hexagonal tiling (HexT). Distribution and texture parameters were compared to conventional WSI DIA and pathology report data. Factor analysis of the data set, including total numbers of tumor cells, the Ki67 LI and Ki67 distribution, and texture indicators, extracted 4 factors, identified as entropy, proliferation, bimodality, and cellularity. The factor scores were further utilized in cluster analysis, outlining subcategories of heterogeneous tumors with predominant entropy, bimodality, or both at different levels of proliferative activity. The methodology also allowed the visualization of Ki67 LI heterogeneity in tumors and the automated detection and quantitative evaluation of Ki67 hotspots, based on the upper quintile of the HexT data, conceptualized as the “Pareto hotspot”. We conclude that systematic subsampling of DIA-generated data into HexT enables comprehensive Ki67 LI analysis that reflects aspects of intra-tumor heterogeneity and may serve as a methodology to improve digital immunohistochemistry in general.

[1]  Arvydas Laurinavicius,et al.  A methodology to ensure and improve accuracy of Ki67 labelling index estimation by automated digital image analysis in breast cancer tissue , 2014, Breast Cancer Research.

[2]  B. A. Carter,et al.  Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group , 2012 .

[3]  Richard L. Church,et al.  UC Office of the President Recent Work Title An efficient measure of compactness for two-dimensional shapes and its application in regionalization problems Permalink , 2013 .

[4]  Sidra Nawaz,et al.  Mapping spatial heterogeneity in the tumor microenvironment: a new era for digital pathology , 2015, Laboratory Investigation.

[5]  I. D. Longstaff,et al.  Improving Co-occurrence Matrix Feature Discrimination , 1995 .

[6]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. , 2002, Histopathology.

[7]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Image microarrays (IMA): Digital pathology's missing tool , 2011, Journal of pathology informatics.

[8]  Kurt A. Schalper,et al.  Quantitative Measurement of Cancer Tissue Biomarkers in the Lab and in the Clinic , 2014, Laboratory Investigation.

[9]  Florian Länger,et al.  The region-of-interest size impacts on Ki67 quantification by computer-assisted image analysis in breast cancer. , 2015, Human pathology.

[10]  D. Rimm Next-gen immunohistochemistry , 2014, Nature Methods.

[11]  Rikke Riber-Hansen,et al.  Digital image analysis: a review of reproducibility, stability and basic requirements for optimal results , 2012, APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica.

[12]  D. Rubin,et al.  Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM - algorithm plus discussions on the paper , 1977 .

[13]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[14]  Mårten Fernö,et al.  A novel model for Ki67 assessment in breast cancer , 2014, Diagnostic Pathology.

[15]  Anais Malpica,et al.  Comparison of the effect of different techniques for measurement of Ki67 proliferation on reproducibility and prognosis prediction accuracy in breast cancer , 2012, Histopathology.

[16]  Jack Cuzick,et al.  Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[17]  Andrew P Stubbs,et al.  Automated Selection of Hotspots (ASH): enhanced automated segmentation and adaptive step finding for Ki67 hotspot detection in adrenal cortical cancer , 2014, Diagnostic Pathology.

[18]  G Haroske,et al.  Cellular sociology of proliferating tumor cells in invasive ductal breast cancer. , 1996, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[19]  Arvydas Laurinavicius,et al.  Immunohistochemistry profiles of breast ductal carcinoma: factor analysis of digital image analysis data , 2012, Diagnostic Pathology.

[20]  Trisalyn A. Nelson,et al.  Trends in Spatial Statistics , 2012 .

[21]  Arvydas Laurinavicius,et al.  Digital Image Analysis in Pathology: Benefits and Obligation , 2011, Analytical cellular pathology.

[22]  I. D. Longstaff,et al.  Recent developments in the use of the co-occurrence matrix for texture recognition , 1997, Proceedings of 13th International Conference on Digital Signal Processing.

[23]  Innchyn Her,et al.  Geometric transformations on the hexagonal grid , 1995, IEEE Trans. Image Process..

[24]  David J. Harrison,et al.  Heterogeneity Mapping of Protein Expression in Tumors using Quantitative Immunofluorescence , 2011, Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE.

[25]  William M Gallagher,et al.  Prognostic ability of a panel of immunohistochemistry markers – retailoring of an 'old solution' , 2008, Breast Cancer Research.

[26]  C. Perou,et al.  Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013 , 2013, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[27]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. , 2002, Histopathology.

[28]  Colin P.D. Birch,et al.  Rectangular and hexagonal grids used for observation, experiment and simulation in ecology , 2007 .

[29]  Holger Lange,et al.  Evaluating tumor heterogeneity in immunohistochemistry-stained breast cancer tissue , 2012, Laboratory Investigation.

[30]  A. Nassar,et al.  Intratumoral Heterogeneity of Immunohistochemical Marker Expression in Breast Carcinoma: A Tissue Microarray-based Study , 2010, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[31]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. , 1999, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[32]  L. Dodd,et al.  Intratumoral heterogeneity in primary breast carcinoma: Study of concurrent parameters , 1997, Journal of surgical oncology.

[33]  Wei Zhang,et al.  EM algorithms of Gaussian mixture model and hidden Markov model , 2001, Proceedings 2001 International Conference on Image Processing (Cat. No.01CH37205).

[34]  D. Rimm,et al.  Quantitative assessment Ki-67 score for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer , 2014, Laboratory Investigation.

[35]  A. Oiea Sampling Design Optimization for Spatial Functions , 2004 .

[36]  Paul J Tadrous,et al.  On the concept of objectivity in digital image analysis in pathology , 2010, Pathology.