Evaluation of Mitotic Activity Index in Breast Cancer Using Whole Slide Digital Images

Introduction Mitotic Activity Index (MAI) is an important independent prognostic factor and an integral part of the breast cancer grading system. Thus, correct estimation of this prognostically relevant feature is essential for guiding treatment decision and assessing patient prognosis. The aim of this study was to validate the use of high resolution Whole Slide Images (WSI) in estimating MAI in breast cancer specimens. Methods MAI was evaluated in 100 consecutive breast cancer specimens by three observers on two occasions, microscopically and on WSI with a wash out period of 4 months. MAI was also translated to mitotic scores as in grading. Inter- and intra-observer agreement between microscopic and digital MAI counts and scores was measured. Results Almost perfect inter-observer agreements were obtained from counting MAI using a conventional microscope (intra-class correlation coefficient (ICCC) 0.879) as well as on WSI (ICCC 0.924). K coefficients reflected good inter-observer agreements among observers' microscopic mitotic scores (average kappa 0.642). Comparable results were also observed among digital mitotic scores (average kappa 0.635). There was strong to perfect intra-observer agreements between MAI counts and mitotic scores for the two diagnostic modalities (ICCC 0.716–0.863, kappa 0.506–0.617). There were no significant differences in mitotic scores using both diagnostic modalities. Conclusion Scoring mitoses using WSI in breast cancer seems to be just as reliable and reproducible as when using a microscope. Further development of software and image quality will definitely encourage the use of WSI in routine pathology practice.

[1]  Fred R. Dee.  Virtual microscopy in pathology education. , 2009, Human pathology.

[2]  Holger Lange.  Digital Pathology: A Regulatory Overview , 2011 .

[3]  J. Russo,et al.  Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom–Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index , 2005, Modern Pathology.

[4]  B. Molnár,et al.  Digital slide and virtual microscopy based routine and telepathology evaluation of routine gastrointestinal biopsy specimens , 2003, Journal of clinical pathology.

[5]  José Vassallo,et al.  Digital slides: present status of a tool for consultation, teaching, and quality control in pathology. , 2009, Pathology, research and practice.

[6]  J. Peterse,et al.  Reproducibility of mitosis counting in 2,469 breast cancer specimens: results from the Multicenter Morphometric Mammary Carcinoma Project. , 1992, Human pathology.

[7]  F. Clayton.  Pathologic correlates of survival in 378 lymph node‐negative infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas. Mitotic count is the best single predictor , 1991, Cancer.

[8]  Mitko Veta,et al.  Prognostic value of automatically extracted nuclear morphometric features in whole slide images of male breast cancer , 2012, Modern Pathology.

[9]  J. Baak,et al.  Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer: a review , 2004, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[10]  Shaimaa Al-Janabi,et al.  Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of gastrointestinal tract pathology: a feasibility study. , 2012, Human pathology.

[12]  S. Pinder,et al.  Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. , 1995, Human pathology.

[13]  V. Kosma,et al.  The important prognostic value of Ki-67 expression as determined by image analysis in breast cancer , 2005, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[14]  Andreas Makris,et al.  Measuring proliferation in breast cancer: practicalities and applications , 2006, Breast Cancer Research.

[15]  O. Nanni,et al.  Erratum: Prognostic relevance of mitotic activity in patients with node-negative breast cancer (Modern Pathology (2003) 16, 11 (1067-1075)) , 2004 .

[16]  P. V. van Diest,et al.  The multi‐center morphometric mammary carcinoma project (MMMCP) in the netherlands: Value of morphometrically assessed proliferation and differentiation , 1993, Journal of cellular biochemistry. Supplement.

[17]  Jiang Gu,et al.  A feasibility study of virtual slides in surgical pathology in China. , 2007, Human pathology.

[18]  A. Viera,et al.  Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. , 2005, Family medicine.

[19]  S. Edge,et al.  Prognostic factors in breast cancer , 2005 .

[20]  Hanina Hibshoosh,et al.  Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry study , 2006, Modern Pathology.

[21]  Casey N. Ta,et al.  Quantitative Automated Image Analysis System with Automated Debris Filtering for the Detection of Breast Carcinoma Cells , 2011, Acta Cytologica.

[22]  J. Beck,et al.  Observer variability in reporting of breast lesions. , 1985, Journal of clinical pathology.

[23]  K Vajda,et al.  [Prognostic factors in breast cancer]. , 1998, Orvosi hetilap.

[24]  Shaimaa Al-Janabi,et al.  Whole slide images for primary diagnostics in dermatopathology: a feasibility study , 2011, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[25]  Donald L Weaver,et al.  Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[26]  P. V. van Diest,et al.  Prospective multicenter validation of the independent prognostic value of the mitotic activity index in lymph node-negative breast cancer patients younger than 55 years. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[27]  Shaimaa Al-Janabi,et al.  Whole slide images as a platform for initial diagnostics in histopathology in a medium-sized routine laboratory , 2012, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[28]  Shaimaa Al-Janabi,et al.  Digital pathology: current status and future perspectives , 2012, Histopathology.

[29]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[30]  Yukako Yagi,et al.  Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies. , 2006, Human pathology.

[31]  Yukako Yagi,et al.  Primary histologic diagnosis using automated whole slide imaging: a validation study , 2006, BMC clinical pathology.

[32]  Tadashi Hasegawa,et al.  Evaluation of the Interobserver Agreement in the Number of Mitotic Figures Breast Carcinoma as Simulation of Quality Monitoring in the Japan National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer (NSAS‐BC) Protocol , 2000, Japanese journal of cancer research : Gann.

[33]  Shaimaa Al-Janabi,et al.  Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of paediatric pathology specimens: a feasibility study , 2012, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[34]  Toby C. Cornish,et al.  Whole-slide Imaging: Routine Pathologic Diagnosis , 2012, Advances in anatomic pathology.

[35]  Dino Amadori,et al.  Prognostic Relevance of Mitotic Activity in Patients with Node-Negative Breast Cancer , 2003, Modern Pathology.

[36]  S. Al-Janabi,et al.  Digital slide images for primary diagnostics in breast pathology: a feasibility study. , 2012, Human pathology.

[37]  John D. Pfeifer,et al.  Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology , 2011, Journal of pathology informatics.

[38]  Patricia Switten Nielsen,et al.  Virtual microscopy: an evaluation of its validity and diagnostic performance in routine histologic diagnosis of skin tumors. , 2010, Human pathology.