Crowdsourcing scoring of immunohistochemistry images: Evaluating Performance of the Crowd and an Automated Computational Method

The assessment of protein expression in immunohistochemistry (IHC) images provides important diagnostic, prognostic and predictive information for guiding cancer diagnosis and therapy. Manual scoring of IHC images represents a logistical challenge, as the process is labor intensive and time consuming. Since the last decade, computational methods have been developed to enable the application of quantitative methods for the analysis and interpretation of protein expression in IHC images. These methods have not yet replaced manual scoring for the assessment of IHC in the majority of diagnostic laboratories and in many large-scale research studies. An alternative approach is crowdsourcing the quantification of IHC images to an undefined crowd. The aim of this study is to quantify IHC images for labeling of ER status with two different crowdsourcing approaches, image-labeling and nuclei-labeling, and compare their performance with automated methods. Crowdsourcing- derived scores obtained greater concordance with the pathologist interpretations for both image-labeling and nuclei-labeling tasks (83% and 87%), as compared to the pathologist concordance achieved by the automated method (81%) on 5,338 TMA images from 1,853 breast cancer patients. This analysis shows that crowdsourcing the scoring of protein expression in IHC images is a promising new approach for large scale cancer molecular pathology studies.

[1]  Bin Liu,et al.  Crowdsourcing the General Public for Large Scale Molecular Pathology Studies in Cancer , 2015, EBioMedicine.

[2]  Eddy Maddalena,et al.  Preliminary results from a crowdsourcing experiment in immunohistochemistry , 2014, Diagnostic Pathology.

[3]  Joachim M. Buhmann,et al.  Crowdsourcing the creation of image segmentation algorithms for connectomics , 2015, Front. Neuroanat..

[4]  Robert C. Wolpert,et al.  A Review of the , 1985 .

[5]  Andrew H. Beck,et al.  Crowdsourcing image annotation for nucleus detection and segmentation in computational pathology: evaluating experts, automated methods, and the crowd. , 2014, Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing.

[6]  Pietro Perona,et al.  Sleep spindle detection: crowdsourcing and evaluating performance of experts, non-experts, and automated methods , 2014, Nature Methods.

[7]  E Provenzano,et al.  Astronomical algorithms for automated analysis of tissue protein expression in breast cancer , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[8]  J. Giltnane,et al.  Technology Insight: identification of biomarkers with tissue microarray technology , 2004, Nature Clinical Practice Oncology.

[9]  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.

[10]  Graham A. Colditz,et al.  The Nurses' Health Study: lifestyle and health among women , 2005, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[11]  Sean Davis,et al.  Assessment of Automated Image Analysis of Breast Cancer Tissue Microarrays for Epidemiologic Studies , 2010, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.

[12]  R. Tamimi,et al.  Comparison of estrogen receptor results from pathology reports with results from central laboratory testing. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[13]  Supercomputing for the birds , 2010, Nature.

[14]  Päivi Heikkilä,et al.  Performance of automated scoring of ER, PR, HER2, CK5/6 and EGFR in breast cancer tissue microarrays in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium , 2014, The journal of pathology. Clinical research.

[15]  H. Irshad,et al.  Methods for Nuclei Detection, Segmentation, and Classification in Digital Histopathology: A Review—Current Status and Future Potential , 2014, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.

[16]  Brian L. Sullivan,et al.  eBird: A citizen-based bird observation network in the biological sciences , 2009 .

[17]  F. Zeman,et al.  Ki-67 is a prognostic parameter in breast cancer patients: results of a large population-based cohort of a cancer registry , 2013, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[18]  A. Madabhushi,et al.  Histopathological Image Analysis: A Review , 2009, IEEE Reviews in Biomedical Engineering.

[19]  C. Lintott,et al.  Galaxy Zoo: morphologies derived from visual inspection of galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey , 2008, 0804.4483.

[20]  Miguel Angel Luengo-Oroz,et al.  Crowdsourcing Malaria Parasite Quantification: An Online Game for Analyzing Images of Infected Thick Blood Smears , 2012, Journal of medical Internet research.

[21]  Srinivas C. Turaga,et al.  Space-time wiring specificity supports direction selectivity in the retina , 2014, Nature.

[22]  Lior Shamir,et al.  Classification of large acoustic datasets using machine learning and crowdsourcing: application to whale calls. , 2014, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  D C McMillan,et al.  Comparison of Visual and automated assessment of Ki-67 proliferative activity and their impact on outcome in primary operable invasive ductal breast cancer , 2012, British Journal of Cancer.