Observer variability in the interpretation of HER2/neu immunohistochemical expression with unaided and computer-aided digital microscopy.

CONTEXT Observer variability in digital microscopy and the effect of computer-aided digital microscopy are underexamined areas in need of further research, considering the increasing use and future role of digital imaging in pathology. A reduction in observer variability using computer aids could enhance the statistical power of studies designed to determine the utility of new biomarkers and accelerate their incorporation in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES To quantify interobserver and intraobserver variability in immunohistochemical analysis of HER2/neu with digital microscopy and computer-aided digital microscopy, and to test the hypothesis that observer agreement in the quantitative assessment of HER2/neu immunohistochemical expression is increased with the use of computer-aided microscopy. DESIGN A set of 335 digital microscopy images extracted from 64 breast cancer tissue slides stained with a HER2 antibody, were read by 14 observers in 2 reading modes: the unaided mode and the computer-aided mode. In the unaided mode, HER2 images were displayed on a calibrated color monitor with no other information, whereas in the computer-aided mode, observers were shown a HER2 image along with a corresponding feature plot showing computer-extracted values of membrane staining intensity and membrane completeness for the particular image under examination and, at the same time, mean feature values of the different HER2 categories. In both modes, observers were asked to provide a continuous score of HER2 expression. RESULTS Agreement analysis performed on the output of the study showed significant improvement in both interobserver and intraobserver agreement when the computer-aided reading mode was used to evaluate preselected image fields. CONCLUSION The role of computer-aided digital microscopy in reducing observer variability in immunohistochemistry is promising.

[1]  D. Rimm,et al.  Automated subcellular localization and quantification of protein expression in tissue microarrays , 2002, Nature Medicine.

[2]  K. Berbaum,et al.  Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. , 1989, Investigative radiology.

[3]  E. Frenkel,et al.  Assessment of HER-2/neu status in breast cancer. Automated Cellular Imaging System (ACIS)-assisted quantitation of immunohistochemical assay achieves high accuracy in comparison with fluorescence in situ hybridization assay as the standard. , 2001, American journal of clinical pathology.

[4]  Anne Vincent-Salomon,et al.  High inter-observer agreement in immunohistochemical evaluation of HER-2/neu expression in breast cancer: a multicentre GEFPICS study. , 2006, European journal of cancer.

[5]  Kyle Porter,et al.  Semi‐automated imaging system to quantitate Her‐2/neu membrane receptor immunoreactivity in human breast cancer , 2007, Cytometry. Part A : the journal of the International Society for Analytical Cytology.

[6]  Thomas Rüdiger,et al.  Inter‐laboratory and inter‐observer reproducibility of immunohistochemical assessment of the Ki‐67 labelling index in a large multi‐centre trial , 2002, The Journal of pathology.

[7]  David L Rimm,et al.  Automated Quantitative Analysis of Tissue Microarrays Reveals an Association between High Bcl-2 Expression and Improved Outcome in Melanoma , 2004, Cancer Research.

[8]  Yukako Yagi,et al.  Digital imaging in pathology: the case for standardization , 2005, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[9]  Hung Chiang,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of Her-2/neu protein overexpression in invasive breast carcinoma using the DAKO HercepTest. , 2002, American journal of clinical pathology.

[10]  H A Lehr,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of HER-2/neu status in breast cancer by fluorescence in situ hybridization and by immunohistochemistry with image analysis. , 2001, American journal of clinical pathology.

[11]  K. Gatter,et al.  Immunomicroscopy: A Diagnostic Tool for the Surgical Pathologist , 1995 .

[12]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[13]  Jiang Gu,et al.  Virtual microscopy and virtual slides in teaching, diagnosis, and research , 2005 .

[14]  Ronald S Weinstein,et al.  Innovations in medical imaging and virtual microscopy. , 2005, Human pathology.

[15]  David L Rimm,et al.  Quantitative analysis of breast cancer tissue microarrays shows that both high and normal levels of HER2 expression are associated with poor outcome. , 2003, Cancer research.

[16]  John J Spinelli,et al.  HER-2/neu in Breast Cancer: Interobserver Variability and Performance of Immunohistochemistry with 4 Antibodies Compared with Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization , 2001, Modern Pathology.

[17]  J. Baak,et al.  Comparing subjective and digital image analysis HER2/neu expression scores with conventional and modified FISH scores in breast cancer , 2007, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

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

[19]  K A Matkowskyj,et al.  Quantitative Immunohistochemistry by Measuring Cumulative Signal Strength Using Commercially Available Software Photoshop and Matlab , 2000, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[20]  Johan Lundin,et al.  Virtual microscopy in prostate histopathology: simultaneous viewing of biopsies stained sequentially with hematoxylin and eosin, and alpha-methylacyl-coenzyme A racemase/p63 immunohistochemistry. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[21]  Stephen M Hewitt,et al.  Tissue microarrays: bridging the gap between research and the clinic , 2005, Expert review of proteomics.

[22]  Kyle J. Myers,et al.  Automated Quantitative Assessment of HER-2/neu Immunohistochemical Expression in Breast Cancer , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[23]  M Lundin,et al.  A digital atlas of breast histopathology: an application of web based virtual microscopy , 2004, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[24]  Richard N. MacLennan,et al.  Interrater reliability with SPSS for Windows 5.0 , 1993 .

[25]  J Lundin,et al.  Virtual microscopy , 2004, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[26]  David J. Foran,et al.  Computer-assisted assessment of the Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 immunohistochemical assay in imaged histologic sections using a membrane isolation algorithm and quantitative analysis of positive controls , 2008, BMC Medical Imaging.

[27]  K. Edmiston,et al.  HER-2 Status in Breast Cancer: Correlation of Gene Amplification by FISH With Immunohistochemistry Expression Using Advanced Cellular Imaging System , 2006, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[28]  H. Tsuda,et al.  Quantitative immunohistochemical evaluation of HER2/neu expression with HercepTestTM in breast carcinoma by image analysis , 2001, Pathology international.

[29]  Steven C. Horii Whole-slide imaging in pathology: the potential impact on PACS , 2007, SPIE Medical Imaging.

[30]  R. Forthofer,et al.  Rank Correlation Methods , 1981 .

[31]  I Vergote,et al.  A scoring system for immunohistochemical staining: consensus report of the task force for basic research of the EORTC-GCCG. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Gynaecological Cancer Cooperative Group. , 1997, Journal of clinical pathology.

[32]  M. Duffy,et al.  Objective measurement of breast cancer oestrogen receptor status through digital image analysis. , 2003, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[33]  A Böcking,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of immunocytochemical estrogen- and progesterone receptor status assessment in breast cancer. , 1996, Anticancer research.

[34]  J. Papadimitriou,et al.  Computerized image analysis of p53 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen expression in benign, hyperplastic, and malignant endometrium. , 2001, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[35]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  Evaluation of HER-2/neu immunohistochemical assay sensitivity and scoring on formalin-fixed and paraffin-processed cell lines and breast tumors: a comparative study involving results from laboratories in 21 countries. , 2002, American journal of clinical pathology.

[36]  M. Kendall,et al.  The Problem of $m$ Rankings , 1939 .

[37]  D. Rimm,et al.  Immunohistochemistry and quantitative analysis of protein expression. , 2009, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[38]  T. Seidal,et al.  Interpretation and Quantification of Immunostains , 2001, The American journal of surgical pathology.

[39]  Alexander von Eye,et al.  Analyzing Rater Agreement: Manifest Variable Methods , 2004 .

[40]  M. Bonnefoi,et al.  Digital Microscopy Imaging and New Approaches in Toxicologic Pathology , 2004, Toxicologic pathology.

[41]  K. Bloom,et al.  Enhanced accuracy and reliability of HER-2/neu immunohistochemical scoring using digital microscopy. , 2004, American journal of clinical pathology.

[42]  Stephen M Hewitt,et al.  Perspectives in tissue microarrays. , 2004, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[43]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. , 2006, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[44]  P N Furness,et al.  The use of digital images in pathology , 1997, The Journal of pathology.