Assessment of Two Automated Imaging Systems in Evaluating Estrogen Receptor Status in Breast Carcinoma

Immunohistochemical staining for estrogen receptor (ER) status is widely used in the management of breast cancer. These stains have traditionally been scored manually, which results in generally good agreement among observers when the cases are strongly positive. However, significant interobserver and intraobserver differences in scoring can occur in borderline or weakly staining cases. Recently, automated systems have been proposed to provide a more sensitive and objective method of ER quantification. The ChromaVision Automated Cellular Imaging System and the Applied Imaging Ariol SL-50 quantify the color intensity of the immunoreactive product. To assess the accuracy of these 2 automated systems and to compare them to one another and to manual scoring, we performed immunostaining for ER on 64 cases of breast cancer. The percentages of positive cells were scored manually by 4 pathologists and by the 2 imaging systems. A discrepancy in scoring was defined as that which resulted in the reclassification of a case from negative to positive or vice versa. Our results showed significant agreement between the 2 automated systems. When automated scores were compared with the manual scores, only 5 of the 64 cases (7%) were discrepant. In 4 of these, the percentage of cells staining for ER was low (0% to 20%). Overall, the 2 systems were comparable, and discrepant results were most frequently seen when analyzing tumors with low levels of ER positive cells.

[1]  P. Furmanski,et al.  The prognostic value of estrogen receptor determinations in patients with primary breast cancer: An update , 1980, Cancer.

[2]  I. Ferri,et al.  Computer-assisted immunocytochemical determination of breast cancer steroid receptors on cytological smears of excised surgical specimens compared with frozen sections. , 1999, Cytometry.

[3]  J. Bacus,et al.  The evaluation of estrogen receptor in primary breast carcinoma by computer-assisted image analysis. , 1988, American journal of clinical pathology.

[4]  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.

[5]  R. J. Sklarew,et al.  Quantitation of the immunocytochemical assay for estrogen receptor protein (ER-ICA) in human breast cancer by television imaging. , 1987, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[6]  M Bibbo,et al.  Assessment of hormone receptors in breast carcinoma by immunocytochemistry and image analysis. II. Estrogen receptors. , 1989, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[7]  E. Unger,et al.  Image analysis for quantitation of estrogen receptor in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded sections of breast carcinoma. , 1991, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.

[8]  S. Biesterfeld,et al.  Analysis of the reliability of manual and automated immunohistochemical staining procedures. A pilot study. , 2003, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[9]  Immunohistochemical determination of nuclear antigens by colour image analysis: application for labelling index, estrogen and progesterone receptor status in breast cancer. , 1994, Analytical cellular pathology : the journal of the European Society for Analytical Cellular Pathology.

[10]  N. Sneige,et al.  Interobserver agreement for estrogen receptor immunohistochemical analysis in breast cancer: a comparison of manual and computer-assisted scoring methods. , 2004, Annals of diagnostic pathology.

[11]  L. Layfield,et al.  Estrogen and progesterone receptor status determined by the Ventana ES 320 automated immunohistochemical stainer and the CAS 200 image analyzer in 236 early‐stage breast carcinomas: Prognostic significance , 1996, Journal of surgical oncology.