Observer Performance in the Use of Digital and Optical Microscopy for the Interpretation of Tissue-Based Biomarkers

Background. We conducted a validation study of digital pathology for the quantitative assessment of tissue-based biomarkers with immunohistochemistry. Objective. To examine observer agreement as a function of viewing modality (digital versus optical microscopy), whole slide versus tissue microarray (TMA) review, biomarker type (HER2 incorporating membranous staining and Ki-67 with nuclear staining), and data type (continuous and categorical). Methods. Eight pathologists reviewed 50 breast cancer whole slides (25 stained with HER2 and 25 with Ki-67) and 2 TMAs (1 stained with HER2, 1 with Ki-67, each containing 97 cores), using digital and optical microscopy. Results. Results showed relatively high overall interobserver and intermodality agreement, with different patterns specific to biomarker type. For HER2, there was better interobserver agreement for optical compared to digital microscopy for whole slides as well as better interobserver and intermodality agreement for TMAs. For Ki-67, those patterns were not observed. Conclusions. The differences in agreement patterns when examining different biomarkers and different scoring methods and reviewing whole slides compared to TMA stress the need for validation studies focused on specific pathology tasks to eliminate sources of variability that might dilute findings. The statistical uncertainty observed in our analyses calls for adequate sampling for each individual task rather than pooling cases.

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

[2]  J. Baak,et al.  Quantitative immunohistochemistry using the CAS 200/486 image analysis system in invasive breast carcinoma: a reproducibility study. , 1995, Analytical cellular pathology : the journal of the European Society for Analytical Cellular Pathology.

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

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

[5]  H. Stein,et al.  Discordant results obtained for different methods of HER-2/neu testing in breast cancer--a question of standardization, automation and timing. , 2004, The International journal of biological markers.

[6]  Johannes Gerdes,et al.  Production of a mouse monoclonal antibody reactive with a human nuclear antigen associated with cell proliferation , 1983, International journal of cancer.

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

[8]  Kristine A. Erps,et al.  Overview of telepathology, virtual microscopy, and whole slide imaging: prospects for the future. , 2009, Human pathology.

[9]  S. Hewitt Design, construction, and use of tissue microarrays. , 2004, Methods in molecular biology.

[10]  Eric Ziegl,et al.  Statistical Methods for the Analysis of Biomedical Data , 1989 .

[11]  Walter H Henricks,et al.  Validation of whole slide imaging for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. , 2013, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[12]  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.

[13]  E D Hsi,et al.  Guidelines for HER2 testing in the UK , 2004, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

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

[15]  Alexis B. Carter,et al.  Validating whole slide imaging for diagnostic purposes in pathology: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. , 2013, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[16]  Elaine Kay,et al.  Virtual microscopy as an enabler of automated/quantitative assessment of protein expression in TMAs , 2008, Histochemistry and Cell Biology.

[17]  Holger Lange,et al.  Reading Immunohistochemical Slides on a Computer Monitor—A Multisite Performance Study Using 180 HER2-stained Breast Carcinomas , 2011, Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM.

[18]  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.

[19]  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.

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

[21]  Weijie Chen,et al.  Quantitative assessment and classification of tissue-based biomarker expression with color content analysis. , 2012, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[22]  P. Thomas,et al.  Comparison of immunohistochemistry by automated cellular imaging system (ACIS) versus fluorescence in‐situ hybridization in the evaluation of HER‐2/neu expression in primary breast carcinoma , 2006, Histopathology.

[23]  J. Kononen,et al.  Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens , 1998, Nature Medicine.

[24]  Walter H. Henricks Evaluation of whole slide imaging for routine surgical pathology: Looking through a broader scope , 2012, Journal of pathology informatics.

[25]  Aldo Badano,et al.  Observer variability in the interpretation of HER2/neu immunohistochemical expression with unaided and computer-aided digital microscopy. , 2011, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[26]  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.

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

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

[29]  Sean SP Costello,et al.  Development and Evaluation of the Virtual Pathology Slide: A New Tool in Telepathology , 2003, Journal of medical Internet research.

[30]  H. Grabsch,et al.  Comparing virtual with conventional microscopy for the consensus diagnosis of Barrett’s neoplasia in the AspECT Barrett’s chemoprevention trial pathology audit , 2012, Histopathology.

[31]  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.

[32]  Anil V Parwani,et al.  Evaluation of whole slide image immunohistochemistry interpretation in challenging prostate needle biopsies. , 2008, Human pathology.

[33]  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.

[34]  Anant Madabhushi,et al.  Multi-field-of-view strategy for image-based outcome prediction of multi-parametric estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer histopathology: Comparison to Oncotype DX , 2011, Journal of pathology informatics.

[35]  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.

[36]  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.

[37]  Daniel G. O'Shea,et al.  The development and validation of the Virtual Tissue Matrix, a software application that facilitates the review of tissue microarrays on line , 2006, BMC Bioinformatics.

[38]  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.

[39]  Takatoshi Nakamura,et al.  Diagnostic reproducibility of tumour budding in colorectal cancer: a multicentre, multinational study using virtual microscopy , 2012, Histopathology.

[40]  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.

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

[42]  Nneka I Comfere,et al.  Comparison of virtual microscopy and glass slide microscopy among dermatology residents during a simulated in‐training examination , 2013, Journal of cutaneous pathology.

[43]  F A Allaert,et al.  Telepathology diagnosis by means of digital still images: an international validation study. , 1996, Human pathology.

[44]  Marylène Lejeune,et al.  Quantification of diverse subcellular immunohistochemical markers with clinicobiological relevancies: validation of a new computer‐assisted image analysis procedure , 2008, Journal of anatomy.

[45]  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.

[46]  A. Jara-Lazaro,et al.  Digital pathology: exploring its applications in diagnostic surgical pathology practice , 2010, Pathology.

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

[48]  M. Noguchi,et al.  Evaluation of immunohistochemical staining using whole‐slide imaging for HER2 scoring of breast cancer in comparison with real glass slides , 2012, Pathology international.

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

[50]  Holger Lange,et al.  Trainable immunohistochemical HER2/neu image analysis: a multisite performance study using 260 breast tissue specimens. , 2011, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[51]  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.

[52]  W Scott Campbell,et al.  Concordance between whole-slide imaging and light microscopy for routine surgical pathology. , 2012, Human pathology.

[53]  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.

[54]  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.