Quantitative Histopathological Analysis of Cervical Intra-Epithelial Neoplasia Sections: Methodological Issues

Objectives: As part a Program Project to evaluate emerging optical technologies for cervical neoplasia, our group is performing quantitative histopathological analysis of biopsies from 1800 patients. Several methodological issues have arisen with respect to this analysis: (1) Finding the most efficient way to compensate for staining intensity variation with out losing diagnostic information; (2) Assessing the inter‐ and intra‐observer variability of the semi‐interactive data collection; and (3) the use of non‐overlapping cells from the intermediate layer only. Methods: Non‐overlapping quantitatively stained nuclei were selected from 280 samples with histopathological characteristics of normal (199), koilocytosis (37), CIN 1 (18), CIN 2 (10) and CIN 3 (16). Linear discriminant analysis was used to assess the diagnostic information in three different feature sets to evaluate and compare staining intensity normalization methods. Selected feature values and summary scores were used to evaluate intra‐ and inter‐observer variability. Results: The features normalized by the internal subset of the imaged cells had the same discriminatory power as those normalized by the control cells and by both normalization methods seem to have additional discriminatory power over the set of features which do not require normalization. The use of the internal subset decreased the image acquisition time by ∼50% at each center, respectively. The intra‐ and inter‐observer variability was of a similar size. Good performance was obtained by measuring the intermediate layer only. Conclusion: The use of intensity normalization from a subset of the imaged non‐overlapping intermediate layer cells works as well as or better than any of the other methods tested and provides a significant timesaving. Our intra‐ and inter‐observer variability do not seem to affect the diagnostic power of the data. Although this must be tested in a larger data set, the use of intermediate layer cells only may be acceptable when using quantitative histopathology.

[1]  L. Koss Diagnostic cytology and its histopathologic bases , 1968 .

[2]  T. Kline,et al.  Diagnostic Cytology and Its Histopathologic Bases , 1969 .

[3]  J. Ferlay,et al.  Cancer Incidence in Five Continents , 1970, Union Internationale Contre Le Cancer / International Union against Cancer.

[4]  R. Newcombe,et al.  Reporting cervical intra‐epithelial neoplasia (CIN): Intra‐ and interpathologist variation and factors associated with disagreement , 1990, Histopathology.

[5]  B Palcic,et al.  An edge relocation segmentation algorithm. , 1990, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[6]  E. Artacho-Pérula,et al.  Histomorphometry of normal and abnormal cervical samples. , 1993, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[7]  B Palcic,et al.  Nuclear texture: can it be used as a surrogate endpoint biomarker? , 1994, Journal of cellular biochemistry. Supplement.

[8]  B Palcic,et al.  Nuclear texture measurements in image cytometry. , 1995, Pathologica.

[9]  A. Gschwendtner,et al.  Comparison of different mathematical algorithms to correct DNA-histograms obtained by measurements on thin liver tissue sections. , 1996, Analytical cellular pathology : the journal of the European Society for Analytical Cellular Pathology.

[10]  Ewert Bengtsson,et al.  Image Analysis Based Grading of Bladder Carcinoma. Comparison of Object, Texture and Graph Based Methods and Their Reproducibility , 1997, Analytical cellular pathology : the journal of the European Society for Analytical Cellular Pathology.

[11]  R. Steinbeck Proliferation and DNA aneuploidy in mild dysplasia imply early steps of cervical carcinogenesis. , 1997, Acta oncologica.

[12]  P W Hamilton,et al.  Inter‐ and intra‐observer variation in the histopathological reporting of cervical squamous in traepithelial lesion susing a modified Bethesda grading system , 1998, British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[13]  Calum MacAulay,et al.  DNA-Cytometry of Progressive and Regressive Cervical Intraepithelial Neoplasia , 1998, Analytical cellular pathology : the journal of the European Society for Analytical Cellular Pathology.

[14]  Jacques Ferlay,et al.  Estimates of the worldwide incidence of 25 major cancers in 1990 , 1999, International journal of cancer.

[15]  C. MacAulay,et al.  Nuclear morphometry as an intermediate endpoint biomarker in chemoprevention of cervical carcinoma using alpha-difluoromethylornithine. , 1999, Cytometry.

[16]  Deborah B. Thompson,et al.  An automated machine vision system for the histological grading of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) , 2000, The Journal of pathology.

[17]  B Weyn,et al.  Validation of nuclear texture, density, morphometry and tissue syntactic structure analysis as prognosticators of cervical carcinoma. , 2000, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[18]  R. Richards-Kortum,et al.  Emerging technologies and cervical cancer. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[19]  G E Wilson How should we grade CIN? , 2002 .

[20]  J. Baak,et al.  The framework of pathology: good laboratory practice by quantitative and molecular methods , 2002, The Journal of pathology.

[21]  M. Heatley How should we grade CIN? , 2002, Histopathology.

[22]  S M Ismail,et al.  How should we grade CIN? , 2002 .