Effect of Quantitative Nuclear Image Features on Recurrence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) of the Breast

Background Nuclear grade has been associated with breast DCIS recurrence and progression to invasive carcinoma; however, our previous study of a cohort of patients with breast DCIS did not find such an association with outcome. Fifty percent of patients had heterogeneous DCIS with more than one nuclear grade. The aim of the current study was to investigate the effect of quantitative nuclear features assessed with digital image analysis on ipsilateral DCIS recurrence. Methods Hematoxylin and eosin stained slides for a cohort of 80 patients with primary breast DCIS were reviewed and two fields with representative grade (or grades) were identified by a Pathologist and simultaneously used for acquisition of digital images for each field. Van Nuys worst nuclear grade was assigned, as was predominant grade, and heterogeneous grading when present. Patients were grouped by heterogeneity of their nuclear grade: Group A: nuclear grade 1 only, nuclear grades 1 and 2, or nuclear grade 2 only (32 patients), Group B: nuclear grades 1, 2 and 3, or nuclear grades 2 and 3 (31 patients), Group 3: nuclear grade 3 only (17 patients). Nuclear fine structure was assessed by software which captured thirty-nine nuclear feature values describing nuclear morphometry, densitometry, and texture. Step-wise forward Cox regressions were performed with previous clinical and pathologic factors, and the new image analysis features. Results Duplicate measurements were similar for 89.7% to 97.4% of assessed image features. The rate of correct classification of nuclear grading with digital image analysis features was similar in the two fields, and pooled assessment across both fields. In the pooled assessment, a discriminant function with one nuclear morphometric and one texture feature was significantly (p = 0.001) associated with nuclear grading, and provided correct jackknifed classification of a patient's nuclear grade for Group A (78.1%), Group B (48.4%), and Group C (70.6%). The factors significantly associated with DCIS recurrence were those previously found, type of initial presentation (p = 0.03) and amount of parenchymal involvement (p = 0.05), along with the morphometry image feature of ellipticity (p = 0.04). Conclusion Analysis of nuclear features measured by image cytometry may contribute to the classification and prognosis of breast DCIS patients with more than one nuclear grade.

[1]  Kay Dickersin,et al.  Shaping the future of biomarker research in breast cancer to ensure clinical relevance , 2007, Nature Reviews Cancer.

[2]  W. Christens-Barry,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS) with heterogeneity of nuclear grade: prognostic effects of quantitative nuclear assessment , 2007, BMC Cancer.

[3]  E. Fishell,et al.  Assessment of treatment for patients with primary ductal carcinoma in situ in the breast , 1998, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[4]  S. Swain,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ, complexities and challenges. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[5]  Kornelia Polyak,et al.  Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast , 2004, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie.

[6]  L. Holmberg,et al.  Ductal Carcinoma in Situ of the Breast: a New Phenotype Classification System and its Relation to Prognosis , 2002, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[7]  Kimerly A Powell,et al.  Automated cell nuclear segmentation in color images of hematoxylin and eosin-stained breast biopsy. , 2003, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[8]  Karla Kerlikowske,et al.  Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. , 2003, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  S. Singletary,et al.  Standard for the Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast (DCIS) , 2002, CA: a cancer journal for clinicians.

[10]  Christopher G. Chute,et al.  Cancer Informatics , 2002, Health Informatics.

[11]  P H Bartels,et al.  Nuclear chromatin characteristics of breast solid pattern ductal carcinoma in situ. , 2001, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[12]  E. Fishell,et al.  In Situ Duct Carcinoma of the Breast: Clinical and Histopathologic Factors and Association with Recurrent Carcinoma , 2001, The breast journal.

[13]  A. Leong,et al.  Biologic markers in ductal carcinoma in situ and concurrent infiltrating carcinoma. A comparison of eight contemporary grading systems. , 2001, American journal of clinical pathology.

[14]  E N Atkinson,et al.  Quantitative nuclear morphometry by image analysis for prediction of recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. , 2001, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.

[15]  P. Dey,et al.  Nuclear image morphometry and cytologic grade of breast carcinoma. , 2000, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[16]  Syed Mohsin,et al.  Nuclear cytometric changes in breast carcinogenesis , 2000, Breast Cancer Research.

[17]  P H Bartels,et al.  Data representation and reduction for chromatin texture in nuclei from premalignant prostatic, esophageal, and colonic lesions. , 2000, Cytometry.

[18]  L. Holmberg,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast from a population-defined cohort: an evaluation of new histopathological classification systems. , 1999, European journal of cancer.

[19]  A. Sabichi,et al.  Interobserver reproducibility of the Lagios nuclear grading system for ductal carcinoma in situ. , 1999, Human pathology.

[20]  I. Ellis,et al.  Prediction of local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five histological classifications: a comparative study with long follow-up. , 1998, Human pathology.

[21]  F. Tavassoli Ductal carcinoma in situ: introduction of the concept of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia. , 1998, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.

[22]  Olga Ferrer-Roca,et al.  Chromatin Texture from Hematoxylin Stained Thyroid Lesions , 1998, Analytical cellular pathology : the journal of the European Society for Analytical Cellular Pathology.

[23]  P Schwarzmann,et al.  Breast carcinoma. Correlations between visual diagnostic criteria for histologic grading and features of image analysis. , 1996, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[24]  R. Mansel,et al.  A critical appraisal of six modern classifications of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS): correlation with grade of associated invasive carcinoma , 1996, Histopathology.

[25]  N. Goldstein,et al.  Intraductal carcinoma associated with invasive carcinoma of the breast. A comparison of the two lesions with implications for intraductal carcinoma classification systems. , 1996, American journal of clinical pathology.

[26]  M. Silverstein,et al.  A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast , 1996, Cancer.

[27]  G. Mariuzzi,et al.  Quantitative study of ductal breast cancer progression. A progression index (P.I.) for premalignant lesions and in situ carcinoma. , 1996, Pathology, research and practice.

[28]  W. N. Street,et al.  Computer-derived nuclear features distinguish malignant from benign breast cytology. , 1995, Human pathology.

[29]  M. J. Silverstein,et al.  Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ , 1995, The Lancet.

[30]  C. Patterson Statistical Analysis of Morphometric and Clinical Data , 1995 .

[31]  B Palcic,et al.  Differences in quantitative nuclear features between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with and without accompanying invasive carcinoma in the surrounding breast. , 1995, Analytical cellular pathology : the journal of the European Society for Analytical Cellular Pathology.

[32]  G. Mariuzzi,et al.  Quantitative study of ductal breast cancer progression. Morphometric evaluation of phenotypical changes occurring in benign and preinvasive epithelial lesions. , 1994, Pathology, research and practice.

[33]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. , 1994, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[34]  P H Bartels,et al.  Chromatin texture features in hematoxylin and eosin-stained prostate tissue. , 1993, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[35]  J. Peterse,et al.  Ductal carcinoma in-situ of the breast; second EORTC consensus meeting. , 1992, European journal of cancer.

[36]  K. Pienta,et al.  Correlation of nuclear morphometry with progression of breast cancer , 1991, Cancer.

[37]  M. Lagios,et al.  Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence , 1989, Cancer.

[38]  N. Gibbs,et al.  Importance of cellular DNA content in pre‐malignant breast disease and pre‐invasive carcinoma of the female breast , 1987, The British journal of surgery.

[39]  P H Bartels,et al.  Numerical evaluation of cytologic data. IV. Discrimination and classification. , 1980, Analytical and quantitative cytology.

[40]  R. Prentice,et al.  A qualitative discrepancy between censored data rank tests. , 1979, Biometrics.

[41]  N. J. Pressman Markovian analysis of cervical cell images. , 1976, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[42]  Robert M. Haralick,et al.  Textural Features for Image Classification , 1973, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..