A Robust Automated Measure of Average Antibody Staining in Immunohistochemistry Images

Identifying and scoring cancer markers plays a key role in oncology, helping to characterize the tumor and predict the clinical course of the disease. The current method for scoring immunohistochemistry (IHC) slides is labor intensive and has inherent issues of quantitation. Although multiple attempts have been made to automate IHC scoring in the past decade, a major limitation in these efforts has been the setting of the threshold for positive staining. In this report, we propose the use of an averaged threshold measure (ATM) score that allows for automatic threshold setting. The ATM is a single multiplicative measure that includes both the proportion and intensity scores. It can be readily automated to allow for large-scale processing, and it is applicable in situations in which individual cells are hard to distinguish. The ATM scoring method was validated by applying it to simulated images, to a sequence of images from the same tumor, and to tumors from different patient biopsies that showed a broad range of staining patterns. Comparison between the ATM score and manual scoring by an expert pathologist showed that both methods resulted in essentially identical scores when applied to these patient biopsies. This manuscript contains online supplemental material at http://www.jhc.org. Please visit this article online to view these materials.

[1]  J. Grandis Prognostic Biomarkers in Head and Neck Cancer , 2006, Clinical Cancer Research.

[2]  T. J. Breen,et al.  Biostatistical Analysis (2nd ed.). , 1986 .

[3]  W. Sauerbrei,et al.  Dangers of using "optimal" cutpoints in the evaluation of prognostic factors. , 1994, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[4]  R. Bast,et al.  2000 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer: clinical practice guidelines of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  E. Schiffer Biomarkers for prostate cancer , 2007, World Journal of Urology.

[6]  C K Osborne,et al.  Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. , 1999, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  Sm Hus Use of avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex (ABC) in immunoperoxidase techniques: a comparison between ABC and unlabeled antibody (PAP) procedures , 1981 .

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

[9]  L. Shepp,et al.  Maximum Likelihood Reconstruction for Emission Tomography , 1983, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[10]  R. Osamura,et al.  Utility of immunohistochemistry in breast cancer practice , 2004, Breast cancer.

[11]  W. Hanna Testing for HER2 Status , 2001, Oncology.

[12]  G. Mccluggage,et al.  Immunohistochemistry as a diagnostic aid in cervical pathology , 2007, Pathology.

[13]  I. Lossos,et al.  Prognostic biomarkers in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[14]  Thomas J. Smith,et al.  1997 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast and colorectal cancer. Adopted on November 7, 1997 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. , 1998, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[15]  D. Allred,et al.  Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. , 1998, Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc.

[16]  Tomoyuki Kato,et al.  Cytometrical image analysis for immunohistochemical hormone receptor status in breast carcinomas , 2003, Pathology international.