Development of a semi-automated method for tumor budding assessment in colorectal cancer and comparison with manual methods

Tumor budding is an established prognostic feature in multiple cancers but routine assessment has not yet been incorporated into clinical pathology practice. Recent efforts to standardize and automate assessment have shifted away from haematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained images towards cytokeratin (CK) immunohistochemistry. In this study, we compare established manual H&E and cytokeratin budding assessment methods with a new, semi-automated approach built within the QuPath open-source software. We applied our method to tissue cores from the advancing tumor edge in a cohort of stage II/III colon cancers (n=186). The total number of buds detected by each method, over the 186 TMA cores, were as follows; manual H&E (n=503), manual CK (n=2290) and semi-automated (n=5138). More than four times the number of buds were detected using CK compared to H&E. A total of 1734 individual buds were identified both using manual assessment and semi-automated detection on CK images, representing 75.7% of the total buds identified manually (n=2290) and 33.7% of the total buds detected using our proposed semi-automated method (n=5138). Higher bud scores by the semi-automated method were due to any discrete area of CK immunopositivity within an accepted area range being identified as a bud, regardless of shape or crispness of definition, and to inclusion of tumor cell clusters within glandular lumina (“luminal pseudobuds”). Although absolute numbers differed, semi-automated and manual bud counts were strongly correlated across cores (ρ=0.81, p<0.0001). Despite the random, rather than “hotspot”, nature of tumor core sampling, all methods of budding assessment demonstrated poorer survival associated with higher budding scores. In conclusion, we present a new QuPath-based approach to tumor budding assessment, which compares favorably to current established methods and offers a freely-available, rapid and transparent tool that is also applicable to whole slide images.

[1]  S. Kakar,et al.  Improving tumor budding reporting in colorectal cancer: a Delphi consensus study , 2021, Virchows Archiv.

[2]  M. Cui,et al.  Artificial intelligence and computational pathology , 2021, Laboratory Investigation.

[3]  I. Nagtegaal,et al.  Taking tumour budding to the next frontier — a post International Tumour Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016 review , 2020, Histopathology.

[4]  I. Nagtegaal,et al.  Tumour budding in solid cancers , 2020, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[5]  J. A. van der Laak,et al.  Assessment of individual tumor buds using keratin immunohistochemistry: moderate interobserver agreement suggests a role for machine learning , 2019, Modern Pathology.

[6]  K. Plataniotis,et al.  Size and Shape Filtering of Malignant Cell Clusters within Breast Tumors Identifies Scattered Individual Epithelial Cells as the Most Valuable Histomorphological Clue in the Prognosis of Distant Metastasis Risk , 2019, Cancers.

[7]  A. Madabhushi,et al.  HistoQC: An Open-Source Quality Control Tool for Digital Pathology Slides. , 2019, JCO clinical cancer informatics.

[8]  R. Pai,et al.  Histopathological Predictors of Recurrence in Stage III Colon Cancer: Reappraisal of Tumor Deposits and Tumor Budding Using AJCC8 Criteria , 2018, International journal of surgical pathology.

[9]  S. Kakar,et al.  Protocol for the Examination of Resection Specimens From Patients With Primary Carcinoma of the Colon and Rectum , 2019 .

[10]  Y. Ishikawa,et al.  Immunohistochemical evaluation of tumor budding for stratifying T1 colorectal cancer: optimal cut-off value and a novel computer-assisted semiautomatic method , 2018, Modern Pathology.

[11]  K. Mills,et al.  The Northern Ireland Biobank: A Cancer Focused Repository of Science , 2018 .

[12]  Michael Lippert,et al.  Digital image analysis of pan-cytokeratin stained tumor slides for evaluation of tumor budding in pT1/pT2 colorectal cancer: Results of a feasibility study. , 2018, Pathology, research and practice.

[13]  R. Riddell,et al.  Cytokeratin‐based assessment of tumour budding in colorectal cancer: analysis in stage II patients and prospective diagnostic experience , 2017, The journal of pathology. Clinical research.

[14]  Phil Quirke,et al.  Recommendations for reporting tumor budding in colorectal cancer based on the International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC) 2016 , 2017, Modern Pathology.

[15]  A. Gavin,et al.  Evaluation of PTGS2 Expression, PIK3CA Mutation, Aspirin Use and Colon Cancer Survival in a Population-Based Cohort Study , 2017, Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.

[16]  Peter Bankhead,et al.  QuPath: Open source software for digital pathology image analysis , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[17]  D. McMillan,et al.  The relationship between tumour budding, the tumour microenvironment and survival in patients with primary operable colorectal cancer , 2016, British Journal of Cancer.

[18]  Shigehisa Aoki,et al.  Cytokeratin immunohistochemistry improves interobserver variability between unskilled pathologists in the evaluation of tumor budding in T1 colorectal cancer , 2016, Pathology international.

[19]  F. Offner,et al.  Tumor budding in colorectal cancer revisited: results of a multicenter interobserver study , 2015, Virchows Archiv.

[20]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[21]  I. Nagtegaal,et al.  Predicting lymph node metastasis in pT1 colorectal cancer: a systematic review of risk factors providing rationale for therapy decisions , 2013, Endoscopy.

[22]  A. Ruifrok,et al.  Quantification of histochemical staining by color deconvolution. , 2001, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.