Quantitative comparison of immunohistochemical staining measured by digital image analysis versus pathologist visual scoring - PubMed
Anthony E Rizzardi 1 ,
Article ImagesComparative Study
Quantitative comparison of immunohistochemical staining measured by digital image analysis versus pathologist visual scoring
Anthony E Rizzardi et al. Diagn Pathol. .
Abstract
Immunohistochemical (IHC) assays performed on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue sections traditionally have been semi-quantified by pathologist visual scoring of staining. IHC is useful for validating biomarkers discovered through genomics methods as large clinical repositories of FFPE specimens support the construction of tissue microarrays (TMAs) for high throughput studies. Due to the ubiquitous availability of IHC techniques in clinical laboratories, validated IHC biomarkers may be translated readily into clinical use. However, the method of pathologist semi-quantification is costly, inherently subjective, and produces ordinal rather than continuous variable data. Computer-aided analysis of digitized whole slide images may overcome these limitations. Using TMAs representing 215 ovarian serous carcinoma specimens stained for S100A1, we assessed the degree to which data obtained using computer-aided methods correlated with data obtained by pathologist visual scoring. To evaluate computer-aided image classification, IHC staining within pathologist annotated and software-classified areas of carcinoma were compared for each case. Two metrics for IHC staining were used: the percentage of carcinoma with S100A1 staining (%Pos), and the product of the staining intensity (optical density [OD] of staining) multiplied by the percentage of carcinoma with S100A1 staining (OD*%Pos). A comparison of the IHC staining data obtained from manual annotations and software-derived annotations showed strong agreement, indicating that software efficiently classifies carcinomatous areas within IHC slide images. Comparisons of IHC intensity data derived using pixel analysis software versus pathologist visual scoring demonstrated high Spearman correlations of 0.88 for %Pos (p < 0.0001) and 0.90 for OD*%Pos (p < 0.0001). This study demonstrated that computer-aided methods to classify image areas of interest (e.g., carcinomatous areas of tissue specimens) and quantify IHC staining intensity within those areas can produce highly similar data to visual evaluation by a pathologist.
Virtual slides: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1649068103671302.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Rizzardi AE, Zhang X, Vogel RI, Kolb S, Geybels MS, Leung YK, Henriksen JC, Ho SM, Kwak J, Stanford JL, Schmechel SC. Rizzardi AE, et al. Diagn Pathol. 2016 Jul 11;11(1):63. doi: 10.1186/s13000-016-0511-5. Diagn Pathol. 2016. PMID: 27401406 Free PMC article.
-
Konsti J, Lundin M, Linder N, Haglund C, Blomqvist C, Nevanlinna H, Aaltonen K, Nordling S, Lundin J. Konsti J, et al. Diagn Pathol. 2012 Mar 21;7:29. doi: 10.1186/1746-1596-7-29. Diagn Pathol. 2012. PMID: 22436596 Free PMC article.
-
Laurinaviciene A, Dasevicius D, Ostapenko V, Jarmalaite S, Lazutka J, Laurinavicius A. Laurinaviciene A, et al. Diagn Pathol. 2011 Sep 23;6:87. doi: 10.1186/1746-1596-6-87. Diagn Pathol. 2011. PMID: 21943197 Free PMC article.
-
Miller RT. Miller RT. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2019 Sep;36(5):312-335. doi: 10.1053/j.semdp.2019.05.002. Epub 2019 Jun 4. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2019. PMID: 31227425 Review.
-
AI (artificial intelligence) in histopathology--from image analysis to automated diagnosis.
Kayser K, Görtler J, Bogovac M, Bogovac A, Goldmann T, Vollmer E, Kayser G. Kayser K, et al. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2009 Jan;47(3):355-61. doi: 10.2478/v10042-009-0087-y. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2009. PMID: 20164018 Review.
Cited by
-
Anajirih N, Abdeen A, Taher ES, Abdelkader A, Abd-Ellatieff HA, Gewaily MS, Ahmed NE, Al-Serwi RH, Sorour SM, Abdelkareem HM, Ebrahim E, El-Sherbiny M, Imbrea F, Imbrea I, Ramadan MM, Habotta OA. Anajirih N, et al. Front Pharmacol. 2024 Aug 7;15:1394557. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1394557. eCollection 2024. Front Pharmacol. 2024. PMID: 39170697 Free PMC article.
-
Zhou Z, Jiang Y, Sun Z, Zhang T, Feng W, Li G, Li R, Xing L. Zhou Z, et al. EBioMedicine. 2024 Sep;107:105287. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105287. Epub 2024 Aug 17. EBioMedicine. 2024. PMID: 39154539 Free PMC article.
-
Hasegawa T, Someya M, Tsuchiya T, Kitagawa M, Fukushima Y, Gocho T, Mafune S, Okuda R, Kaguchi J, Ohguro A, Kamiyama R, Ashina A, Toshima Y, Hirohashi Y, Torigoe T, Sakata KI. Hasegawa T, et al. In Vivo. 2024 May-Jun;38(3):1470-1476. doi: 10.21873/invivo.13593. In Vivo. 2024. PMID: 38688633 Free PMC article.
-
Software BreastAnalyser for the semi-automatic analysis of breast cancer immunohistochemical images.
Rodríguez-Candela Mateos M, Azmat M, Santiago-Freijanes P, Galán-Moya EM, Fernández-Delgado M, Aponte RB, Mosquera J, Acea B, Cernadas E, Mayán MD. Rodríguez-Candela Mateos M, et al. Sci Rep. 2024 Feb 6;14(1):2995. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-53002-6. Sci Rep. 2024. PMID: 38316810 Free PMC article.
-
Omar AE, El-Rahman GIA, Gouda A, Abdel-Warith AA, Younis EM, Abdo SA, Eltanahy A, Kamal AS, Davies SJ, Amer SA. Omar AE, et al. Animals (Basel). 2023 Dec 15;13(24):3862. doi: 10.3390/ani13243862. Animals (Basel). 2023. PMID: 38136899 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous