nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.08.2008 | Preclinical Study

Automated quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor expression in breast carcinoma does not differ from expert pathologist scoring: a tissue microarray study of 3,484 cases

verfasst von: Dmitry A. Turbin, Samuel Leung, Maggie C. U. Cheang, Hagen A. Kennecke, Kelli D. Montgomery, Steven McKinney, Diana O. Treaba, Niki Boyd, Lynn C. Goldstein, Sunil Badve, Allen M. Gown, Matt van de Rijn, Torsten O. Nielsen, C. Blake Gilks, David G. Huntsman

Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Ausgabe 3/2008

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Estrogen receptor (ER) expression is routinely assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in breast carcinoma. Our study compares visual scoring of ER in invasive breast cancer by histopathologists to quantitation of staining using a fully automated system.

Materials and methods

A tissue microarray was constructed from 4,049 cases (3,484 included in analysis) of invasive breast carcinoma linked to treatment and outcome information. Slides were scored independently by two pathologists and scores were dichotomised, with ER positivity recognized at a cut-off of >1% positive nuclei. The slides were scanned and analyzed with an Ariol automated system.

Results

Using data dichotomised as ER positive or negative, both visual and automated scores were highly consistent: there was excellent concordance between two pathologists (kappa = 0.918 (95%CI: 0.903–0.932)) and between two Ariol machines (kappa = 0.913 (95%CI: 0.897–0.928)). The prognostic significance of ER positivity was similar whether determined by pathologist or automated scoring for both the entire patient cohort and subsets of patients treated with tamoxifen alone or receiving no systemic adjuvant therapy. The optimal cut point for the automated scores using breast cancer disease-specific survival as an endpoint was >0.4% positive nuclei. The concordance between dextran-coated charcoal ER biochemical assay data and automated scores (kappa = 0.728 (95%CI: 0.69–0.75); 0.74 (95%CI: 0.71–0.77)) was similar to the concordance between biochemical assay and pathologist scores (kappa = 0.72 (95%CI: 0.70–0.75; 0.70 (95%CI: 0.67–0.72)).

Conclusion

Fully automated quantitation of ER immunostaining yields results that do not differ from human scoring against both biochemical assay and patient outcome gold standards.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Duffy MJ (2006) Estrogen receptors: role in breast cancer. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 43:325–347PubMedCrossRef

Cheang MC, Treaba DO, Speers CH et al (2006) Immunohistochemical detection using the new rabbit monoclonal antibody SP1 of estrogen receptor in breast cancer is superior to mouse monoclonal antibody 1D5 in predicting survival. J Clin Oncol 24:5637–5644PubMedCrossRef

Bolger N, Heffron C, Regan I et al (2006) Implementation and evaluation of a new automated interactive image analysis system. Acta Cytol 50:483–491PubMed

Camp RL, Dolled-Filhart M, Rimm DL (2004) X-tile: a new bio-informatics tool for biomarker assessment and outcome-based cut-point optimization. Clin Cancer Res 10:7252–7259PubMedCrossRef

Taylor CR, Levenson RM (2006) Quantification of immunohistochemistry-issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment II. Histopathology 49:411–424PubMedCrossRef

Walker RA (2006) Quantification of immunohistochemistry-issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment I. Histopathology 49:406–410PubMedCrossRef

BVD/FOGRA (1992) Manual for standardization of the offset printing process. Wiesbaden

Insight into images: principles and practices for segmentation, registration, and image analysis (2004). A.K. Peters Ltd., Wellesey, MA

Byrne A, Hilbert DR (2003) Color realism and color science. Behav Brain Sci 26:3–21; discussion 22–63PubMedCrossRef

10.

Gegenfurtner KR (2003) Cortical mechanisms of colour vision. Nat Rev Neurosci 4:563–572PubMedCrossRef

11.

McLelland D, Fuller LU (2005) Photoshop CS2 bible. Wiley Publishing Inc., Hoboken, NJ

12.

Rinner O, Gegenfurtner KR (2000) Time course of chromatic adaptation for color appearance and discrimination. Vision Res 40:1813–1826PubMedCrossRef

13.

Wen C-H, Lee J-J (2000) Design and production of color calibration targets for digital input devices. In: Input/output and imaging technologies II:4080. Taipei, Taiwan, pp 148–158

14.

Greene GL, Nolan C, Engler JP et al (1980) Monoclonal antibodies to human estrogen receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77:5115–5119PubMedCrossRef

15.

King WJ, Greene GL (1984) Monoclonal antibodies localize oestrogen receptor in the nuclei of target cells. Nature 307:745–747PubMedCrossRef

16.

Underwood JC (1983) Oestrogen receptors in human breast cancer: review of histopathological correlations and critique of histochemical methods. Diagn Histopathol 6:1–22PubMed

17.

Aziz DC, Barathur RB (1994) Quantitation and morphometric analysis of tumors by image analysis. J Cell Biochem Suppl 19:120–125PubMed

18.

Esteban JM, Ahn C, Battifora H et al (1994) Quantitative immunohistochemical assay for hormonal receptors: technical aspects and biological significance. J Cell Biochem Suppl 19:138–145PubMed

19.

Schultz DS, Katz RL, Patel S et al (1992) Comparison of visual and CAS-200 quantitation of immunocytochemical staining in breast carcinoma samples. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 14:35–40PubMed

20.

Kononen J, Bubendorf L, Kallioniemi A et al (1998) Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nat Med 4:844–847PubMedCrossRef

21.

Makretsov N, Gilks CB, Coldman AJ et al (2003) Tissue microarray analysis of neuroendocrine differentiation and its prognostic significance in breast cancer. Hum Pathol 34:1001–1008PubMedCrossRef

22.

Turbin DA, Cheang MC, Bajdik CD et al (2006) MDM2 protein expression is a negative prognostic marker in breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 19:69–74PubMedCrossRef

23.

Liu CL, Prapong W, Natkunam Y et al (2002) Software tools for high-throughput analysis and archiving of immunohistochemistry staining data obtained with tissue microarrays. Am J Pathol 161:1557–1565PubMed

24.

Liu CL, Montgomery KD, Natkunam Y et al (2005) TMA-Combiner, a simple software tool to permit analysis of replicate cores on tissue microarrays. Mod Pathol 18:1641–1648PubMed

25.

Ng TL, Gown AM, Barry TS et al (2005) Nuclear beta-catenin in mesenchymal tumors. Mod Pathol 18:68–74PubMedCrossRef

26.

de las Mulas JM, van Niel M, Millan Y et al (2000) Immunohistochemical analysis of estrogen receptors in feline mammary gland benign and malignant lesions: comparison with biochemical assay. Domest Anim Endocrinol 18:111–125CrossRef

27.

Magne N, Toillon RA, Castadot P et al (2006) Different clinical impact of estradiol receptor determination according to the analytical method: A study on 1940 breast cancer patients over a period of 16 consecutive years. Breast Cancer Res Treat 95:179–184PubMedCrossRef

28.

Costa SD, Lange S, Klinga K et al (2002) Factors influencing the prognostic role of oestrogen and progesterone receptor levels in breast cancer – results of the analysis of 670 patients with 11 years of follow-up. Eur J Cancer 38:1329–1334PubMedCrossRef

29.

Franklin WA, Bibbo M, Doria MI et al (1987) Quantitation of estrogen receptor content and Ki-67 staining in breast carcinoma by the microTICAS image analysis system. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 9:279–286PubMed

30.

Gil J, Wu HS (2003) Applications of image analysis to anatomic pathology: realities and promises. Cancer Invest 21:950–959PubMedCrossRef

31.

Rojo MG, Garcia GB, Mateos CP et al (2006) Critical comparison of 31 commercially available digital slide systems in pathology. Int J Surg Pathol 14:285–305PubMedCrossRef

32.

Cregger M, Berger AJ, Rimm DL (2006) Immunohistochemistry and quantitative analysis of protein expression. Arch Pathol Lab Med 130:1026–1030PubMed

33.

McCabe A, Dolled-Filhart M, Camp RL et al (2005) Automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) of in situ protein expression, antibody concentration, and prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1808–1815PubMedCrossRef

34.

Rimm DL (2006) What brown cannot do for you. Nat Biotechnol 24:914–916PubMedCrossRef

35.

Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK et al (1999) Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:1474–1481PubMed

36.

Diaz LK, Sahin A, Sneige N (2004) Interobserver agreement for estrogen receptor immunohistochemical analysis in breast cancer: a comparison of manual and computer-assisted scoring methods. Ann Diagn Pathol 8:23–27PubMedCrossRef

37.

Hasegawa T, Yamamoto S, Matsuno Y (2002) Quantitative immunohistochemical evaluation of MIB-1 labeling index in adult soft-tissue sarcomas by computer-assisted image analysis. Pathol Int 52:433–437PubMedCrossRef

38.

Kirkegaard T, Edwards J, Tovey S et al (2006) Observer variation in immunohistochemical analysis of protein expression, time for a change? Histopathology 48:787–794PubMedCrossRef

39.

Lorinc E, Jakobsson B, Landberg G et al (2005) Ki67 and p53 immunohistochemistry reduces interobserver variation in assessment of Barrett’s oesophagus. Histopathology 46:642–648PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Automated quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor expression in breast carcinoma does not differ from expert pathologist scoring: a tissue microarray study of 3,484 cases
verfasst von: Dmitry A. Turbin
Samuel Leung
Maggie C. U. Cheang
Hagen A. Kennecke
Kelli D. Montgomery
Steven McKinney
Diana O. Treaba
Niki Boyd
Lynn C. Goldstein
Sunil Badve
Allen M. Gown
Matt van de Rijn
Torsten O. Nielsen
C. Blake Gilks
David G. Huntsman
Publikationsdatum: 01.08.2008
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Ausgabe 3/2008
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9736-z

Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie

Umsetzung der POMGAT-Leitlinie läuft

03.05.2024 DCK 2024 Kongressbericht

Seit November 2023 gibt es evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen zum perioperativen Management bei gastrointestinalen Tumoren (POMGAT) auf S3-Niveau. Vieles wird schon entsprechend der Empfehlungen durchgeführt. Wo es im Alltag noch hapert, zeigt eine Umfrage in einem Klinikverbund.

Springer Medizin

Automated quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor expression in breast carcinoma does not differ from expert pathologist scoring: a tissue microarray study of 3,484 cases