| Literature DB >> 21629832 |
Brendon J Coventry1, Michael J Weightman, John M Skinner, John Bradley.
Abstract
Quantitation of cell density in tissues has proven problematic over the years. The manual microscopic methodology, where an investigator visually samples multiple areas within slides of tissue sections, has long remained the basic 'standard' for many studies and for routine histopathologic reporting. Nevertheless, novel techniques that may provide a more standardized approach to quantitation of cells in tissue sections have been made possible by computerized video image analysis methods over recent years. The present study describes a novel, computer-assisted video image analysis method of quantitating immunostained cells within tissue sections, providing continuous graphical data. This technique enables the measurement of both distribution and density of cells within tissue sections. Specifically, the study considered immunoperoxidase-stained tumor infiltrating lymphocytes within breast tumor specimens, using the number of immunostained pixels within tissue sections to determine cellular density and number. Comparison was made between standard manual graded quantitation methods and video image analysis, using the same tissue sections. The study demonstrates that video image techniques and computer analysis can provide continuous data on cell density and number in immunostained tissue sections, which compares favorably with standard visual quantitation methods, and may offer an alternative.Entities:
Keywords: breast cancer; cellular quantitation; immunostaining; tissue sections; tumor infiltrating lymphocytes; video image analysis
Year: 2011 PMID: 21629832 PMCID: PMC3097799 DOI: 10.2147/CMR.S16761
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancer Manag Res ISSN: 1179-1322 Impact factor: 3.989
Monoclonal antibodies used
| Leu 4 | CD3 | IgG1 | 1/50 | BD |
| DakoT4 | CD4 | IgG1 | 1/20 | Dakopatts |
| Leu 2a | CD8 | IgG1 | 1/50 | BD |
Figure 1An example of the standard quantal visual scale method for grading immunostained cells, as used for this study.
Figure 2Video image analysis (VIA) image of nickel-enhanced DAB immunostained CD3 (Leu4) cells (top) representing one video field at ×400 power; the video path comprising multiple sequential video fields (middle) from which measured data are stored; and the graphical record from the VIA data showing the distribution and density of immunostained cells (bottom). [Axes y = staining area in pixels × 1000; × = sequentially numbered video fields or frames from one side of the section to the other].
Descriptive statistics from data sets (median, mean, and range in pixels)
| 0 | 0 | – | – | – |
| +/− | 1 | 926 | 926 | – |
| + | 3 | 9,265 | 7,103.7 (±4,632.0) | 1,786–10,260 |
| ++ | 6 | 5,773 | 9,731.0 (±11,689.5) | 1,070–32,901 |
| +++ | 8 | 16,498.5 | 19,331.6 (±14,404.6) | 488–40,108 |
| ++++ | 3 | 34.352 | 29,001.3 (±17,068.1) | 9,899–42,753 |
Figure 3Examples of CD3 (Leu4) immunostaining in 21 separate breast tumors showing plots. [x and y axes are standardized and are the same as indicated in Figure 2].
Figure 4Two separate breast cancer tissue sections (tumor 1 and 2) immunostained using CD3 antibody, both graded as +++ by manual visual methods, but revealing different distributions of cells across the respective tissue sections (×400).
Figure 5Serial sections of the same tissue (B028) immunostained for different epitopes (CD3, CD4, CD8; L to R) using specific monoclonal antibodies demonstrate that comparisons can be drawn between the distribution of different cell types within an individual tissue.