AIMS: To investigate the use of a computer-assisted technology for objective, cell-based quantification of molecular biomarkers in specified cell types in histopathology specimens, with the aim of advancing current visual estimation and pixel-level (rather than cell-based) quantification methods. METHODS AND RESULTS: Tissue specimens were multiplex-immunostained to reveal cell structures, cell type markers, and analytes, and imaged with multispectral microscopy. The image data were processed with novel software that automatically delineates and types each cell in the field, measures morphological features, and quantifies analytes in different subcellular compartments of specified cells.The methodology was validated with the use of cell blocks composed of differentially labelled cultured cells mixed in known proportions, and evaluated on human breast carcinoma specimens for quantifying human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki67, phospho-extracellular signal-related kinase, and phospho-S6. Automated cell-level analyses closely matched human assessments, but, predictably, differed from pixel-level analyses of the same images. CONCLUSIONS: Our method reveals the type, distribution, morphology and biomarker state of each cell in the field, and allows multiple biomarkers to be quantified over specified cell types, regardless of their abundance. It is ideal for studying specimens from patients in clinical trials of targeted therapeutic agents, for investigating minority stromal cell subpopulations, and for phenotypic characterization to personalize therapy and prognosis.
AIMS: To investigate the use of a computer-assisted technology for objective, cell-based quantification of molecular biomarkers in specified cell types in histopathology specimens, with the aim of advancing current visual estimation and pixel-level (rather than cell-based) quantification methods. METHODS AND RESULTS: Tissue specimens were multiplex-immunostained to reveal cell structures, cell type markers, and analytes, and imaged with multispectral microscopy. The image data were processed with novel software that automatically delineates and types each cell in the field, measures morphological features, and quantifies analytes in different subcellular compartments of specified cells.The methodology was validated with the use of cell blocks composed of differentially labelled cultured cells mixed in known proportions, and evaluated on humanbreast carcinoma specimens for quantifying human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki67, phospho-extracellular signal-related kinase, and phospho-S6. Automated cell-level analyses closely matched human assessments, but, predictably, differed from pixel-level analyses of the same images. CONCLUSIONS: Our method reveals the type, distribution, morphology and biomarker state of each cell in the field, and allows multiple biomarkers to be quantified over specified cell types, regardless of their abundance. It is ideal for studying specimens from patients in clinical trials of targeted therapeutic agents, for investigating minority stromal cell subpopulations, and for phenotypic characterization to personalize therapy and prognosis.
Authors: Gang Li; Tianming Liu; Jingxin Nie; Lei Guo; Jarema Malicki; Andrew Mara; Scott A Holley; Weiming Xia; Stephen T C Wong Journal: Cytometry A Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 4.355
Authors: Daniel W Bowles; Rachel Rabinovitch; Virginia Borges; Alexander Urquhart; Meenakshi Singh; Christina Finlayson; Anthony Elias Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 2.990
Authors: C Ortiz de Solórzano; E García Rodriguez; A Jones; D Pinkel; J W Gray; D Sudar; S J Lockett Journal: J Microsc Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 1.758
Authors: Darren W Davis; Ryan Takamori; Chandrajit P Raut; Henry Q Xiong; Roy S Herbst; Walter M Stadler; John V Heymach; George D Demetri; Asif Rashid; Yu Shen; Sijin Wen; James L Abbruzzese; David J McConkey Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nejla Yosef; Tegy J Vadakkan; June-Hee Park; Ross A Poché; Jean-Leon Thomas; Mary E Dickinson Journal: Dev Biol Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 3.582
Authors: Marilyn M Bui; Michael W Riben; Kimberly H Allison; Elizabeth Chlipala; Carol Colasacco; Andrea G Kahn; Christina Lacchetti; Anant Madabhushi; Liron Pantanowitz; Mohamed E Salama; Rachel L Stewart; Nicole E Thomas; John E Tomaszewski; M Elizabeth Hammond Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Stephan Wienert; Daniel Heim; Kai Saeger; Albrecht Stenzinger; Michael Beil; Peter Hufnagl; Manfred Dietel; Carsten Denkert; Frederick Klauschen Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2012-07-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Raghav K Padmanabhan; Vinay H Somasundar; Sandra D Griffith; Jianliang Zhu; Drew Samoyedny; Kay See Tan; Jiahao Hu; Xuejun Liao; Lawrence Carin; Sam S Yoon; Keith T Flaherty; Robert S Dipaola; Daniel F Heitjan; Priti Lal; Michael D Feldman; Badrinath Roysam; William M F Lee Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Daniel M Spagnolo; Rekha Gyanchandani; Yousef Al-Kofahi; Andrew M Stern; Timothy R Lezon; Albert Gough; Dan E Meyer; Fiona Ginty; Brion Sarachan; Jeffrey Fine; Adrian V Lee; D Lansing Taylor; S Chakra Chennubhotla Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2016-11-29