BACKGROUND: Molecular studies of breast cancer revealed biological heterogeneity of the disease and opened new perspectives for personalized therapy. While multiple gene expression-based systems have been developed, current clinical practice is largely based upon conventional clinical and pathologic criteria. This gap may be filled by development of combined multi-IHC indices to characterize biological and clinical behaviour of the tumours. Digital image analysis (DA) with multivariate statistics of the data opens new opportunities in this field. METHODS: Tissue microarrays of 109 patients with breast ductal carcinoma were stained for a set of 10 IHC markers (ER, PR, HER2, Ki67, AR, BCL2, HIF-1α, SATB1, p53, and p16). Aperio imaging platform with the Genie, Nuclear and Membrane algorithms were used for the DA. Factor analysis of the DA data was performed in the whole group and hormone receptor (HR) positive subgroup of the patients (n = 85). RESULTS: Major factor potentially reflecting aggressive disease behaviour (i-Grade) was extracted, characterized by opposite loadings of ER/PR/AR/BCL2 and Ki67/HIF-1α. The i-Grade factor scores revealed bimodal distribution and were strongly associated with higher Nottingham histological grade (G) and more aggressive intrinsic subtypes. In HR-positive tumours, the aggressiveness of the tumour was best defined by positive Ki67 and negative ER loadings. High Ki67/ER factor scores were strongly associated with the higher G and Luminal B types, but also were detected in a set of G1 and Luminal A cases, potentially indicating high risk patients in these categories. Inverse relation between HER2 and PR expression was found in the HR-positive tumours pointing at differential information conveyed by the ER and PR expression. SATB1 along with HIF-1α reflected the second major factor of variation in our patients; in the HR-positive group they were inversely associated with the HR and BCL2 expression and represented the major factor of variation. Finally, we confirmed high expression levels of p16 in Triple-negative tumours. CONCLUSION: Factor analysis of multiple IHC biomarkers measured by automated DA is an efficient exploratory tool clarifying complex interdependencies in the breast ductal carcinoma IHC profiles and informative value of single IHC markers. Integrated IHC indices may provide additional risk stratifications for the currently used grading systems and prove to be useful in clinical outcome studies. VIRTUAL SLIDES: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1512077125668949.
BACKGROUND: Molecular studies of breast cancer revealed biological heterogeneity of the disease and opened new perspectives for personalized therapy. While multiple gene expression-based systems have been developed, current clinical practice is largely based upon conventional clinical and pathologic criteria. This gap may be filled by development of combined multi-IHC indices to characterize biological and clinical behaviour of the tumours. Digital image analysis (DA) with multivariate statistics of the data opens new opportunities in this field. METHODS: Tissue microarrays of 109 patients with breast ductal carcinoma were stained for a set of 10 IHC markers (ER, PR, HER2, Ki67, AR, BCL2, HIF-1α, SATB1, p53, and p16). Aperio imaging platform with the Genie, Nuclear and Membrane algorithms were used for the DA. Factor analysis of the DA data was performed in the whole group and hormone receptor (HR) positive subgroup of the patients (n = 85). RESULTS: Major factor potentially reflecting aggressive disease behaviour (i-Grade) was extracted, characterized by opposite loadings of ER/PR/AR/BCL2 and Ki67/HIF-1α. The i-Grade factor scores revealed bimodal distribution and were strongly associated with higher Nottingham histological grade (G) and more aggressive intrinsic subtypes. In HR-positive tumours, the aggressiveness of the tumour was best defined by positive Ki67 and negative ER loadings. High Ki67/ER factor scores were strongly associated with the higher G and Luminal B types, but also were detected in a set of G1 and Luminal A cases, potentially indicating high risk patients in these categories. Inverse relation between HER2 and PR expression was found in the HR-positive tumours pointing at differential information conveyed by the ER and PR expression. SATB1 along with HIF-1α reflected the second major factor of variation in our patients; in the HR-positive group they were inversely associated with the HR and BCL2 expression and represented the major factor of variation. Finally, we confirmed high expression levels of p16 in Triple-negative tumours. CONCLUSION: Factor analysis of multiple IHC biomarkers measured by automated DA is an efficient exploratory tool clarifying complex interdependencies in the breast ductal carcinoma IHC profiles and informative value of single IHC markers. Integrated IHC indices may provide additional risk stratifications for the currently used grading systems and prove to be useful in clinical outcome studies. VIRTUAL SLIDES: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/1512077125668949.
Authors: H Raza Ali; Sarah-Jane Dawson; Fiona M Blows; Elena Provenzano; Samuel Leung; Torsten Nielsen; Paul D Pharoah; Carlos Caldas Journal: J Pathol Date: 2011-09-26 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Elizabeth Iorns; H James Hnatyszyn; Pearl Seo; Jennifer Clarke; Toby Ward; Marc Lippman Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Fiona M Blows; Kristy E Driver; Marjanka K Schmidt; Annegien Broeks; Flora E van Leeuwen; Jelle Wesseling; Maggie C Cheang; Karen Gelmon; Torsten O Nielsen; Carl Blomqvist; Päivi Heikkilä; Tuomas Heikkinen; Heli Nevanlinna; Lars A Akslen; Louis R Bégin; William D Foulkes; Fergus J Couch; Xianshu Wang; Vicky Cafourek; Janet E Olson; Laura Baglietto; Graham G Giles; Gianluca Severi; Catriona A McLean; Melissa C Southey; Emad Rakha; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis; Mark E Sherman; Jolanta Lissowska; William F Anderson; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; Malcolm W R Reed; Elena Provenzano; Sarah-Jane Dawson; Alison M Dunning; Manjeet Humphreys; Douglas F Easton; Montserrat García-Closas; Carlos Caldas; Paul D Pharoah; David Huntsman Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: S Fasanella; E Leonardi; C Cantaloni; C Eccher; I Bazzanella; D Aldovini; E Bragantini; L Morelli; L V Cuorvo; A Ferro; F Gasperetti; G Berlanda; P Dalla Palma; M Barbareschi Journal: Diagn Pathol Date: 2011-03-30 Impact factor: 2.644
Authors: Arvydas Laurinavicius; Benoit Plancoulaine; Allan Rasmusson; Justinas Besusparis; Renaldas Augulis; Raimundas Meskauskas; Paulette Herlin; Aida Laurinaviciene; Abir A Abdelhadi Muftah; Islam Miligy; Mohammed Aleskandarany; Emad A Rakha; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2016-01-27 Impact factor: 4.064
Authors: Ting-Yuan David Cheng; Song Yao; Angela R Omilian; Thaer Khoury; Matthew F Buas; Rochelle Payne-Ondracek; Sirinapa Sribenja; Wiam Bshara; Chi-Chen Hong; Elisa V Bandera; Warren Davis; Michael J Higgins; Christine B Ambrosone Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Janna Hackett Neltner; Erin Lynn Abner; Frederick A Schmitt; Stephanie Kay Denison; Sonya Anderson; Ela Patel; Peter T Nelson Journal: J Neuropathol Exp Neurol Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.685
Authors: Arthur W Alvarenga; Claudia M Coutinho-Camillo; Bruna R Rodrigues; Rafael M Rocha; Luiz Fernando B Torres; Vilma R Martins; Isabela W da Cunha; Glaucia N M Hajj Journal: J Histochem Cytochem Date: 2013-01-21 Impact factor: 2.479
Authors: Allison A Madigan; Kevin J Rycyna; Anil V Parwani; Yeipyeng J Datiri; Ahmed M Basudan; Kathryn M Sobek; Jessica L Cummings; Per H Basse; Dean J Bacich; Denise S O'Keefe Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2014-06-05 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Christopher Kobierzycki; Jedrzej Grzegrzolka; Natalia Glatzel-Plucinska; Aleksandra Piotrowska; Andrzej Wojnar; Beata Smolarz; Hanna Romanowicz; Piotr Dziegiel Journal: In Vivo Date: 2018 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.155