| Literature DB >> 23329232 |
H R Ali1, M Irwin, L Morris, S-J Dawson, F M Blows, E Provenzano, B Mahler-Araujo, P D Pharoah, N A Walton, J D Brenton, C Caldas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-throughput evaluation of tissue biomarkers in oncology has been greatly accelerated by the widespread use of tissue microarrays (TMAs) and immunohistochemistry. Although TMAs have the potential to facilitate protein expression profiling on a scale to rival experiments of tumour transcriptomes, the bottleneck and imprecision of manually scoring TMAs has impeded progress.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23329232 PMCID: PMC3593538 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.558
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Characteristics of study cohort
| Median age (range) | 51 (24–73) | |
| Median follow-up in years (range) | 9.5 (0.4–18.6) | |
| Number of breast cancer deaths (%) | 384 (17) | |
| 5-year survival (%) | 89 | |
| 1 | 460 | 20 |
| 2 | 928 | 41 |
| 3 | 575 | 25 |
| Missing | 295 | 13 |
| Negative | 1230 | 54 |
| Positive | 785 | 35 |
| Missing | 243 | 11 |
| <2 cm | 1203 | 53 |
| 2–4.9 cm | 844 | 37 |
| ⩾5 cm | 72 | 3 |
| Missing | 139 | 6 |
| Negative | 438 | 19 |
| Positive | 1331 | 59 |
| Missing | 489 | 22 |
| Negative | 327 | 14 |
| Positive | 1393 | 62 |
| Missing | 538 | 24 |
| Negative | 1468 | 65 |
| Positive | 185 | 8 |
| Missing | 605 | 27 |
| No | 1489 | 66 |
| Yes | 768 | 34 |
| Missing | 1 | 0 |
| No | 374 | 17 |
| Yes | 1884 | 83 |
| Missing | 0 | 0 |
Abbreviation: ER=oestrogen receptor.
IHC reagents, protocols and scoring systems
| ER | 6F11/2 | Mouse monoclonal | Novocastra | 1 in 70 | Citrate buffer pH6, 30 min | Allred | >2 |
| HER2 | c-erbB-2 | Humanised monoclonal | Dako | 1 in 250 | Citrate buffer pH6, 40 min | Herceptest | ⩾2* |
| BCL2 | 124 | Mouse monoclonal | Dako | 1 in 200 | Tris-EDTA buffer pH9, 20 min | Modified | >10% |
| MCM2 | 1B10 | Mouse monoclonal | Novocastra | 1 in 25 | Citrate buffer pH6, 20 min | NA | NA |
Abbreviation: ER=oestrogen receptor.
Allred Scoring System: Staining intensity score: 1=weak, 2=moderate, 3=strong; Proportion score: 1=<1%, 2=1–10%, 3=11–33%, 4=34–66%, 5=>66% Total score=Intensity score+proportion score=0–8.
Modified H-score (0–300)=intensity (0–3) × percentage of stained cells.
HercepTest: 0=No staining or weak staining in ⩽10% of cells, 1=weak incomplete membranous staining in >10% of cells, 2=moderate circumferential membranous staining in >10% of cells, 3=strong circumferential membranous staining in >10% of cells.
Figure 1Astronomical image analysis of membranous (HER2) immunostaining. (A) HER2 stained core scored 2+. (B) Converted to an astro-format with RGB channel intensities inverted such that the brown stained regions become blue regions in emission. (C) Reference image constructed from the average of the inverted red and green channels. (D) The difference image formed by subtracting the reference image in C from the inverted blue channel image. (E) Scatter plot of automated scores for HER2 images using measures of the overall intensity of staining (x-axis) and proportion of image (y-axis) that is stained. Most images unscored by the automated method lie along the proportion=0 boundary. (F) Histogram of the projection of the two-dimensional automated scores onto a one-dimensional continuous grid based on the perpendicular distance of each point from the fixed fiducial dashed line shown in (E).
Figure 2Astronomical image analysis of nuclear (ER) immunostaining. (A) Example image from nuclear ER staining with Allred manual score of intensity 3 and proportion 5. (B) Converted to an astro-format. (C) Automatic segmentation at the nuclear level with each green ellipse denoting a potential nucleus for further scoring. (D) Ratio of blue channel flux (y-axis) to average reference red green flux (x-axis) for each detected nucleus. The horizontal dashed line is automatically determined from the complete set of objects for all cores in a TMA slide by defining a boundary between unstained and stained nuclei. The vertical dashed line defines a signal-to-noise requirement for nuclei to be considered for scoring. (E) The equivalent summary scatter plot for an example image with Allred manual score of intensity=1 and proportion=2; note the well-defined cluster of unstained nuclei. (F) Scatter plot of the results for manually scored ER images colour coded using the Allred score. The final automatic score is defined using the perpendicular distance of each point from the fixed fiducial dashed line.
Figure 3Summary plots of all objects (tumour nuclei) in a TMA slide with example tissue cores. Scatter plots illustrating the distribution of all objects (tumour nuclei) according to staining intensity for whole TMA slides containing 172 tissue cores for ER (A, B). Summary scatter plots for slides stained for MCM2 together with four example tissue cores alongside each plot, from the corresponding slides (C, D).
Figure 4Astronomical image analysis of cytoplasmic (BCL2) immunostaining. (A) Example of a BCL2 stained image manually scored with intensity 3 and proportion 100%. (B) Image in (A) converted to an astro-format. (C) Automatic segmentation of the reference image, formed from the average of the inverted red and green channels, to pick out large contiguous regions of complex structure. These regions are then coded with the ratio of (inverted) blue channel intensity to the reference intensity level. A summary score for each image, akin to the manual score, is then made based on the proportion of the segmented structures that are stained, and the median intensity ratio of the staining. (D) Scatter plot of automated scores for BCL2. Manually scored BCL2 images are colour coded using the manual intensity scoring. The final automatic score is defined using the perpendicular distance of each point from the fixed fiducial dashed line.
Figure 5Distribution of automated and manual scores. Histograms illustrating the distribution of automated scores (left panel), manual scores (centre panel) and boxplots illustrating the distribution of automated scores for each category of the manual score (right panel) for (A) ER, (B) BCL2 and (C) HER2, respectively. (D) Scatter matrix illustrating the relationships between ER, BCL2 and HER2 using automated scores.
Correlation between automated and manual scores
| ER allred | 1 | |||||
| ER automated | 0.82 | 1 | ||||
| <0.0001 | ||||||
| BCL2 | 0.58 | 0.54 | 1 | |||
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |||||
| BCL2 automated | 0.46 | 0.56 | 0.73 | 1 | ||
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | ||||
| HER2 herceptest score | −0.19 | −0.19 | −0.24 | −0.16 | 1 | |
| <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | |||
| HER2 automated | −0.09 | −0.03 | −0.03 | −0.09 | 0.64 | 1 |
| 0.7144 | 0.2732 | 0.2621 | 0.0001 | <0.0001 |
Abbreviations: BCL2=B-cell lymphoma protein 2; ER=oestrogen receptor; HER2=human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.
ROC analysis of dichotomous automated score vs dichotomous manual score
| ER | 1664 | 94.4 | 89.4 | 93.2 | 0.92 (0.90–0.94) |
| BCL2 | 1679 | 89.1 | 79.3 | 87.3 | 0.84 (0.82–0.87) |
| HER2 | 1647 | 98.4 | 95.7 | 96.0 | 0.97 (0.96–0.98) |
Abbreviations: AUC=area under curve, BCL2=B-cell lymphoma protein 2; CI=confidence interval; HER2=human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; ER=oestrogen receptor; ROC=receiver-operating characteristic.
Cross-tabulation of automated vs manual dichotomous scores
| Negative | 354 (89) | 71 (6) | ||||
| Positive | 42 (11) | 1197 (94) | | | | |
| Negative | 238 (79) | 151 (11) | ||||
| Positive | | | 62 (21) | 1228 (89) | | |
| Negative | 1399 (96) | 3 (2) | ||||
| Positive | 63 (4) | 182 (98) | ||||
Abbreviation: ER=oestrogen receptor.
Comparison of estimates of association with 10-year BCSS between manual and automated scores
| ER manual | 1663 (249) | 0.11 (0.05–0.22) | <0.001 | 2.7 (1.6–4.4) | <0.001 |
| ER automated | 1663 (249) | 0.11 (0.05–0.24) | <0.001 | 2.7 (1.6–4.4) | <0.001 |
| BCL2 manual | 1678 (246) | 0.12 (0.06–0.25) | <0.001 | 2.3 (1.4–3.8) | 0.001 |
| BCL2 automated | 1678 (246) | 0.24 (0.12–0.49) | <0.001 | 1.7 (1.0–2.7) | 0.036 |
| HER2 manual | 1646 (243) | 2.3 (1.7–3.1) | <0.001 | NA | NA |
| HER2 automated | 1646 (243) | 2.1 (1.6–2.8) | <0.001 | NA | NA |
Abbreviations: CI=confidence interval; HR=hazard ratio; BCSS=breast cancer specific survival.
ER and BCL2 violate the proportional hazards assumption, so the Cox model was fitted in which the natural logarithm of the hazard ratio (β) varies linearly with the natural logarithm of time. Thus, the HR at time t=exp(ln(HR)+t.ln(T)).
Figure 6Concordance between automated and manual scores. Boxplots illustrating the distribution of the automated continuous score by manual ‘positive' or ‘negative' category, where the automated score was divided at ‘0' (red dashed line) to generate the equivalent dichotomous score (first panel) for (A) ER, (B) BCL2 and (C) HER2 respectively. Kaplan-Meier survival plots comparing manual (second panel) and automated (third panel) dichotomous scores for (A) ER, (B) BCL2 and (C) HER2, where the solid and dashed lines represent negative and positive cases respectively.