BACKGROUND: Digital image (DI) analysis avoids visual subjectivity in interpreting immunohistochemical stains and provides more reproducible results. An automated procedure consisting of two variant methods for quantifying the cytokeratin-19 (CK19) marker in breast cancer tissues is presented. METHODS: The first method (A) excludes the holes inside selected CK19 stained areas, and the second (B) includes them. 93 DIs scanned from complete cylinders of tissue microarrays were evaluated visually by two pathologists and by the automated procedures. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There was good concordance between the two automated methods, both of which tended to identify a smaller CK19-positive area than did the pathologists. The results obtained with method B were more similar to those of the pathologists; probably because it takes into account the entire positive tumoural area, including the holes. However, the pathologists overestimated the positive area of CK19. Further studies are needed to confirm the utility of this automated procedure in prognostic studies.
BACKGROUND: Digital image (DI) analysis avoids visual subjectivity in interpreting immunohistochemical stains and provides more reproducible results. An automated procedure consisting of two variant methods for quantifying the cytokeratin-19 (CK19) marker in breast cancer tissues is presented. METHODS: The first method (A) excludes the holes inside selected CK19 stained areas, and the second (B) includes them. 93 DIs scanned from complete cylinders of tissue microarrays were evaluated visually by two pathologists and by the automated procedures. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There was good concordance between the two automated methods, both of which tended to identify a smaller CK19-positive area than did the pathologists. The results obtained with method B were more similar to those of the pathologists; probably because it takes into account the entire positive tumoural area, including the holes. However, the pathologists overestimated the positive area of CK19. Further studies are needed to confirm the utility of this automated procedure in prognostic studies.
Authors: Sara Strömberg; Marcus Gry Björklund; Caroline Asplund; Anna Sköllermo; Anja Persson; Kenneth Wester; Caroline Kampf; Peter Nilsson; Ann-Catrin Andersson; Mathias Uhlen; Juha Kononen; Fredrik Ponten; Anna Asplund Journal: Proteomics Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.984
Authors: Daphne de Jong; Andreas Rosenwald; Mukesh Chhanabhai; Philippe Gaulard; Wolfram Klapper; Abigail Lee; Birgitta Sander; Christoph Thorns; Elias Campo; Thierry Molina; Andrew Norton; Anton Hagenbeek; Sandra Horning; Andrew Lister; John Raemaekers; Randy D Gascoyne; Gilles Salles; Edie Weller Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Dalia M Abd El-Rehim; Sarah E Pinder; Claire E Paish; J Bell; R W Blamey; John F R Robertson; Robert I Nicholson; Ian O Ellis Journal: J Pathol Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: J Kononen; L Bubendorf; A Kallioniemi; M Bärlund; P Schraml; S Leighton; J Torhorst; M J Mihatsch; G Sauter; O P Kallioniemi Journal: Nat Med Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Marylène Lejeune; Benoît Plancoulaine; Nicolas Elie; Ramon Bosch; Laia Fontoura; Izar de Villasante; Anna Korzyńska; Andrea Gras Navarro; Esther Sauras Colón; Carlos López Journal: Histochem Cell Biol Date: 2021-08-12 Impact factor: 4.304
Authors: Pablo Vicente-Munuera; Rebeca Burgos-Panadero; Inmaculada Noguera; Samuel Navarro; Rosa Noguera; Luis M Escudero Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2019-07-08 Impact factor: 7.396