Literature DB >> 30719586

Computer-Assisted Nuclear Atypia Scoring of Breast Cancer: a Preliminary Study.

Ziba Gandomkar1, Patrick C Brennan2, Claudia Mello-Thoms2,3.   

Abstract

Inter-pathologist agreement for nuclear atypia scoring of breast cancer is poor. To address this problem, previous studies suggested some criteria for describing the variations appearance of tumor cells relative to normal cells. However, these criteria were still assessed subjectively by pathologists. Previous studies used quantitative computer-extracted features for scoring. However, application of these tools is limited as further improvement in their accuracy is required. This study proposes COMPASS (COMputer-assisted analysis combined with Pathologist's ASSessment) for reproducible nuclear atypia scoring. COMPASS relies on both cytological criteria assessed subjectively by pathologists as well as computer-extracted textural features. Using machine learning, COMPASS combines these two sets of features and output nuclear atypia score. COMPASS's performance was evaluated using 300 images for which expert-consensus derived reference nuclear pleomorphism scores were available, and they were scanned by two scanners from different vendors. A personalized model was built for three pathologists who gave scores to six atypia-related criteria for each image. Leave-one-out cross validation (LOOCV) was used. COMPASS was trained and tested for each pathologist separately. Percentage agreement between COMPASS and the reference nuclear scores was 93.8%, 92.9%, and 93.1% for three pathologists. COMPASS's performance in nuclear grading was almost identical for both scanners, with Cohen's kappa ranging from 0.80 to 0.86 for different pathologists and different scanners. Independently, the images were also assessed by two experienced senior pathologists. Cohen's kappa of COMPASS was comparable to the Cohen's kappa for two senior pathologists (0.79 and 0.68).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast; Breast cancer; Microscopy; Nuclear atypia grading; Nuclear pleomorphism grading; Pattern recognition

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30719586      PMCID: PMC6737167          DOI: 10.1007/s10278-019-00181-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Digit Imaging        ISSN: 0897-1889            Impact factor:   4.056


  27 in total

1.  Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.

Authors:  Anthony J Viera; Joanne M Garrett
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.756

2.  Histological grading in breast cancer: interobserver agreement, and relation to other prognostic factors including ploidy.

Authors:  J M Harvey; N H de Klerk; G F Sterrett
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  1992-04       Impact factor: 5.306

3.  Short- and long-term effects of a training session on pathologists' performance: the INQAT experience for histological grading in breast cancer.

Authors:  A Paradiso; I O Ellis; F A Zito; E Marubini; S Pizzamiglio; P Verderio
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 4.  Prognostic factors in node-negative breast cancer: a review of studies with sample size more than 200 and follow-up more than 5 years.

Authors:  Attiqa N Mirza; Nadeem Q Mirza; Georges Vlastos; S Eva Singletary
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 12.969

5.  Histologic grading of invasive lobular carcinoma: does use of a 2-tiered nuclear grading system improve interobserver variability?

Authors:  Amy L Adams; David C Chhieng; Walter C Bell; Tom Winokur; Omar Hameed
Journal:  Ann Diagn Pathol       Date:  2009-05-09       Impact factor: 2.090

6.  Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry study.

Authors:  Teri A Longacre; Marguerite Ennis; Louise A Quenneville; Anita L Bane; Ira J Bleiweiss; Beverley A Carter; Edison Catelano; Michael R Hendrickson; Hanina Hibshoosh; Lester J Layfield; Lorenzo Memeo; Hong Wu; Frances P O'malley
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 7.842

7.  Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index.

Authors:  John S Meyer; Consuelo Alvarez; Clara Milikowski; Neal Olson; Irma Russo; Jose Russo; Andrew Glass; Barbara A Zehnbauer; Karen Lister; Reza Parwaresch
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 7.842

8.  Scoring nuclear pleomorphism in breast cancer.

Authors:  B Dunne; J J Going
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.087

9.  The impact of inter-observer variation in pathological assessment of node-negative breast cancer on clinical risk assessment and patient selection for adjuvant systemic treatment.

Authors:  J M Bueno-de-Mesquita; D S A Nuyten; J Wesseling; H van Tinteren; S C Linn; M J van de Vijver
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2009-07-21       Impact factor: 32.976

10.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  C W Elston; I O Ellis
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 5.087

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Computer-Aided Histopathological Image Analysis Techniques for Automated Nuclear Atypia Scoring of Breast Cancer: a Review.

Authors:  Asha Das; Madhu S Nair; S David Peter
Journal:  J Digit Imaging       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.056

2.  Reproducibility and Feasibility of Classification and National Guidelines for Histological Diagnosis of Canine Mammary Gland Tumours: A Multi-Institutional Ring Study.

Authors:  Serenella Papparella; Maria Ines Crescio; Valeria Baldassarre; Barbara Brunetti; Giovanni P Burrai; Cristiano Cocumelli; Valeria Grieco; Selina Iussich; Lorella Maniscalco; Francesca Mariotti; Francesca Millanta; Orlando Paciello; Roberta Rasotto; Mariarita Romanucci; Alessandra Sfacteria; Valentina Zappulli
Journal:  Vet Sci       Date:  2022-07-13
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.