T Jagomast1, C Idel2, L Klapper3, P Kuppler3, L Proppe4, S Beume4, M Falougy5, D Steller5, S G Hakim5, A Offermann3, M C Roesch6, K L Bruchhage7, S Perner3,8, J Ribbat-Idel3. 1. Institute of Pathology, University of Luebeck and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany. Tobias.Jagomast@uksh.de. 2. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany. Christian.Idel@uksh.de. 3. Institute of Pathology, University of Luebeck and University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany. 4. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany. 5. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany. 6. Department of Urology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany. 7. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany. 8. Pathology, Research Center Borstel, Leibniz Lung Center, Borstel, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Quantifying protein expression in immunohistochemically stained histological slides is an important tool for oncologic research. The use of computer-aided evaluation of IHC-stained slides significantly contributes to objectify measurements. Manual digital image analysis (mDIA) requires a user-dependent annotation of the region of interest (ROI). Others have built-in machine learning algorithms with automated digital image analysis (aDIA) and can detect the ROIs automatically. We aimed to investigate the agreement between the results obtained by aDIA and those derived from mDIA systems. METHODS: We quantified chromogenic intensity (CI) and calculated the positive index (PI) in cohorts of tissue microarrays (TMA) using mDIA and aDIA. To consider the different distributions of staining within cellular sub-compartments and different tumor architecture our study encompassed nuclear and cytoplasmatic stainings in adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas. RESULTS: Within all cohorts, we were able to show a high correlation between mDIA and aDIA for the CI (p<0.001) along with high agreement for the PI. Moreover, we were able to show that the cell detections of the programs were comparable as well and both proved to be reliable when compared to manual counting. CONCLUSION: mDIA and aDIA show a high correlation in acquired IHC data. Both proved to be suitable to stratify patients for evaluation with clinical data. As both produce the same level of information, aDIA might be preferable as it is time-saving, can easily be reproduced, and enables regular and efficient output in large studies in a reasonable time period.
OBJECTIVE: Quantifying protein expression in immunohistochemically stained histological slides is an important tool for oncologic research. The use of computer-aided evaluation of IHC-stained slides significantly contributes to objectify measurements. Manual digital image analysis (mDIA) requires a user-dependent annotation of the region of interest (ROI). Others have built-in machine learning algorithms with automated digital image analysis (aDIA) and can detect the ROIs automatically. We aimed to investigate the agreement between the results obtained by aDIA and those derived from mDIA systems. METHODS: We quantified chromogenic intensity (CI) and calculated the positive index (PI) in cohorts of tissue microarrays (TMA) using mDIA and aDIA. To consider the different distributions of staining within cellular sub-compartments and different tumor architecture our study encompassed nuclear and cytoplasmatic stainings in adenocarcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas. RESULTS: Within all cohorts, we were able to show a high correlation between mDIA and aDIA for the CI (p<0.001) along with high agreement for the PI. Moreover, we were able to show that the cell detections of the programs were comparable as well and both proved to be reliable when compared to manual counting. CONCLUSION: mDIA and aDIA show a high correlation in acquired IHC data. Both proved to be suitable to stratify patients for evaluation with clinical data. As both produce the same level of information, aDIA might be preferable as it is time-saving, can easily be reproduced, and enables regular and efficient output in large studies in a reasonable time period.
Authors: Famke Aeffner; Kristin Wilson; Nathan T Martin; Joshua C Black; Cris L Luengo Hendriks; Brad Bolon; Daniel G Rudmann; Roberto Gianani; Sally R Koegler; Joseph Krueger; G Dave Young Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2017-05-30 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Peter Bankhead; José A Fernández; Darragh G McArt; David P Boyle; Gerald Li; Maurice B Loughrey; Gareth W Irwin; D Paul Harkin; Jacqueline A James; Stephen McQuaid; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Peter W Hamilton Journal: Lab Invest Date: 2017-12-18 Impact factor: 5.662
Authors: Fabrice Andre; Lisa M McShane; Stefan Michiels; David F Ransohoff; Douglas G Altman; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Daniel F Hayes; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: M Braun; D Goltz; D Adler; W Vogel; D Böhm; V Scheble; K Sotlar; F Fend; S-H Tan; A Dobi; G Kristiansen; N Wernert; S Perner Journal: Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis Date: 2012-01-10 Impact factor: 5.554
Authors: Peter Bankhead; Maurice B Loughrey; José A Fernández; Yvonne Dombrowski; Darragh G McArt; Philip D Dunne; Stephen McQuaid; Ronan T Gray; Liam J Murray; Helen G Coleman; Jacqueline A James; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Peter W Hamilton Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2017-12-04 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Vivek Kumar Singh; Md Mostafa Kamal Sarker; Yasmine Makhlouf; Stephanie G Craig; Matthew P Humphries; Maurice B Loughrey; Jacqueline A James; Manuel Salto-Tellez; Paul O'Reilly; Perry Maxwell Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-08-13 Impact factor: 6.575