Clinical Application of Image Analysis in Pathology.
Journal
Advances in anatomic pathology
ISSN: 1533-4031
Titre abrégé: Adv Anat Pathol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9435676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2020
Jul 2020
Historique:
pubmed:
30
5
2020
medline:
12
1
2021
entrez:
30
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Quantitative biomarkers are key prognostic and predictive factors in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. In the clinical laboratory, the majority of biomarker quantitation is still performed manually, but digital image analysis (DIA) methods have been steadily growing and account for around 25% of all quantitative immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing performed today. Quantitative DIA is primarily employed in the analysis of breast cancer IHC biomarkers, including estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu; more recently clinical applications have expanded to include human epidermal growth factor receptor 2/neu in gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas and Ki-67 in both breast cancer and gastrointestinal and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Evidence in the literature suggests that DIA has significant benefits over manual quantitation of IHC biomarkers, such as increased objectivity, accuracy, and reproducibility. Despite this fact, a number of barriers to the adoption of DIA in the clinical laboratory persist. These include difficulties in integrating DIA into clinical workflows, lack of standards for integrating DIA software with laboratory information systems and digital pathology systems, costs of implementing DIA, inadequate reimbursement relative to those costs, and other factors. These barriers to adoption may be overcome with international standards such as Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM), increased adoption of routine digital pathology workflows, the application of artificial intelligence to DIA, and the emergence of new clinical applications for DIA.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32467397
doi: 10.1097/PAP.0000000000000263
pii: 00125480-202007000-00002
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
227-235Références
McNamara G, Difilippantonio MJ, Ried T. Microscopy and image analysis. Curr Protoc Hum Genet. 2005;46:4.4.1–4.4.34.
Pantanowitz L, Sharma A, Carter A, et al. Twenty years of digital pathology: an overview of the road travelled, what is on the horizon, and the emergence of vendor-neutral archives. J Pathol Inform. 2018;9:40.
Mason DY, Gatter KC. The role of immunocytochemistry in diagnostic pathology. J Clin Pathol. 1987;40:1042–1054.
Lichter P, Ward DC. Is non-isotopic in situ hybridization finally coming of age? Nature. 1990;345:93–94.
Kaplan KJ. Year in review. Tissuepathology.com. Digit Pathol Blog; 2010. Available at: https://tissuepathology.com/2010/12/30/year-in-review/. Accessed September 5, 2019.
Schmidhuber J. History of computer vision contests won by deep CNNs on GPUs. 2017. Available at: http://people.idsia.ch/~juergen/computer-vision-contests-won-by-gpu-cnns.html. Accessed September 5, 2019.
US Food and Drug Administartion (FDA), Office of the Commissioner. FDA allows marketing of first whole slide imaging system for digital pathology; 2017. Available at: www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-allows-marketing-first-whole-slide-imaging-system-digital-pathology. Accessed June 4, 2019.
Pantanowitz L. Digital images and the future of digital pathology. J Pathol Inform. 2010;1:15.
Jara-Lazaro AR, Thamboo TP, Teh M, et al. Digital pathology: exploring its applications in diagnostic surgical pathology practice. Pathology (Phila). 2010;42:512–518.
Nofech-Mozes S, Vella ET, Dhesy-Thind S, et al. Systematic review on hormone receptor testing in breast cancer. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2012;20:214–263.
Allred DC, Carlson RW, Berry DA, et al. NCCN Task Force Report: estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009;7(suppl 6):S1–S21.
Hammond MEH, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations for Immunohistochemical Testing of Estrogen and Progesterone Receptors in Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2784–2795.
Shousha S. Oestrogen receptor status of breast carcinoma: Allred/H score conversion table. Histopathology. 2008;53:346–347.
Colley M, Kommoss F, Bibbo M, et al. Assessment of hormone receptors in breast carcinoma by immunocytochemistry and image analysis. II. Estrogen receptors. Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 1989;11:307–314.
Bacus S, Flowers JL, Press MF, et al. The evaluation of estrogen receptor in primary breast carcinoma by computer-assisted image analysis. Am J Clin Pathol. 1988;90:233–239.
Faratian D, Kay C, Robson T, et al. Automated image analysis for high-throughput quantitative detection of ER and PR expression levels in large-scale clinical studies: the TEAM Trial Experience. Histopathology. 2009;55:587–593.
Turbin DA, Leung S, Cheang MCU, et al. Automated quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor expression in breast carcinoma does not differ from expert pathologist scoring: a tissue microarray study of 3,484 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;110:417–426.
Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Allison KH, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2105–2122.
Bartley AN, Washington MK, Colasacco C, et al. HER2 Testing and Clinical Decision Making in Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: Guideline From the College of American Pathologists, American Society for Clinical Pathology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35:446–464.
Sarode VR, Xiang QD, Christie A, et al. Evaluation of HER2/neu status by immunohistochemistry using computer-based image analysis and correlation with gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization assay: a 10-year experience and impact of test standardization on concordance rate. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139:922–928.
Bui MM, Riben MW, Allison KH, et al. Quantitative image analysis of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry for breast cancer: guideline From the College of American Pathologists. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2019;143:1180–1195.
Bang Y-J, Van Cutsem E, Feyereislova A, et al. Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376:687–697.
Hofmann M, Stoss O, Shi D, et al. Assessment of a HER2 scoring system for gastric cancer: results from a validation study. Histopathology. 2008;52:797–805.
Koopman T, de Bock GH, Buikema HJ, et al. Digital image analysis of HER2 immunohistochemistry in gastric- and oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a validation study on biopsies and surgical specimens. Histopathology. 2018;72:191–200.
Nielsen SL, Nielsen S, Vyberg M. Digital image analysis of HER2 immunostained gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017;25:320–328.
Dumontet C, Krajewska M, Treilleux I, et al. BCIRG 001 molecular analysis: prognostic factors in node-positive breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16:3988–3997.
Luporsi E, André F, Spyratos F, et al. Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;132:895–915.
Jones RL, Salter J, A’Hern R, et al. The prognostic significance of Ki67 before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;116:53–68.
Andre F, Arnedos M, Goubar A, et al. Ki67—no evidence for its use in node-positive breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:296–301.
Viale G, Regan MM, Mastropasqua MM, et al. On the behalf of the International Breast Cancer Study Group. Predictive value of tumor Ki-67 expression in two randomized trials of adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy for node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:207–212.
Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Abraham J. NCCN guidelines index table of contents discussion. Breast Cancer. 2019:216.
Polley M-YC, Leung SCY, McShane LM, et al. An International Ki67 Reproducibility Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1897–1906.
Polley M-YC, Leung SCY, Gao D, et al. An international study to increase concordance in Ki67 scoring. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:778–786.
Leung SCY, Nielsen TO, Zabaglo L, et al. Analytical validation of a standardized scoring protocol for Ki67: phase 3 of an international multicenter collaboration. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2016;2:16014.
Rimm DL, Leung SCY, McShane LM, et al. An international multicenter study to evaluate reproducibility of automated scoring for assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2019;32:59–69.
McCall CM, Shi C, Cornish TC, et al. Grading of well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is improved by the inclusion of both Ki67 proliferative index and mitotic rate. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37:1671–1677.
Reid MD, Bagci P, Ohike N, et al. Calculation of the Ki67 index in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a comparative analysis of four counting methodologies. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:686–694.
Tang LH, Gonen M, Modlin IM. Objective quantification of the Ki67 proliferative index in neuroendocrine tumors of the gastroenteropancreatic system. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:10.
Fitzgibbons PL, Goldsmith JD, Souers RJ, et al. Analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays: a comparison of laboratory practices before and after introduction of an evidence-based guideline. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2017;141:1247–1254.
DICOM Standard. History. 2019. Available at: www.dicomstandard.org/history/. Accessed August 1, 2019.
DICOM Standards Committee, Working Groups 26, Pathology. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Supplement 122: Specimen Module and Revised Pathology SOP Classes; 2008. Available at: https://medical.nema.org/medical/dicom/final/sup122_ft2.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2019.
DICOM Standards Committee, Working Groups 26, Pathology. Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) Supplement 145: Whole Slide Microscopic Image IOD and SOP Classes; 2010. Available at: https://medical.nema.org/medical/dicom/final/sup145_ft.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2019.
Clunie D, Hosseinzadeh D, Wintell M, et al. Digital imaging and communications in medicine whole slide imaging connectathon at Digital Pathology Association Pathology Visions 2017. J Pathol Inform. 2018;9:6.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Physician Fee Schedule search. 2019. Available at: www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-criteria.aspx. Accessed August 1, 2019.
Zaydfudim V, Sarr MG, Harken AH, et al. Tumor vs neoplasm: it is not just semantics. Surgery. 2013;153:603–604.
Akiyama Y, Maeda D, Morikawa T, et al. Digital quantitative analysis of mast cell infiltration in interstitial cystitis. Neurourol Urodyn. 2018;37:650–657.
Hartman DJ, Ahmad F, Ferris RL, et al. Utility of CD8 score by automated quantitative image analysis in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2018;86:278–287.
Le DT, Uram JN, Wang H, et al. PD-1 blockade in tumors with mismatch-repair deficiency. N Engl J Med. 2015;372:2509–2520.
Koelzer VH, Sirinukunwattana K, Rittscher J, et al. Precision immunoprofiling by image analysis and artificial intelligence. Virchows Arch. 2019;474:511–522.
Wang S, Yang DM, Rong R, et al. Pathology image analysis using segmentation deep learning algorithms. Am J Pathol. 2019;189:1686–1698.
Xing F, Cornish TC, Bennett T, et al. Pixel-to-pixel learning with weak supervision for single-stage nucleus recognition in Ki67 images. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2019;66:3088–3097.
Akbar S, Jordan LB, Purdie CA, et al. Comparing computer-generated and pathologist-generated tumour segmentations for immunohistochemical scoring of breast tissue microarrays. Br J Cancer. 2015;113:1075–1080.
Couture HD, Williams LA, Geradts J, et al. Image analysis with deep learning to predict breast cancer grade, ER status, histologic subtype, and intrinsic subtype. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2018;4:30.
Beck AH, Sangoi AR, Leung S, et al. Systematic analysis of breast cancer morphology uncovers stromal features associated with survival. Sci Transl Med. 2011;3:108–113.
Shamai G, Binenbaum Y, Slossberg R, et al. Artificial intelligence algorithms to assess hormonal status from tissue microarrays in patients with breast cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e197700.