Conventional and semi-automatic histopathological analysis of tumor cell content for multigene sequencing of lung adenocarcinoma.
Digital pathology
lung adenocarcinoma (lung ADC)
molecular pathology
next-generation sequencing (NGS)
tumor cell content (TCC)
Journal
Translational lung cancer research
ISSN: 2218-6751
Titre abrégé: Transl Lung Cancer Res
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101646875
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
entrez:
20
5
2021
pubmed:
21
5
2021
medline:
21
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Targeted genetic profiling of tissue samples is paramount to detect druggable genetic aberrations in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Accurate upfront estimation of tumor cell content (TCC) is a crucial pre-analytical step for reliable testing and to avoid false-negative results. As of now, TCC is usually estimated on hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) stained tissue sections by a pathologist, a methodology that may be prone to substantial intra- and interobserver variability. Here we the investigate suitability of digital pathology for TCC estimation in a clinical setting by evaluating the concordance between semi-automatic and conventional TCC quantification. TCC was analyzed in 120 H&E and thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1) stained high-resolution images by 19 participants with different levels of pathological expertise as well as by applying two semi-automatic digital pathology image analysis tools (HALO and QuPath). Agreement of TCC estimations [intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC)] between the two software tools (H&E: 0.87; TTF-1: 0.93) was higher compared to that between conventional observers (0.48; 0.47). Digital TCC estimations were in good agreement with the average of human TCC estimations (0.78; 0.96). Conventional TCC estimators tended to overestimate TCC, especially in H&E stainings, in tumors with solid patterns and in tumors with an actual TCC close to 50%. Our results determine factors that influence TCC estimation. Computer-assisted analysis can improve the accuracy of TCC estimates prior to molecular diagnostic workflows. In addition, we provide a free web application to support self-training and quality improvement initiatives at other institutions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Targeted genetic profiling of tissue samples is paramount to detect druggable genetic aberrations in patients with non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Accurate upfront estimation of tumor cell content (TCC) is a crucial pre-analytical step for reliable testing and to avoid false-negative results. As of now, TCC is usually estimated on hematoxylin-eosin (H&E) stained tissue sections by a pathologist, a methodology that may be prone to substantial intra- and interobserver variability. Here we the investigate suitability of digital pathology for TCC estimation in a clinical setting by evaluating the concordance between semi-automatic and conventional TCC quantification.
METHODS
METHODS
TCC was analyzed in 120 H&E and thyroid transcription factor 1 (TTF-1) stained high-resolution images by 19 participants with different levels of pathological expertise as well as by applying two semi-automatic digital pathology image analysis tools (HALO and QuPath).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Agreement of TCC estimations [intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC)] between the two software tools (H&E: 0.87; TTF-1: 0.93) was higher compared to that between conventional observers (0.48; 0.47). Digital TCC estimations were in good agreement with the average of human TCC estimations (0.78; 0.96). Conventional TCC estimators tended to overestimate TCC, especially in H&E stainings, in tumors with solid patterns and in tumors with an actual TCC close to 50%.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results determine factors that influence TCC estimation. Computer-assisted analysis can improve the accuracy of TCC estimates prior to molecular diagnostic workflows. In addition, we provide a free web application to support self-training and quality improvement initiatives at other institutions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34012783
doi: 10.21037/tlcr-20-1168
pii: tlcr-10-04-1666
pmc: PMC8107748
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1666-1678Informations de copyright
2021 Translational Lung Cancer Research. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/tlcr-20-1168). DK reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer outside the submitted work. ALV reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work. RL reports grants from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), Dietmar Hopp Stiftung, outside the submitted work. CPH reports grants from Siemens, Pfizer, MeVis, Boehringer Ingelheim, German Center for Lung Research, personal fees from Astellas, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bracco MEDA Pharma, Chiesi, Covidien, Essex, Fresenius, Gilead, Grifols, Intermune, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Schering-Plough, Siemens, other from GSK, outside the submitted work; in addition, CPH has a patent Method and Device For Representing the Microstructure of the Lungs, IPC8 Class: AA61B5055FI, PAN: 20080208038 issued. FH reports personal fees from Uptake, BTG, Olympus, Pulmonx, outside the submitted work. PC reports grants and personal fees from Novartis, Roche, AstraZeneca, Takeda, and personal fees from Pfizer, Chugai, Boehringer, outside the submitted work. TM reports grants and non-financial support from Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Penzberg, Germany, outside the submitted work; in addition, TM has a patent WO2019158460 pending, a patent WO2019211418 pending, a patent WO2019215223 pending, a patent EP3391053 issued, and a patent EP3365679 pending. MR reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Lilly, Celgene, Merck, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung Bioepis, outside the submitted work. WW reports personal fees from Roche, MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Boehringer, Novartis, Takeda, Amgen, Astellas, Illumina, Agilent, Siemens, Molecular Health and grants from Roche, MSD, BMS, Bruker, AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. JB reports grants from German Cancer Aid, outside the submitted work. MT reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Takeda, Roche, personal fees and non-financial support from AbbVie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Chugai, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, outside the submitted work. SP reports personal fees from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, Pharma Mar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics and Takeda, Takeda, Bioinvent, Medscape, Phosphoplatin Therapeutics; non-financial support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer-Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Illumina, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Merck Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, Phosphoplatin; outside the submitted work; all fees to Institution. PS reports personal fees from BMS, MSD, Incyte, Janssen, Amgen, Novartis, Roche and AstraZeneca outside the submitted work. AS reports grants and personal fees from Bayer, BMS, grants from Chugai and personal fees from Astra Zeneca, MSD, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Novartis, Illumina, Thermo Fisher, Eli Lily, Takeda, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Nov;14(11):1935-1947
pubmed: 31349062
J Mol Diagn. 2018 Jul;20(4):455-464
pubmed: 29625250
JAMA. 2019 Aug 27;322(8):764-774
pubmed: 31454018
Virchows Arch. 2017 Jan;470(1):21-27
pubmed: 27853865
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Lung Cancer. 2020 Apr;142:114-119
pubmed: 32143116
J Toxicol Pathol. 2019 Oct;32(4):319-327
pubmed: 31719761
Ann Oncol. 2020 Nov;31(11):1491-1505
pubmed: 32853681
Virchows Arch. 2013 Jan;462(1):39-46
pubmed: 23242173
J Thorac Oncol. 2020 Jul;15(7):1177-1189
pubmed: 32119917
J Pathol Inform. 2019 Mar 08;10:9
pubmed: 30984469
Mod Pathol. 2014 Feb;27(2):168-74
pubmed: 23887293
J Pathol Clin Res. 2019 Apr;5(2):81-90
pubmed: 30767396
Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 4;7(1):16878
pubmed: 29203879
Psychol Bull. 1979 Mar;86(2):420-8
pubmed: 18839484
J Clin Oncol. 2012 May 1;30(13):1438-46
pubmed: 22393100
Am J Surg Pathol. 2018 Jan;42(1):39-52
pubmed: 28961557
J Mol Diagn. 2013 Nov;15(6):765-75
pubmed: 23973117
J Pathol. 2020 Apr;250(5):685-692
pubmed: 31994192
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013 Nov;137(11):1545-9
pubmed: 24168492
J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Sep;10(9):1243-1260
pubmed: 26291008
Pathologe. 2018 Nov;39(6):539-545
pubmed: 30350177
Histopathology. 2019 Sep;75(3):312-319
pubmed: 31054167