Validity and Reproducibility of Immunohistochemical Scoring by Trained Non-Pathologists on Tissue Microarrays.
Journal
Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology
ISSN: 1538-7755
Titre abrégé: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9200608
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
received:
08
03
2021
revised:
04
05
2021
accepted:
12
07
2021
pubmed:
18
7
2021
medline:
3
3
2022
entrez:
17
7
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Scoring of immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining is often done by non-pathologists, especially in large-scale tissue microarray (TMA)-based studies. Studies on the validity and reproducibility of scoring results from non-pathologists are limited. Therefore, our main aim was to assess interobserver agreement between trained non-pathologists and an experienced histopathologist for three IHC markers with different subcellular localization (nucleus/membrane/cytoplasm). Three non-pathologists were trained in recognizing adenocarcinoma and IHC scoring by a senior histopathologist. Kappa statistics were used to analyze interobserver and intraobserver agreement for 6,249 TMA cores from a colorectal cancer series. Interobserver agreement between non-pathologists (independently scored) and the histopathologist was "substantial" for nuclear and membranous IHC markers (κ This study shows that adequately trained non-pathologists are able to generate reproducible IHC scoring results, that are similar to those of an experienced histopathologist. A combination score of at least two non-pathologists yielded optimal results. Non-pathologists can generate reproducible IHC results after appropriate training, making analyses of large-scale molecular pathological epidemiology studies feasible within an acceptable time frame.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Scoring of immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining is often done by non-pathologists, especially in large-scale tissue microarray (TMA)-based studies. Studies on the validity and reproducibility of scoring results from non-pathologists are limited. Therefore, our main aim was to assess interobserver agreement between trained non-pathologists and an experienced histopathologist for three IHC markers with different subcellular localization (nucleus/membrane/cytoplasm).
METHODS
Three non-pathologists were trained in recognizing adenocarcinoma and IHC scoring by a senior histopathologist. Kappa statistics were used to analyze interobserver and intraobserver agreement for 6,249 TMA cores from a colorectal cancer series.
RESULTS
Interobserver agreement between non-pathologists (independently scored) and the histopathologist was "substantial" for nuclear and membranous IHC markers (κ
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows that adequately trained non-pathologists are able to generate reproducible IHC scoring results, that are similar to those of an experienced histopathologist. A combination score of at least two non-pathologists yielded optimal results.
IMPACT
Non-pathologists can generate reproducible IHC results after appropriate training, making analyses of large-scale molecular pathological epidemiology studies feasible within an acceptable time frame.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34272264
pii: 1055-9965.EPI-21-0295
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-21-0295
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1867-1874Informations de copyright
©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.
Références
Kononen J, Bubendorf L, Kallioniemi A, Bärlund M, Schraml P, Leighton S, et al. Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nat Med. 1998;4:844–7.
Tawfik El-Mansi M, Williams AR. Validation of tissue microarray technology using cervical adenocarcinoma and its precursors as a model system. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2006;16:1225–33.
Ilyas M, Grabsch H, Ellis IO, Womack C, Brown R, Berney D, et al. Guidelines and considerations for conducting experiments using tissue microarrays. Histopathology. 2013;62:827–39.
Camp RL, Neumeister V, Rimm DL. A decade of tissue microarrays: progress in the discovery and validation of cancer biomarkers. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5630–7.
Domeny-Duarte P, Niero L, Domingues MAC. Tissue microarrays of bone marrow aspirate clot allow assessment of multiple samples. Pathology, research and practice. 2020;216:152721.
Shergill IS, Shergill NK, Arya M, Patel HRH. Tissue microarrays: a current medical research tool. Curr Med Res Opin. 2004;20:707–12.
Bubendorf L, Nocito A, Moch H, Sauter G. Tissue microarray (TMA) technology: miniaturized pathology archives for high-throughput in situ studies. J Pathol. 2001;195:72–9.
Al Kuraya K, Simon R, Sauter G. Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular pathology. Ann Saudi Med. 2004;24:169–74.
Boone J, van Hillegersberg R, van Diest PJ, Offerhaus GJA, Borel Rinkes IHM, Ten Kate FJW. Validation of tissue microarray technology in squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus. Virchows Arch. 2008;452:507–14.
Zhang D, Salto-Tellez M, Putti TC, Do E, Koay ESC. Reliability of tissue microarrays in detecting protein expression and gene amplification in breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2003;16:79–84.
Hassan S, Ferrario C, Mamo A, Basik M. Tissue microarrays: emerging standard for biomarker validation. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2008;19:19–25.
Hoos A, Urist MJ, Stojadinovic A, Mastorides S, Dudas ME, Leung DH, et al. Validation of tissue microarrays for immunohistochemical profiling of cancer specimens using the example of human fibroblastic tumors. Am J Pathol. 2001;158:1245–51.
Jourdan F, Sebbagh N, Comperat E, Mourra N, Flahault A, Olschwang S, et al. Tissue microarray technology: validation in colorectal carcinoma and analysis of p53, hMLH1, and hMSH2 immunohistochemical expression. Virchows Arch. 2003;443:115–21.
Gavrielides MA, Conway C, O'Flaherty N, Gallas BD, Hewitt SM. Observer performance in the use of digital and optical microscopy for the interpretation of tissue-based biomarkers. Anal Cell Pathol. 2014;2014:157308.
Jawhar NM. Tissue microarray: a rapidly evolving diagnostic and research tool. Ann Saudi Med. 2009;29:123–7.
O'Hurley G, Sjostedt E, Rahman A, Li B, Kampf C, Pontén F, et al. Garbage in, garbage out: a critical evaluation of strategies used for validation of immunohistochemical biomarkers. Mol Oncol. 2014;8:783–98.
Nielsen JS, Jakobsen E, Holund B, Bertelsen K, Jakobsen A. Prognostic significance of p53, Her-2, and EGFR overexpression in borderline and epithelial ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2004;14:1086–96.
Dijkema IM, Struikmans H, Dullens HF, Kal HB, van der Tweel I, Battermann JJ. Influence of p53 and bcl-2 on proliferative activity and treatment outcome in head and neck cancer patients. Oral Oncol. 2000;36:54–60.
Jaraj SJ, Camparo P, Boyle H, Germain F, Nilsson B, Petersson F, et al. Intra-and interobserver reproducibility of interpretation of immunohistochemical stains of prostate cancer. Virchows Arch. 2009;455:375–81.
Lejeune M, Jaen J, Pons L, López C, Salvadó MT, Bosch R, et al. Quantification of diverse subcellular immunohistochemical markers with clinicobiological relevancies: validation of a new computer-assisted image analysis procedure. J Anat. 2008;212::868–78.
Zlobec I, Terracciano L, Jass JR, Lugli A. Value of staining intensity in the interpretation of immunohistochemistry for tumor markers in colorectal cancer. Virchows Arch. 2007;451:763–9.
Kirkegaard T, Edwards J, Tovey S, McGlynn LM, Krishna SN, Mukherjee R, et al. Observer variation in immunohistochemical analysis of protein expression, time for a change?. Histopathology. 2006;48:787–94.
Bolton KL, Garcia-Closas M, Pfeiffer RM, Duggan MA, Howat WJ, Hewitt SM, et al. Assessment of automated image analysis of breast cancer tissue microarrays for epidemiologic studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:992–9.
van den Brandt PA, Goldbohm RA, van't Veer P, Volovics A, Hermus RJ, Sturmans F. A large-scale prospective cohort study on diet and cancer in The Netherlands. J Clin Epidemiol. 1990;43:285–95.
van den Brandt PA, Schouten LJ, Goldbohm RA, Dorant E, Hunen PM. Development of a record linkage protocol for use in the Dutch Cancer Registry for Epidemiological Research. Int J Epidemiol. 1990;19:553–8.
van den Brandt PA. Molecular pathological epidemiology of lifestyle factors and colorectal and renal cell cancer risk. Maastricht Pathology 2018. 11th Joint Meeting of the British Division of the International Academy of Pathology and the Pathological Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 19–22 June 2018. J Pathol. 2018;246:S1–S46.
Resnick MB, Routhier J, Konkin T, Sabo E, Pricolo VE. Epidermal growth factor receptor, c-MET, β-catenin, and p53 expression as prognostic indicators in stage II colon cancer: a tissue microarray study. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:3069–75.
Cooper R, Sarioğlu S, Sökmen S, Füzün M, Küpelioğlu A, Valentine H, et al. Glucose transporter-1 (GLUT-1): a potential marker of prognosis in rectal carcinoma?. Br J Cancer. 2003;89:870–6.
Sakashita M, Aoyama N, Minami R, Maekawa S, Kuroda K, Shirasaka D, et al. Glut1 expression in T1 and T2 stage colorectal carcinomas: its relationship to clinicopathological features. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37:204–9.
Richman SD, Adams R, Quirke P, Butler R, Hemmings G, Chambers P, et al. Pre-trial inter-laboratory analytical validation of the FOCUS4 personalised therapy trial. J Clin Pathol. 2016;69:35–41.
Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas. 1960;20:37–46.
Fleiss JL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:378–82.
Cohen J. Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull. 1968;70:213–20.
Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. 1993.
Lee J, Fung KP. Confidence interval of the kappa coefficient by bootstrap resampling. Psychiatry Res. 1993;49:97–8.
Reichenheim ME. Confidence intervals for the kappa statistic. Stata J. 2004;4:421–8.
Shiraishi T, Shinto E, Nearchou IP, Tsuda H, Kajiwara Y, Einama T, et al. Prognostic significance of mesothelin expression in colorectal cancer disclosed by area-specific four-point tissue microarrays. Virchows Arch. 2020;477:409–20.
Cross SS. Observer accuracy in estimating proportions in images: implications for the semiquantitative assessment of staining reactions and a proposal for a new system. J Clin Pathol. 2001;54:385–90.
Adams EJ, Green JA, Clark AH, Youngson JH. Comparison of different scoring systems for immunohistochemical staining. J Clin Pathol. 1999;52:75–7.
Gavrielides MA, Gallas BD, Lenz P, Badano A, Hewitt SM. Observer variability in the interpretation of HER2/neu immunohistochemical expression with unaided and computer-aided digital microscopy. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2011;135:233–42.
Masmoudi H, Hewitt SM, Petrick N, Myers KJ, Gavrielides MA. Automated quantitative assessment of HER-2/neu immunohistochemical expression in breast cancer. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2009;28:916–25.
Obuchowski NA. How many observers are needed in clinical studies of medical imaging?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182:867–9.
Ali A, Bell S, Bilsland A, Slavin J, Lynch V, Elgoweini M, et al. Investigating various thresholds as immunohistochemistry cutoffs for observer agreement. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2017;25:599–608.
de Jong D, Rosenwald A, Chhanabhai M, Gaulard P, Klapper W, Lee A, et al. Immunohistochemical prognostic markers in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: validation of tissue microarray as a prerequisite for broad clinical applications–a study from the Lunenburg Lymphoma Biomarker Consortium. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:805–12.
Rüschoff J, Dietel M, Baretton G, Arbogast S, Walch A, Monges G, et al. HER2 diagnostics in gastric cancer—guideline validation and development of standardized immunohistochemical testing. Virchows Arch. 2010;457:299–307.