Effect of quantitative nuclear image features on recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast

Cancer Informatics

Volumn 6, Issue , 2008, Pages 99-109

  Axelrod, David E ^a,h   Miller, Naomi A ^b   Lickley, H Lavina ^c   Qian, Jin ^d   Christens Barry, William A ^e   Yuan, Yan ^d   Fu, Yuejiao ^f   Chapman, Judith Anne W ^g  

^a RUTGERS CANCER INSTITUTE OF NEW JERSEY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY HEALTH NETWORK   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^e Equipoise Imaging LLC   (United States)

^f YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^g QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^h RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast ductal carcinoma in situ; Discriminant analysis; Image cytometry; Nuclear grade

Indexed keywords

EOSIN; HEMATOXYLIN;

ARTICLE; BREAST CARCINOMA; CANCER GRADING; CANCER RECURRENCE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENSITOMETRY; DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MORPHOMETRICS; PATIENT CODING; PROGNOSIS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODEL; REPRODUCIBILITY; CLINICAL FEATURE; DIGITAL IMAGING; IMAGE SEGMENTATION; MORPHOMETRY; PARENCHYMA; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS;

EID: 49649116104     PISSN: 11769351     EISSN: 11769351     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.4137/cin.s401     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. Baak, J.P.A., Langley, F.A. and Hermans, J. 1991. Classification and prognosis for new cases: Some aspects of univariate and multivariate analysis. In: Baak, J.P.A., ed. Manual of quantitative pathology in cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 189-209.
2. Badve, S., A'Hern, R.P., Ward, A. et al. 1998. Prediction of local recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast using five histological classifications: A comparative study with long follow-up. Hum. Pathol., 29:915-23.
3. Bartels, P.H. 1980. Numerical evaluation of cytologic data IV. discrimination and classification. Analyt. Quant. Cytol., 2:19-24.
4. Burstein, H.J., Polyak, K., Wong, J.S. et al. 2004. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. N. Engl. J. Med., 350:1430-41.
5. Carpenter, R., Gibbs, N., Matthews, J. et al. 1987. Importance of cellular DNA content in pre-malignant breast disease and pre-invasive carcinoma of the female breast. Br. J. Surg., 74:905-6.
6. Chapman, J.W., Miller, N., Lickley, L. et al. 2007. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS) with heterogeneity of nuclear grade: prognostic effects of quantitative nuclear assessment. BMC Cancer 7:174. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-7-174. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/7/174
7. Christen, R., Xiao, J., Minimo, C. et al. 1993. Chromatin texture features in hematoxylin and eosin-stained prostate tissue. Analyt. Quant. Cytol. Histol., 15:383-8.
8. Dey, P., Ghoshal, S. and Pattari, S.K. 2000. Nuclear image morphometry and cytologic grade of breast carcinoma. Analyt. Quant. Cytol. Histol., 22:483-5.
9. Douglas-Jones, A.G., Gupta, S.K., Attanoos, R.L. et al. 1996. A critical appraisal of six modern classifications of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS): Correlation with grade of associated invasive carcinoma. Histopathol., 29:397-409.
10. Ferrer-Roca, O., Perez Gomez, J.A. and Estevez, M. 1998. Chromatin texture from hematoxylin stained thyroid lesions. Analyt. Cell. Pathol., 17:209-17.
11. Fish, E.B., Chapman, J.W., Miller, N.L. et al. 1998. Assessment of treatment for patients with primary ductal carcinoma in situ in the breast see comment. Ann. Surg. Oncol., 5:724-32.
12. Frank, D.H., Davis, J.R., Alberts, D.S. et al. 2001. Nuclear chromatin characteristics of breast solid pattern ductal carcinoma in situ. Analyt. Quant. Cytol. Histol., 23:418-26.
13. Goldstein, N.S. and Murphy, T. 1996. Intraductal carcinoma associated with invasive carcinoma of the breast. A comparison of the two lesions with implications for intraductal carcinoma classification systems. Am. J. Clin. Pathol., 106:312-8.
14. Haralick, R.M., Shaanmugam, K. and Dinstein, I. 1973. Texture features for image classification. IEEE Trans. Systems Man and Cybernetics, SMC-3:610-21.
15. Hinestrosa, M.C., Dickersin, K., Klein, P. et al. 2007. Shaping the future of biomarker research in breast cancer to ensure clinical relevance. Nature Rev. Cancer, 7:309-15.
16. Holland, R., Peterse, J.L., Millis, R.R. et al. 1994. Ductal carcinoma in situ: A proposal for a new classification. Semin. Diagn Pathol., 11:167-80.
17. Hoque, A., Lippman, S.M., Boiko, I.V. et al. 2001. Quantitative nuclear morphometry by image analysis for prediction of recurrence of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev., 10:249-59.
18. Kerlikowske, K., Molinaro, A., Cha, I. et al. 2003. Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 95:1692-702.
19. Lagios, M.D., Margolin, F.R., Westdahl, P.R. et al. 1989. Mammographically detected duct carcinoma in situ. Frequency of local recurrence following tylectomy and prognostic effect of nuclear grade on local recurrence. Cancer, 63:618-24.
20. Latson, L., Sebek, B. and Powell, K.A. 2003. Automated cell nuclear segmentation in color images of hematoxylin and eosin-stained breast biopsy. Analyt. Quant. Cytol. Histol., 25:321-31.
21. Leonard, G.D. and Swain, S.M. 2004. Ductal carcinoma in situ, complexities and challenges. J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 96:906-20.
22. Leong, A.S., Sormunen, R.T., Vinyuvat, S. et al. 2001. Biologic markers in ductal carcinoma in situ and concurrent infiltrating carcinoma. A comparison of eight contemporary grading systems. Am. J. Clin. Pathol., 115:709-18.
23. Mariuzzi, G.M., Mariuzzi, L., Mombello, A. et al. 1996. Quantitative study of ductal breast cancer progression. A progression index (PI) for premalignant lesions and in situ carcinoma. Pathol. Res. Pract., 192:428-36.
24. Miller, N.A., Chapman, J.W., Fish, E.B. et al. 2001. In situ duct carcinoma of the breast: Clinical and histopathologic factors and association with recurrent carcinoma. Breast J., 7:292-302.
25. Mommers, E.C., Poulin, N., Sangulin, J. et al. 2001. Nuclear cytometric changes in breast carcinogenesis. J. Pathol., 193:33-9.
26. Morrow, M., Strom, E.A., Bassett, L.W. et al. 2002. Standard for the management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS). CA: Cancer J. Clinicians, 52:256-76.
27. Patterson, C.C. 1995. Statistical analysis of morphometric and clinical data. In: Hamilton, P.W. and Allen, D.C., ed. Quantitative Clinical Pathology, Oxford: Blackwell Sci., pp. 316-32.
28. Pienta, K.J. and Coffey, D.S. 1991. Correlation of nuclear morphometry with progression of breast cancer. Cancer, 68:2012-6.
29. Prentice, R.L. and Marek, P. 1979. A qualitative discrepancy between censored data rank tests. Biometrics, 35:861-867.
30. Pressman, N.J. 1976. Markovian analysis of cervical cell images. J. Histochem. Cytochem., 24:138-44.
31. Russ, J.C. 1990. Computer-assisted microscopy: The measurement and analysis of images. New York: Plenum Press.
32. Schulte, E.K.W., Seigneurin, D., Giroud, F. et al. 1995. DNA densitometry. In: Hamilton, P.W. and Allen, D.C., eds. Quantitative Clinical Pathology, Oxford: Blackwell Sci., pp. 140-69.
33. Schwartz, G.F. 1997. Consensus conference on the classification of ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer, 80:1798-802.
34. Silverstein, M.J. 2000. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Annu. Rev. Med., 51:17-32.
35. Silverstein, M.J., Lagios, M.D., Craig, P.H. et al. 1996. A prognostic index for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Cancer, 77:2267-74.
36. Silverstein, M.J., Poller, D.N., Waisman, J.R. et al. 1995. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet, 345:1154-7.
37. Sneige, N., Lagios, M.D., Schwarting, R. et al. 1999. Interobserver reproducibility of the Lagios nuclear grading system for ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum. Pathol., 30:257-62.
38. Susnik, B., Worth, A., Palcic, B. et al. 1995. Differences in quantitative nuclear features between ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with and without accompanying invasive carcinoma in the surrounding breast. Analyt. Cell. Pathol., 8:39-52.
39. Tavassoli, F.A. 1998. Ductal carcinoma in situ: Introduction of the concept of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia. Mod. Pathol., 11:140-54.
40. Tuczek, H.V., Fritz, P., Schwarzmann, P. et al. 1996. Breast carcinoma correlations between visual diagnostic criteria for histologic grading and features of image analysis. Analyt. Quant. Cytol. Histol., 18:481-93.
41. van Dongen, J.A., Holland, R., Peterse, J.L. et al. 1992. Ductal carcinoma in-situ of the breast; second EORTC consensus meeting. Eur. J. Cancer, 28:626-629.
42. Wärnberg, F., Casalini, P., Nordgren, H. et al. 2002. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: A new phenotype classification system and its relation to prognosis. Breast Cancer Res. Treat, 73:215-21.
43. Wärnberg, F., Nordgren, H., Bergh, J. and Holmberg, L. 1999. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast from a population-defined cohort: An evaluation of new histopathological classification systems. Eur. J. Cancer, 35:714-20.
44. Weyn, B., Jacob, W., da Silva, V.D. et al. 2000. Data representation and reduction for chromatin texture in nuclei from premalignant prostatic, esophageal, and colonic lesions. Cytometry, 41:133-8.
45. Wolberg, W.H., Street, W.N., Heisey, D.M. et al. 1995. Computer-derived nuclear features distinguish malignant from benign breast cytology. Hum. Pathol., 26:792-6.