Prognostic value of automatically extracted nuclear morphometric features in whole slide images of male breast cancer

Modern Pathology

Volumn 25, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1559-1565

  Veta, Mitko ^a   Kornegoor, Robert ^b   Huisman, André ^b   Verschuur Maes, Anoek H J ^b   Viergever, Max A ^a   Pluim, Josien P W ^a   Van Diest, Paul J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

digital pathology; grading; image analysis; male breast cancer; whole slide images

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER GRADING; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER PROGNOSIS; CANCER SURVIVAL; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MORPHOMETRICS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TISSUE MICROARRAY; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS, MALE; CELL NUCLEUS; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LYMPH NODES; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PROGNOSIS; SURVIVAL RATE;

EID: 84870493031     PISSN: 08933952     EISSN: 15300285     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2012.126     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N, et al. Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Pathol 1995;26:873-879.
2. Baak JPA, Van Dop H, Kurver PHJ, et al. The value of morphometry to classic prognosticators in breast cancer. Cancer 1985;56:374-382. (Pubitemid 15031663)
3. Kronqvist P, Kuopio T, Collan Y. Morphometric grading of invasive ductal breast cancer. I. Thresholds for nuclear grade. Br J Cancer 1998;78:800-805. (Pubitemid 28418317)
4. Pienta KJ, Coffey DS. Correlation of nuclear morphometry with progression of breast cancer. Cancer 1991;68:2012-2016.
5. Tan PH, Goh BB, Chiang G, et al. Correlation of nuclear morphometry with pathologic parameters in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Mod Pathol 2001;14: 937-941. (Pubitemid 32976779)
6. Cui Y, Koop EA, van Diest PJ, et al. Nuclear morphometric features in benign breast tissue and risk of subsequent breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;104:103-107. (Pubitemid 46976637)
7. Chiusa L, Margaria E, Pich A. Nuclear morphometry in male breast carcinoma: association with cell proliferative activity, oncogene expression, DNA content and prognosis. Int J Cancer 2000;89:494-499.
8. Mommers ECM, Page DL, Dupont WD, et al. Prognostic value of morphometry in patients with normal breast tissue or usual ductal hyperplasia of the breast. Int J Cancer 2001;95:282-285. (Pubitemid 32847036)
9. van Diest PJ, Fleege JC, Baak JP. Syntactic structure analysis in invasive breast cancer: analysis of reproducibility, biologic background, and prognostic value. Hum Pathol 1992;23:876-883.
10. Pantanowitz L, Evans A, Pfeifer J, et al. Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology. J Pathol Inform 2011;2:36.
11. Al-Janabi S, Huisman A, Van Diest PJ. Digital pathology: current status and future perspectives. Histopathology 2012;61:1-9.
12. Huisman A, Looijen A, van den Brink SM, et al. Creation of a fully digital pathology slide archive by high-volume tissue slide scanning. Hum Pathol 2010;41:751-757.
13. Gurcan MN, Boucheron LE, Can A, et al. Histopathological image analysis: a review. IEEE Rev Biomed Eng 2009;2:147-171.
14. Kornegoor R, Verschuur-Maes AHJ, Buerger H, et al. Molecular subtyping of male breast cancer by immunohistochemistry. Mod Pathol 2012;25:398-404.
15. Kornegoor R, Verschuur-Maes AHJ, Buerger H, et al. Fibrotic focus and hypoxia in male breast cancer. Mod Pathol 2012; Accepted for publication.
16. van Diest PJ, Baak JPA, Matze-Cok P, et al. Reproducibility of mitosis counting in 2,469 breast cancer specimens: Results from the Multicenter Morphometric Mammary Carcinoma Project. Hum Pathol 1992;23:603-607.
17. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with longterm follow-up. Histopathology 1991;19:403-4010.
18. Veta M, Huisman A, Viergever MA, et al. Markercontrolled watershed segmentation of nuclei in H&E stained breast cancer biopsy images. IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging. Chicago, IL, USAApril 2011, pp 618-621.
19. Ruifrok AC, Johnston DA. Quantification of histochemical staining by color deconvolution. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 2001;23:291-299. (Pubitemid 32762920)
20. Garini Y, Young IT, McNamara G. Spectral imaging: Principles and applications. Cytometry 2006;69A:735-747. (Pubitemid 44469986)
21. Vincent L. Morphological grayscale reconstruction in image analysis: applications and efficient algorithms. IEEE Trans Image Processing 1993;2:176-201. (Pubitemid 23692871)
22. Loy G, Zelinsky A. Fast radial symmetry for detecting points of interest. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2003;25:959-973.
23. Fernand M. Topographic distance and watershed lines. Signal Process 1994;38:113-125.
24. Jannink I, Bennen JN, Blaauw J, et al. At convenience and systematic random sampling: effects on the prognostic value of nuclear area assessments in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1995;36: 55-60.
25. Fleege JC, van Diest PJ, Baak JP. Systematic random sampling for selective interactive nuclear morphometry in breast cancer sections. Refinement and multiobserver evaluation. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 1993;15:281-289. (Pubitemid 23238594)
26. Abdel-Fatah TMA, Powe DG, Ball G, et al. Proposal for a modified grading system based on mitotic index and Bcl2 provides objective determination of clinical outcome for patients with breast cancer. J Pathol 2010; 222:388-399.
27. Rojo M, Bueno G, Slodkowska J. Review of imaging solutions for integrated quantitative immunohistochemistry in the pathology daily practice. Folia Histochem Cytobiol 2009;47:349-354.
28. Hipp J, Flotte T, Monaco J, et al. Computer aided diagnostic tools aim to empower rather than replace pathologists: Lessons learned from computational chess. J Pathol Inform 2011;2:25.