A novel, automated technology for multiplex biomarker imaging and application to breast cancer

Histopathology

Volumn 64, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 242-255

  Clarke, Gina M ^a   Zubovits, Judit T ^b,c,e   Shaikh, Kashan A ^d   Wang, Dan ^a   Dinn, Sean R ^d   Corwin, Alex D ^d   Santamaria Pang, Alberto ^d   Li, Qing ^d   Nofech Mozes, Sharon ^b,c   Liu, Kela ^a   Pang, Zhengyu ^d   Filkins, Robert J ^d   Yaffe, Martin J ^a,c  

^a Canada   (Canada)

^b SUNNYBROOK RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY   (United States)

^e The Scaborough Hospital   (Canada)

Author keywords

Biomarker multiplex imaging; Breast cancer; Computer assisted detection; Immunofluorescence; Microfluidics

Indexed keywords

ADENOSINE TRIPHOSPHATASE; BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CYTOKERATIN 18; CYTOKERATIN 8; EPITOPE; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR;

ANTIGEN RETRIEVAL; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; BREAST CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE PROCESSING; IMMUNOFLUORESCENCE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MICROFLUIDIC ANALYSIS; MOLECULAR IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TISSUE SECTION;

BIOMARKER MULTIPLEX IMAGING; BREAST CANCER; COMPUTER-ASSISTED DETECTION; IMMUNOFLUORESCENCE; MICROFLUIDICS;

BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; FLUORESCENT ANTIBODY TECHNIQUE; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; TUMOR MARKERS, BIOLOGICAL;

EID: 84890249460     PISSN: 03090167     EISSN: 13652559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/his.12240     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Schluter C, Duchrow M, Wohlenberg C et al. The cell proliferation-associated antigen of antibody Ki-67: a very large, ubiquitous nuclear protein with numerous repeated elements, representing a new kind of cell cycle-maintaining proteins. J. Cell Biol. 1993; 123; 513-522.
2. Millar EK, Graham PH, McNeil CM et al. Prediction of outcome of early ER+ breast cancer is improved using a biomarker panel, which includes Ki-67 and p53. Br. J. Cancer 2011; 105; 272-280.
3. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 2009; 101; 736-750.
4. Miglietta L, Vanella P, Canobbio L et al. Prognostic value of estrogen receptor and Ki-67 index after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer expressing high levels of proliferation at diagnosis. Oncology 2010; 79; 255-261.
5. Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S et al. Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2011; 29; 4273-4278.
6. Moeder CB, Giltnane JM, Harigopal M et al. Quantitative justification of the change from 10% to 30% for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 scoring in the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guidelines: tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer and its implications for tissue microarray based assessment of outcome. J. Clin. Oncol. 2007; 25; 5418-5425.
7. Nassar A, Radhakrishnan A, Cabrero IA, Cotsonis GA, Cohen C. Intratumoral heterogeneity of immunohistochemical marker expression in breast carcinoma: a tissue microarray-based study. Appl. Immunohistochem. Mol. Morphol. 2010; 18; 433-441.
8. Chung GG, Zerkowski MP, Ghosh S, Camp RL, Rimm DL. Quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor heterogeneity in breast cancer. Lab. Invest. 2007; 87; 662-669.
9. Leers MP, Nap M. Steroid receptor heterogeneity in relation to DNA index in breast cancer: a multiparameter flow cytometric approach on paraffin-embedded tumor samples. Breast J. 2001; 7; 249-259.
10. Vance GH, Barry TS, Bloom KJ et al. Genetic heterogeneity in HER2 testing in breast cancer: panel summary and guidelines. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2009; 133; 611-612.
11. Brunelli M, Manfrin E, Martignoni G et al. Genotypic intratumoral heterogeneity in breast carcinoma with HER2/neu amplification: evaluation according to ASCO/CAP criteria. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 2009; 131; 678-682.
12. Hanna W, Nofech-Mozes S, Kahn HJ. Intratumoral heterogeneity of HER2/neu in breast cancer - a rare event. Breast J. 2007; 13; 122-129.
13. Cottu PH, Asselah J, Lae M et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity of HER2/neu expression and its consequences for the management of advanced breast cancer. Ann. Oncol. 2008; 19; 595-597.
14. Paradiso A, Mangia A, Barletta A et al. Heterogeneity of intratumour proliferative activity in primary breast cancer: biological and clinical aspects. Eur. J. Cancer 1995; 31A; 911-916.
15. Bergers E, van Diest PJ, Baak JP. Tumour heterogeneity of DNA cell cycle variables in breast cancer measured by flow cytometry. J. Clin. Pathol. 1996; 49; 931-937.
16. Sood A, Montalto M, Gerdes M. Sequential analysis of biological samples. USPTO Patent no. 7629125. Fairfield, CT, USA: General Electric Company, 2009.
17. Gerdes M, Sood A, Montalto M et al. Sequential analysis of biological samples. USPTO Patent no. 7741045. Fairfield, CT, USA: General Electric Company, 2010.
18. Larsen M, Sood A, Gerdes M, Montalto M, Pang Z, Ginty F. Sequential analysis of biological samples. USPTO Patent no. 7741046. Fairfield, CT, USA: General Electric Company, 2010.
19. Treynor T, Sood A, Gerdes M, Pang Z. Sequential analysis of biological samples. USPTO Patent no. 8305579. Fairfield, CT, USA: General Electric Company, 2012.
20. Hammond ME, 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.
21. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med. 2007; 131; 18-43.
22. Xie J, Ginty F, Filkins R. Iterative staining of biological samples. USPTO Application no. 20090253163. Fairfield, CT, USA: General Electric Company, 2009.
23. Gerdes M, Sood A, Sevinsky C. Method and apparatus for antigen retrieval process. USPTO Patent no. 8067241. Fairfield, CT, USA: General Electric Company, 2012.
24. Souchier C, Brisson C, Batteux B, Robert-Nicoud M, Bryon PA. Data reproducibility in fluorescence image analysis. Methods Cell Sci. 2003; 25; 195-200.
25. Vigo J, Salmon JM, Lahmy S, Viallet P. Fluorescent image cytometry: from qualitative to quantitative measurements. Anal. Cell. Pathol. 1991; 3; 145-165.
26. Pang Z, Laplante NE, Filkins RJ. Dark pixel intensity determination and its applications in normalizing different exposure time and autofluorescence removal. J. Microsc. 2012; 246; 1-10.
27. Thevenaz P, Ruttimann UE, Unser M. A pyramid approach to subpixel registration based on intensity. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 1998; 7; 27-41.
28. Santamaria-Pang A, Huang Y, Rittscher J. Cell segmentation and classification via unsupervised shape ranking. 2013 IEEE 10th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: from Nano to Macro. San Francisco, CA, USA, 2013; 406-409. doi:10.1109/ISBI.2013.6556498
29. Padfield D, Rittscher J, Roysam B. Coupled minimum-cost flow cell tracking for high-throughput quantitative analysis. Med. Image Anal. 2011; 15; 650-668.
30. Goulding H, Pinder S, Cannon P et al. A new immunohistochemical antibody for the assessment of estrogen receptor status on routine formalin-fixed tissue samples. Hum. Pathol. 1995; 26; 291-294.
31. Gerdes M, Sood A, Seel M et al. High-order, multiplexed quantitative, in situ single cell analysis of cancer tissue. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2013; 110; 1982-11987.
32. Dinn S, Adak S, Bello M et al. Measurement of multiple biomarkers using a novel fluorescence immunohistochemistry multiplexing technique. Drug discovery and development of innovative therapeutics. Boston, MA, USA, August 4-7, 2008.
33. Barash E, Dinn S, Sevinsky C, Ginty F. Multiplexed analysis of proteins in tissue using multispectral fluorescence imaging. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 2010; 29; 1457-1462.
34. van der Loos CM. Multiple immunoenzyme staining: methods and visualizations for the observation with spectral imaging. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 2008; 56; 313-328.
35. Ornberg RL, Woerner BM, Edwards DA. Analysis of stained objects in histological sections by spectral imaging and differential absorption. J. Histochem. Cytochem. 1999; 47; 1307-1314.
36. Tholouli E, Sweeney E, Barrow E, Clay V, Hoyland JA, Byers RJ. Quantum dots light up pathology. J. Pathol. 2008; 216; 275-285.
37. Sweeney E, Ward TH, Gray N et al. Quantitative multiplexed quantum dot immunohistochemistry. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2008; 374; 181-186.
38. Friedenberger M, Bode M, Krusche A, Schubert W. Fluorescence detection of protein clusters in individual cells and tissue sections by using toponome imaging system: sample preparation and measuring procedures. Nat. Protoc. 2007; 2; 2285-2294.
39. Pierre S, Scholich K. Toponomics: studying protein-protein interactions and protein networks in intact tissue. Mol. BioSyst. 2010; 6; 641-647.
40. Schubert W, Bonnekoh B, Pommer AJ et al. Analyzing proteome topology and function by automated multidimensional fluorescence microscopy. Nat. Biotechnol. 2006; 24; 1270-1278.
41. Schubert W, Gieseler A, Krusche A, Serocka P, Hillert R. Next-generation biomarkers based on 100-parameter functional super-resolution microscopy TIS. N. Biotechnol. 2012; 29; 599-610.
42. Harigopal M, Barlow WE, Tedeschi G et al. Multiplexed assessment of the Southwest Oncology Group-directed Intergroup Breast Cancer Trial S9313 by AQUA shows that both high and low levels of HER2 are associated with poor outcome. Am. J. Pathol. 2010; 176; 1639-1647.