Evaluation of Mitotic activity index in breast cancer using whole slide digital images

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 12, 2013, Pages

  Al Janabi, Shaimaa ^a   Van Slooten, Henk Jan ^a   Visser, Mike ^b   Van Der Ploeg, Tjeerd ^c   Van Diest, Paul J ^d   Jiwa, Mehdi ^a  

^a Symbiant Pathology Expert Centre   (Netherlands)

^b Symbiant Pathology Expert Centre   (Netherlands)

^c Medical Centre Alkmaar   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST NEOPLASMS; CELL PROLIFERATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MITOSIS; NEOPLASM GRADING; PATHOLOGY;

EID: 84893526164     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0082576     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Al Janabi S, Huisman A, van Diest PJ (2012) Digital pathology: current status and future perspectives. Histopathology 61(1):1-9.
2. Ho J, Parwani AV, Jukic DM, Yagi Y, Anthony L, et al. (2006) Use of whole slide imaging in surgical pathology quality assurance: design and pilot validation studies. Hum Pathol 37(3):322-331. (Pubitemid 43277520)
3. Dee FR (2009) Virtual microscopy in pathology education. Hum Pathol 40(8):1112-1121.
4. Rocha R, Vassallo J, Soares F, Miller K, Gobbi H (2009) Digital slides: present status of a tool for consultation, teaching, and quality control in pathology. Pathol Res Pract 205(11):735-741.
5. Nielsen PS, Lindebjerg J, Rasmussen J, Starklint H, Waldstrom M, et al. (2010) Virtual microscopy: an evaluation of its validity and diagnostic performance in routine histologic diagnosis of skin tumors. Hum Pathol 41(12):1770-1776.
6. Al Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A, Leguit RJ, Offerhaus GJ, et al. (2012) Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of gastrointestinal tract pathology: a feasibility study. Hum Pathol 43(5):702-707.
7. Al Janabi S, Huisman A, Vink A, Leguit RJ, Offerhaus GJ, et al. (2012) Whole slide images for primary diagnostics in dermatopathology: a feasibility study. J Clin Pathol 65(2):152-158.
8. Al Janabi S, Huisman A, Willems SM, van Diest PJ (2012) Digital slide images for primary diagnostics in breast pathology: a feasibility study. Hum Pathol 43(12):2318-2325.
9. Al Janabi S, Huisman A, Nikkels PG, Ten Kate FJ, van Diest PJ (2013) Whole slide images for primary diagnostics of paediatric pathology specimens: a feasibility study. J Clin Pathol 66(3):218-223.
10. Molnar B, Berczi L, Diczhazy C, Tagscherer A, Varga SV, et al. (2003) Digital slide and virtual microscopy based routine and telepathology evaluation of routine gastrointestinal biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol 56(6):433-438. (Pubitemid 36724211)
11. Gilbertson JR, Ho J, Anthony L, Jukic DM, Yagi Y, et al. (2006) Primary histologic diagnosis using automated whole slide imaging: a validation study. BMC Clin Pathol 6:4.
12. Li X, Liu J, Xu H, Gong E, McNutt MA, et al. (2007) A feasibility study of virtual slides in surgical pathology in China. Hum Pathol 38(12):1842-1848. (Pubitemid 350179933)
13. Al Janabi S, Huisman A, Nap M, Clarijs R, van Diest PJ (2012) Whole slide images as a platform for initial diagnostics in histopathology in a medium-sized routine laboratory. J Clin Pathol 65(12):1107-1111.
14. Pantanowitz L, Valenstein PN, Evans AJ, Kaplan KJ, Pfeifer JD, et al. (2011) Review of the current state of whole slide imaging in pathology. J Pathol Inform 2:36.
15. Lange H (2011) Digital Pathology: A Regulatory Overview. Lab Med 42: 587-591.
16. Cornish TC, Swapp RE, Kaplan KJ (2012) Whole-slide imaging: routine pathologic diagnosis. Adv Anat Pathol 19(3):152-159.
17. van Diest PJ, Baak JP, Matze-Cok P, Wisse-Brekelmans EC, van Galen CM, et al. (1992) Reproducibility of mitosis counting in 2,469 breast cancer specimens: results from the Multicenter Morphometric Mammary Carcinoma Project. Hum Pathol 23(6):603-607.
18. Lester SC, Bose S, Chen YY, Connolly JL, de Baca ME, et al. (2009) Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133(10):1515-1538.
19. Baak JP, van Diest PJ, Voorhorst FJ, van der WE, Beex LV, et al. (2005) Prospective multicenter validation of the independent prognostic value of the mitotic activity index in lymph node-negative breast cancer patients younger than 55 years. J Clin Oncol 23(25):5993-6001.
20. Pietilainen T, Lipponen P, Aaltomaa S, Eskelinen M, Kosma VM, et al. (1996) The important prognostic value of Ki-67 expression as determined by image analysis in breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 122(11):687-692. (Pubitemid 26349023)
21. van Diest PJ, Brugal G, Baak JP (1998) Proliferation markers in tumours: interpretation and clinical value. J Clin Pathol 51(10):716-724. (Pubitemid 28480326)
22. Medri L, Volpi A, Nanni O, Vecci AM, Mangia A, et al. (2003) Prognostic relevance of mitotic activity in patients with node-negative breast cancer. Mod Pathol 16(11):1067-1075. (Pubitemid 37414200)
23. Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, Thor AD, Allred DC, et al. (2000) Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124(7):966-978.
24. van Diest PJ, van der WE, Baak JP (2004) Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer: a review. J Clin Pathol 57(7):675-681.
25. Baak JP, van Diest PJ, Benraadt T, Matze-Cok E, Brugghe J, et al. (1993) The Multi-Center Morphometric Mammary Carcinoma Project (MMMCP) in The Netherlands: value of morphometrically assessed proliferation and differentiation. J Cell Biochem Suppl 17G:220-225.
26. Tsuda H, Akiyama F, Kurosumi M, Sakamoto G, Yamashiro K, et al. (2000) Evaluation of the interobserver agreement in the number of mitotic figures of breast carcinoma as simulation of quality monitoring in the Japan National Surgical Adjuvant Study of Breast Cancer (NSAS-BC) protocol. Jpn J Cancer Res 91(4):451-457. (Pubitemid 30312699)
27. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159-174. (Pubitemid 8054849)
28. Viera AJ, Garrett JM.(2005) Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 37(5):360-363. (Pubitemid 40656185)
29. Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C, Olson N, Russo I, et al. (2005) Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod Pathol 18(8):1067-1078. (Pubitemid 41224497)
30. Beck JS (1985) Observer variability in reporting of breast lesions. J Clin Pathol: 38(12):1358-1365.
31. Clayton F (1991) Pathologic correlates of survival in 378 lymph node-negative infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas. Mitotic count is the best single predictor. Cancer 68(6):1309-1317.
32. Beresford MJ, Wilson GD, Makris A (2006) Measuring proliferation in breast cancer: practicalities and applications. Breast Cancer Res 8(6):216.
33. Longacre TA, Ennis M, Quenneville LA, Bane AL, Bleiweiss IJ, et al. (2006) Interobserver agreement and reproducibility in classification of invasive breast carcinoma: an NCI breast cancer family registry study. Mod Pathol 19(2):195-207. (Pubitemid 43117604)
34. Robbins P, Pinder S, de Klerk N, Dawkins H, Harvey J, et al. (1995) Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. Hum Patho: 26(8):873-879.
35. Martin DT, Sandoval S, Ta CN, Ruidiaz ME, Cortes-Mateos MJ, et al. (2011) Quantitative automated image analysis system with automated debris filtering for the detection of breast carcinoma cells. Acta Cytol 55(3):271-280.
36. Veta M, Kornegoor R, Huisman A, Verschuur-Maes AH, Viergever MA, et al. (2012) Prognostic value of automatically extracted nuclear morphometric features in whole slide images of male breast cancer. Mod Pathol 25(12):1559-65.