A methodology to ensure and improve accuracy of Ki67 labelling index estimation by automated digital image analysis in breast cancer tissue

Breast Cancer Research

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Laurinavicius, Arvydas ^a   Plancoulaine, Benoit ^b   Laurinaviciene, Aida ^a   Herlin, Paulette ^a,b   Meskauskas, Raimundas ^a   Baltrusaityte, Indra ^a   Besusparis, Justinas ^a   Dasevicius, Darius ^a   Elie, Nicolas ^b   Iqbal, Yasir ^a   Bor, Catherine ^b,c   Ellis, Ian O ^a,d  

^a VILNIUS UNIVERSITY   (Lithuania)

^b UNIVERSITÉ DE CAEN   (France)

^c F Baclesse Comprehensive Cancer Center   (France)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

KI 67 ANTIGEN;

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST CARCINOMA; CALIBRATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING EQUIPMENT; DIGITAL IMAGE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; LABELING INDEX; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MEASUREMENT ERROR; METHODOLOGY; PATHOLOGIST; QUALITY CONTROL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; STEREOLOGY; TISSUE MICROARRAY; TUMOR CELL; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CELL PROLIFERATION; DEVICES; IMAGE PROCESSING; METABOLISM; MITOSIS INDEX; PROCEDURES; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; STATISTICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CARCINOMA, DUCTAL, BREAST; CELL PROLIFERATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; KI-67 ANTIGEN; LINEAR MODELS; MITOTIC INDEX; PROGNOSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TISSUE ARRAY ANALYSIS;

EID: 84899491271     PISSN: 14655411     EISSN: 1465542X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/bcr3639     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Gu J, Ogilvie RW. Virtual microscopy and virtual slides in teaching, diagnosis and research. Advances in Pathology, Microscopy & Molecular Morphology 2005, Boca Raton, London, New York, Singapore: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Gu J, Hacker GW.
2. Soenksen D. Digital pathology at the crossroads of major health care trends: corporate innovation as an engine for change. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009, 133:555-559.
3. Kayser K, Borkenfeld S, Kayser G. How to introduce virtual microscopy (VM) in routine diagnostic pathology: constraints, ideas, and solutions. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst) 2012, 35:3-10.
4. Kayser K, Gortler J, Borkenfeld S, Kayser G. How to measure diagnosis-associated information in virtual slides. Diagn Pathol 2011, 6:S9. 10.1186/1746-1596-6-S1-S9, 3073227, 21489204.
5. Madabhushi A, Agner S, Basavanhally A, Doyle S, Lee G. Computer-aided prognosis: predicting patient and disease outcome via quantitative fusion of multi-scale, multi-modal data. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2011, 35:506-514. 10.1016/j.compmedimag.2011.01.008, 21333490.
6. The quest for quantitative microscopy. Nat Methods 2012, 9:627. DOI: 10.1038/nmeth.2102.
7. Laurinavicius A, Laurinaviciene A, Dasevicius D, Elie N, Plancoulaine B, Bor C, Herlin P. Digital image analysis in pathology: benefits and obligation. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst) 2012, 35:75-78.
8. Tadrous PJ. On the concept of objectivity in digital image analysis in pathology. Pathology 2010, 42:207-211. 10.3109/00313021003641758, 20350211.
9. Riber-Hansen R, Vainer B, Steiniche T. Digital image analysis: a review of reproducibility, stability and basic requirements for optimal results. APMIS 2012, 120:276-289. 10.1111/j.1600-0463.2011.02854.x, 22429210.
10. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ. Strategies for subtypes-dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 2011, 22:1736-1747. 10.1093/annonc/mdr304, 3144634, 21709140.
11. Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A'Hern R, Bartlett J, Coombes RC, Cuzick J, Ellis M, Henry NL, Hugh JC, Lively T, McShane L, Paik S, Penault-Llorca F, Prudkin L, Regan M, Salter J, Sotiriou C, Smith IE, Viale G, Zujewski JA, Hayes D, International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011, 103:1656-1664. 10.1093/jnci/djr393, 3216967, 21960707, International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group.
12. Gudlaugsson E, Skaland I, Janssen EA, Smaaland R, Shao Z, Malpica A, Voorhorst F, Baak JP. Comparison of the effect of different techniques for measurement of Ki67 proliferation on reproducibility and prognosis prediction accuracy in breast cancer. Histopathology 2012, 61:1134-1144. 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2012.04329.x, 22963617.
13. Laurinavicius A, Laurinaviciene A, Ostapenko V, Dasevicius D, Jarmalaite S, Lazutka J. Immunohistochemistry profiles of breast ductal carcinoma: factor analysis of digital image analysis data. Diagn Pathol 2012, 7:27. 10.1186/1746-1596-7-27, 3319425, 22424533.
14. Gundersen HJ, Bendtsen TF, Korbo L, Marcussen N, Moller A, Nielsen K, Nyengaard JR, Pakkenberg B, Sorensen FB, Vesterby A, West MJ. Some new, simple and efficient stereological methods and their use in pathological research and diagnosis. APMIS 1988, 96:379-394. 10.1111/j.1699-0463.1988.tb05320.x, 3288247.
15. Baddeley A, Jensen EBV. Stereology for Statisticians 2005, Boca Raton, FL, USA: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
16. Kieu K, Mora M. Precision of stereological planar area predictors. J Microsc 2006, 222:201-211. 10.1111/j.1365-2818.2006.01588.x, 16872419.
17. Kieu K, Mora M, et al. Advances on the precision of several stereological volume estimators. Ecs10: The 10th European Congress of Stereology and Image Analysis: June 22-26, 2009 2009, 17-26. Bologna, Italy: The MIRIAM Project Series, ESCULAPIO Pub. Co., Capasso V.
18. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 1999, 8:135-160. 10.1191/096228099673819272, 10501650.
19. Krouwer JS. Method Comparison and Bias Estimation Using Patient Samples: Approved Guidelines 2010, Wayne, PA, USA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2.
20. Rimm DL, Giltnane JM, Moeder C, Harigopal M, Chung GG, Camp RL, Burtness B. Bimodal population or pathologist artifact?. J Clin Oncol 2007, 25:2487-2488. 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.7537, 17557963.
21. Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 2013, 24:2206-2223. 10.1093/annonc/mdt303, 3755334, 23917950.
22. Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S, Wale C, Salter J, Quinn E, Zabaglo L, Mallon E, Green AR, Ellis IO, Howell A, Buzdar AU, Forbes JF. 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. 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.2835, 21990413.
23. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. Combinatorial biomarker expression in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010, 120:293-308. 10.1007/s10549-010-0746-x, 20107892.
24. Varga Z, Diebold J, Dommann-Scherrer C, Frick H, Kaup D, Noske A, Obermann E, Ohlschlegel C, Padberg B, Rakozy C, Oliver SS, Schobinger-Clement S, Schreiber-Facklam H, Singer G, Tapia C, Wagner U, Mastropasqua MG, Viale G, Lehr HA. How reliable Is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of Breast- and Gynecopathologists. PLoS One 2012, 7:5.
25. Going JJ. Techniques of mitosis counting. Hum Pathol 1993, 24:113-114. 10.1016/0046-8177(93)90072-O, 8352828.
26. Mohammed ZM, McMillan DC, Elsberger B, Going JJ, Orange C, Mallon E, Doughty JC, Edwards J. Comparison of visual and automated assessment of Ki-67 proliferative activity and their impact on outcome in primary operable invasive ductal breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2012, 106:383-388. 10.1038/bjc.2011.569, 3261670, 22251968.