Performance of automated scoring of ER, PR, HER2, CK5/6 and EGFR in breast cancer tissue microarrays in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium

Article English OPEN
Howat, William J ; Blows, Fiona M ; Provenzano, Elena ; Brook, Mark N ; Morris, Lorna ; Gazinska, Patrycja ; Johnson, Nicola ; McDuffus, Leigh‐Anne ; Miller, Jodi ; Sawyer, Elinor J ; Pinder, Sarah ; van Deurzen, Carolien H M ; Jones, Louise ; Sironen, Reijo ; Visscher, Daniel ; Caldas, Carlos ; Daley, Frances ; Coulson, Penny ; Broeks, Annegien ; Sanders, Joyce ; Wesseling, Jelle ; Nevanlinna, Heli ; Fagerholm, Rainer ; Blomqvist, Carl ; Heikkilä, Päivi ; Ali, H Raza ; Dawson, Sarah‐Jane ; Figueroa, Jonine ; Lissowska, Jolanta ; Brinton, Louise ... view all 52 authors (2014)
  • Publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
  • Journal: The Journal of Pathology: Clinical Research, volume 1, issue 1, pages 18-32 (eissn: 2056-4538)
  • Related identifiers: doi: 10.1002/cjp2.3, pmc: PMC4858117
  • Subject: tissue microarrays | 3122 Cancers | breast tumours | Original Article | 3123 Gynaecology and paediatrics | digital pathology | Original Articles | immunohistochemistry | automated scoring

Breast cancer risk factors and clinical outcomes vary by tumour marker expression. However, individual studies often lack the power required to assess these relationships, and large-scale analyses are limited by the need for high throughput, standardized scoring methods. To address these limitations, we assessed whether automated image analysis of immunohistochemically stained tissue microarrays can permit rapid, standardized scoring of tumour markers from multiple studies. Tissue microarray sections prepared in nine studies containing 20 263 cores from 8267 breast cancers stained for two nuclear (oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor), two membranous (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and epidermal growth factor receptor) and one cytoplasmic (cytokeratin 5/6) marker were scanned as digital images. Automated algorithms were used to score markers in tumour cells using the Ariol system. We compared automated scores against visual reads, and their associations with breast cancer survival. Approximately 65–70% of tissue microarray cores were satisfactory for scoring. Among satisfactory cores, agreement between dichotomous automated and visual scores was highest for oestrogen receptor (Kappa = 0.76), followed by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Kappa = 0.69) and progesterone receptor (Kappa = 0.67). Automated quantitative scores for these markers were associated with hazard ratios for breast cancer mortality in a dose-response manner. Considering visual scores of epidermal growth factor receptor or cytokeratin 5/6 as the reference, automated scoring achieved excellent negative predictive value (96–98%), but yielded many false positives (positive predictive value = 30–32%). For all markers, we observed substantial heterogeneity in automated scoring performance across tissue microarrays. Automated analysis is a potentially useful tool for large-scale, quantitative scoring of immunohistochemically stained tissue microarrays available in consortia. However, continued optimization, rigorous marker-specific quality control measures and standardization of tissue microarray designs, staining and scoring protocols is needed to enhance results. Peer reviewed
  • References (31)
    31 references, page 1 of 4

    1. Blows FM, Driver KE, Schmidt MK, et al. Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10 159 cases from 12 studies. PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000279.

    2. 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.

    3. Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin D-F, et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 2012; 486: 346-352.

    4. S rlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98: 10869-10874.

    5. Perou CM, S rlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000; 406: 747-752.

    6. Wishart GC, Bajdik CD, Dicks E, et al. PREDICT Plus: development and validation of a prognostic model for early breast cancer that includes HER2. Br J Cancer 2012; 107: 800-807.

    7. Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, et al. Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 980-991.

    8. Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S, et al. A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2010; 16: 5222-5232.

    9. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, et al. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10: 5367-5374.

    10. Kononen J, Bubendorf L, Kallioniemi A, et al. Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nat Med 1998; 4: 844-847.

  • Related Research Results (1)
  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    White Rose Research Online - IRUS-UK 0 3