Advancing Ki67 hotspot detection in breast cancer: a comparative analysis of automated digital image analysis algorithms

被引:0
|
作者
Zwager, Mieke C. [1 ]
Yu, Shibo [1 ]
Buikema, Henk J. [1 ]
de Bock, Geertruida H. [2 ]
Ramsing, Thomas W. [3 ]
Thagaard, Jeppe [3 ]
Koopman, Timco [1 ,4 ]
van Der Vegt, Bert [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Pathol, Groningen, Netherlands
[2] Univ Groningen, Univ Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Epidemiol, Groningen, Netherlands
[3] Visiopharm, Horsholm, Denmark
[4] Pathol Friesland, Leeuwarden, Netherlands
关键词
artificial intelligence (AI); breast cancer; digital image analysis (DIA); hotspot; Ki67 proliferation index; INTERNATIONAL KI67; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; PROLIFERATION; HETEROGENEITY; VALIDATION; EXPRESSION;
D O I
10.1111/his.15294
中图分类号
Q2 [细胞生物学];
学科分类号
071009 ; 090102 ;
摘要
AimManual detection and scoring of Ki67 hotspots is difficult and prone to variability, limiting its clinical utility. Automated hotspot detection and scoring by digital image analysis (DIA) could improve the assessment of the Ki67 hotspot proliferation index (PI). This study compared the clinical performance of Ki67 hotspot detection and scoring DIA algorithms based on virtual dual staining (VDS) and deep learning (DL) with manual Ki67 hotspot PI assessment.MethodsTissue sections of 135 consecutive invasive breast carcinomas were immunohistochemically stained for Ki67. Two DIA algorithms, based on VDS and DL, automatically determined the Ki67 hotspot PI. For manual assessment; two independent observers detected hotspots and calculated scores using a validated scoring protocol.ResultsAutomated hotspot detection and assessment by VDS and DL could be performed in 73% and 100% of the cases, respectively. Automated hotspot detection by VDS and DL led to higher Ki67 hotspot PIs (mean 39.6% and 38.3%, respectively) compared to manual consensus Ki67 PIs (mean 28.8%). Comparing manual consensus Ki67 PIs with VDS Ki67 PIs revealed substantial correlation (r = 0.90), while manual consensus versus DL Ki67 PIs demonstrated high correlation (r = 0.95).ConclusionAutomated Ki67 hotspot detection and analysis correlated strongly with manual Ki67 assessment and provided higher PIs compared to manual assessment. The DL-based algorithm outperformed the VDS-based algorithm in clinical applicability, because it did not depend on virtual alignment of slides and correlated stronger with manual scores. Use of a DL-based algorithm may allow clearer Ki67 PI cutoff values, thereby improving the clinical usability of Ki67. Manual assessment of Ki67 hotspots is difficult and prone to variability. Automated Ki67 hotspot assessment correlated strongly with manual Ki67 assessment and provided higher Ki67 PIs. DL-based automated Ki67 assessment has high clinical applicability, because it does not depend on virtual alignment of slides and correlates strongly with manual scoring. image
引用
收藏
页码:204 / 213
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A simple digital image analysis system for automated Ki67 assessment in primary breast cancer
    Alataki, Anastasia
    Zabaglo, Lila
    Tovey, Holly
    Dodson, Andrew
    Dowsett, Mitch
    HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2021, 79 (02) : 200 - 209
  • [2] Digital image analysis of Ki67 in hot spots is superior to both manual Ki67 and mitotic counts in breast cancer
    Stalhammar, Gustav
    Robertson, Stephanie
    Wedlund, Lena
    Lippert, Michael
    Rantalainen, Mattias
    Bergh, Jonas
    Hartman, Johan
    HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2018, 72 (06) : 974 - 989
  • [3] A Comparison of Visual Assessment and Automated Digital Image Analysis of Ki67 Labeling Index in Breast Cancer
    Zhong, Fangfang
    Bi, Rui
    Yu, Baohua
    Yang, Fei
    Yang, Wentao
    Shui, Ruohong
    PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (02):
  • [4] Implementation of Digital Image Analysis in Assessment of Ki67 Index in Breast Cancer
    Vanderschelden, Rachel K.
    Jerome, Jacob A.
    Gonzalez, Daniel
    Seigh, Lindsey
    Carter, Gloria J.
    Clark, Beth Z.
    Elishaev, Esther
    Louis Fine, Jeffrey
    Harinath, Lakshmi
    Jones, Mirka W.
    Villatoro, Tatiana M.
    Soong, Thing Rinda
    Yu, Jing
    Zhao, Chengquan
    Hartman, Doug
    Bhargava, Rohit
    APPLIED IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR MORPHOLOGY, 2024, 32 (01) : 17 - 23
  • [5] The region-of-interest size impacts on Ki67 quantification by computer-assisted image analysis in breast cancer
    Christgen, Matthias
    von Ahsen, Sabrina
    Christgen, Henriette
    Laenger, Florian
    Kreipe, Hans
    HUMAN PATHOLOGY, 2015, 46 (09) : 1341 - 1349
  • [6] An adaptive positivity thresholding method for automated Ki67 hotspot detection (AKHoD) in breast cancer biopsies
    Pilutti, David
    Della Mea, Vincenzo
    Pegolo, Enrico
    La Marra, Francesco
    Antoniazzi, Fulvio
    Di Loreto, Carla
    COMPUTERIZED MEDICAL IMAGING AND GRAPHICS, 2017, 61 : 28 - 34
  • [7] The Ki67 dilemma: investigating prognostic cut-offs and reproducibility for automated Ki67 scoring in breast cancer
    Rewcastle, Emma
    Skaland, Ivar
    Gudlaugsson, Einar
    Fykse, Silja Kavlie
    Baak, Jan P. A.
    Janssen, Emiel A. M.
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2024, 207 (01) : 1 - 12
  • [8] Image Analysis in Digital Pathology: Combining Automated Assessment of Ki67 Staining Quality with Calculation of Ki67 Cell Proliferation Index
    Bengtsson, Ewert
    Ranefall, Petter
    CYTOMETRY PART A, 2019, 95A (07) : 714 - 716
  • [9] Automated Quantification of MART1-Verified Ki67 Indices by Digital Image Analysis in Melanocytic Lesions
    Nielsen, Patricia Switten
    Riber-Hansen, Rikke
    Raundahl, Jakob
    Steiniche, Torben
    ARCHIVES OF PATHOLOGY & LABORATORY MEDICINE, 2012, 136 (06) : 627 - 634
  • [10] Reliability and Variability of Ki-67 Digital Image Analysis Methods for Clinical Diagnostics in Breast Cancer
    Dawe, Melanie
    Shi, Wei
    Liu, Tian Y.
    Lajkosz, Katherine
    Shibahara, Yukiko
    Gopal, Nakita E. K.
    Geread, Rokshana
    Mirjahanmardi, Seyed
    Wei, Carrie X.
    Butt, Sehrish
    Abdalla, Moustafa
    Manolescu, Sabrina
    Liang, Sheng-Ben
    Chadwick, Dianne
    Roehrl, Michael H. A.
    McKee, Trevor D.
    Adeoye, Adewunmi
    McCready, David
    Khademi, April
    Liu, Fei-Fei
    Fyles, Anthony
    Done, Susan J.
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2024, 104 (05)