Artificial intelligence for assisted HER2 immunohistochemistry evaluation of breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:3
作者
Wu, Si [1 ]
Li, Xiang [2 ]
Miao, Jiaxian [1 ]
Xian, Dongyi [2 ]
Yue, Meng [1 ]
Liu, Hongbo [1 ]
Fan, Shishun [1 ]
Wei, Weiwei [2 ]
Liu, Yueping [1 ]
机构
[1] Hebei Med Univ, Dept Pathol, Hosp 4, 12 Jiankang Rd, Shijiazhuang 050011, Hebei, Peoples R China
[2] Betrue AI Lab, Med Affairs Dept, Guangzhou 510700, Peoples R China
关键词
Breast cancer; HER2; Immunohistochemistry; Artificial intelligence; DIGITAL IMAGE-ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC-TEST; RECOMMENDATIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.prp.2024.155472
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Accurate assessment of HER2 expression in tumor tissue is crucial for determining HER2-targeted treatment options. Nevertheless, pathologists' assessments of HER2 status are less objective than automated, computerbased evaluations. Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises enhanced accuracy and reproducibility in HER2 interpretation. This study aimed to systematically evaluate current AI algorithms for HER2 immunohistochemical diagnosis, offering insights to guide the development of more adaptable algorithms in response to evolving HER2 assessment practices. A comprehensive data search of the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases was conducted using a combination of subject terms and free text. A total of 4994 computational pathology articles published from inception to September 2023 identifying HER2 expression in breast cancer were retrieved. After applying predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven studies were selected. These seven studies comprised 6867 HER2 identification tasks, with two studies employing the HER2-CONNECT algorithm, two using the CNN algorithm, one with the multi-class logistic regression algorithm, and two using the HER2 4B5 algorithm. AI's sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing HER2 0/1+ were 0.98 [0.92-0.99] and 0.92 [0.80-0.97] respectively. For distinguishing HER2 2+, the sensitivity and specificity were 0.78 [0.50-0.92] and 0.98 [0.93-0.99], respectively. For HER2 3+ distinction, AI exhibited a sensitivity of 0.99 [0.98-1.00] and specificity of 0.99 [0.97-1.00]. Furthermore, due to the lack of HER2-targeted therapies for HER2-negative patients in the past, pathologists may have neglected to distinguish between HER2 0 and 1+, leaving room for improvement in the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) in this differentiation. AI excels in automating the assessment of HER2 immunohistochemistry, showing promising results despite slight variations in performance across different HER2 status. While incorporating AI algorithms into the pathology workflow for HER2 assessment poses challenges in standardization, application patterns, and ethical considerations, ongoing advancements suggest its potential as a widely effective tool for pathologists in clinical practice in the near future.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [1] HER-2 Signaling and Inhibition in Breast Cancer
    Browne, B. C.
    O'Brien, N.
    Duffy, M. J.
    Crown, J.
    O'Donovan, N.
    [J]. CURRENT CANCER DRUG TARGETS, 2009, 9 (03) : 419 - 438
  • [2] Digital image analysis of membrane connectivity is a robust measure of HER2 immunostains
    Brugmann, Anja
    Eld, Mikkel
    Lelkaitis, Giedrius
    Nielsen, Soren
    Grunkin, Michael
    Hansen, Johan D.
    Foged, Niels T.
    Vyberg, Mogens
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2012, 132 (01) : 41 - 49
  • [3] Rate of reclassification of HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases to HER2-negative per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guidelines and response of HER2-equivocal cases to anti-HER2 therapy
    Crespo, James
    Sun, Hongxia
    Wu, Jimin
    Ding, Qing-Qing
    Tang, Guilin
    Robinson, Melissa K.
    Chen, Hui
    Sahin, Aysegul A.
    Lim, Bora
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2020, 15 (11):
  • [4] Analytical validation of the oncotype DX genomic diagnostic test for recurrence prognosis and therapeutic response prediction in node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer
    Cronin, Maureen
    Sangli, Chithra
    Liu, Mei-Lan
    Pho, Mylan
    Dutta, Debjani
    Nguyen, Anhthu
    Jeong, Jennie
    Wu, Jenny
    Langone, Kim Clark
    Watson, Drew
    [J]. CLINICAL CHEMISTRY, 2007, 53 (06) : 1084 - 1091
  • [5] Curigliano G., 2024, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-low or HER2-ultralow metastatic breast cancer (mBC) with prior endocrine therapy (ET): Primary results from DESTINY-Breast06 (DB-06, V42, pLBA1000, DOI [10.1200/JCO.2024.42.17_suppl.LBA1000, DOI 10.1200/JCO.2024.42.17_SUPPL.LBA1000]
  • [6] Duenweg Savannah R, 2023, J Pathol Inform, V14, P100321, DOI 10.1016/j.jpi.2023.100321
  • [7] Durán JM, 2021, J MED ETHICS, V47, P329, DOI [10.1136/medethics-2020-106820, 10.1136/medethics-2021-107531]
  • [8] Allred Scoring of ER-IHC Stained Whole-Slide Images for Hormone Receptor Status in Breast Carcinoma
    Fauzi, Mohammad Faizal Ahmad
    Ahmad, Wan Siti Halimatul Munirah Wan
    Jamaluddin, Mohammad Fareed
    Lee, Jenny Tung Hiong
    Khor, See Yee
    Looi, Lai Meng
    Abas, Fazly Salleh
    Aldahoul, Nouar
    [J]. DIAGNOSTICS, 2022, 12 (12)
  • [9] Examination of Low ERBB2 Protein Expression in Breast Cancer Tissue
    Fernandez, Aileen, I
    Liu, Matthew
    Bellizzi, Andrew
    Brock, Jane
    Fadare, Oluwole
    Hanley, Krisztina
    Harigopal, Malini
    Jorns, Julie M.
    Kuba, M. Gabriela
    Ly, Amy
    Podoll, Mirna
    Rabe, Kimmie
    Sanders, Mary Ann
    Singh, Kamaljeet
    Snir, Olivia L.
    Soong, T. Rinda
    Wei, Shi
    Wen, Hannah
    Wong, Serena
    Yoon, Esther
    Pusztai, Lajos
    Reisenbichler, Emily
    Rimm, David L.
    [J]. JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2022, 8 (04) : 607 - 610
  • [10] Cutting Edge: Towards PubMed 2.0
    Fiorini, Nicolas
    Lipman, David J.
    Lu, Zhiyong
    [J]. ELIFE, 2017, 6