Cargando…
Evaluation of cytokeratin-19 in breast cancer tissue samples: a comparison of automatic and manual evaluations of scanned tissue microarray cylinders
BACKGROUND: Digital image (DI) analysis avoids visual subjectivity in interpreting immunohistochemical stains and provides more reproducible results. An automated procedure consisting of two variant methods for quantifying the cytokeratin-19 (CK19) marker in breast cancer tissues is presented. METHO...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547150/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26329009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-14-S2-S2 |
_version_ | 1782387046579437568 |
---|---|
author | Callau, Cristina Lejeune, Marylène Korzynska, Anna García, Marcial Bueno, Gloria Bosch, Ramon Jaén, Joaquín Orero, Guifré Salvadó, Teresa López, Carlos |
author_facet | Callau, Cristina Lejeune, Marylène Korzynska, Anna García, Marcial Bueno, Gloria Bosch, Ramon Jaén, Joaquín Orero, Guifré Salvadó, Teresa López, Carlos |
author_sort | Callau, Cristina |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Digital image (DI) analysis avoids visual subjectivity in interpreting immunohistochemical stains and provides more reproducible results. An automated procedure consisting of two variant methods for quantifying the cytokeratin-19 (CK19) marker in breast cancer tissues is presented. METHODS: The first method (A) excludes the holes inside selected CK19 stained areas, and the second (B) includes them. 93 DIs scanned from complete cylinders of tissue microarrays were evaluated visually by two pathologists and by the automated procedures. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There was good concordance between the two automated methods, both of which tended to identify a smaller CK19-positive area than did the pathologists. The results obtained with method B were more similar to those of the pathologists; probably because it takes into account the entire positive tumoural area, including the holes. However, the pathologists overestimated the positive area of CK19. Further studies are needed to confirm the utility of this automated procedure in prognostic studies. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4547150 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-45471502015-09-10 Evaluation of cytokeratin-19 in breast cancer tissue samples: a comparison of automatic and manual evaluations of scanned tissue microarray cylinders Callau, Cristina Lejeune, Marylène Korzynska, Anna García, Marcial Bueno, Gloria Bosch, Ramon Jaén, Joaquín Orero, Guifré Salvadó, Teresa López, Carlos Biomed Eng Online Research BACKGROUND: Digital image (DI) analysis avoids visual subjectivity in interpreting immunohistochemical stains and provides more reproducible results. An automated procedure consisting of two variant methods for quantifying the cytokeratin-19 (CK19) marker in breast cancer tissues is presented. METHODS: The first method (A) excludes the holes inside selected CK19 stained areas, and the second (B) includes them. 93 DIs scanned from complete cylinders of tissue microarrays were evaluated visually by two pathologists and by the automated procedures. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: There was good concordance between the two automated methods, both of which tended to identify a smaller CK19-positive area than did the pathologists. The results obtained with method B were more similar to those of the pathologists; probably because it takes into account the entire positive tumoural area, including the holes. However, the pathologists overestimated the positive area of CK19. Further studies are needed to confirm the utility of this automated procedure in prognostic studies. BioMed Central 2015-08-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4547150/ /pubmed/26329009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-14-S2-S2 Text en Copyright © 2015 Callau et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Callau, Cristina Lejeune, Marylène Korzynska, Anna García, Marcial Bueno, Gloria Bosch, Ramon Jaén, Joaquín Orero, Guifré Salvadó, Teresa López, Carlos Evaluation of cytokeratin-19 in breast cancer tissue samples: a comparison of automatic and manual evaluations of scanned tissue microarray cylinders |
title | Evaluation of cytokeratin-19 in breast cancer tissue samples: a comparison of automatic and manual evaluations of scanned tissue microarray cylinders |
title_full | Evaluation of cytokeratin-19 in breast cancer tissue samples: a comparison of automatic and manual evaluations of scanned tissue microarray cylinders |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of cytokeratin-19 in breast cancer tissue samples: a comparison of automatic and manual evaluations of scanned tissue microarray cylinders |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of cytokeratin-19 in breast cancer tissue samples: a comparison of automatic and manual evaluations of scanned tissue microarray cylinders |
title_short | Evaluation of cytokeratin-19 in breast cancer tissue samples: a comparison of automatic and manual evaluations of scanned tissue microarray cylinders |
title_sort | evaluation of cytokeratin-19 in breast cancer tissue samples: a comparison of automatic and manual evaluations of scanned tissue microarray cylinders |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547150/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26329009 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1475-925X-14-S2-S2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT callaucristina evaluationofcytokeratin19inbreastcancertissuesamplesacomparisonofautomaticandmanualevaluationsofscannedtissuemicroarraycylinders AT lejeunemarylene evaluationofcytokeratin19inbreastcancertissuesamplesacomparisonofautomaticandmanualevaluationsofscannedtissuemicroarraycylinders AT korzynskaanna evaluationofcytokeratin19inbreastcancertissuesamplesacomparisonofautomaticandmanualevaluationsofscannedtissuemicroarraycylinders AT garciamarcial evaluationofcytokeratin19inbreastcancertissuesamplesacomparisonofautomaticandmanualevaluationsofscannedtissuemicroarraycylinders AT buenogloria evaluationofcytokeratin19inbreastcancertissuesamplesacomparisonofautomaticandmanualevaluationsofscannedtissuemicroarraycylinders AT boschramon evaluationofcytokeratin19inbreastcancertissuesamplesacomparisonofautomaticandmanualevaluationsofscannedtissuemicroarraycylinders AT jaenjoaquin evaluationofcytokeratin19inbreastcancertissuesamplesacomparisonofautomaticandmanualevaluationsofscannedtissuemicroarraycylinders AT oreroguifre evaluationofcytokeratin19inbreastcancertissuesamplesacomparisonofautomaticandmanualevaluationsofscannedtissuemicroarraycylinders AT salvadoteresa evaluationofcytokeratin19inbreastcancertissuesamplesacomparisonofautomaticandmanualevaluationsofscannedtissuemicroarraycylinders AT lopezcarlos evaluationofcytokeratin19inbreastcancertissuesamplesacomparisonofautomaticandmanualevaluationsofscannedtissuemicroarraycylinders |