Cargando…

Digital Validation of Breast Biomarkers (ER, PR, AR and HER2) in Cytology Specimens Using Three Different Scanners

Progression in digital pathology has yielded new opportunities for a remote work environment. We evaluated the utility of digital review of breast cancer immunohistochemical prognostic markers (IHC) using whole slide images (WSI) from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) cytology cell block speci...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salama, Abeer M., Hanna, Matthew G., Giri, Dilip, Kezlarian, Brie, Jean, Marc-Henri, Lin, Oscar, Vallejo, Christina, Brogi, Edi, Edelweiss, Marcia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8702445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34518629
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-021-00908-5
_version_ 1784621249764261888
author Salama, Abeer M.
Hanna, Matthew G.
Giri, Dilip
Kezlarian, Brie
Jean, Marc-Henri
Lin, Oscar
Vallejo, Christina
Brogi, Edi
Edelweiss, Marcia
author_facet Salama, Abeer M.
Hanna, Matthew G.
Giri, Dilip
Kezlarian, Brie
Jean, Marc-Henri
Lin, Oscar
Vallejo, Christina
Brogi, Edi
Edelweiss, Marcia
author_sort Salama, Abeer M.
collection PubMed
description Progression in digital pathology has yielded new opportunities for a remote work environment. We evaluated the utility of digital review of breast cancer immunohistochemical prognostic markers (IHC) using whole slide images (WSI) from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) cytology cell block specimens (CB) using three different scanners. CB from 20 patients with breast cancer diagnosis and available IHC were included. Glass slides including 20 Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), 20 Estrogen Receptor (ER), 20 Progesterone Receptor (PR), 16 Androgen Receptor (AR), and 20 Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) were scanned on 3 different scanners. Four breast pathologists reviewed the WSI and recorded their semi-quantitative scoring for each marker. Kappa concordance was defined as complete agreement between glass/digital pairs. Discordances between microscopic and digital reads were classified as a major when a clinically relevant change was seen. Minor discordances were defined as differences in scoring percentages/staining pattern that would not have resulted in a clinical implication. Scanner precision was tabulated according to the success rate of each scan on all three scanners. In total, we had 228 paired glass/digital IHC reads on all 3 scanners. There was strong concordance kappa [Formula: see text] 0.85 for all pathologists when comparing paired microscopic/digital reads. Strong concordance (kappa [Formula: see text] 0.86) was also seen when comparing reads between scanners. Twenty-three percent of the WSI required rescanning due to barcode detection failures, 14% due to tissue detection failures, and 2% due to focus issues. Scanner 1 had the best average precision of 92%. HER2 IHC had the lowest intra-scanner precision (64%) among all stains. This study is the first to address the utility of WSI in breast cancer IHC in CB and to validate its reporting using 3 different scanners. Digital images are reliable for breast IHC assessment in CB and offer similar reproducibility to microscope reads.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8702445
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87024452022-03-13 Digital Validation of Breast Biomarkers (ER, PR, AR and HER2) in Cytology Specimens Using Three Different Scanners Salama, Abeer M. Hanna, Matthew G. Giri, Dilip Kezlarian, Brie Jean, Marc-Henri Lin, Oscar Vallejo, Christina Brogi, Edi Edelweiss, Marcia Mod Pathol Article Progression in digital pathology has yielded new opportunities for a remote work environment. We evaluated the utility of digital review of breast cancer immunohistochemical prognostic markers (IHC) using whole slide images (WSI) from formalin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) cytology cell block specimens (CB) using three different scanners. CB from 20 patients with breast cancer diagnosis and available IHC were included. Glass slides including 20 Hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), 20 Estrogen Receptor (ER), 20 Progesterone Receptor (PR), 16 Androgen Receptor (AR), and 20 Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2) were scanned on 3 different scanners. Four breast pathologists reviewed the WSI and recorded their semi-quantitative scoring for each marker. Kappa concordance was defined as complete agreement between glass/digital pairs. Discordances between microscopic and digital reads were classified as a major when a clinically relevant change was seen. Minor discordances were defined as differences in scoring percentages/staining pattern that would not have resulted in a clinical implication. Scanner precision was tabulated according to the success rate of each scan on all three scanners. In total, we had 228 paired glass/digital IHC reads on all 3 scanners. There was strong concordance kappa [Formula: see text] 0.85 for all pathologists when comparing paired microscopic/digital reads. Strong concordance (kappa [Formula: see text] 0.86) was also seen when comparing reads between scanners. Twenty-three percent of the WSI required rescanning due to barcode detection failures, 14% due to tissue detection failures, and 2% due to focus issues. Scanner 1 had the best average precision of 92%. HER2 IHC had the lowest intra-scanner precision (64%) among all stains. This study is the first to address the utility of WSI in breast cancer IHC in CB and to validate its reporting using 3 different scanners. Digital images are reliable for breast IHC assessment in CB and offer similar reproducibility to microscope reads. 2021-09-13 2022-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8702445/ /pubmed/34518629 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-021-00908-5 Text en Users may view, print, copy, and download text and data-mine the content in such documents, for the purposes of academic research, subject always to the full Conditions of use: https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/policies/accepted-manuscript-terms
spellingShingle Article
Salama, Abeer M.
Hanna, Matthew G.
Giri, Dilip
Kezlarian, Brie
Jean, Marc-Henri
Lin, Oscar
Vallejo, Christina
Brogi, Edi
Edelweiss, Marcia
Digital Validation of Breast Biomarkers (ER, PR, AR and HER2) in Cytology Specimens Using Three Different Scanners
title Digital Validation of Breast Biomarkers (ER, PR, AR and HER2) in Cytology Specimens Using Three Different Scanners
title_full Digital Validation of Breast Biomarkers (ER, PR, AR and HER2) in Cytology Specimens Using Three Different Scanners
title_fullStr Digital Validation of Breast Biomarkers (ER, PR, AR and HER2) in Cytology Specimens Using Three Different Scanners
title_full_unstemmed Digital Validation of Breast Biomarkers (ER, PR, AR and HER2) in Cytology Specimens Using Three Different Scanners
title_short Digital Validation of Breast Biomarkers (ER, PR, AR and HER2) in Cytology Specimens Using Three Different Scanners
title_sort digital validation of breast biomarkers (er, pr, ar and her2) in cytology specimens using three different scanners
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8702445/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34518629
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41379-021-00908-5
work_keys_str_mv AT salamaabeerm digitalvalidationofbreastbiomarkerserprarandher2incytologyspecimensusingthreedifferentscanners
AT hannamatthewg digitalvalidationofbreastbiomarkerserprarandher2incytologyspecimensusingthreedifferentscanners
AT giridilip digitalvalidationofbreastbiomarkerserprarandher2incytologyspecimensusingthreedifferentscanners
AT kezlarianbrie digitalvalidationofbreastbiomarkerserprarandher2incytologyspecimensusingthreedifferentscanners
AT jeanmarchenri digitalvalidationofbreastbiomarkerserprarandher2incytologyspecimensusingthreedifferentscanners
AT linoscar digitalvalidationofbreastbiomarkerserprarandher2incytologyspecimensusingthreedifferentscanners
AT vallejochristina digitalvalidationofbreastbiomarkerserprarandher2incytologyspecimensusingthreedifferentscanners
AT brogiedi digitalvalidationofbreastbiomarkerserprarandher2incytologyspecimensusingthreedifferentscanners
AT edelweissmarcia digitalvalidationofbreastbiomarkerserprarandher2incytologyspecimensusingthreedifferentscanners