Cargando…

Association between Nuclear Morphometry Parameters and Gleason Grade in Patients with Prostatic Cancer

Objective: Gleason scoring system remains the pathological method of choice for prostate cancer (Pca) grading. However, this method of tumor tissue architectural structure grading is still affected by subjective assessment and might succumb to several disadvantages, mainly inter-observer variability...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Malshy, Kamil, Amiel, Gilad E., Hershkovitz, Dov, Sabo, Edmond, Hoffman, Azik
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9222000/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35741165
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12061356
_version_ 1784732765385654272
author Malshy, Kamil
Amiel, Gilad E.
Hershkovitz, Dov
Sabo, Edmond
Hoffman, Azik
author_facet Malshy, Kamil
Amiel, Gilad E.
Hershkovitz, Dov
Sabo, Edmond
Hoffman, Azik
author_sort Malshy, Kamil
collection PubMed
description Objective: Gleason scoring system remains the pathological method of choice for prostate cancer (Pca) grading. However, this method of tumor tissue architectural structure grading is still affected by subjective assessment and might succumb to several disadvantages, mainly inter-observer variability. These limitations might be diminished by determining characteristic cellular heterogeneity parameters which might improve Gleason scoring homogeneity. One of the quantitative tools of tumor assessment is the morphometric characterization of tumor cell nuclei. We aimed to test the relationship between various morphometric measures and the Gleason score assigned to different prostate cancer samples. Materials and Methods: We reviewed 60 prostate biopsy samples performed at a tertiary uro-oncology center. Each slide was assigned a Gleason grade according to the International Society of Urological Pathology contemporary grading system by a single experienced uro-pathologist. Samples were assigned into groups from grades 3 to 5. Next, the samples were digitally scanned (×400 magnification) and sampled on a computer using Image-Pro-Plus software(©). Manual segmentation of approximately 100 selected tumor cells per sample was performed, and a computerized measurement of 54 predetermined morphometric properties of each cell nuclei was recorded. These characteristics were used to compare the pathological group grades assigned to each specimen. Results: Initially, of the 54 morphometric parameters evaluated, 38 were predictive of Gleason grade (p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, 7 independent parameters were found to be discriminative of different Pca grades: minimum radius shape, intensity—minimal gray level, intensity—maximal gray level, character—gray level (green), character—gray level (blue), chromatin color, fractal dimension, and chromatin texture. A formula to predict the presence of Gleason grade 3 vs. grades 4 or 5 was developed (97.2% sensitivity, 100% specificity). Discussion: The suggested morphometry method based on seven selected parameters is highly sensitive and specific in predicting Gleason score ≥ 4. Since discriminating Gleason score 3 from ≥4 is essential for proper treatment selection, this method might be beneficial in addition to standard pathological tissue analysis in reducing variability among pathologists.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9222000
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92220002022-06-24 Association between Nuclear Morphometry Parameters and Gleason Grade in Patients with Prostatic Cancer Malshy, Kamil Amiel, Gilad E. Hershkovitz, Dov Sabo, Edmond Hoffman, Azik Diagnostics (Basel) Article Objective: Gleason scoring system remains the pathological method of choice for prostate cancer (Pca) grading. However, this method of tumor tissue architectural structure grading is still affected by subjective assessment and might succumb to several disadvantages, mainly inter-observer variability. These limitations might be diminished by determining characteristic cellular heterogeneity parameters which might improve Gleason scoring homogeneity. One of the quantitative tools of tumor assessment is the morphometric characterization of tumor cell nuclei. We aimed to test the relationship between various morphometric measures and the Gleason score assigned to different prostate cancer samples. Materials and Methods: We reviewed 60 prostate biopsy samples performed at a tertiary uro-oncology center. Each slide was assigned a Gleason grade according to the International Society of Urological Pathology contemporary grading system by a single experienced uro-pathologist. Samples were assigned into groups from grades 3 to 5. Next, the samples were digitally scanned (×400 magnification) and sampled on a computer using Image-Pro-Plus software(©). Manual segmentation of approximately 100 selected tumor cells per sample was performed, and a computerized measurement of 54 predetermined morphometric properties of each cell nuclei was recorded. These characteristics were used to compare the pathological group grades assigned to each specimen. Results: Initially, of the 54 morphometric parameters evaluated, 38 were predictive of Gleason grade (p < 0.05). On multivariate analysis, 7 independent parameters were found to be discriminative of different Pca grades: minimum radius shape, intensity—minimal gray level, intensity—maximal gray level, character—gray level (green), character—gray level (blue), chromatin color, fractal dimension, and chromatin texture. A formula to predict the presence of Gleason grade 3 vs. grades 4 or 5 was developed (97.2% sensitivity, 100% specificity). Discussion: The suggested morphometry method based on seven selected parameters is highly sensitive and specific in predicting Gleason score ≥ 4. Since discriminating Gleason score 3 from ≥4 is essential for proper treatment selection, this method might be beneficial in addition to standard pathological tissue analysis in reducing variability among pathologists. MDPI 2022-05-31 /pmc/articles/PMC9222000/ /pubmed/35741165 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12061356 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Malshy, Kamil
Amiel, Gilad E.
Hershkovitz, Dov
Sabo, Edmond
Hoffman, Azik
Association between Nuclear Morphometry Parameters and Gleason Grade in Patients with Prostatic Cancer
title Association between Nuclear Morphometry Parameters and Gleason Grade in Patients with Prostatic Cancer
title_full Association between Nuclear Morphometry Parameters and Gleason Grade in Patients with Prostatic Cancer
title_fullStr Association between Nuclear Morphometry Parameters and Gleason Grade in Patients with Prostatic Cancer
title_full_unstemmed Association between Nuclear Morphometry Parameters and Gleason Grade in Patients with Prostatic Cancer
title_short Association between Nuclear Morphometry Parameters and Gleason Grade in Patients with Prostatic Cancer
title_sort association between nuclear morphometry parameters and gleason grade in patients with prostatic cancer
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9222000/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35741165
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics12061356
work_keys_str_mv AT malshykamil associationbetweennuclearmorphometryparametersandgleasongradeinpatientswithprostaticcancer
AT amielgilade associationbetweennuclearmorphometryparametersandgleasongradeinpatientswithprostaticcancer
AT hershkovitzdov associationbetweennuclearmorphometryparametersandgleasongradeinpatientswithprostaticcancer
AT saboedmond associationbetweennuclearmorphometryparametersandgleasongradeinpatientswithprostaticcancer
AT hoffmanazik associationbetweennuclearmorphometryparametersandgleasongradeinpatientswithprostaticcancer