Automated image analysis in histopathology: a valuable tool in medical diagnostics

References

• Battifora H. The multitumor (sausage) tissue block: novel method for immunohistochemical antibody testing. Lab. Invest.55(2), 244–248 (1986).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kononen J, Bubendorf L, Kallioniemi A et al. Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nat. Med.4(7), 844–847 (1998).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bubendorf L, Nocito A, Moch H, Sauter G. Tissue microarray (TMA) technology: miniaturized pathology archives for high-throughput in situ studies. J. Pathol.195(1), 72–79 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moch H, Schraml P, Bubendorf L et al. High-throughput tissue microarray analysis to evaluate genes uncovered by cDNA microarray screening in renal cell carcinoma. Am. J. Pathol.154(4), 981–986 (1999).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulrane L, Rexhepaj E, Smart V et al. Creation of a digital slide and tissue microarray resource from a multi-institutional predictive toxicology study in the rat: an initial report from the PredTox group. Exp. Toxicol. Pathol.60(4–5), 235–245 (2008).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoos A, Urist MJ, Stojadinovic A et al. Validation of tissue microarrays for immunohistochemical profiling of cancer specimens using the example of human fibroblastic tumors. Am. J. Pathol.158(4), 1245–1251 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camp RL, Charette LA, Rimm DL. Validation of tissue microarray technology in breast carcinoma. Lab. Invest.80(12), 1943–1949 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuller CE, Wang H, Zhang W, Fuller GN, Perry A. High-throughput molecular profiling of high-grade astrocytomas: the utility of fluorescence in situ hybridization on tissue microarrays (TMA-FISH). J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol.61(12), 1078–1084 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulmann C, Butler D, Kay E, Grace A, Leader M. Biopsy of a biopsy: validation of immunoprofiling in gastric cancer biopsy tissue microarrays. Histopathology42(1), 70–76 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cregger M, Berger AJ, Rimm DL. Immunohistochemistry and quantitative analysis of protein expression. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med.130(7), 1026–1030 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coons AC, Jones, RN. Immunological properties of an antibody containing a fluorescent group. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med.47, 200–202 (1941).
   Google Scholar
• Sarian LO, Derchain SF, Yoshida A et al. Expression of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) and Ki67 as related to disease severity and HPV detection in squamous lesions of the cervix. Gynecol. Oncol.102(3), 537–541 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomson TA, Hayes MM, Spinelli JJ et al. HER-2/neu in breast cancer: interobserver variability and performance of immunohistochemistry with 4 antibodies compared with fluorescent in situ hybridization. Mod. Pathol.14(11), 1079–1086 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay EW, Walsh CJ, Cassidy M, Curran B, Leader M. C-erbB-2 immunostaining: problems with interpretation. J. Clin. Pathol.47(9), 816–822 (1994).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cross SS. Observer accuracy in estimating proportions in images: implications for the semiquantitative assessment of staining reactions and a proposal for a new system. J. Clin. Pathol.54(5), 385–390 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehr HA, Jacobs TW, Yaziji H, Schnitt SJ, Gown AM. Quantitative evaluation of HER-2/neu status in breast cancer by fluorescence in situ hybridization and by immunohistochemistry with image analysis. Am. J. Clin. Pathol.115(6), 814–822 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umemura S, Itoh J, Itoh H et al. Immunohistochemical evaluation of hormone receptors in breast cancer: which scoring system is suitable for highly sensitive procedures? Appl. Immunohistochem. Mol. Morphol.12(1), 8–13 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brennan DJ, Kelly C, Rexhepaj E et al. Contribution of DNA and tissue microarray technology to the identification and validation of biomarkers and personalised medicine in breast cancer. Cancer Genomics Proteomics4(3), 121–134.(2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bhargava R, Fernandez DC, Hewitt SM, Levin IW. High throughput assessment of cells and tissues: Bayesian classification of spectral metrics from infrared vibrational spectroscopic imaging data. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1758(7), 830–845 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baak JP. The framework of pathology: good laboratory practice by quantitative and molecular methods. J. Pathol.198(3), 277–283 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fernandez DC, Bhargava R, Hewitt SM, Levin IW. Infrared spectroscopic imaging for histopathologic recognition. Nat. Biotechnol.23(4), 469–474 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persohn E, Seewald W, Bauer J, Schreiber J. Cell proliferation measurement in cecum and colon of rats using scanned images and fully automated image analysis: validation of method. Exp. Toxicol. Pathol.58(6), 411–418 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Garewal H, Ramsey L, Fass R et al. Perils of immunohistochemistry: variability in staining specificity of commercially available COX-2 antibodies on human colon tissue. Dig. Dis. Sci.48(1), 197–202 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oyama T, Ishikawa Y, Hayashi M, Arihiro K, Horiguchi J. The effects of fixation, processing and evaluation criteria on immunohistochemical detection of hormone receptors in breast cancer. Breast Cancer14(2), 182–188 (2007).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hsu FD, Nielsen TO, Alkushi A et al. Tissue microarrays are an effective quality assurance tool for diagnostic immunohistochemistry. Mod. Pathol.15(12), 1374–1380 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mengel M, von Wasielewski R, Wiese B et al. Inter-laboratory and inter-observer reproducibility of immunohistochemical assessment of the Ki-67 labelling index in a large multi-centre trial. J. Pathol.198(3), 292–299 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foley R, DiFranco M, Bryan K et al. Automated image analysis approaches in histopathology. In: Handbook of Research on Systems Biology Applications in Medicine. Daskalaki A (Ed.). IGI Global Books, Pennsylvania, USA (2008).
   Google Scholar
• Rojo MG, Garcia GB, Mateos CP, Garcia JG, Vicente MC. Critical comparison of 31 commercially available digital slide systems in pathology. Int. J. Surg. Pathol.14(4), 285–305 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Molnar B, Berczi L, Diczhazy C et al. Digital slide and virtual microscopy based routine and telepathology evaluation of routine gastrointestinal biopsy specimens. J. Clin. Pathol.56(6), 433–438 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glatz-Krieger K, Spornitz U, Spatz A, Mihatsch MJ, Glatz D. Factors to keep in mind when introducing virtual microscopy. Virchows Arch.448(3), 248–255 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leong FJ, McGee JO. Automated complete slide digitization: a medium for simultaneous viewing by multiple pathologists. J. Pathol.195(4), 508–514 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marchevsky AM, Dulbandzhyan R, Seely K, Carey S, Duncan RG. Storage and distribution of pathology digital images using integrated web-based viewing systems. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med.126(5), 533–539 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloodgood RA, Ogilvie RW. Trends in histology laboratory teaching in United States medical schools. Anat. Rec. B New Anat.289(5), 169–175 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blake CA, Lavoie HA, Millette CF. Teaching medical histology at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine: transition to virtual slides and virtual microscopes. Anat. Rec. B New Anat.275(1), 196–206 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zwonitzer R, Kalinski T, Hofmann H, Roessner A, Bernarding J. Digital pathology: DICOM-conform draft, testbed, and first results. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed.87(3), 181–188 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenstermacher D, Street C, McSherry T et al. The Cancer Biomedical Informatics Grid (caBIG™). Conf. Proc. IEEE Eng. Med. Biol. Soc.1, 743–746 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett JM, Going JJ, Mallon EA et al. Evaluating HER2 amplification and overexpression in breast cancer. J. Pathol.195(4), 422–428 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tubbs RR, Pettay JD, Roche PC et al. Discrepancies in clinical laboratory testing of eligibility for trastuzumab therapy: apparent immunohistochemical false-positives do not get the message. J. Clin. Oncol.19(10), 2714–2721 (2001).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarbo RJ, Hammond ME. Conference summary, Strategic Science symposium. Her-2/neu testing of breast cancer patients in clinical practice. Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med.127(5), 549–553 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheang MC, Treaba DO, Speers CH et al. Immunohistochemical detection using the new rabbit monoclonal antibody SP1 of estrogen receptor in breast cancer is superior to mouse monoclonal antibody 1D5 in predicting survival. J. Clin. Oncol.24(36), 5637–5644 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turbin DA, Leung S, Cheang MC et al. Automated quantitative analysis of estrogen receptor expression in breast carcinoma does not differ from expert pathologist scoring: a tissue microarray study of 3,484 cases. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.110(3), 417–426 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson AH. Image analysis using the aperio scanscope. In: Technical Manual. Aperio Technologies Inc., USA (2006).
   Google Scholar
• Weaver JR, Au JL. Application of automatic thresholding in image analysis scoring of cells in human solid tumors labeled for proliferation markers. Cytometry29(2), 128–135 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim D, Gregory CW, Smith GJ, Mohler JL. Immunohistochemical quantitation of androgen receptor expression using color video image analysis. Cytometry35(1), 2–10 (1999).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Smith PD, McLean KJ, Murphy MA et al. A brightness-area-product-based protocol for the quantitative assessment of antigen abundance in fluorescent immunohistochemistry. Brain Res. Brain Res. Protoc.15(1), 21–29 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaczmarek E, Gorna A, Majewski P. Techniques of image analysis for quantitative immunohistochemistry. Rocz. Akad. Med. Bialymst.49(Suppl. 1), 155–158 (2004).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nieruchalska E, Strzelczyk R, Wozniak A et al. A quantitative analysis of the expression of a-smooth muscle actin in mesangioproliferative (GnMes) glomerulonephritis. Folia Morphol. (Warsz)62(4), 451–453 (2003).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Matkowskyj KA, Schonfeld D, Benya RV. Quantitative immunohistochemistry by measuring cumulative signal strength using commercially available software photoshop and matlab. J. Histochem. Cytochem.48(2), 303–312 (2000).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nabi G, Seth A, Dinda AK, Gupta NP. Computer based receptogram approach: an objective way of assessing immunohistochemistry of androgen receptor staining and its correlation with hormonal response in metastatic carcinoma of prostate. J. Clin. Pathol.57(2), 146–150 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narath R, Lorch T, Greulich-Bode KM, Boukamp P, Ambros PF. Automatic telomere length measurements in interphase nuclei by IQ-FISH. Cytometry A68(2), 113–120 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang YP, Castleman KR. Normalization of multicolor fluorescence in situ hybridization (M-FISH) images for improving color karyotyping. Cytometry A64(2), 101–109 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Payne SJ, Bowen RL, Jones JL, Wells CA. Predictive markers in breast cancer – the present. Histopathology52(1), 82–90 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig JA, Weinstein JN. Biomarkers in cancer staging, prognosis and treatment selection. Nat. Rev. Cancer5(11), 845–856 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J et al. Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients with negative lymph nodes and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. J. Natl Cancer Inst.88(21), 1529–1542 (1996).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher B, Jeong JH, Bryant J et al. Treatment of lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: long-term findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomised clinical trials. Lancet364(9437), 858–868 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rudiger T, Hofler H, Kreipe HH et al. Quality assurance in immunohistochemistry: results of an interlaboratory trial involving 172 pathologists. Am. J. Surg. Pathol.26(7), 873–882 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hofmann M, Stoss O, Shi D et al. Assessment of a HER2 scoring system for gastric cancer: results from a validation study. Histopathology52(7), 797–805 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Eynden GG, Van der Auwera I, Van Laere S et al. Validation of a tissue microarray to study differential protein expression in inflammatory and non-inflammatory breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat.85(1), 13–22 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paik S, Bryant J, Tan-Chiu E et al. Real-world performance of HER2 testing – National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project experience. J. Natl Cancer Inst.94(11), 852–854 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perez EA, Suman VJ, Davidson NE et al. HER2 testing by local, central, and reference laboratories in specimens from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N9831 intergroup adjuvant trial. J. Clin. Oncol.24(19), 3032–3038 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Press MF, Slamon DJ, Flom KJ et al. Evaluation of HER-2/neu gene amplification and overexpression: comparison of frequently used assay methods in a molecularly characterized cohort of breast cancer specimens. J. Clin. Oncol.20(14), 3095–3105 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cayre A, Mishellany F, Lagarde N, Penault-Llorca F. Comparison of different commercial kits for HER2 testing in breast cancer: looking for the accurate cutoff for amplification. Breast Cancer Res.9(5), R64 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammock L, Lewis M, Phillips C, Cohen C. Strong HER-2/neu protein overexpression by immunohistochemistry often does not predict oncogene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Hum. Pathol.34(10), 1043–1047 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol.25(1), 118–145 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camp RL, Chung GG, Rimm DL. Automated subcellular localization and quantification of protein expression in tissue microarrays. Nat. Med.8(11), 1323–1327 (2002).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camp RL, Dolled-Filhart M, King BL, Rimm DL. Quantitative analysis of breast cancer tissue microarrays shows that both high and normal levels of HER2 expression are associated with poor outcome. Cancer Res.63(7), 1445–1448 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Konsti J, Lundin J, Jumppanen M et al. A public-domain image processing tool for automated quantification of fluorescence in situ hybridisation signals. J. Clin. Pathol.61(3), 278–282 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gilbertson JR, Ho J, Anthony L et al. Primary histologic diagnosis using automated whole slide imaging: a validation study. BMC Clin. Pathol.6, 4 (2006).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pham NA, Morrison A, Schwock J et al. Quantitative image analysis of immunohistochemical stains using a CMYK color model. Diagn. Pathol.2, 8 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart J, Fleshner N, Cole H, Sweet J. Comparison of annexin II, p63 and α-methylacyl-CoA racemase immunoreactivity in prostatic tissue: a tissue microarray study. J. Clin. Pathol.60(7), 773–780 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nikitin AY, Alcaraz A, Anver MR et al. Classification of proliferative pulmonary lesions of the mouse: recommendations of the mouse models of human cancers consortium. Cancer Res.64(7), 2307–2316 (2004).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krajewska M, Olson AH, Mercola D, Reed JC, Krajewski S. Claudin-1 immunohistochemistry for distinguishing malignant from benign epithelial lesions of prostate. Prostate67(9), 907–910 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whiteford CC, Bilke S, Greer BT et al. Credentialing preclinical pediatric xenograft models using gene expression and tissue microarray analysis. Cancer Res.67(1), 32–40 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan DJ, Rexhepaj E, O’Brien SL et al. Altered cytoplasmic-to-nuclear ratio of survivin is a prognostic indicator in breast cancer. Clin. Cancer Res.14(9), 2681–2689 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brumby SP, Theiler J, Perkins SJ et al. Investigation of image feature extraction by a genetic algorithm. Proc. Soc. Photo Opt. Instrum. Eng.3812, 24–31 (1999).
   Google Scholar
• Brumby SP, Harvey NR, Perkins S et al. A genetic algorithm for combining new and existing image processing toolds for multispectral imagery. Proc. Soc. Photo Opt. Instrum. Eng.4049, 480–490 (2000).
   Google Scholar
• Athelogou M, Schmidt G, Schape A, Baatz M, Binnig G. Definiens cognition network technology – a novel multimodal image analysis technique for automatic identification and quantification of biological image contents. In: Imaging Cellular and Molecular Biological Functions. Shorte SL, Frischknecht F (Eds). Springer–Verlag, Berlin, Germany 407–421 (2007).
   Google Scholar
• Okamoto Y, Higashiyama H, Inoue H et al. Quantitative image analysis in adipose tissue using an automated image analysis system: differential effects of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-α and -γ agonist on white and brown adipose tissue morphology in AKR obese and db/db diabetic mice. Pathol. Int.57(6), 369–377 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stromberg S, Bjorklund MG, Asplund C et al. A high-throughput strategy for protein profiling in cell microarrays using automated image analysis. Proteomics7(13), 2142–2150 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabesh A, Teverovskiy M, Pang HY et al. Multifeature prostate cancer diagnosis and Gleason grading of histological images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging26(10), 1366–1378 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cordon-Cardo C, Kotsianti A, Verbel DA et al. Improved prediction of prostate cancer recurrence through systems pathology. J. Clin. Invest.117(7), 1876–1883 (2007).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dolled-Filhart M, Ryden L, Cregger M et al. Classification of breast cancer using genetic algorithms and tissue microarrays. Clin. Cancer Res.12(21), 6459–6468 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCabe A, Dolled-Filhart M, Camp RL, Rimm DL. Automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) of in situ protein expression, antibody concentration, and prognosis. J. Natl Cancer Inst.97(24), 1808–1815 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giltnane JM, Murren JR, Rimm DL, King BL. AQUA and FISH analysis of HER-2/neu expression and amplification in a small cell lung carcinoma tissue microarray. Histopathology49(2), 161–169 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elie N, Labiche A, Michels J, Herlin P. Control of low-resolution scanning of ovarian tumour stromal compartment. Image Anal. Stereol. (24), 85–93 (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Labay K, Ould-Elhkim M, Klés V et al. Effects of griseofulvin in medium-term liver carcinogenesis assay and peripheral blood micronucleus test in rat. Teratog. Carcinog. Mutagen.21, 441–451 (2001).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cardell LO, Hagge M, Uddman R, Adner M. Downregulation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) in nasal polyposis. Respir. Res.6, 132 (2005).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Diaz-Alderete A, Doval A, Camacho F et al. Frequency of BCL2 and BCL6 translocations in follicular lymphoma: relation with histological and clinical features. Leuk. Lymphoma49(1), 95–101 (2008).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Aguilera A, Montalban C, de la Cueva P et al. Tumor microenvironment and mitotic checkpoint are key factors in the outcome of classic Hodgkin lymphoma. Blood108(2), 662–668 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheung HC, Corley LJ, Fuller GN, McCutcheon IE, Cote GJ. Polypyrimidine tract binding protein and Notch1 are independently re-expressed in glioma. Mod. Pathol.19(8), 1034–1041 (2006).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayala G, Wang D, Wulf G et al. The prolyl isomerase Pin1 is a novel prognostic marker in human prostate cancer. Cancer Res.63(19), 6244–6251 (2003).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker S, Becker-Pergola G, Fehm T et al. Image analysis systems for the detection of disseminated breast cancer cells on bone-marrow cytospins. J. Clin. Lab. Anal.19(3), 115–119 (2005).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferreira R, Moon B, Humphries J et al. The virtual microscope. Proc. AMIA Annu. Fall Symp.449–453 (1997).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Afework A, Beynon MD, Bustamante F et al. Digital dynamic telepathology – the virtual microscope. Proc. AMIA Symp.912–916 (1998).
   PubMedGoogle Scholar