Digital image analysis of membrane connectivity is a robust measure of HER2 immunostains
The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a new software, HER2-CONNECTTM, for digital image analysis of the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in breast cancer specimens. The software assesses immunohistochemical (IHC) staining reactions of HER2 based on an algorithm evaluating the cell membrane connectivity. The HER2-CONNECTTM algorithm was aligned to match digital image scorings of HER2 performed by 5 experienced assessors in a training set and confirmed in a separate validation set. The training set consisted of 167 breast carcinoma tissue core images in which the assessors individually and blinded outlined regions of interest and gave their HER2 score 0/1+/2+/3+ to the specific tumor region. The validation set consisted of 86 core images where the result of the automated image analysis software was correlated to the scores provided by the 5 assessors. HER2 fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) was performed on all cores and used as a reference standard. The overall agreement between the image analysis software and the digital scorings of the 5 assessors was 92.1% (Cohen’s Kappa: 0.859) in the training set and 92.3% (Cohen’s Kappa: 0.864) in the validation set. The image analysis sensitivity was 99.2% and specificity 100% when correlated to FISH. In conclusion, the Visiopharm HER2 IHC algorithm HER2-CONNECTTM can discriminate between amplified and non-amplified cases with high accuracy and diminish the equivocal category and thereby provides a promising supplementary diagnostic tool to increase consistency in HER2 assessment.
KeywordsBreast cancer HER2 Image analysis Immunohistochemistry FISH Tissue microarray
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
Regions of interest
Fluorescence in situ hybridization
Conflict of interest
Michael Grunkin, Johan D. Hansen and Niels T. Foged are employees of Visiopharm, Denmark.
- 4.http://www.ukneqasicc.ucl.ac.uk/Vol6_No3_run_76.pdf Archived at http://webcitation.org/5vL50wxVL. Accessed 29 Dec 2010
- 5.http://www.nordiqc.org/Run-30-B10/Assessment/assessment-B10-HER2.htm Archived at http://webcitation.org/5vL4oteol. Accessed 29 Dec 2010
- 10.Ellis CM, Dyson MJ, Stephenson TJ, Maltby EL (2005) HER2 amplification status in breast cancer: a comparison between immunohistochemical staining and fluorescence in situ hybridisation using manual and automated quantitative image analysis scoring techniques. J Clin Pathol 58:710–714PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Hanley KZ, Siddiqui MT, Lawson D, Cohen C, Nassar A (2009) Evaluation of new monoclonal antibodies in detection of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and Her2 protein expression in breast carcinoma cell block sections using conventional microscopy and quantitative image analysis. Diagn Cytopathol 37:251–257PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Tawfik OW, Kimler BF, Davis M, Donahue JK, Persons DL, Fan F et al (2006) Comparison of immunohistochemistry by automated cellular imaging system (ACIS) versus fluorescence in situ hybridization in the evaluation of HER-2/neu expression in primary breast carcinoma. Histopathology 48:258–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Breiman L, Friedman F, Stone CJ, Olshen RA (1984) Classification and regression trees. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
- 23.Press MF, Sauter G, Bernstein L, Villalobos IE, Mirlacher M, Zhou JY et al (2005) Diagnostic evaluation of HER-2 as a molecular target: an assessment of accuracy and reproducibility of laboratory testing in large, prospective, randomized clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res 11:6598–6607PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar