Advertisement

Whole Slide Image Registration for the Study of Tumor Heterogeneity

  • Leslie Solorzano
  • Gabriela M. Almeida
  • Bárbara Mesquita
  • Diana Martins
  • Carla Oliveira
  • Carolina Wählby
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11039)

Abstract

Consecutive thin sections of tissue samples make it possible to study local variation in e.g. protein expression and tumor heterogeneity by staining for a new protein in each section. In order to compare and correlate patterns of different proteins, the images have to be registered with high accuracy. The problem we want to solve is registration of gigapixel whole slide images (WSI). This presents 3 challenges: (i) Images are very large; (ii) Thin sections result in artifacts that make global affine registration prone to very large local errors; (iii) Local affine registration is required to preserve correct tissue morphology (local size, shape and texture). In our approach we compare WSI registration based on automatic and manual feature selection on either the full image or natural sub-regions (as opposed to square tiles). Working with natural sub-regions, in an interactive tool makes it possible to exclude regions containing scientifically irrelevant information. We also present a new way to visualize local registration quality by a Registration Confidence Map (RCM). With this method, intra-tumor heterogeneity and characteristics of the tumor microenvironment can be observed and quantified.

Keywords

Whole slide image Registration Digital pathology 

References

  1. 1.
    Sucaet, Y., Waelput, W.: Digital Pathology. SCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08780-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ameisen, D.: Towards better digital pathology workflows: programming libraries for high-speed sharpness assessment of whole slide images. Diagn. Pathol. 9(Suppl. 1), S3 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-9-S1-S3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Spagnolo, D., et al.: Platform for quantitative evaluation of spatial intratumoral heterogeneity in multiplexed fluorescence images. Cancer Res. 77, e71–e74 (2017). American Association for Cancer ResearchCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moles Lopez, X., et al.: Registration of whole immunohistochemical slide images: an efficient way to characterize biomarker colocalization. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 22(1), 86–99 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruifrok, A.C.: Quantification of histochemical staining by color deconvolution. Anal. Quant. Cytol. Histol. 23, 291–299 (2002)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Viergever, M., et al.: A survey of medical image registration. Med. Image Anal. 33, 140–144 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gurcan, M.N., et al.: Histopathological image analysis: a review. IEEE Rev. Biomed. Eng. 2, 147 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cooper, L., et al.: Feature-based registration of histopathology images with different stains: an application for computerized follicular lymphoma prognosis. Comput. Methods Programs Biomed. 96(3), 182–192 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trahearn, N., et al.: Hyper-stain inspector: a framework for robust registration and localised co-expression analysis of multiple whole-slide images of serial histology sections. Sci. Rep. 7, 5641 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wemmert, C., et al.: Stain unmixing in brightfield multiplexed immunohistochemistry. In: 2013 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Der Laak, J.A., et al.: Hue-saturation-density (HSD) model for stain recognition in digital images from transmitted light microscopy (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    An open-source, viewer for high-resolution zoomable images, in JavaScript. https://openseadragon.github.io. Accessed 13 May 2018
  13. 13.
    Image J Feature extraction. https://imagej.net/feature_extraction. Accessed 24 Sept 2015
  14. 14.
    Avron, H., et al.: Blendenpik: Supercharging LAPACK’s least-squares solver. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 32(3), 1217–1236 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oheim, M., Li, D.: Quantitative colocalisation imaging: concepts, measurements, and pitfalls. In: Shorte, S.L., Frischknecht, F. (eds.) Imaging Cellular and Molecular Biological Functions. Principles and Practice, pp. 117–155. Springer, Heidelberg (2007).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-71331-9_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Costes, S.V., et al.: Automatic and quantitative measurement of protein-protein colocalization in live cells. Biophys. J. 86, 3993–4003 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rohlfing, T.: Image similarity and tissue overlaps as surrogates for image registration accuracy: widely used but unreliable. IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging 31(2), 153–163 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Image AnalysisUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.i3S, Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em SaúdeUniversidade do PortoPortoPortugal
  3. 3.Ipatimup, Institute of Molecular Pathology and ImmunologyUniversity of PortoPortoPortugal
  4. 4.Faculty of Medicine of the University of PortoPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations