Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2026
Using Computer-based Image Analysis to Improve Quantification of Lung Metastasis in the 4T1 Breast Cancer Model
Published on: October 2, 2020
Using image analysis as a tool for assessment of prognostic and predictive biomarkers for breast cancer: How reliable
Mark C Lloyd1, Pushpa Allam-Nandyala, Chetna N Purohit
1Analytic Microscopy Core, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, FL.
Background:
Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) are important and well-established prognostic and predictive biomarkers for breast cancers and routinely tested on patient's tumor samples by immunohistochemical (IHC) study. The accuracy of these test results has substantial impact on patient management. A critical factor that contributes to the result is the interpretation (scoring) of IHC. This study investigates how computerized image analysis can play a role in a reliable scoring, and identifies potential pitfalls with common methods.
Materials And Methods:
Whole slide images of 33 invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) (10 ER and 23 HER2) were scored by pathologist under the light microscope and confirmed by another pathologist. The HER2 results were additionally confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The scoring criteria were adherent to the guidelines recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists. Whole slide stains were then scored by commercially available image analysis algorithms from Definiens (Munich, Germany) and Aperio Technologies (Vista, CA, USA). Each algorithm was modified specifically for each marker and tissue. The results were compared with the semi-quantitative manual scoring, which was considered the gold standard in this study.
Results:
For HER2 positive group, each algorithm scored 23/23 cases within the range established by the pathologist. For ER, both algorithms scored 10/10 cases within range. The performance of each algorithm varies somewhat from the percentage of staining as compared to the pathologist's reading.
Conclusions:
Commercially available computerized image analysis can be useful in the evaluation of ER and HER2 IHC results. In order to achieve accurate results either manual pathologist region selection is necessary, or an automated region selection tool must be employed. Specificity can also be gained when strict quality assurance by a pathologist is invested. Quality assurance of image analysis by pathologists is always warranted. Automated image analysis should only be used as adjunct to pathologist's evaluation.
