A multisite performance study comparing the reading of immunohistochemical slides on a computer monitor with conventional manual microscopy for estrogen and progesterone receptor analysis

Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Update

PURPOSE.—

To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.

METHODS.—

A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.

RECOMMENDATIONS.—

The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

Whole Slide Imaging Versus Microscopy for Primary Diagnosis in Surgical Pathology: A Multicenter Blinded Randomized Noninferiority Study of 1992 Cases (Pivotal Study)

Most prior studies of primary diagnosis in surgical pathology using whole slide imaging (WSI) versus microscopy have focused on specific organ systems or included relatively few cases. The objective of this study was to demonstrate that WSI is noninferior to microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology. A blinded randomized noninferiority study was conducted across the entire range of surgical pathology cases (biopsies and resections, including hematoxylin and eosin, immunohistochemistry, and special stains) from 4 institutions using the original sign-out diagnosis (baseline diagnosis) as the reference standard. Cases were scanned, converted to WSI and randomized. Sixteen pathologists interpreted cases by microscopy or WSI, followed by a wash-out period of ≥4 weeks, after which cases were read by the same observers using the other modality. Major discordances were identified by an adjudication panel, and the differences between major discordance rates for both microscopy (against the reference standard) and WSI (against the reference standard) were calculated. A total of 1992 cases were included, resulting in 15,925 reads. The major discordance rate with the reference standard diagnosis was 4.9% for WSI and 4.6% for microscopy. The difference between major discordance rates for microscopy and WSI was 0.4% (95% confidence interval, -0.30% to 1.01%). The difference in major discordance rates for WSI and microscopy was highest in endocrine pathology (1.8%), neoplastic kidney pathology (1.5%), urinary bladder pathology (1.3%), and gynecologic pathology (1.2%). Detailed analysis of these cases revealed no instances where interpretation by WSI was consistently inaccurate compared with microscopy for multiple observers. We conclude that WSI is noninferior to microscopy for primary diagnosis in surgical pathology, including biopsies and resections stained with hematoxylin and eosin, immunohistochemistry and special stains. This conclusion is valid across a wide variety of organ systems and specimen types.

Validation of whole-slide imaging in the primary diagnosis of liver biopsies in a University Hospital

BACKGROUND

Experience in the use of whole slide imaging (WSI) for primary diagnosis is limited and there are no comprehensive reports evaluating this technology in liver biopsy specimens.

AIMS

To determine the accuracy of interpretation of WSI compared with conventional light microscopy (CLM) in the diagnosis of needle liver biopsies.

METHODS

Two experienced liver pathologists blindly analyzed 176 consecutive biopsies from the Pathology Department at the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. One of the observers performed the initial evaluation with CLM, and the second evaluation with WSI, whereas the second observer performed the first evaluation with WSI and the second with CLM. All slides were digitized in a Ventana iScan HT at 400× and evaluated with the Virtuoso viewer (Roche diagnostics). We used kappa statistics (κ) for two observations.

RESULTS

Intra-observer agreement between WSI and CLM evaluations was almost perfect (96.6%, κ=0.9; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.9-1 for observer 1, and 90.3%, κ=0.9; 95%CI: 0.8-0.9 for observer 2). Both native and transplantation biopsies showed an almost perfect concordance in the diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Diagnosis of needle liver biopsy specimens using WSI is accurate. This technology can reliably be introduced in routine diagnosis.

A Randomized Study Comparing Digital Imaging to Traditional Glass Slide Microscopy for Breast Biopsy and Cancer Diagnosis

Background:

Digital whole slide imaging may be useful for obtaining second opinions and is used in many countries. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires verification studies.

Methods:

Pathologists were randomized to interpret one of four sets of breast biopsy cases during two phases, separated by ≥9 months, using glass slides or digital format (sixty cases per set, one slide per case, n = 240 cases). Accuracy was assessed by comparing interpretations to a consensus reference standard. Intraobserver reproducibility was assessed by comparing the agreement of interpretations on the same cases between two phases. Estimated probabilities of confirmation by a reference panel (i.e., predictive values) were obtained by incorporating data on the population prevalence of diagnoses.

Results:

Sixty-five percent of responding pathologists were eligible, and 252 consented to randomization; 208 completed Phase I (115 glass, 93 digital); and 172 completed Phase II (86 glass, 86 digital). Accuracy was slightly higher using glass compared to digital format and varied by category: invasive carcinoma, 96% versus 93% (P = 0.04); ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 84% versus 79% (P < 0.01); atypia, 48% versus 43% (P = 0.08); and benign without atypia, 87% versus 82% (P < 0.01). There was a small decrease in intraobserver agreement when the format changed compared to when glass slides were used in both phases (P = 0.08). Predictive values for confirmation by a reference panel using glass versus digital were: invasive carcinoma, 98% and 97% (not significant [NS]); DCIS, 70% and 57% (P = 0.007); atypia, 38% and 28% (P = 0.002); and benign without atypia, 97% and 96% (NS).

Conclusions:

In this large randomized study, digital format interpretations were similar to glass slide interpretations of benign and invasive cancer cases. However, cases in the middle of the spectrum, where more inherent variability exists, may be more problematic in digital format. Future studies evaluating the effect these findings exert on clinical practice and patient outcomes are required.

The Empirical Foundations of Telepathology: Evidence of Feasibility and Intermediate Effects

INTRODUCTION

Telepathology evolved from video microscopy (i.e., "television microscopy") research in the early 1950s to video microscopy used in basic research in the biological sciences to a basic diagnostic tool in telemedicine clinical applications. Its genesis can be traced to pioneering feasibility studies regarding the importance of color and other image-based parameters for rendering diagnoses and a series of studies assessing concordance of virtual slide and light microscopy diagnoses. This article documents the empirical foundations of telepathology.

METHODS

A selective review of the research literature during the past decade (2005-2016) was conducted using robust research design and adequate sample size as criteria for inclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence regarding feasibility/acceptance of telepathology and related information technology applications has been well documented for several decades. The majority of evidentiary studies focused on intermediate outcomes, as indicated by comparability between telepathology and conventional light microscopy. A consistent trend of concordance between the two modalities was observed in terms of diagnostic accuracy and reliability. Additional benefits include use of telepathology and whole slide imaging for teaching, research, and outreach to resource-limited countries. Challenges still exist, however, in terms of use of telepathology as an effective diagnostic modality in clinical practice.

Automated measurement of estrogen receptor in breast cancer: a comparison of fluorescent and chromogenic methods of measurement

Whereas FDA-approved methods of assessment of estrogen receptor (ER) are 'fit for purpose', they represent a 30-year-old technology. New quantitative methods, both chromogenic and fluorescent, have been developed and studies have shown that these methods increase the accuracy of assessment of ER. Here, we compare three methods of ER detection and assessment on two retrospective tissue microarray (TMA) cohorts of breast cancer patients: estimates of percent nuclei positive by pathologists and by Aperio's nuclear algorithm (standard chromogenic immunostaining), and immunofluorescence as quantified with the automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) method of quantitative immunofluorescence (QIF). Reproducibility was excellent (R(2)>0.95) between users for both automated analysis methods, and the Aperio and QIF scoring results were also highly correlated, despite the different detection systems. The subjective readings show lower levels of reproducibility and a discontinuous, bimodal distribution of scores not seen by either mechanized method. Kaplan-Meier analysis of 10-year disease-free survival was significant for each method (Pathologist, P=0.0019; Aperio, P=0.0053, AQUA, P=0.0026); however, there were discrepancies in patient classification in 19 out of 233 cases analyzed. Out of these, 11 were visually positive by both chromogenic and fluorescent detection. In 10 cases, the Aperio nuclear algorithm labeled the nuclei as negative; in 1 case, the AQUA score was just under the cutoff for positivity (determined by an Index TMA). In contrast, 8 out of 19 discrepant cases had clear nuclear positivity by fluorescence that was unable to be visualized by chromogenic detection, perhaps because of low positivity masked by the hematoxylin counterstain. These results demonstrate that automated systems enable objective, precise quantification of ER. Furthermore, immunofluorescence detection offers the additional advantage of a signal that cannot be masked by a counterstaining agent. These data support the usage of automated methods for measurement of this and other biomarkers that may be used in companion diagnostic tests.

Validation of Whole-Slide Imaging for Histolopathogical Diagnosis: Current State

Rapid advances in informatics and technological improvements have led to the development of high-throughput whole-slide imaging (WSI) scanners able to produce high-quality digital images, which allow achieving a correct diagnosis of the biopsies using virtual viewers. This technology is currently prepared to be introduced in the departments of pathology for routine diagnosis. The aim of this review is to analyze the current evidence regarding the use of WSI in primary or routine diagnosis in the different subspecialties of pathology. An increasing number of studies have shown almost perfect inter- and intraobserver agreement between the diagnoses obtained with WSI and the classical diagnoses based on conventional light microscopy. The only exception seems to be cytology, which still requires some technological development. Although validation studies are needed in some areas of pathology, growing evidence indicates that WSI is a reliable tool for routine diagnosis. Pathologists have a positive perception of the ergonomics of the workstations, the low magnification of WSI and the possibility of making annotations and measurements. WSI can be used from any device and anywhere, thereby providing great opportunities for teleconsultation. New technologies such as the recognition of histopathology patterns using image analysis may facilitate diagnosis and improve the reproducibility among pathologists in the future.

Whole slide imaging for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemistry interpretation: Accuracy, Precision, and reproducibility studies for digital manual and paired glass slide manual interpretation

Background:

The use of digital whole slide imaging for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) immunohistochemistry (IHC) could create improvements in workflow and performance, allowing for central archiving of specimens, distributed and remote interpretation, and the potential for additional computerized automation.

Procedures:

The accuracy, precision, and reproducibility of manual digital interpretation for HER2 IHC were determined by comparison to manual glass slide interpretation. Inter- and intra-pathologist reproducibility and precision between the glass slide and digital interpretations of HER2 IHC were determined in 5 studies using DAKO HercepTest-stained breast cancer slides with the Philips Digital Pathology System. In 2 inter-method studies, 3 pathologists interpreted glass and digital slides in sequence or in random order with a minimum of 7 days as a washout period. These studies also measured inter-observer reproducibility and precision. Another two studies measured intra-pathologist reproducibility on cases read 10 times by glass and digital methods. One additional study evaluated the effects of adding IHC control slides with each run, using 1 pathologist interpreting glass and digital slides randomized from the sets above along with appropriate controls for each slide in the set.

Results:

The overall results show that there is no statistical difference between the variance of performance when comparing glass and digital HER2 interpretations; and there were no effects noted when control tissues were evaluated in conjunction with the test slides.

Conclusions:

The results show that there is an equivalence of result when interpreting HER2 IHC slides in breast cancer by either glass slides or digital images. Digital interpretation can therefore be safely and effectively used for this purpose.

High agreement between whole slide imaging and optical microscopy for assessment of HER2 expression in breast cancer: whole slide imaging for the assessment of HER2 expression

Whole slide imaging (WSI) technology has been used for training, teaching, researching, and remote consultation. Few studies compared HER2 expression using optical microscopy (OM) and WSI evaluations in breast carcinomas. However, no consensus has been achieved comparing both assessments.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sections from tissue microarray containing 200 preselected invasive breast carcinomas were submitted to immunohistochemistry applying three anti-HER2 antibodies (HercepTest™, CB11, SP3) and in situ hybridization (DDISH). Slides were evaluated using OM and WSI (Pannoramic MIDI and Viewer, 3DHISTECH). Sensitivity and specificity were calculated comparing the anti-HER2 antibodies and DDISH.

RESULTS

WSI and OM HER2 evaluations agreement was considered good (SP3, k=0.80) to very good (CB11 and HercepTest™, k=0.81). WSI evaluation led to higher sensitivity (ranging from 100 of SP3 and HercepTest™ to 97 of CB11) and lower specificity (ranging from 86.4 of SP3 to 89.4 of HercepTest™) compared to OM evaluation (sensitivity ranged from 92.1 of CB11 to 98 of SP3 and specificity ranged from 95.2 of SP3 and HercepTest™ to 97.1 of CB11 and SP3).

CONCLUSION

High agreement was achieved between WSI and OM evaluations. All three antibodies were highly sensitive and specific using both evaluations. WSI can be considered a useful tool for HER2 immunohistochemical assessment.

Identification by digital immunohistochemistry of intratumoral changes of immune infiltrates after vaccine in the absence of modifications of PBMC immune cell subsets

Preclinical studies have demonstrated that the combination of systemic subcutaneous (s.c.) vaccination with intratumoral (i.t.) vaccination was superior in the induction of antitumor activity vs. vaccination with either route alone. A subsequent phase I study employing i.t.-s.c. vaccination was carried out in men with locally recurrent or progressive prostate cancer. rF-PSA-TRICOM (PROSTVAC) vaccine was administered intraprostatically and rV-PSA-TRICOM followed by rF-PSA-TRICOM vaccine was administered systemically. In that study no dose limiting toxicities were observed, 19/21 patients had stable or improved prostate-specific antigen (PSA) values and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) increased in post- vs. pre-treatment tumor biopsies, analyzed employing conventional immunohistochemistry (IHC). In the studies reported here, 31 phenotypes of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were analyzed prevaccination and postvaccination as well as the functions of PBMC regulatory T cells (Tregs) and natural killer cells. A trend was observed in decreases in serum PSA with the reduction of circulating Tregs postvaccination. Digital IHC was employed prevaccination and postvaccination to measure CD4 and CD8 TILs, as well as Treg TILs by conventional IHC. Few correlations were observed with CD4, CD8 or Treg in TILs vs. PBMCs. However, patients with lower levels of CD4 TILs prevaccination showed the greatest increases in CD4 TILs postvaccine, while Treg TILs decreased postvaccine. There was also a strong correlation between decreases in serum PSA and increases in CD8 TILs postvaccine. These studies provide additional rationale for the use of i.t.-s.c. vaccinations and demonstrate a noncoordinate expression of specific immune subsets in PBMCs vs. tumor.