Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27312066›Full record

ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2016

Validation of tumor protein marker quantification by two independent automated immunofluorescence image analysis platforms.

Amy R Peck, Melanie A Girondo, Chengbao Liu, Albert J Kovatich, Jeffrey A Hooke, Craig D Shriver, Hai Hu, Edith P Mitchell, Boris Freydin, Terry Hyslop and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Amy R PeckDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Melanie A GirondoDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Chengbao LiuDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Albert J KovatichJohn P. Murtha Cancer Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Jeffrey A HookeJohn P. Murtha Cancer Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Craig D ShriverJohn P. Murtha Cancer Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Hai HuChan Soon-Shiong Institute of Molecular Medicine at Windber, Windber, PA, USA.
Edith P MitchellDepartment of Medical Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Boris FreydinDivision of Biostatistics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Terry HyslopDuke Cancer Institute, Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Inna ChervonevaDivision of Biostatistics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Hallgeir RuiDepartment of Pathology, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Medical College of Wisconsin · USThomas Jefferson University · USWalter Reed National Military Medical Center · USDuke University · USWindber Research Institute · US

Funding

Prolactin pathways and metastatic progression of ER-positive breast cancerR01CA188575 · NCI · THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY · PI RUI, HALLGEIR · 2015 to 2019
$1.8M
Molecular features of patient-derived luminal breast cancer xenotransplant modelsR21CA185918 · NCI · THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY · PI RUI, HALLGEIR · 2014 to 2015
$371k
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA188575NCI NIH HHS R21 CA185918
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein marker levels in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections traditionally have been assayed by chromogenic immunohistochemistry and evaluated visually by pathologists. Pathologist scoring of chromogen staining intensity is subjective and generates low-resolution ordinal or nominal data rather than continuous data. Emerging digital pathology platforms now allow quantification of chromogen or fluorescence signals by computer-assisted image analysis, providing continuous immunohistochemistry values. Fluorescence immunohistochemistry offers greater dynamic signal range than chromogen immunohistochemistry, and combined with image analysis holds the promise of enhanced sensitivity and analytic resolution, and consequently more robust quantification. However, commercial fluorescence scanners and image analysis software differ in features and capabilities, and claims of objective quantitative immunohistochemistry are difficult to validate as pathologist scoring is subjective and there is no accepted gold standard. Here we provide the first side-by-side validation of two technologically distinct commercial fluorescence immunohistochemistry analysis platforms. We document highly consistent results by (1) concordance analysis of fluorescence immunohistochemistry values and (2) agreement in outcome predictions both for objective, data-driven cutpoint dichotomization with Kaplan-Meier analyses or employment of continuous marker values to compute receiver-operating curves. The two platforms examined rely on distinct fluorescence immunohistochemistry imaging hardware, microscopy vs line scanning, and functionally distinct image analysis software. Fluorescence immunohistochemistry values for nuclear-localized and tyrosine-phosphorylated Stat5a/b computed by each platform on a cohort of 323 breast cancer cases revealed high concordance after linear calibration, a finding confirmed on an independent 382 case cohort, with concordance correlation coefficients >0.98. Data-driven optimal cutpoints for outcome prediction by either platform were reciprocally applicable to the data derived by the alternate platform, identifying patients with low Nuc-pYStat5 at ~3.5-fold increased risk of disease progression. Our analyses identified two highly concordant fluorescence immunohistochemistry platforms that may serve as benchmarks for testing of other platforms, and low interoperator variability supports the implementation of objective tumor marker quantification in pathology laboratories.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorBreast NeoplasmsFemaleFluorescent Antibody TechniqueHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedReproducibility of ResultsBiomarkers, Tumor

Identifiers

PMID27312066
PMCPMC5047958
OpenAlexW2436991393

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.