Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27499890›Full record

ArticleThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2015

Performance of automated scoring of ER, PR, HER2, CK5/6 and EGFR in breast cancer tissue microarrays in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium.

William J Howat, Fiona M Blows, Elena Provenzano, Mark N Brook, Lorna Morris, Patrycja Gazinska, Nicola Johnson, Leigh-Anne McDuffus, Jodi Miller, Elinor J Sawyer and 42 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Combined quantitative measures of ER, PR, HER2, and KI67 provide more prognostic information than categorical combinations in luminal breast cancer.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2019
    Article
  15. The use of digital pathology and image analysis in clinical trials.The journal of pathology. Clinical research · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

52 authors at 20 institutions in 6 countries.

William J HowatCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Fiona M BlowsCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Oncology University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Elena ProvenzanoBreast Pathology Addenbrookes Hospital Cambridge UK.
Mark N BrookDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology The Institute of Cancer Research London UK.
Lorna MorrisCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of CambridgeCambridgeUK; Department of OncologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK.
Patrycja GazinskaBreakthrough Breast Cancer Research Unit, Division of Cancer Studies King's College London, Guy's Hospital London UK.
Nicola JohnsonCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Leigh-Anne McDuffusCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Jodi MillerCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Elinor J SawyerDivision of Cancer Studies, NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre Guy's & St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King's College London London UK.
Sarah PinderResearch Oncology, Division of Cancer Studies King's College London, Guy's Hospital London UK.
Carolien H M van DeurzenDepartment of Pathology Erasmus University Medical Center Rotterdam The Netherlands.
Louise JonesCentre for Tumour BiologyBarts Institute of CancerBartsUK; The London School of Medicine and DentistryLondonUK.
Reijo SironenSchool of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Pathology and Forensic MedicineCancer Center of Eastern Finland, University of Eastern FinlandKuopioFinland; Imaging Center, Department of Clinical PathologyKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland.
Daniel VisscherDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology Mayo Clinic Rochester MN USA.
Carlos CaldasCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Frances DaleyBreakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Breast Cancer Research The Institute of Cancer Research London UK.
Penny CoulsonDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology The Institute of Cancer Research London UK.
Annegien BroeksCore Facility for Molecular Pathology and Biobanking Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital Amsterdam The Netherlands.
Joyce SandersDepartment of Pathology, Division of Diagnostic Oncology Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital Amsterdam The Netherlands.
Jelle WesselingDepartment of Pathology, Division of Diagnostic Oncology Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital Amsterdam The Netherlands.
Heli NevanlinnaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital Helsinki Finland.
Rainer FagerholmDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital Helsinki Finland.
Carl BlomqvistDepartment of Oncology Helsinki University Central Hospital Helsinki Finland.
Päivi HeikkiläDepartment of Pathology Helsinki University Central Hospital Helsinki Finland.
H Raza AliCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Sarah-Jane DawsonCancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Jonine FigueroaDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute Rockville Maryland USA.
Jolanta LissowskaDepartment of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention M. Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center & Institute of Oncology Warsaw Poland.
Louise BrintonDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute Rockville Maryland USA.
Arto MannermaaSchool of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Pathology and Forensic MedicineCancer Center of Eastern Finland, University of Eastern FinlandKuopioFinland; Imaging Center, Department of Clinical PathologyKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland.
Vesa KatajaKuopio University Hospital, Cancer CenterKuopioFinland; School of Medicine, Institute of Clinical MedicineUniversity of Eastern Finland, Oncology and Central Hospital of Central Finland, Central Finland Hospital DistrictKuopioFinland.
Veli-Matti KosmaSchool of Medicine, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Pathology and Forensic MedicineCancer Center of Eastern Finland, University of Eastern FinlandKuopioFinland; Imaging Center, Department of Clinical PathologyKuopio University HospitalKuopioFinland.
Angela CoxCRUK/YCR Sheffield Cancer Research Centre, Department of Oncology University of Sheffield Sheffield UK.
Ian W BrockCRUK/YCR Sheffield Cancer Research Centre, Department of Oncology University of Sheffield Sheffield UK.
Simon S CrossAcademic Unit of Pathology, Department of Neuroscience University of Sheffield Sheffield UK.
Malcolm W ReedCRUK/YCR Sheffield Cancer Research Centre, Department of Oncology University of Sheffield Sheffield UK.
Fergus J CouchDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology Mayo Clinic Rochester MN USA.
Janet E OlsonDepartment of Health Sciences Research Mayo Clinic Rochester MN USA.
Peter DevilleeDepartment of Human Genetics & Department of Pathology Leiden University Medical Center Leiden The Netherlands.
Wilma E MeskerDepartment of Surgical Oncology Leiden University Medical Center RC Leiden The Netherlands.
Caroline M SeyaneveFamily Cancer Clinic, Department of Medical Oncology Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam The Netherlands.
Antoinette HollestelleFamily Cancer Clinic, Department of Medical Oncology Erasmus MC Cancer Institute Rotterdam The Netherlands.
Javier BenitezHuman Genetics Group, Human Cancer Genetics ProgramSpanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO)MadridSpain; Centro de Investigación en Red de Enfermedades Raras (CIBERER)ValenciaSpain.
Jose Ignacio Arias PerezServicio de Cirugía General y Especialidades Hospital Monte Naranco Oviedo Spain.
Primitiva MenéndezServicio de Anatomía Patológica Hospital Monte Naranco Oviedo Spain.
Manjeet K BollaCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Douglas F EastonCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of OncologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK; Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK.
Marjanka K SchmidtDivision of Molecular Pathology Netherlands Cancer Institute, Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital Amsterdam The Netherlands.
Paul D PharoahCentre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of OncologyUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK; Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK.
Mark E ShermanDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics National Cancer Institute Rockville Maryland USA.
Montserrat García-ClosasDivision of Genetics and EpidemiologyThe Institute of Cancer ResearchLondonUK; Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Division of Breast Cancer ResearchThe Institute of Cancer ResearchLondonUK.
University of Cambridge · GBInstitute of Cancer Research · GBThe Netherlands Cancer Institute · NLUniversity of Eastern Finland · FINational Cancer Institute · USYorkshire Cancer Research · GBErasmus MC Cancer Institute · NLGuy's Hospital · GBHelsinki University Hospital · FIHospital Monte Naranco · ESLeiden University Medical Center · NLMayo Clinic in Arizona · USUniversity of Helsinki · FIAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBBarts Health NHS Trust · GBErasmus MC · NLKing's College London · GBMayo Clinic in Florida · USSpanish National Cancer Research Centre · ESThe Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology · PL

Funding

Hormone-Related CancersZIACP010126 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI GIERACH, GRETCHEN · 2009 to 2025
$103.5M
The Role of CHFR in Tumorigenesis and Paclitaxel-Sensitivity in Breast CancerP50CA116201 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI PETER C LUCAS · 2005 to 2026
$49.9M
Cancer Research UK 16465Medical Research Council MR/M008975/1NCI NIH HHS P50 CA116201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Breast cancer risk factors and clinical outcomes vary by tumour marker expression. However, individual studies often lack the power required to assess these relationships, and large-scale analyses are limited by the need for high throughput, standardized scoring methods. To address these limitations, we assessed whether automated image analysis of immunohistochemically stained tissue microarrays can permit rapid, standardized scoring of tumour markers from multiple studies. Tissue microarray sections prepared in nine studies containing 20 263 cores from 8267 breast cancers stained for two nuclear (oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor), two membranous (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and epidermal growth factor receptor) and one cytoplasmic (cytokeratin 5/6) marker were scanned as digital images. Automated algorithms were used to score markers in tumour cells using the Ariol system. We compared automated scores against visual reads, and their associations with breast cancer survival. Approximately 65-70% of tissue microarray cores were satisfactory for scoring. Among satisfactory cores, agreement between dichotomous automated and visual scores was highest for oestrogen receptor (Kappa = 0.76), followed by human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Kappa = 0.69) and progesterone receptor (Kappa = 0.67). Automated quantitative scores for these markers were associated with hazard ratios for breast cancer mortality in a dose-response manner. Considering visual scores of epidermal growth factor receptor or cytokeratin 5/6 as the reference, automated scoring achieved excellent negative predictive value (96-98%), but yielded many false positives (positive predictive value = 30-32%). For all markers, we observed substantial heterogeneity in automated scoring performance across tissue microarrays. Automated analysis is a potentially useful tool for large-scale, quantitative scoring of immunohistochemically stained tissue microarrays available in consortia. However, continued optimization, rigorous marker-specific quality control measures and standardization of tissue microarray designs, staining and scoring protocols is needed to enhance results.

Indexed as

automated scoringbreast tumoursdigital pathologyimmunohistochemistrytissue microarrays

Identifiers

PMID27499890
PMCPMC4858117
OpenAlexW1519310242

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.