Reliability of a computational platform as a surrogate for manually interpreted immunohistochemical markers in breast tumor tissue microarrays.

backgroundPathologist and computational assessments have been used to evaluate immunohistochemistry (IHC) in epidemiologic studies. We compared Definiens Tissue Studio® to pathologist scores for 17 markers measured in breast tumor tissue microarrays (TMAs) [AR, CD20, CD4, CD8, CD163, EPRS, ER, FASN, H3K27, IGF1R, IR, Ki67, phospho-mTOR, PR, PTEN, RXR, and VDR].

methods5 914 Nurses' Health Study participants, diagnosed 1976-2006 (NHS) and 1989-2006 (NHS-II), were included. IHC was conducted by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Specialized Histopathology Laboratory. The percent of cells staining positive was assessed by breast pathologists. Definiens output was used to calculate a weighted average of percent of cells staining positive across TMA cores for each marker. Correlations between pathologist and computational scores were evaluated with Spearman correlation coefficients. Receiver-operator characteristic curves were constructed, using pathologist scores as comparison.

resultsSpearman correlations between pathologist and Definiens assessments ranged from weak (RXR, rho=-0.05; CD163, rho = 0.10) to strong (Ki67, rho = 0.79; pmTOR, rho = 0.77). The area under the curve was >0.70 for all markers except RXR.

conclusionOur data indicate that computational assessments exhibit variable correlations with interpretations made by an expert pathologist, depending on the marker evaluated. This study provides evidence supporting the use of computational platforms for IHC evaluation in large-scale epidemiologic studies, with the caveat that pilot studies are necessary to investigate agreement with expert assessments. In sum, computational platforms may provide greater efficiency and facilitate high-throughput epidemiologic analyses.