Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37697694›Full record

ArticleThe journal of pathology. Clinical research2023

Accounting for intensity variation in image analysis of large-scale multiplexed clinical trial datasets.

Anja L Frei, Anthony McGuigan, Ritik Rak Sinha, Mark A Glaire, Faiz Jabbar, Luciana Gneo, Tijana Tomasevic, Andrea Harkin, Tim J Iveson, Mark Saunders and 17 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The journal of pathology. Clinical research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

27 authors.

Anja L FreiDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Anthony McGuiganNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ritik Rak SinhaNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4171-3598
Mark A GlaireNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Faiz JabbarNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Luciana GneoNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Tijana TomasevicNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Andrea HarkinCancer Research UK Glasgow Clinical Trials Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Tim J IvesonSouthampton University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Mark SaundersThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Karin OeinGlasgow Tissue Research Facility, University of Glasgow, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Noori MakaGlasgow Tissue Research Facility, University of Glasgow, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Francesco PezellaNuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Leticia CampoDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jennifer HayGlasgow Tissue Research Facility, University of Glasgow, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow, UK.
Joanne EdwardsSchool of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7192-6906
Owen J SansomSchool of Cancer Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9540-3010
Caroline KellyCancer Research UK Glasgow Clinical Trials Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Ian TomlinsonDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Wanja KildalInstitute for Cancer Genetics and Informatics, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Rachel S KerrDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
David J KerrNuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Håvard E DanielsenNuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Enric DomingoDepartment of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
TransSCOT Consortium
David N ChurchNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4617-962X
Viktor H KoelzerDepartment of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9206-4885

Funding

Cancer Research UK 25355Cancer Research UK 27963Cancer Research UK A25142Cancer Research UK C26642/A27963Cancer Research UK C6716/A13941Cancer Research UK C6716/A9894Medical Research Council G0601705Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF) imaging can provide comprehensive quantitative and spatial information for multiple immune markers for tumour immunoprofiling. However, application at scale to clinical trial samples sourced from multiple institutions is challenging due to pre-analytical heterogeneity. This study reports an analytical approach to the largest multi-parameter immunoprofiling study of clinical trial samples to date. We analysed 12,592 tissue microarray (TMA) spots from 3,545 colorectal cancers sourced from more than 240 institutions in two clinical trials (QUASAR 2 and SCOT) stained for CD4, CD8, CD20, CD68, FoxP3, pan-cytokeratin, and DAPI by mIF. TMA slides were multi-spectrally imaged and analysed by cell-based and pixel-based marker analysis. We developed an adaptive thresholding method to account for inter- and intra-slide intensity variation in TMA analysis. Applying this method effectively ameliorated inter- and intra-slide intensity variation improving the image analysis results compared with methods using a single global threshold. Correlation of CD8 data derived by our mIF analysis approach with single-plex chromogenic immunohistochemistry CD8 data derived from subsequent sections indicates the validity of our method (Spearman's rank correlation coefficients ρ between 0.63 and 0.66, p ≪ 0.01) as compared with the current gold standard analysis approach. Evaluation of correlation between cell-based and pixel-based analysis results confirms equivalency (ρ > 0.8, p ≪ 0.01, except for CD20 in the epithelial region) of both analytical approaches. These data suggest that our adaptive thresholding approach can enable analysis of mIF-stained clinical trial TMA datasets by digital pathology at scale for precision immunoprofiling.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorNeoplasmsHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImmunohistochemistryTissue Array AnalysisBiomarkers, Tumordigital pathologyfluorescence microscopyimage analysis

Identifiers

PMID37697694
PMCPMC10556275

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.