Article Sidebar

Submitted
August 10, 2020
Accepted
February 23, 2021
Published
April 30, 2021
Download
PDF Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Original Article
Statistic
Read Counter : 1129 Download : 752

Main Article Content

Abstract

Background: Today, pathology services are more developed for quantitative diagnostic evaluation. The quantitative diagnostic evaluation requires detailed accuracy and can be done using digital image analysis (DIA). Assessment of the Ki67 labelling index (LI) in breast carcinoma needs to be done quantitatively. A visual evaluation of Ki67 LI using light microscopy has high inter-observer variability. The evaluation of Ki67 LI could be done digitally with the DIA technique to overcome the inter-observer variability. The DIA technique is carried out by counting the Ki67 LI manually or automatically with bioimage analysis software. QuPath is one of the bioimage analysis software, has characteristics of cross-platform, intended for bioimage analysis and digital pathology.
Objective: This study aims to compare the manual and automatic calculation of Ki67 LI digitally.
Methods: This study was a cross-sectional study; a total of 240 digital Ki67 images from 30 slides were analyzed by counting manually and automatically using QuPath.
Results: Statistical analysis using the T-test showed no significant difference between the manual and automatic counting of Ki67 LI (p = 0,801, a = 0,05).
Conclusion: Digital image analysis using QuPath can be used to calculate the Ki67 LI automatically.

Keywords

Ki67 digital image analysis QuPath breast cancer

Article Details

How to Cite
Usman, H. A., & Zainal Abidin, F. A. (2021). Digital image analysis of immunohistochemistry KI-67 using QuPath software in breast cancer. JKKI : Jurnal Kedokteran Dan Kesehatan Indonesia, 12(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.20885/JKKI.Vol12.Iss1.art7
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Laurinavicius A, Laurinaviciene A, Dasevicius D, Elie N, Plancoulaine B, Bor C, et al. Digital image analysis in pathology: benefits and obligation. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst). 2012;35(2):75-8.
  2. Webster JD, Dunstan RW. Whole-slide imaging and automated image analysis: considerations and opportunities in the practice of pathology. Vet Pathol. 2014;51(1):211-23.
  3. Luporsi E, Andre F, Spyratos F, Martin PM, Jacquemier J, Penault-Llorca F, et al. Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;132(3):895-915.
  4. Voros A, Csorgo E, Kovari B, Lazar P, Kelemen G, Cserni G. The use of digital images improves reproducibility of the ki-67 labeling index as a proliferation marker in breast cancer. Pathol Oncol Res. 2014;20(2):391-7.
  5. Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A'Hern R, Bartlett J, Coombes RC, Cuzick J, et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(22):1656-64.
  6. Bankhead P, Loughrey MB, Fernandez JA, Dombrowski Y, McArt DG, Dunne PD, et al. QuPath: Open source software for digital pathology image analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):16878.
  7. Mohammed ZM, McMillan DC, Elsberger B, Going JJ, Orange C, Mallon E, et al. Comparison of visual and automated assessment of Ki-67 proliferative activity and their impact on outcome in primary operable invasive ductal breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2012;106(2):383-8.
  8. Zhong F, Bi R, Yu B, Yang F, Yang W, Shui R. A Comparison of Visual Assessment and Automated Digital Image Analysis of Ki67 Labeling Index in Breast Cancer. PLoS One. 2016;11(2):e0150505.
  9. Voros A, Csorgo E, Nyari T, Cserni G. An intra- and interobserver reproducibility analysis of the Ki-67 proliferation marker assessment on core biopsies of breast cancer patients and its potential clinical implications. Pathobiology. 2013;80(3):111-8.
  10. Shaw EC, Hanby AM, Wheeler K, Shaaban AM, Poller D, Barton S, et al. Observer agreement comparing the use of virtual slides with glass slides in the pathology review component of the POSH breast cancer cohort study. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65(5):403-8.
  11. Madabhushi A, Lee G. Image analysis and machine learning in digital pathology: Challenges and opportunities. Med Image Anal. 2016;33:170-5.
  12. Yoshioka T, Hosoda M, Yamamoto M, Taguchi K, Hatanaka KC, Takakuwa E, et al. Prognostic significance of pathologic complete response and Ki67 expression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2015;22(2):185-91.
  13. Denkert C, Budczies J, von Minckwitz G, Wienert S, Loibl S, Klauschen F. Strategies for developing Ki67 as a useful biomarker in breast cancer. Breast. 2015;24 Suppl 2:S67-72.
  14. Kostopoulos S, Cavouras D, Daskalakis A, Bougioukos P, Georgiadis P, Kagadis GC, et al. Colour-texture based image analysis method for assessing the hormone receptors status in breast tissue sections. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2007;2007:4985-8.
  15. Volynskaya Z, Mete O, Pakbaz S, Al-Ghamdi D, Asa S. Ki67 quantitative interpretation: Insights using image analysis. Journal of Pathology Informatics. 2019;10(1):8-.
  16. Maeda I, Abe K, Koizumi H, Nakajima C, Tajima S, Aoki H, et al. Comparison between Ki67 labeling index determined using image analysis software with virtual slide system and that determined visually in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2016;23(5):745-51.