Histologic assessment of stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (sTIL) as a surrogate of the host immune response has been shown to be prognostic and potentially chemo-predictive in triplenegative and HER2-positive breast cancers. The current practice of manual assessment is prone to intra-and inter-observer variability. Furthermore, the interplay of sTILs, tumor cells, other microenvironment mediators, their spatial relationships, quantity, and other image-based features have yet to be determined exhaustively and systemically. Towards analysis of these aspects, we developed a deep learning based method for joint region-level and nucleus-level segmentation and classification of breast cancer H&E tissue whole slide images. Our proposed method simultaneously identifies tumor, fibroblast, and lymphocyte nuclei, along with key histologic region compartments including tumor and stroma. We also show how the resultant segmentation masks can be combined with seeding approaches to yield accurate nucleus classifications. Furthermore, we outline a simple workflow for calibrating computational scores to human scores for consistency. The pipeline identifies key compartments with high accuracy (Dice= overall: 0.78, tumor: 0.83, and fibroblasts: 0.77). ROC AUC for nucleus classification is high at 0.89 (microaverage), 0.89 (lymphocytes), 0.90 (tumor), and 0.78 (fibroblasts). Spearman correlation between computational sTIL and pathologist consensus is high (R=0.73, p<0.001) and is higher than interpathologist correlation (R=0.66, p<0.001). Both manual and computational sTIL scores successfully stratify patients by clinical progression outcomes.

Pathologists have had increasing responsibility for quantitating immunohistochemistry (IHC) biomarkers with the expectation of high between-reader reproducibility due to clinical decision-making especially for patient therapy. Digital imaging-based quantitation of IHC clinical slides offers a potential aid for improvement; however, its clinical adoption is limited potentially due to a conventional field-of-view annotation approach. In this study, we implemented a novel solely morphology-based whole tumor section annotation strategy to maximize image analysis quantitation results between readers. We first compare the field-of-view image analysis annotation approach to digital and manual-based modalities across multiple clinical studies (~120 cases per study) and biomarkers (ER, PR, HER2, Ki-67, and p53 IHC) and then compare a subset of the same cases (~40 cases each from the ER, PR, HER2, and Ki-67 studies) using whole tumor section annotation approach to understand incremental value of all modalities. Between-reader results for each biomarker in relation to conventional scoring modalities showed similar concordance as manual read: ER field-of-view image analysis: 95.3% (95% CI 92.0-98.2%) vs digital read: 92.0% (87.8-95.8%) vs manual read: 94.9% (91.4-97.8%); PR field-of-view image analysis: 94.1% (90.3-97.2%) vs digital read: 94.0% (90.2-97.1%) vs manual read: 94.4% (90.9-97.2%); Ki-67 field-of-view image analysis: 86.8% (82.1-91.4%) vs digital read: 76.6% (70.9-82.2%) vs manual read: 85.6% (80.4-90.4%); p53 field-of-view image analysis: 81.7% (76.4-86.8%) vs digital read: 80.6% (75.0-86.0%) vs manual read: 78.8% (72.2-83.3%); and HER2 field-of-view image analysis: 93.8% (90.0-97.2%) vs digital read: 91.0 (86.6-94.9%) vs manual read: 87.2% (82.1-91.9%). Subset implementation and analysis on the same cases using whole tumor section image analysis approach showed significant improvement between pathologists over field-of-view image analysis and manual read (HER2 100% (97-100%), P=0.013 field-of-view image analysis and 0.013 manual read; Ki-67 100% (96.9-100%), P=0.040 and 0.012; ER 98.3% (94.1-99.5%), p=0.232 and 0.181; and PR 96.6% (91.5-98.7%), p=0.012 and 0.257). Overall, whole tumor section image analysis significantly improves between-pathologist's reproducibility and is the optimal approach for clinical-based image analysis algorithms.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract