Tissue Pattern Recognition Error Rates and Tumor Heterogeneity in Gastric Cancer

Abstract

The anatomic pathology discipline is slowly moving toward a digital workflow, where pathologists will evaluate whole-slide images on a computer monitor rather than glass slides through a microscope. One of the driving factors in this workflow is computer-assisted scoring, which depends on appropriate selection of regions of interest. With advances in tissue pattern recognition techniques, a more precise region of the tissue can be evaluated, no longer bound by the pathologist's patience in manually outlining target tissue areas. Pathologists use entire tissues from which to determine a score in a region of interest when making manual immunohistochemistry assessments. Tissue pattern recognition theoretically offers this same advantage; however, error rates exist in any tissue pattern recognition program, and these error rates contribute to errors in the overall score. To provide a real-world example of tissue pattern recognition, 11 HER2-stained upper gastrointestinal malignancies with high heterogeneity were evaluated. HER2 scoring of gastric cancer was chosen due to its increasing importance in gastrointestinal disease. A method is introduced for quantifying the error rates of tissue pattern recognition. The trade-off between fully sampling tumor with a given tissue pattern recognition error rate versus randomly sampling a limited number of fields of view with higher target accuracy was modeled with a Monte-Carlo simulation. Under most scenarios, stereological methods of sampling-limited fields of view outperformed whole-slide tissue pattern recognition approaches for accurate immunohistochemistry analysis. The importance of educating pathologists in the use of statistical sampling is discussed, along with the emerging role of hybrid whole-tissue imaging and stereological approaches.

Differences in routine esophagogastroduodenoscopy between Japanese and international facilities: A questionnaire survey

“…Gastric neoplasia is often heterogeneous and contains different histological components such as benign lesions, dysplasia and cancer, with different histological types or molecular profiles in the same tumor. 33 To avoid biopsy sampling error, guidelines from USA 34 , UK 35 and Germany 36 recommend taking six to eight samples with standard forceps. 34 However, the reference studies to this recommendation were published in the 1970s and 1980s and used fiberoptic endoscopes.…”

Practical Approaches to Microvessel Analysis: Hotspots, Microvessel Density, and Vessel Proximity

“…This would be conducted similar to other approaches used in HER2 heterogeneity measurements in breast [21] and gastric cancer samples [22] …”

“…A false negative was counted when vessel could be identified by a pathologist but the computer program did not identify it. Since the error analysis requires a pathologist to review every vessel, randomly selected slides and randomly selected regions on slides were chosen based on a methodology used previously [22]. In brief, five slides where chosen from the full slide set using systematic random sampling, and six regions from each of these slides were chosen using a GridMap™ (Flagship Biosciences) program that systematically random samples across the whole slide image.…”

Critical evaluation of ramucirumab in the treatment of advanced gastric and gastroesophageal cancers

“…The inadequacy of the AJCC TNM staging algorithm in the prognostic assessment of GC necessitated the application of comprehensive genomic approaches to deepen the understanding of crucial cellular and molecular mechanisms of GC. 68 …”