Computer‐assisted pathological immunohistochemistry scoring is more time‐effective than conventional scoring, but provides no analytical advantage
Chee Wee Ong, Lay Gek Kim, Hui Kong, Lai Yee Low, Ting Ting Wang, Srivastava Supriya, Manickam Kathiresan, Richie Soong, Manuel Salto‐Tellez · Histopathology · 2010
AIMS: Interpretation of immunohistochemistry is primarily done through human visual scoring while computer-assisted scoring is relatively uncommon. This study aimed to examine (i) the level of agreement between human visual and computer-assisted pathological scoring of immunoreactivity expression in colorectal cancers, (ii) whether computer-assisted scoring affects the prognostic significance of biomarkers, and (iii) whether computer-assisted pathological scoring provides any time-saving or reproducibility advantages. METHODS AND RESULTS: Tissue microarray blocks were constructed from the primary colorectal adenocarcinoma specimens of 486 patients. Scoring of the six markers [cytokeratin (CK) 7, CK20, cyclooxygenase-2, Ki67, p27 and p53] was done independently by a qualified pathologist, a trained scientist and the Ariol SL-50 (Applied Imaging). Univariate analysis showed that human visual and computer-assisted scoring were strongly correlated (all kappa values >0.8). Both human visual and computer-assisted pathological scoring identified the same set of biomarkers with significant association with survival. Computer-assisted pathological scoring was shown to be a time-effective means of scoring larger numbers of slides (for high-throughput studies). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that computer-assisted pathological scoring can be a viable alternative to pathologist scoring in a manner that is more practical and time-effective, but, interestingly, providing no analytical advantage.