Digital Pathology and Tissue Image Analysis

2022 ◽  
pp. 395-421
Author(s):  
Famke Aeffner ◽  
Thomas Forest ◽  
Vanessa Schumacher ◽  
Mark Zarella ◽  
Alys Bradley
2021 ◽  
pp. jclinpath-2020-207351
Author(s):  
Jenny Fitzgerald ◽  
Debra Higgins ◽  
Claudia Mazo Vargas ◽  
William Watson ◽  
Catherine Mooney ◽  
...  

Clinical workflows in oncology depend on predictive and prognostic biomarkers. However, the growing number of complex biomarkers contributes to costly and delayed decision-making in routine oncology care and treatment. As cancer is expected to rank as the leading cause of death and the single most important barrier to increasing life expectancy in the 21st century, there is a major emphasis on precision medicine, particularly individualisation of treatment through better prediction of patient outcome. Over the past few years, both surgical and pathology specialties have suffered cutbacks and a low uptake of pathology specialists means a solution is required to enable high-throughput screening and personalised treatment in this area to alleviate bottlenecks. Digital imaging in pathology has undergone an exponential period of growth. Deep-learning (DL) platforms for hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) image analysis, with preliminary artificial intelligence (AI)-based grading capabilities of specimens, can evaluate image characteristics which may not be visually apparent to a pathologist and offer new possibilities for better modelling of disease appearance and possibly improve the prediction of disease stage and patient outcome. Although digital pathology and AI are still emerging areas, they are the critical components for advancing personalised medicine. Integration of transcriptomic analysis, clinical information and AI-based image analysis is yet an uncultivated field by which healthcare professionals can make improved treatment decisions in cancer. This short review describes the potential application of integrative AI in offering better detection, quantification, classification, prognosis and prediction of breast and prostate cancer and also highlights the utilisation of machine learning systems in biomarker evaluation.


Pathobiology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 83 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 148-155 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Racoceanu ◽  
Frédérique Capron

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruce P. Levy ◽  
Jason D. Hipp ◽  
Ulysses J. Balis ◽  
Yukako Yagi

Methods ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter W. Hamilton ◽  
Peter Bankhead ◽  
Yinhai Wang ◽  
Ryan Hutchinson ◽  
Declan Kieran ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (7) ◽  
pp. 983-1003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chandra Saravanan ◽  
Vanessa Schumacher ◽  
Danielle Brown ◽  
Robert Dunstan ◽  
Jean-Rene Galarneau ◽  
...  

Quantitative image analysis (IA) is a rapidly evolving area of digital pathology. Although not a new concept, the quantification of histological features on photomicrographs used to be cumbersome, resource-intensive, and limited to specialists and specialized laboratories. Recent technological advances like highly efficient automated whole slide digitizer (scanner) systems, innovative IA platforms, and the emergence of pathologist-friendly image annotation and analysis systems mean that quantification of features on histological digital images will become increasingly prominent in pathologists’ daily professional lives. The added value of quantitative IA in pathology includes confirmation of equivocal findings noted by a pathologist, increasing the sensitivity of feature detection, quantification of signal intensity, and improving efficiency. There is no denying that quantitative IA is part of the future of pathology; however, there are also several potential pitfalls when trying to estimate volumetric features from limited 2-dimensional sections. This continuing education session on quantitative IA offered a broad overview of the field; a hands-on toxicologic pathologist experience with IA principles, tools, and workflows; a discussion on how to apply basic stereology principles in order to minimize bias in IA; and finally, a reflection on the future of IA in the toxicologic pathology field.


2020 ◽  
pp. 019262332097053
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Chlipala ◽  
Mark Butters ◽  
Miles Brous ◽  
Jessica S. Fortin ◽  
Roni Archuletta ◽  
...  

Digital image analysis (DIA) is impacted by the quality of tissue staining. This study examined the influence of preanalytical variables—staining protocol design, reagent quality, section attributes, and instrumentation—on the performance of automated DIA software. Our hypotheses were that (1) staining intensity is impacted by subtle differences in protocol design, reagent quality, and section composition and that (2) identically programmed and loaded stainers will produce equivalent immunohistochemical (IHC) staining. We tested these propositions by using 1 hematoxylin and eosin stainer to process 13 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) mouse tissues and by using 3 identically programmed and loaded immunostainers to process 5 FFPE mouse tissues for 4 cell biomarkers. Digital images of stained sections acquired with a commercial whole slide scanner were analyzed by customizable algorithms incorporated into commercially available DIA software. Staining intensity as viewed qualitatively by an observer and/or quantitatively by DIA was affected by staining conditions and tissue attributes. Intrarun and inter-run IHC staining intensities were equivalent for each tissue when processed on a given stainer but varied measurably across stainers. Our data indicate that staining quality must be monitored for each method and stainer to ensure that preanalytical factors do not impact digital pathology data quality.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document