在一项多实验室研究中,人工智能辅助的乳腺癌HER2解释

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Gland surgery Pub Date : 2025-06-30 Epub Date: 2025-06-26 DOI:10.21037/gs-2024-560
Libo Yang, Jie Chen, Leyi Gao, Fengling Li, Xudan Yang, Juan Ji, Pei Zhang, Ping Hua, Xiulan Liu, Rong Wang, Zhenru Wu, Fei Chen, Bing Wei, Zhang Zhang
{"title":"在一项多实验室研究中,人工智能辅助的乳腺癌HER2解释","authors":"Libo Yang, Jie Chen, Leyi Gao, Fengling Li, Xudan Yang, Juan Ji, Pei Zhang, Ping Hua, Xiulan Liu, Rong Wang, Zhenru Wu, Fei Chen, Bing Wei, Zhang Zhang","doi":"10.21037/gs-2024-560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Improving the concordance of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) examinations among laboratories remains a challenge. In this multi-laboratory study, we investigated the concordance of HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) examination through manual and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted interpretation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A tissue microarray (TMA) comprising 53 breast cancer samples was constructed and distributed to 35 participating laboratories. For each sample on every slide, IHC scores of 0, 1+, 2+, and 3+ were recorded. Subsequently, cases that failed to achieve complete agreement during manual interpretation were re-evaluated using an AI-assisted microscope.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During manual interpretation, 14 out of 53 cases (14/53, 26.4%) demonstrated concordant results across all laboratories, including 13 IHC-0 cases and 1 IHC-3+ case. Notably, cases scored as 1+ in at least one laboratory exhibited a low overall percentage agreement (OPA) and Fleiss Kappa value. Among the 39 cases with non-concordant manual interpretation, 14 cases (14/39, 35.9%) achieved complete agreement through AI-assisted HER2 interpretation. In cases where manual interpretation discrepancies were restricted to scores of 0 and 1+, 69.6% (16/23) of the cases still showed differences between 0 and 1+ in AI-assisted HER2 interpretation. Disagreements between manual and AI-assisted interpretation occurred significantly more frequently in sections manually scored as 1+ compared to those scored as 0 (58.6% <i>vs</i>. 2.1%, P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The weakly staining phenotype leads to poor agreement in the manual interpretation of HER2 IHC-1+ breast cancers. AI-assisted HER2 interpretation offers a viable approach for multi-laboratory studies, effectively avoiding the subjective errors inherent in manual interpretation.</p>","PeriodicalId":12760,"journal":{"name":"Gland surgery","volume":"14 6","pages":"1042-1051"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12261348/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Artificial intelligence-assisted HER2 interpretation for breast cancers in a multi-laboratory study.\",\"authors\":\"Libo Yang, Jie Chen, Leyi Gao, Fengling Li, Xudan Yang, Juan Ji, Pei Zhang, Ping Hua, Xiulan Liu, Rong Wang, Zhenru Wu, Fei Chen, Bing Wei, Zhang Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/gs-2024-560\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Improving the concordance of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) examinations among laboratories remains a challenge. In this multi-laboratory study, we investigated the concordance of HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) examination through manual and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted interpretation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A tissue microarray (TMA) comprising 53 breast cancer samples was constructed and distributed to 35 participating laboratories. For each sample on every slide, IHC scores of 0, 1+, 2+, and 3+ were recorded. Subsequently, cases that failed to achieve complete agreement during manual interpretation were re-evaluated using an AI-assisted microscope.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During manual interpretation, 14 out of 53 cases (14/53, 26.4%) demonstrated concordant results across all laboratories, including 13 IHC-0 cases and 1 IHC-3+ case. Notably, cases scored as 1+ in at least one laboratory exhibited a low overall percentage agreement (OPA) and Fleiss Kappa value. Among the 39 cases with non-concordant manual interpretation, 14 cases (14/39, 35.9%) achieved complete agreement through AI-assisted HER2 interpretation. In cases where manual interpretation discrepancies were restricted to scores of 0 and 1+, 69.6% (16/23) of the cases still showed differences between 0 and 1+ in AI-assisted HER2 interpretation. Disagreements between manual and AI-assisted interpretation occurred significantly more frequently in sections manually scored as 1+ compared to those scored as 0 (58.6% <i>vs</i>. 2.1%, P<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The weakly staining phenotype leads to poor agreement in the manual interpretation of HER2 IHC-1+ breast cancers. AI-assisted HER2 interpretation offers a viable approach for multi-laboratory studies, effectively avoiding the subjective errors inherent in manual interpretation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12760,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gland surgery\",\"volume\":\"14 6\",\"pages\":\"1042-1051\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12261348/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Gland surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-2024-560\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/26 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gland surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/gs-2024-560","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:提高实验室间人类表皮生长因子受体2 (HER2)检测的一致性仍然是一个挑战。在这项多实验室研究中,我们通过人工和人工智能(AI)辅助解释来研究HER2免疫组织化学(IHC)检查的一致性。方法:构建包含53例乳腺癌样本的组织微阵列(TMA),并将其分发到35个参与研究的实验室。对于每张载玻片上的每个样本,记录IHC评分为0、1+、2+和3+。随后,使用人工智能辅助显微镜重新评估在人工解释期间未能达到完全一致的病例。结果:在人工解释期间,53例病例中有14例(14/53,26.4%)在所有实验室中显示一致的结果,包括13例IHC-0病例和1例IHC-3+病例。值得注意的是,在至少一个实验室中得分为1+的病例表现出较低的总体百分比一致性(OPA)和Fleiss Kappa值。人工判读不一致的39例中,有14例(14/39,35.9%)通过人工智能辅助的HER2判读完全一致。在人工口译差异仅限于0和1+的病例中,69.6%(16/23)的病例在人工智能辅助的HER2口译中仍然存在0和1+的差异。在人工评分为1+的部分中,人工和人工智能辅助解释之间的差异明显高于人工评分为0的部分(58.6% vs. 2.1%)。结论:弱染色表型导致人工解释HER2 IHC-1+乳腺癌的一致性较差。人工智能辅助HER2判读为多实验室研究提供了一种可行的方法,有效避免了人工判读固有的主观错误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Artificial intelligence-assisted HER2 interpretation for breast cancers in a multi-laboratory study.

Background: Improving the concordance of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) examinations among laboratories remains a challenge. In this multi-laboratory study, we investigated the concordance of HER2 immunohistochemistry (IHC) examination through manual and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted interpretation.

Methods: A tissue microarray (TMA) comprising 53 breast cancer samples was constructed and distributed to 35 participating laboratories. For each sample on every slide, IHC scores of 0, 1+, 2+, and 3+ were recorded. Subsequently, cases that failed to achieve complete agreement during manual interpretation were re-evaluated using an AI-assisted microscope.

Results: During manual interpretation, 14 out of 53 cases (14/53, 26.4%) demonstrated concordant results across all laboratories, including 13 IHC-0 cases and 1 IHC-3+ case. Notably, cases scored as 1+ in at least one laboratory exhibited a low overall percentage agreement (OPA) and Fleiss Kappa value. Among the 39 cases with non-concordant manual interpretation, 14 cases (14/39, 35.9%) achieved complete agreement through AI-assisted HER2 interpretation. In cases where manual interpretation discrepancies were restricted to scores of 0 and 1+, 69.6% (16/23) of the cases still showed differences between 0 and 1+ in AI-assisted HER2 interpretation. Disagreements between manual and AI-assisted interpretation occurred significantly more frequently in sections manually scored as 1+ compared to those scored as 0 (58.6% vs. 2.1%, P<0.001).

Conclusions: The weakly staining phenotype leads to poor agreement in the manual interpretation of HER2 IHC-1+ breast cancers. AI-assisted HER2 interpretation offers a viable approach for multi-laboratory studies, effectively avoiding the subjective errors inherent in manual interpretation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Gland surgery
Gland surgery Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
113
期刊介绍: Gland Surgery (Gland Surg; GS, Print ISSN 2227-684X; Online ISSN 2227-8575) being indexed by PubMed/PubMed Central, is an open access, peer-review journal launched at May of 2012, published bio-monthly since February 2015.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信