Jacob A Houpt, Eric Liu, Hui Wang, Matthew J Cecchini, Charles Ling, Qi Zhang
{"title":"胃肠道神经内分泌肿瘤的 Ki-67 指数测定:过去、现在和未来。","authors":"Jacob A Houpt, Eric Liu, Hui Wang, Matthew J Cecchini, Charles Ling, Qi Zhang","doi":"10.1007/s00428-024-03963-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ki-67 index (Ki-67i) is integral to the grading of many tumours. There remains considerable variability across pathologists in methods used to determine Ki-67i and in their results. Manual counting (or \"eyeballing\") is widely used, but digital pathology tools such as web-based image analysis and artificial intelligence-assisted cell detection software have become available in daily pathology practice. This study aims to compare the accuracy and efficiency of manual and two digital methods of Ki-67i determination. H&E and Ki-67 immunohistochemical (IHC) slides/images of 12 gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours (GI-NETs) were provided to 8 pathologists to evaluate Ki-67i via manual estimation (ME; the \"past\"), web-based image analysis using cellular segmentation (AI4Path.ca; the \"present\"), and software-based image analysis with built-in AI algorithms (QuPath; the \"future\"). Data collected include Ki67i, time expended, total cells counted, and pathologists' confidence level in the reported result. Deviation of Ki-67i from a gold standard result (GS) was analyzed using multiple linear regression, and results were compared via paired t test. Our results found no statistically significant differences in Ki-67i deviation from GS when comparing ME and AI4P methods for all 12 cases. The QP Ki-67i detection accuracy varied significantly. ME was the method with the least time expenditure. Junior pathologists are less confident in ME. Grading consensus was comparable among all three methods. These findings suggest that while digital pathology can confer increased Ki-67i accuracy in some cases of GI-NETs, higher time expenditure and proper hotspot selection may represent barriers to the adoption of digital pathology methods in the future.</p>","PeriodicalId":23514,"journal":{"name":"Virchows Archiv","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Determination of Ki-67 indices in neuroendocrine tumours of the gastrointestinal tract: the past, the present, and the future.\",\"authors\":\"Jacob A Houpt, Eric Liu, Hui Wang, Matthew J Cecchini, Charles Ling, Qi Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00428-024-03963-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ki-67 index (Ki-67i) is integral to the grading of many tumours. There remains considerable variability across pathologists in methods used to determine Ki-67i and in their results. Manual counting (or \\\"eyeballing\\\") is widely used, but digital pathology tools such as web-based image analysis and artificial intelligence-assisted cell detection software have become available in daily pathology practice. This study aims to compare the accuracy and efficiency of manual and two digital methods of Ki-67i determination. H&E and Ki-67 immunohistochemical (IHC) slides/images of 12 gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours (GI-NETs) were provided to 8 pathologists to evaluate Ki-67i via manual estimation (ME; the \\\"past\\\"), web-based image analysis using cellular segmentation (AI4Path.ca; the \\\"present\\\"), and software-based image analysis with built-in AI algorithms (QuPath; the \\\"future\\\"). Data collected include Ki67i, time expended, total cells counted, and pathologists' confidence level in the reported result. Deviation of Ki-67i from a gold standard result (GS) was analyzed using multiple linear regression, and results were compared via paired t test. Our results found no statistically significant differences in Ki-67i deviation from GS when comparing ME and AI4P methods for all 12 cases. The QP Ki-67i detection accuracy varied significantly. ME was the method with the least time expenditure. Junior pathologists are less confident in ME. Grading consensus was comparable among all three methods. These findings suggest that while digital pathology can confer increased Ki-67i accuracy in some cases of GI-NETs, higher time expenditure and proper hotspot selection may represent barriers to the adoption of digital pathology methods in the future.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23514,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Virchows Archiv\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Virchows Archiv\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-024-03963-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Virchows Archiv","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-024-03963-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Ki-67指数(Ki-67i)是许多肿瘤分级不可或缺的依据。不同病理学家测定 Ki-67i 的方法及其结果仍存在很大差异。手动计数(或 "目测")被广泛使用,但基于网络的图像分析和人工智能辅助细胞检测软件等数字病理工具已可用于日常病理实践。本研究旨在比较人工和两种数字方法测定 Ki-67i 的准确性和效率。8位病理学家通过人工估计(ME;"过去")、使用细胞分割的网络图像分析(AI4Path.ca;"现在")和内置人工智能算法的软件图像分析(QuPath;"未来")对12个胃肠道神经内分泌肿瘤(GI-NET)的H&E和Ki-67免疫组化(IHC)切片/图像进行了Ki-67i评估。收集的数据包括 Ki67i、花费的时间、计数的细胞总数以及病理学家对报告结果的置信度。采用多元线性回归分析 Ki-67i与金标准结果(GS)的偏差,并通过配对 t 检验比较结果。我们的结果发现,在所有12个病例中,比较ME和AI4P方法,Ki-67i与GS的偏差无统计学差异。QP Ki-67i检测的准确性差异很大。ME 是花费时间最少的方法。初级病理学家对 ME 的信心不足。三种方法的分级共识相当。这些研究结果表明,虽然数字病理学可以提高某些消化道网状细胞病例的Ki-67i准确率,但较高的时间成本和正确的热点选择可能会成为未来采用数字病理学方法的障碍。
Determination of Ki-67 indices in neuroendocrine tumours of the gastrointestinal tract: the past, the present, and the future.
Ki-67 index (Ki-67i) is integral to the grading of many tumours. There remains considerable variability across pathologists in methods used to determine Ki-67i and in their results. Manual counting (or "eyeballing") is widely used, but digital pathology tools such as web-based image analysis and artificial intelligence-assisted cell detection software have become available in daily pathology practice. This study aims to compare the accuracy and efficiency of manual and two digital methods of Ki-67i determination. H&E and Ki-67 immunohistochemical (IHC) slides/images of 12 gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours (GI-NETs) were provided to 8 pathologists to evaluate Ki-67i via manual estimation (ME; the "past"), web-based image analysis using cellular segmentation (AI4Path.ca; the "present"), and software-based image analysis with built-in AI algorithms (QuPath; the "future"). Data collected include Ki67i, time expended, total cells counted, and pathologists' confidence level in the reported result. Deviation of Ki-67i from a gold standard result (GS) was analyzed using multiple linear regression, and results were compared via paired t test. Our results found no statistically significant differences in Ki-67i deviation from GS when comparing ME and AI4P methods for all 12 cases. The QP Ki-67i detection accuracy varied significantly. ME was the method with the least time expenditure. Junior pathologists are less confident in ME. Grading consensus was comparable among all three methods. These findings suggest that while digital pathology can confer increased Ki-67i accuracy in some cases of GI-NETs, higher time expenditure and proper hotspot selection may represent barriers to the adoption of digital pathology methods in the future.
期刊介绍:
Manuscripts of original studies reinforcing the evidence base of modern diagnostic pathology, using immunocytochemical, molecular and ultrastructural techniques, will be welcomed. In addition, papers on critical evaluation of diagnostic criteria but also broadsheets and guidelines with a solid evidence base will be considered. Consideration will also be given to reports of work in other fields relevant to the understanding of human pathology as well as manuscripts on the application of new methods and techniques in pathology. Submission of purely experimental articles is discouraged but manuscripts on experimental work applicable to diagnostic pathology are welcomed. Biomarker studies are welcomed but need to abide by strict rules (e.g. REMARK) of adequate sample size and relevant marker choice. Single marker studies on limited patient series without validated application will as a rule not be considered. Case reports will only be considered when they provide substantial new information with an impact on understanding disease or diagnostic practice.