4.8 Article

Quantitative Image Analysis of Cellular Heterogeneity in Breast Tumors Complements Genomic Profiling

Journal

SCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
Volume 4, Issue 157, Pages -

Publisher

AMER ASSOC ADVANCEMENT SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3004330

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. University of Cambridge, Cancer Research UK
  2. Hutchison Whampoa Limited
  3. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre
  4. Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre
  5. ERASMUS fellowship
  6. Addenbrooke's Charitable Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Solid tumors are heterogeneous tissues composed of a mixture of cancer and normal cells, which complicates the interpretation of their molecular profiles. Furthermore, tissue architecture is generally not reflected in molecular assays, rendering this rich information underused. To address these challenges, we developed a computational approach based on standard hematoxylin and eosin-stained tissue sections and demonstrated its power in a discovery and validation cohort of 323 and 241 breast tumors, respectively. To deconvolute cellular heterogeneity and detect subtle genomic aberrations, we introduced an algorithm based on tumor cellularity to increase the comparability of copy number profiles between samples. We next devised a predictor for survival in estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer that integrated both image-based and gene expression analyses and significantly outperformed classifiers that use single data types, such as microarray expression signatures. Image processing also allowed us to describe and validate an independent prognostic factor based on quantitative analysis of spatial patterns between stromal cells, which are not detectable by molecular assays. Our quantitative, image-based method could benefit any large-scale cancer study by refining and complementing molecular assays of tumor samples.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available