Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of interpretation of immunohistochemical stains of prostate cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The evaluation of immunohistochemistry (IHC) is usually semiquantitative, and thus subject to observer variability. We analyzed the reproducibility of different IHC measures. Fifty TMA cores of prostate cancer were stained for PDX-1, a transcription factor overexpressed in the cytoplasm of prostate cancer cells. The strongest intensity was scored 0–3 and 1–3 was used for extent (1–33%, 34–66%, and 67–100%). The stains were evaluated twice by four observers: two genitourinary pathologists, and two medical doctors with no formal pathology training. Staining intensity was also measured with automated image analysis. The pathologists read the slides faster than nonpathologists (total time 88 and 178 min, respectively, p = 0.03). Mean weighted kappa for intraobserver agreement was 0.85 (range 0.81–0.89) for intensity and 0.43 (range 0.38–0.51) for extent with similar results among pathologists and nonpathologists. Mean weighted kappa for interobserver agreement was 0.80 (range 0.77–0.84) for intensity and 0.21 (range 0.11–0.26) for extent. The subjective estimations of intensity correlated with results of image analysis (r = 0.61–0.66, p < 0.001), but the correlation between observers was stronger (r = 0.75–0.81) and correlated better with Gleason grade. Thus, subjective assessment of intensity can be done with a high level of reproducibility while estimation of staining extent is less reliable. Although educated pathologists were faster, the level of pathology training is not crucial for obtaining reproducible results in the analysis of TMA-based studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chan JK (1998) Advances in immunohistochemical techniques: toward making things simpler, cheaper, more sensitive, and more reproducible. Adv Anat Pathol 5:314–325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pileri SA, Roncador G, Ceccarelli C et al (1997) Antigen retrieval techniques in immunohistochemistry: comparison of different methods. J Pathol 183:116–123

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Werner M, Chott A, Fabiano A et al (2000) Effect of formalin tissue fixation and processing on immunohistochemistry. Am J Surg Pathol 24:1016–1019

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Leong AS, Leong TY (2006) Newer developments in immunohistology. J Clin Pathol 59:1117–1126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Seidal T, Balaton AJ, Battifora H (2001) Interpretation and quantification of immunostains. Am J Surg Pathol 25:1204–1207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Walker RA (2006) Quantification of immunohistochemistry—issues concerning methods, utility and semiquantitative assessment I. Histopathology 49:406–410

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Valdman A, Häggarth L, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Ekman P, Egevad L: Expression of redox pathway enzymes in human prostatic tissue (Anal Quant Cytol Histol, in press)

  8. Rimm DL, Camp RL, Charette LA et al (2001) Amplification of tissue by construction of tissue microarrays. Exp Mol Pathol 70:255–264

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Witton CJ, Hawe SJ, Cooke TG et al (2004) Cyclooxygenase 2 (COX2) expression is associated with poor outcome in ER-negative, but not ER-positive, breast cancer. Histopathology 45:47–54

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Davol PA, Bagdasaryan R, Elfenbein GJ et al (2003) Shc proteins are strong, independent prognostic markers for both node-negative and node-positive primary breast cancer. Cancer Res 63:6772–6783

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jonmarker S, Glaessgen A, Culp WD et al (2008) Expression of PDX-1 in prostate cancer, prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and benign prostatic tissue. Apmis 116:491–498

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kollermann J, Schlomm T, Bang H et al (2008) Expression and prognostic relevance of annexin a3 in prostate cancer. Eur Urol 54:1314–1323

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Rosenblatt R, Valdman A, Cheng L, Lopez-Beltran A, Montironi R, Ekman P, Egevad L: Endothelin-1 expression in prostate cancer and high-grade PIN (Anal Quant Cytol Histol. 2009 Jun;31(3):137–42

    Google Scholar 

  14. Glaessgen A, Jonmarker S, Lindberg A, Nilsson B, Lewensohn R, Ekman P, Valdman A, Egevad L (2008) Heat shock proteins 27, 60 and 70 as prognostic markers of prostate cancer. Acta Pathol Microbiol Immunol Scand B 116(10):888–895

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chung S, Hammarsten P, Josefsson A, Stattin P, Granfors T, Egevad L, Mancini G, Lutz B, Bergh A, Fowler C et al (2009) A high cannabinoid CB1 receptor immunoreactivity is associated with disease severity and outcome in prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 45:172–182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. McCarty KS Jr, Miller LS, Cox EB et al (1985) Estrogen receptor analyses. Correlation of biochemical and immunohistochemical methods using monoclonal antireceptor antibodies. Arch Pathol Lab Med 109:716–721

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gee JM, Barroso AF, Ellis IO et al (2000) Biological and clinical associations of c-jun activation in human breast cancer. Int J Cancer 89:177–186

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK et al (1999) Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:1474–1481

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Reiner A, Neumeister B, Spona J et al (1990) Immunocytochemical localization of estrogen and progesterone receptor and prognosis in human primary breast cancer. Cancer Res 50:7057–7061

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Detre S, Saclani Jotti G, Dowsett M (1995) A "quickscore" method for immunohistochemical semiquantitation: validation for oestrogen receptor in breast carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 48:876–878

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Volante M, Brizzi MP, Faggiano A et al (2007) Somatostatin receptor type 2A immunohistochemistry in neuroendocrine tumors: a proposal of scoring system correlated with somatostatin receptor scintigraphy. Mod Pathol 20:1172–1182

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Montironi R, Mazzucchelli R, Barbisan F et al (2007) Immunohistochemical expression of endothelin-1 and endothelin-A and endothelin-B receptors in high-grade prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia and prostate cancer. Eur Urol 52:1682–1689

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Paju A, Hotakainen K, Cao Y et al (2007) Increased expression of tumor-associated trypsin inhibitor, TATI, in prostate cancer and in androgen-independent 22Rv1 cells. Eur Urol 52:1670–1679

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kononen J, Bubendorf L, Kallioniemi A et al (1998) Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens. Nat Med 4:844–847

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rubin MA, Dunn R, Strawderman M et al (2002) Tissue microarray sampling strategy for prostate cancer biomarker analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 26:312–319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Singh SS, Qaqish B, Johnson JL et al (2004) Sampling strategy for prostate tissue microarrays for Ki-67 and androgen receptor biomarkers. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 26:194–200

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Schlomm T, Kirstein P, Iwers L et al (2007) Clinical significance of epidermal growth factor receptor protein overexpression and gene copy number gains in prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13:6579–6584

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wegiel B, Bjartell A, Ekberg J et al (2005) A role for cyclin A1 in mediating the autocrine expression of vascular endothelial growth factor in prostate cancer. Oncogene 24:6385–6393

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kwabi-Addo B, Wang J, Erdem H et al (2004) The expression of Sprouty1, an inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor signal transduction, is decreased in human prostate cancer. Cancer Res 64:4728–4735

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Feng S, Agoulnik IU, Bogatcheva NV et al (2007) Relaxin promotes prostate cancer progression. Clin Cancer Res 13:1695–1702

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Leys CM, Nomura S, Rudzinski E et al (2006) Expression of Pdx-1 in human gastric metaplasia and gastric adenocarcinoma. Hum Pathol 37:1162–1168

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Koizumi M, Doi R, Toyoda E et al (2003) Increased PDX-1 expression is associated with outcome in patients with pancreatic cancer. Surgery 134:260–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sakai H, Eishi Y, Li XL et al (2004) PDX1 homeobox protein expression in pseudopyloric glands and gastric carcinomas. Gut 53:323–330

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Press MF, Pike MC, Chazin VR et al (1993) Her-2/neu expression in node-negative breast cancer: direct tissue quantitation by computerized image analysis and association of overexpression with increased risk of recurrent disease. Cancer Res 53:4960–4970

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Diaz LK, Sneige N (2005) Estrogen receptor analysis for breast cancer: current issues and keys to increasing testing accuracy. Adv Anat Pathol 12:10–19

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest. The Noesis company has let us use the Noesis digital analysis system free of charge, however, it has not been possible for the company to influence the results of this study

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Oncology-Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital Solna, 171 76, Stockholm, Sweden

    Sara Jonmarker Jaraj, Bo Nilsson, Fredrik Petersson & Lars Egevad

  2. Service d’Anatomie et Cytologie Pathologiques, Hopital Foch, Paris, France

    Philippe Camparo

  3. Department of Oncology, Centre Leon Berard, Lyon, France

    Helen Boyle

  4. Noesis, Gif sur Yvette, France

    François Germain

  5. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France

    Lars Egevad

Authors
  1. Sara Jonmarker Jaraj
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philippe Camparo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helen Boyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. François Germain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bo Nilsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Fredrik Petersson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Lars Egevad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lars Egevad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jonmarker Jaraj, S., Camparo, P., Boyle, H. et al. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility of interpretation of immunohistochemical stains of prostate cancer. Virchows Arch 455, 375–381 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-009-0833-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-009-0833-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation