ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Image analysis discloses differences in nuclear parameters between ERG+ and ERG– prostatic carcinomas
1
Department of Pathomorphology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
2
2nd Department of Internal Medicine after Professor Andrzej Szczeklik, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
3
Mazovia Hospital, Warsaw, Poland
4
Department of Urology, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Krakow, Poland
Submission date: 2020-02-29
Acceptance date: 2020-03-24
Publication date: 2020-05-20
Pol J Pathol 2020;71(1):20-29
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Prostatic carcinoma (PC) is the most frequent urologic cancer and one of the most frequent cancers in males; it is a heterogeneous disease, in terms of molecular features, morphology and prognosis. About half of cases depends on TMPRSS2-ETS translocation which leads to a production of ERG transcription factor. ERG+ and ERG– cancers seem to differ in a number of features, which could lead to an altered nuclear structure; the aim of the study was to test this hypothesis. The material consisted of total 39 PC cases, representing ERG+ and ERG–, as well as Gleason pattern 3 and 4. Filtering by color deconvolution and automatic segmentation were used, and the properly detected nuclei were manually selected. From each case fifty nuclei were obtained; then geometric features and texture parameters were assessed. The analysis of the collected data showed differences both between ERG+/ERG– and Gleason pattern 3 and 4 cases in most of the features analyzed. Our results suggest that indeed the ERG status, thus likely TMPRSS2-ETS translocation, has an impact on morphology of nuclei in PC, and their differences are evident enough to be detectable by image analysis.
REFERENCES (51)
1.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 2016; 66: 7-30.
2.
Tomlins SA, Rhodes DR, Perner S, et al. Recurrent fusion of TMPRSS2 and ETS transcription factor genes in prostate cancer. Science 2005; 310: 644-648.
3.
Kaczmarczyk K, Dyduch G, Bialas M, et al. Frequency of ERG-positive prostate carcinoma in Poland. Pol J Pathol 2013; 64: 175-179.
4.
Lin WC, Li CC, Epstein JI, et al. Curvelet-based texture classification of critical Gleason patterns of prostate histological images. In' 2016 IEEE 6th International Conference on Computational Advances in Bio and Medical Sciences. IEEE, New York 2016.
5.
Rashid F, Ul Haque A. Frequencies of different nuclear morphological features in prostate adenocarcinoma. Ann Diagn Pathol 2011; 15: 414-421.
6.
Ali S, Veltri R, Epstein JI, et al. Adaptive energy selective active contour with shape priors for nuclear segmentation and Gleason grading of prostate cancer. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention, Miccai 2011, Pt I. Fichtinger G, Martel A, Peters T (eds.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin 2011; 661.
7.
Venkataraman G, Rycyna K, Rabanser A, et al. Morphometric signature differences in nuclei of Gleason pattern 4 areas in Gleason 7 prostate cancer with differing primary grades on needle biopsy. J Urol 2009; 181: 88-93.
8.
Okon K, Dyduch G, Bialas M, et al. Nuclear parameters and ERG status in the carcinoma of the prostate. Virchows Arch 2014; 465: S163-S163.
9.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2015; 40: 244-252.
10.
Humphrey PA, Moch H, Cubilla AL, et al. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs-Part B: prostate and bladder tumours. Eur Urol 2016; 70: 106-119.
11.
Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, et al. AJCC cancer staging manual: Springer International Publishing, 2017.
12.
R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2017.
13.
Park K, Tomlins SA, Mudaliar KM, et al. Antibody-based detection of ERG rearrangement-positive prostate cancer. Neoplasia 2010; 12: 590-595.
14.
Randi AM, Sperone A, Dryden NH, et al. Regulation of angiogenesis by ETS transcription factors. Biochem Soc Trans 2009; 37: 1248-1253.
15.
Donovan MJ, Cordon-Cardo C. Predicting high-risk disease using tissue biomarkers. Curr Opin Urol 2013; 23: 245-251.
16.
Strzepek A, Kaczmarczyk K, Bialas M, et al. ERG positive prostatic cancer may show a more angiogenetic phenotype. Pathol Res Pract 2014; 210: 897-900.
17.
Milek K, Kaczmarczyk-Sekula K, Strzepek A, et al. Mast cells influence neoangiogenesis in prostatic cancer independently of ERG status. Pol J Pathol 2016; 67: 244-249.
18.
Kaczmarczyk-Sekula K, Galazka K, Glajcar A, et al. Prostate cancer with different ERG status may show different FOXP3-positive cell numbers. Pol J Pathol 2016; 67: 313-317.
19.
Metzger E, Willmann D, McMillan J, et al. Assembly of methylated KDM1A and CHD1 drives androgen receptor-dependent transcription and translocation. Nat Struct Mol Biol 2016; 23: 132-139.
20.
Magistroni V, Mologni L, Sanselicio S, et al. ERG deregulation induces PIM1 over-expression and aneuploidy in prostate epithelial cells. PLoS One 2011; 6: e28162.
21.
Brenner JC, Ateeq B, Li Y, et al. Mechanistic rationale for inhibition of Poly(ADP-Ribose) polymerase in ETS gene fusion-positive prostate cancer. Cancer Cell 2011; 19: 664-678.
22.
Haffner MC, Aryee MJ, Toubaji A, et al. Androgen-induced TOP2B-mediated double-strand breaks and prostate cancer gene rearrangements. Nat Genet 2010; 42: 668-645.
23.
Packer JR, Maitland NJ. The molecular and cellular origin of human prostate cancer. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res 2016; 1863: 1238-1260.
24.
Burkhardt L, Fuchs S, Krohn A, et al. CHD1 Is a 5q21 Tumor Suppressor Required for ERG Rearrangement in Prostate Cancer. Cancer Res 2013; 73: 2795-2805.
25.
Wittschieber D, Kollermann J, Schlomm T, et al. Nuclear Grading Versus Gleason Grading in Small Samples Containing Prostate Cancer: A Tissue Microarray Study. Pathol Oncol Res 2010; 16: 479-484.
26.
He L, Long LR, Antani S, et al. Histology image analysis for carcinoma detection and grading. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2012; 107: 538-556.
27.
Loeffler M, Greulich L, Scheibe P, et al. Classifying prostate cancer malignancy by quantitative histomorphometry. J Urol 2012; 187: 1867-1875.
28.
Gertych A, Ing N, Ma Z, et al. Machine learning approaches to analyze histological images of tissues from radical prostatectomies. Comput Med Imaging Graph 2015; 46: 197-208.
29.
Alexandratou E, Yova D, Gorpas D, et al. Texture analysis of tissues in Gleason grading of prostate cancer. In: Imaging, manipulation, and analysis of biomolecules, cells, and tissues VI. Farkas DL, Nicolau DV, Leif RC (eds.). SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering 2008; 85904-85904.
30.
Veltri RW, Marlow C, Khan MA, et al. Significant variations in nuclear structure occur between and within Gleason grading patterns 3, 4, and 5 determined by digital image analysis. Prostate 2007; 67: 1202-1210.
31.
Veltri RW, Miller MC, Partin AW, et al. Prediction of prostate carcinoma stage by quantitative biopsy pathology. Cancer 2001; 91: 2322-2328.
32.
Veltri RW, Partin AW, Epstein JE, et al. Quantitative nuclear morphometry, Markovian texture descriptors, and DNA content captured on a CAS-200 Image analysis system, combined with PCNA and HER-2/neu immunohistochemistry for prediction of prostate cancer progression. J Cell Biochem Suppl 1994; 19: 249-258.
33.
Veltri RW, Zhu G, Lee G, et al. Histomorphometry of digital pathology: case study in prostate cancer. Front Med Imaging 2014; 26: 301-326.
34.
Khan MA, Walsh PC, Miller MC, et al. Quantitative alterations in nuclear structure predict prostate carcinoma distant metastasis and death in men with biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Cancer 2003; 98: 2583-2591.
35.
Veltri RW, Isharwal S, Miller MC, et al. Long-term assessment of prostate cancer progression free survival: evaluation of pathological parameters, nuclear shape and molecular biomarkers of pathogenesis. Prostate 2008; 68: 1806-1815.
36.
Veltri RW, Miller MC, Isharwal S, et al. Prediction of prostate-specific antigen recurrence in men with long-term follow-up postprostatectomy using quantitative nuclear morphometry. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008; 17: 102-110.
37.
Farjam R, Soltanian-Zadeh H, Jafari-Khouzani K, et al. An image analysis approach for automatic malignancy determination of prostate pathological images. Cytometry Part B-Clinical Cytometry 2007; 72B: 227-240.
38.
Bektas S, Bahadir B, Gun BD, et al. The relation between gleason score, and nuclear size and shape factors in prostatic adenocarcinoma. Turkish Journal of Medical Sciences 2009; 39: 381-387.
39.
Isharwal S, Miller MC, Epstein JI, et al. DNA Ploidy as Surrogate for Biopsy Gleason Score for Preoperative Organ Versus Nonorgan-confined Prostate Cancer Prediction. Urology 2009; 73: 1092-1097.
40.
Waliszewski P. The quantitative criteria based on the fractal dimensions, entropy, and lacunarity for the spatial distribution of cancer cell nuclei enable identification of low or high aggressive prostate carcinomas. Front Physiol 2016; 7: 16.
41.
Waliszewski P, Wagenlehner F, Gattenlohner S, et al. Fractal geometry in the objective grading of prostate carcinoma. Urologe A 2014; 53: 1186-1194.
42.
Waliszewski P, Wagenlehner F, Kribus S, et al. Objective grading of prostate carcinoma based on fractal dimensions. Gleason 3+4=7a not equal Gleason 4+3=7b. Urologe A 2014; 53: 1504-1511.
43.
Epstein JI, Egevad L, Amin MB, et al. The 2014 International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on Gleason grading of prostatic carcinoma: definition of grading patterns and proposal for a new grading system. Am J Surg Pathol 2016; 40: 244-252.
44.
Huang PW, Lee CH. automatic classification for pathological prostate images based on fractal analysis. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2009; 28: 1037-1050.
45.
Tabesh A, Teverovskiy M, Pang HY, et al. Multifeature prostate cancer diagnosis and Gleason grading of histological images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2007; 26: 1366-1378.
46.
Tabesh A, Kumar VP, Pang HY, et al. Automated prostate cancer diagnosis and Gleason grading of tissue microarrays. In: Medical imaging 2005: image processing, Pt 1-3. Fitzpatrick JM, Reinhardt JM (eds.). Spie-Int Soc Optical Engineering, Bellingham 2005; 8-70.
47.
Weyn B, Jacob W, da Silva VD, et al. Data representation and reduction for chromatin texture in nuclei from premalignant prostatic, esophageal, and colonic lesions. Cytometry 2000; 41: 133-138.
48.
Lorenzato M, Rey D, Durlach A, et al. DNA image cytometry on biopsies can help the detection of localized Gleason 3+3 prostate cancers. J Urol 2004; 172: 1311-1313.
49.
Okon K, Tomaszewska R, Nowak K, et al. Application of neural networks to the classification of pancreatic intraductal proliferative lesions. Anal Cell Pathol 2001; 23: 129-136.
50.
Styczen M, Szpor J, Demczuk S, et al. Karyometric comparison of splenic and gastric marginal zone lymphomas. Anal Cell Pathol 2012; 35: 297-303.
51.
Tomaszewska R, Okon K, Nowak K, et al. Proliferation index and karyometric features of pancreatic intraductal proliferative lesions. Anal Cell Pathol 1999; 19: 175-185.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2084-9869 |
| ISSN: | 1233-9687 |
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
