Miller T J, McCoy M J, Hemmings C, Bulsara M K, Iacopetta B, Platell C F
School of Surgery, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia; Colorectal Research Unit, St John of God Subiaco Hospital, Subiaco, Australia.
Colorectal Research Unit, St John of God Subiaco Hospital, Subiaco, Australia; School of Medicine and Pharmacology, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.
Pathology. 2017 Jan;49(1):24-29. doi: 10.1016/j.pathol.2016.09.063. Epub 2016 Nov 29.
Analysis of immunohistochemical expression is often a subjective and semiquantitative process that can lead to the inconsistent reporting of results. To assess the effect that region selection and quantification method have on results, five different cancer stem cell markers were used in this study to compare tissue scoring with digital analysis methods that used three different tissue annotation methods. Samples of tumour and normal mucosa were used from 10 consecutive stage II colon cancer patients and stained for the putative cancer stem cell markers ALDH1, CD44v6, CD133, Lgr5 and SOX2. Tissue scoring was found to have considerably different results to digital analysis with the three different digital methods harbouring concordant results overall. However, SOX2 on normal tissue and CD133 on tumour and normal tissue produced discordant results which could be attributed to the different regions of tissue that were analysed. It is important that quantification method and selection of analysis areas are considered as part of study design to ensure that reproducible and consistent results are reported in the literature.
免疫组化表达分析通常是一个主观的半定量过程,可能导致结果报告不一致。为了评估区域选择和定量方法对结果的影响,本研究使用了五种不同的癌症干细胞标志物,将组织评分与使用三种不同组织注释方法的数字分析方法进行比较。从10例连续的II期结肠癌患者中获取肿瘤和正常黏膜样本,并用推定的癌症干细胞标志物ALDH1、CD44v6、CD133、Lgr5和SOX2进行染色。发现组织评分与数字分析结果有很大差异,三种不同的数字方法总体结果一致。然而,正常组织上的SOX2以及肿瘤和正常组织上的CD133产生了不一致的结果,这可能归因于所分析的不同组织区域。在研究设计中,将定量方法和分析区域的选择作为一部分来考虑很重要,以确保文献中报告的结果具有可重复性和一致性。