Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 May 12:6:16.
doi: 10.1038/s41523-020-0154-2. eCollection 2020.

Report on computational assessment of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group

Mohamed Amgad  1 Elisabeth Specht Stovgaard  2 Eva Balslev  2 Jeppe Thagaard  3   4 Weijie Chen  5 Sarah Dudgeon  5 Ashish Sharma  1 Jennifer K Kerner  6 Carsten Denkert  7   8   9 Yinyin Yuan  10   11 Khalid AbdulJabbar  10   11 Stephan Wienert  7 Peter Savas  12   13 Leonie Voorwerk  14 Andrew H Beck  6 Anant Madabhushi  15   16 Johan Hartman  17 Manu M Sebastian  18 Hugo M Horlings  19 Jan Hudeček  20 Francesco Ciompi  21 David A Moore  22 Rajendra Singh  23 Elvire Roblin  24 Marcelo Luiz Balancin  25 Marie-Christine Mathieu  26 Jochen K Lennerz  27 Pawan Kirtani  28 I-Chun Chen  29 Jeremy P Braybrooke  30   31 Giancarlo Pruneri  32 Sandra Demaria  33 Sylvia Adams  34 Stuart J Schnitt  35 Sunil R Lakhani  36 Federico Rojo  37   38 Laura Comerma  37   38 Sunil S Badve  39 Mehrnoush Khojasteh  40 W Fraser Symmans  41 Christos Sotiriou  42   43 Paula Gonzalez-Ericsson  44 Katherine L Pogue-Geile  45 Rim S Kim  45 David L Rimm  46 Giuseppe Viale  47 Stephen M Hewitt  48 John M S Bartlett  49   50 Frédérique Penault-Llorca  51   52 Shom Goel  53 Huang-Chun Lien  54 Sibylle Loibl  55 Zuzana Kos  56 Sherene Loi  13   57 Matthew G Hanna  58 Stefan Michiels  59   60 Marleen Kok  61   62 Torsten O Nielsen  63 Alexander J Lazar  41   64   65   66 Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath  67 Loes F S Kooreman  68   69 Jeroen A W M van der Laak  21   70 Joel Saltz  71 Brandon D Gallas  5 Uday Kurkure  40 Michael Barnes  72 Roberto Salgado  12   73 Lee A D Cooper  74 International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group
Collaborators, Affiliations
Review

Report on computational assessment of Tumor Infiltrating Lymphocytes from the International Immuno-Oncology Biomarker Working Group

Mohamed Amgad et al. NPJ Breast Cancer. .

Abstract

Assessment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) is increasingly recognized as an integral part of the prognostic workflow in triple-negative (TNBC) and HER2-positive breast cancer, as well as many other solid tumors. This recognition has come about thanks to standardized visual reporting guidelines, which helped to reduce inter-reader variability. Now, there are ripe opportunities to employ computational methods that extract spatio-morphologic predictive features, enabling computer-aided diagnostics. We detail the benefits of computational TILs assessment, the readiness of TILs scoring for computational assessment, and outline considerations for overcoming key barriers to clinical translation in this arena. Specifically, we discuss: 1. ensuring computational workflows closely capture visual guidelines and standards; 2. challenges and thoughts standards for assessment of algorithms including training, preanalytical, analytical, and clinical validation; 3. perspectives on how to realize the potential of machine learning models and to overcome the perceptual and practical limits of visual scoring.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Cancer imaging; Prognostic markers; Tumour biomarkers; Tumour immunology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsJ.T. is funded by Visiopharm A/S, Denmark. A.M. is an equity holder in Elucid Bioimaging and in Inspirata Inc. He is also a scientific advisory consultant for Inspirata Inc. In addition he has served as a scientific advisory board member for Inspirata Inc, Astrazeneca, Bristol Meyers-Squibb and Merck. He also has sponsored research agreements with Philips and Inspirata Inc. His technology has been licensed to Elucid Bioimaging and Inspirata Inc. He is also involved in an NIH U24 grant with PathCore Inc, and three different R01 grants with Inspirata Inc. S.R.L. received travel and educational funding from Roche/Ventana. A.J.L. serves as a consultant for BMS, Merck, AZ/Medimmune, and Genentech. He is also provides consulting and advisory work for many other companies not relevant to this work. FPL does consulting for Astrazeneca, BMS, Roche, MSD Pfizer, Novartis, Sanofi, and Lilly. S.Ld.H., A.K., M.K., U.K., and M.B. are employees of Roche. J.M.S.B. is consultant for Insight Genetics, BioNTech AG, Biothernostics, Pfizer, RNA Diagnostics, and OncoXchange. He received funding from Thermo Fisher Scientific, Genoptix, Agendia, NanoString technologies, Stratifyer GmBH, and Biotheranostics. L.F.S.K. is a consultant for Roche and Novartis. J.K.K. and A.H.B. are employees of PathAI. D.L.R. is on the advisory board for Amgen, Astra Xeneca, Cell Signaling Technology, Cepheid, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Konica/Minolta, Merck, Nanostring, Perking Elmer, Roche/Ventana, and Ultivue. He has received research support from Astrazeneca, Cepheid, Navigate BioPharma, NextCure, Lilly, Ultivue, Roche/Ventana, Akoya/Perkin Elmer, and Nanostring. He also has financial conflicts of interest with BMS, Biocept, PixelGear, and Rarecyte. S.G. is a consultant for and/or receives funding from Eli Lilly, Novartis, and G1 Therapeutics. J.A.W.M.vdL. is a member of the scientific advisory boards of Philips, the Netherlands and ContextVision, Sweden, and receives research funding from Philips, the Netherlands and Sectra, Sweden. S.A. is a consultant for Merck, Genentech, and BMS, and receives funding from Merck, Genentech, BMS, Novartis, Celgene, and Amgen. T.O.N. has consulted for Nanostring, and has intellectual property rights and ownership interests from Bioclassifier LLC. S.L. receives research funding to her institution from Novartis, Bristol Meyers-Squibb, Merck, Roche-Genentech, Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer and Eli Lilly. She has acted as consultant (not compensated) to Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Novartis, BMS, Merck, AstraZeneca and Roche-Genentech. She has acted as consultant (paid to her institution) to Aduro Biotech. J.H. is director and owner of Slide Score BV. M.M.S. is a medical advisory board member of OptraScan. R.S. has received research support from Merck, Roche, Puma; and travel/congress support from AstraZeneca, Roche and Merck; and he has served as an advisory board member of BMS and Roche and consults for BMS.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Outline of the visual (VTA) and computational (CTA) procedure for scoring TILs in breast carcinomas.
TIL scoring is a complex procedure, and breast carcinomas are used as an example. Specific guidelines for scoring different tumors are provided in the references. Steps involved in VTA and/or CTA are tagged with these abbreviations. CTA according to TIL-WG guidelines involves TIL scoring in different tissue compartments. a Invasive edge is determined (red) and key confounding regions like necrosis (yellow) are delineated. b Within the central tumor, tumor-associated stroma is determined (green). Other considerations and steps are involved depending on histologic subtype, slide quality, and clinical context. c Determination of regions for inclusion or exclusion in the analysis in accordance with published guidelines. d Final score is estimated (visually) or calculated (computationally). In breast carcinomas, stromal TIL score (sTIL) is used clinically. Intratumoral TIL score (iTIL) is subject to more VTA variability, which has hampered the generation of evidence demonstrating prognostic value; perhaps CTA of iTILs will prove less variable and, consequently, prognostic. e The necessity of diverse pathologist annotations for robust analytical validation of computational models. Desmoplastic stroma may be misclassified as tumor regions; Vacuolated tumor may be misclassified as stroma; intermixed normal acini or ducts, DCIS/LCIS, and blood vessels may be misclassified as tumor; plasma cells are sometimes misclassified as carcinoma cells. Note that while the term “TILs” includes lymphocytes, plasma cells and other small mononuclear infiltrates, lumping these categories may not be optimal from an algorithm design perspective; plasma cells tend to be morphologically different from lymphocytes in nuclear texture, size, and visible cytoplasm. f Various computational approaches may be used for computational scoring. The more granular the algorithm is, the more accurate/useful it is likely to be, but—as a trade-off—the more it relies on exhaustive manual annotations from pathologists. The least granular approach is patch classification, followed by region delineation (segmentation), then object detection (individual TILs). A robust computational scoring algorithm likely utilizes a combination of these (and related) approaches.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Conceptual pathology report for computational TIL assessment (CTA).
CTA reports might include global TIL estimates, broken down by key histologic regions, and estimates of classifier confidence. CTA reports are inseparably linked to WSI viewing systems, where algorithmic segmentations and localizations supporting the calculated scores are displayed for sanity check verification by the attending pathologist. Other elements, like local TIL estimates, TIL clustering results, and survival predictions may also be included.

References

    1. Piccart-Gebhart M, et al. Adjuvant lapatinib and trastuzumab for early human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III adjuvant lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization Trial. J. Clin. Oncol. 2016;34:1034–1042. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.1797. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. von Minckwitz G, et al. Adjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in early HER2-positive breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 2017;377:122–131. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1703643. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Denkert C, et al. Tumor-associated lymphocytes as an independent predictor of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 2010;28:105–113. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.7370. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Savas P, et al. Clinical relevance of host immunity in breast cancer: from TILs to the clinic. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 2016;13:228–241. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.215. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2011;128:305–310. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171. - DOI - PMC - PubMed