Translational Oncology (Oct 2024)

Spatial correlation between in vivo imaging and immunohistochemical biomarkers: A methodological study

  • Hilde J.G. Smits,
  • Edwin Bennink,
  • Lilian N. Ruiter,
  • Gerben E. Breimer,
  • Stefan M. Willems,
  • Jan W. Dankbaar,
  • Marielle E.P. Philippens

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 48
p. 102051

Abstract

Read online

In this study, we present a method that enables voxel-by-voxel comparison of in vivo imaging to immunohistochemistry (IHC) biomarkers. As a proof of concept, we investigated the spatial correlation between dynamic contrast enhanced (DCE-)CT parameters and IHC biomarkers Ki-67 (proliferation), HIF-1α (hypoxia), and CD45 (immune cells). 54 whole-mount tumor slices of 15 laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinomas were immunohistochemically stained and digitized. Heatmaps of biomarker positivity were created and registered to DCE-CT parameter maps. The adiabatic approximation to the tissue homogeneity model was used to fit the following DCE parameters: Ktrans (transfer constant), Ve (extravascular and extracellular space), and Vi (intravascular space). Both IHC and DCE maps were downsampled to 4 × 4 × 3 mm[3] voxels. The mean values per tumor were used to calculate the between-subject correlations between parameters. For the within-subject (spatial) correlation, values of all voxels within a tumor were compared using the repeated measures correlation (rrm). No between-subject correlations were found between IHC biomarkers and DCE parameters, whereas we found multiple significant within-subject correlations: Ve and Ki-67 (rrm = -0.17, P < .001), Ve and HIF-1α (rrm = -0.12, P < .001), Ktrans and CD45 (rrm = 0.13, P < .001), Vi and CD45 (rrm = 0.16, P < .001), and Vi and Ki-67 (rrm = 0.08, P = .003). The strongest correlation was found between IHC biomarkers Ki-67 and HIF-1α (rrm = 0.35, P < .001). This study shows the technical feasibility of determining the 3 dimensional spatial correlation between histopathological biomarker heatmaps and in vivo imaging. It also shows that between-subject correlations do not reflect within-subject correlations of parameters.

Keywords