Comparing Two Staining Methods of hematoxylin and eosin and immunohistochemistry on the Differentiation of Proliferative and Neoplastic Lesions in Breast Biopsies Based on the Coefficient of two pathologist Agreement

Document Type : Research Paper


1 Associate Professor, Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor, Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Medical Student, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.


Introduction: Breast cancer is the most frequent cancer among women, various studies have investigated the significance of hematoxylin and eosin (H & E) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) in breast cancer, but there are always differences between studies in this case. Therefore, in this study, we compared two methods of staining of (H & E) and IHC on the differentiation of proliferative and neoplastic lesions in breast biopsy based on the agreement coefficient.
Materials & Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 81 breast biopsy specimens were carried out on patients with proliferative and neoplastic lesions who presented Alzahra, Seyedoshohada and Kashani hospitals in Isfahan over the five years, 2015-2019. The specimens were observed by two pathologists using H & E and IHC staining, and their level of agreement was measured using the kappa coefficient.
Results: According to the kappa test, the agreement between the pathologists was significant regarding H & E staining (P <0.001, Kappa = 0.82) and IHC staining (P <0.001, Kappa = 0.95).
Conclusion: Both methods of IHC and H & E staining are standard methods and have scientific value. Moreover, the agreement level between the two pathologists was direct and significant in both methods, but the agreement level between the two pathologists in the IHC method was more than the H & E method.


1. Tao Z, Shi A, Lu C, Song T, Zhang Z, Zhao J. Breast cancer: epidemiology and etiology. Cell biochemistry
and biophysics. 2015;72(2):333-8.
2. Zhao L, Yang X, Khan A, Kandil D. Diagnostic role of immunohistochemistry in the evaluation of breast
pathology specimens. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine. 2014;138(1):16-24.
3. Peng Y, Butt YM, Chen B, Zhang X, Tang P. Update on immunohistochemical analysis in breast lesions.
Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine. 2017;141(8):1033-51.
4. Zaha DC. Significance of immunohistochemistry in breast cancer. World journal of clinical oncology.
5. Jain RK, Mehta R, Dimitrov R, Larsson LG, Musto PM, Hodges KB, et al. Atypical ductal hyperplasia:
interobserver and intraobserver variability. Modern Pathology. 2011;24(7):917.
6. Asch-Kendrick R, Cimino-Mathews A. The role of GATA3 in breast carcinomas: a review. Human pathology.
7. Turkki R, Linder N, Holopainen T, Wang Y, Grote A, Lundin M, et al. Assessment of tumour viability in
human lung cancer xenografts with texture-based image analysis. Journal of clinical pathology. 2015:jclinpath-2015-
8. Diaz LK, Sahin A, Sneige N. Interobserver agreement for estrogen receptor immunohistochemical analysis in
breast cancer: a comparison of manual and computer-assisted scoring methods. Annals of diagnostic pathology.
9. Turkki R, Linder N, Kovanen PE, Pellinen T, Lundin J. Antibody-supervised deep learning for quantification
of tumor-infiltrating immune cells in hematoxylin and eosin stained breast cancer samples. Journal of pathology
informatics. 2016;7.
10. Woo JS, Moatamed NA, Sullivan PS, Lu DY, Callahan R, Apple S. Comparison of Phosphohistone H3
Immunohistochemical Staining, Ki-67, and H&E Mitotic Count in Invasive Breast Carcinoma. Journal of Breast Cancer
Survival. 2015;1(1):1.