Breast Cancer Immunohistochemical Image Generation:
a Benchmark Dataset and Challenge Review

Deep learning has been widely used in many computer vision tasks such as image classification [15], semantic segmentation [16], and object detection [17]. The extension of the above technologies in the field of pathology has also become a hot research topic. The current applications of deep learning in pathological image analysis include tumor detection and classification, tumor segmentation, cell detection and counting, etc.

The pioneering work [18] gave a series of benchmarks for pathological image-based detection, segmentation and recognition based on Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN). These benchmarks include nuclei segmentation, epithelium segmentation, tubule segmentation, Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC) segmentation, lymphocyte detection, mitosis detection, and lymphoma sub‑type classification. Inspired by the above work and driven by demand, a large number of researches on classification [19, 20] and segmentation [21, 22, 23] of pathological images based on deep learning have emerged. Work [19] designed a transformer-based Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) framework, which can effectively deal with unbalanced/balanced and binary/multiple WSI classification. Work [20] introduced a novel Attention High-order deep Network (AHoNet) by simultaneously embedding attention mechanism and high-order statistical representation into a residual convolutional network and this network can capture more discriminative deep features for breast cancer pathological images. Regarding the detection and segmentation of specific pathological tissue regions, works [21] and [22] used semantic segmentation models (i.e. DeepLabv3 [24], DeepLabv3+ [25]) to generate candidate cancer regions in pathological images for reference by pathologists. Work [23] introduced TissueNet, an extensively annotated tissue image dataset designed for training cell segmentation models. This dataset was employed to train Mesmer, a segmentation model that outperforms previous algorithms in terms of accuracy. Furthermore, some researchers used multi-task learning to analyze pathological images [26] to realize the segmentation and classification tasks in one model. These studies have greatly promoted the development of computer-aided diagnosis. In clinical practice, some mature algorithms have been deployed to the front line, and these algorithms are able to automate repetitive and time-consuming tasks, playing a huge role in reducing the clinical workload of pathologists.

To explore alternatives to HER2 expression level classification without relying on IHC-stained images, some scholars have begun to employ deep learning-based methods to predict HER2 expression levels based on images from other modalities, thereby eliminating the IHC staining step. Xu et al. [27] proposed a DenseNet-based deep learning model using ultrasound images as input to predict HER2 expression and the performance significantly exceeded the traditional texture analysis based on the radiomics model. La Barbera et al. [28] proposed a pipeline that mimics clinician diagnosis: they first employed a cascade of deep neural network classifier for breast cancer screening and then detected the presence of HER2 via MIL. In addition, there are some other studies [29, 30] predict the expression level of HER2 based on H&E-stained images. Work [29] proposed a multi-stage image classification pipeline to realize the classification of breast cancer tumors based on H&E-stained images. Work [30] utilized an Inceptionv3 [31] architecture to predict HER2 status in breast cancer and trastuzumab treatment in HER2-positive samples.

The above studies that predict HER2 expression levels based on H&E-stained images demonstrate that such images contain some information regarding HER2 expression levels. However, the output of these classification algorithms is HER2 positive probability, and the classification model is a black box, which limits the interpretability of the model’s HER2 expression level predictions.

Image translation algorithms can be divided into supervised image translation algorithms and unsupervised image translation algorithms according to the form of supervision. For supervised image translation models, pixel-level aligned image pairs are required for supervision during the training phase. Some pioneering works [32, 33] have implemented supervised translation of natural images. Image translation algorithms have significant application value in the field of pathology. Recently, work [34] proposed the PyramidPix2pix model to constrain the generated images on multiple scales and achieved state-of-the-art (SOTA) on the pathology image translation dataset. The impressive work [35] employed the DeepLIIF framework, which is capable of converting IHC images into more informative and higher-cost Multiplex Immunofluorescence (mpIF) images. Different from the above supervised image translation algorithms, unsupervised image translation models [36, 37, 38, 39] are trained with unaligned image pairs and this type of algorithms realize changing the image style mainly by adversarial learning. In the field of medical image analysis, unsupervised image translation algorithms are primarily employed for the staining normalization of pathological images [40, 11, 41] and data augmentation [42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47].

In this study, we aim to leverage image-to-image translation technology to generate IHC-stained images from corresponding H&E-stained images. This approach would enable us to better visualize the expression of HER2 in tumor tissues, rather than directly predicting the HER2 status.

As denoted in Fig. 4, the data construction process mainly includes the following steps: slice preparation, scanning, projection transformation, elastix registration, image refinement and patch selection.

During the preparation of a pathological slice pair, two layers of sections needed to be continuously cut out from the same tumor tissue for H&E staining and IHC staining, respectively. Therefore, the section for H&E staining was similar in shape to the corresponding section for IHC staining. The prepared pathological slides were then scanned into WSIs. Specifically, we used Hamamatsu NanoZommer S60 (capable of 20$\times$ magnification) to scan H&E-stained WSI and the corresponding IHC-stained WSI. Due to computing power and memory limitations, we downsampled the original images by reducing their dimensions to half in both width and height in the subsequent processing steps.

Then the downsampled H&E-IHC WSI pairs were aligned through image registration with two operations: projective transformation and elastix registration. The two transformation steps were employed to achieve alignment between the H&E-stained WSI and corresponding IHC-stained WSI in terms of global contour and internal details, respectively.

To achieve the alignment of H&E-stained and IHC-stained images, we implemented the following two-step registration process:

Projective Transformation. First, we took the IHC-stained image as a reference and performed a projective transformation on the corresponding H&E-stained image. Projective transformation requires no less than 4 selected one-to-one correspondences in the image to be transformed (H&E) and the reference image (IHC). Projective transformation can then perform operations such as translation, scaling, rotation, beveling, and perspective distortion on the image to be transformed so that the H&E-stained image and the IHC-stained image can be initially aligned on the outline.

Elastix Registration. After completing the projective transformation of the H&E-stained image, there were still some misalignments between the H&E and IHC-stained images. We therefore iteratively registered H&E and IHC-stained images using the medical image registration software elastix to further remove these misalignments. In the specific implementation process, since the computer memory cannot carry the high-resolution WSI registration calculation, we divided the H&E and IHC-stained images into 16 parts for registration respectively, and then the registered parts were spliced back into WSI according to the original positional relationship.

The visualization results of the projection transformation and elastix registration are compared in Fig. 6.

During the registration process, some operations in projective transformation (e.g. the rotation and scaling of the image) left some black areas at the edges of the WSI. At the same time, in the process of elastix registration, in order to align the internal content of the 16 image parts, the edges also moved to their inside resulting in black borders. We implemented an image refinement to address the above problems by filling the black area with surrounding pixels. Finally, we segmented the WSIs into square patches with a side length of 1024 pixels and filtered out regions that did not contain tumor tissue or that were not aligned by the two-step registration procedure.

This challenge aims to advance research on generating immunohistochemical images of breast cancer. The generated IHC-stained images should contain accurate HER2 expression information for direct interpretation by physicians. The use of a deep learning model for generating immunohistochemical images of breast cancer has the potential to save time, manpower, and material resources by eliminating the need for IHC-stained section preparation. Participants need to use pairs of H&E and IHC-stained images in the training set to train an image translation model. During the prediction stage, the model must generate IHC-stained images using only H&E-stained images as input. Furthermore, we annotated the extracted image patches using the HER2 expression information (0/1+/2+/3+) at the WSI level, which has been interpreted by pathologists. This label information is only available for model training and not for model prediction. Using label information is optional, but if a participant uses label information in their method, they should indicate it in the comments when submitting their results.

Our dataset contains 4872 pairs of aligned H&E-IHC pathology image patches, which come from the WSIs of more than 300 patients. The HER2 expression levels of these patients encompass four grades: 0, 1+, 2+, and 3+. Fig. 5 illustrates the distribution of HER2 expression levels of the image pairs (We utilize the HER2 expression level of the WSI to represent that of the corresponding image pair). The dataset used in this challenge consists of 3396 pairs of the training set images, 500 pairs of the validation set images, and 977 pairs of test set images. The three subsets are obtained by randomly partitioning these 4,872 pairs of images. Among them, the H&E-IHC image pairs in the training set and validation set are all open to the participants, and for the testing set, only the H&E-stained images are open to the participants. The validation set images are only for participants to test and optimize the performance of their models, and can not be used for model training. The test set images are used for challenge evaluation and to get the final ranking.

We used Peak Signal to Noise Ratio (PSNR) and Structural Similarity (SSIM) as the metrics to evaluate the quality of the generated images. PSNR is based on the error between the corresponding pixels of two images and is the most widely used objective evaluation index.

where $x$ and $y$ denote the generated IHC-stained image and the corresponding ground truth, $m$ and $n$ denote the width and height of the image.

However, the evaluation result of PSNR may be different from the evaluation result of the Human Visual System (HVS). Therefore, we also used SSIM, which comprehensively measures the differences in image brightness, contrast, and structure.

where $\mu_{x}$ and $\sigma_{x}$ denote the mean and standard deviation of the generated IHC-stained image, $\mu_{y}$ and $\sigma_{y}$ denote the mean and standard deviation of the ground truth, $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ are constants.

The final ranking of the challenge was calculated by the weighted average of the participants’ SSIM ranking and PSNR ranking:

where $R_{Final}$ determines the final ranking (smaller $R_{Final}$ means higher ranking), $R_{PSNR}$ denotes the rank of PSNR and $R_{SSIM}$ denotes the rank of SSIM.

The solution of team arptidec5 was built based on the framework of Pyramid Pix2pix in the BCI [34]. In contrast to work [34], they filtered the image pairs in the dataset and performed downsampling during the data preprocessing stage. Specifically, before the images were used as input to the model for training, they went through a quality control process to ensure images with artifacts, cracked tissue, or blurriness were removed from the training process [54]. Around 10% of the images among the train set were not used for training. Then the images were resized from 1024$\times$1024 to 256$\times$256 and were used as input to the model. The output images obtained from the model were subsequently resized from 256$\times$256 to 1024$\times$1024 to match the original input dimensions. The training and inference process of team arptidec5 is illustrated in Fig. 7.

Team Just4Fun proposed a level-aware BCIStainer to learn HER2 expression levels from H&E-stained slices $I_{he}$, and meanwhile, translate $I_{he}$ to IHC-stained slices $\hat{I}_{ihc}$. The goals of BCIStainer are: (1) keeping consistency between HER2 expression levels of $\hat{I}_{ihc}$ and the ground truth $I_{ihc}$; (2) generating similar content of $\hat{I}_{ihc}$ as $I_{ihc}$; (3) making $\hat{I}_{ihc}$ and $I_{he}$ be structurally similar.

The architecture of HER2 expression level-aware BCIStainer $(G)$ is shown in Fig. 8. $G_{enc}$ encodes the input $I_{he}$ from high resolution (1024$\times$1024) to a feature map of size 128$\times$128. $G_{cls}$ outputs latent features $\hat{S}_{he}$ from encoded $I_{he}$, and then $\hat{S}_{he}$ is used for predicting HER2 expression $\hat{y}$ by a linear classification header. $G_{stainer}$ shown in Fig. 8 applies $\hat{S}_{he}$ as the condition in the weight-demodulated layer [55] to perform the image-to-image translation process. The participants also added the parameters-free attention layer SimAM [56] in $G_{stainer}$ to enhance the salient features of cell structure or HER2 expressions, such as cell edges, cell nucleus, and dark regions of high-level HER2 expression. $G_{stainer}$ consists of 9 basic blocks. At the end of each basic block, they added a residual skip connection before the output. A convolutional layer is followed by $G_{stainer}$ and outputs the low-resolution prediction $\hat{I}_{ihc}^{low}$. The final $G_{dec}$ recovers translated feature maps to the original image space and outputs predicted IHC-stained slices $\hat{I}_{ihc}$.

The following is a detailed description of the loss functions used in this framework, including level loss, content loss, and adversarial loss.

Level Loss. Level loss is the combination of multiple-class focal loss $L_{gfocal}$ [57] and cosine similarity loss $L_{csim}$ in sample level. Because of the imbalanced multiple-class dataset, they used a $L_{gfocal}$ to train the classifier in BCIStainer with predicted level $\hat{y}$ and the ground truth level $y$. Thus $\hat{S}_{he}$ is able to conduct guidance to $G_{stainer}$. $L_{gfocal}$ can be calculated by the following equations:

where $N$ is the number of expression levels, $n$ is the $n$th level, $i$ is the $i$th level, $p_{n}\in[0,1]$ is the predicted probability for the class with label $n$, $\alpha$ is a vector of weight coefficients of all levels, $(1-p_{t,n})^{\gamma}$ is the modulating factor to reshape the loss function to down-weight easy examples, and $\gamma$ is a tunable parameter to smoothly adjusts the modulating factor [57]. To compute $L_{csim}$, they firstly trained a classifier as comparator $C$, only using the real IHC-stained slices $I_{ihc}$ and expression levels $y$ with a multiple-class focal loss $L_{cfocal}$ in the same formulation as (5) to (7). $C$ generates representations $\hat{S}_{ihc}$ and $S_{ihc}$ by inputting $\hat{I}_{ihc}$ and $I_{ihc}$. $L_{csim}$ measures the similarity between $\hat{I}_{ihc}$ and $I_{ihc}$ in sample level as (8). Lower $L_{csim}$ reveals higher consistency in expression levels of $\hat{I}_{ihc}$ and $I_{ihc}$.

Content Loss. Content loss is composed of Mean Absolute Error (MAE) loss $L_{mae}$ and structure similarity loss $L_{ssim}$. $L_{mae}$ is used to measure content consistency between full resolution $\hat{I}_{ihc}$ and $I_{ihc}$, and also in the low resolution $\hat{I}_{ihc}^{low}$ and $I_{ihc}^{low}$. $L_{mae}$ is shown as (9):

Structure similarity comprehensively measures the differences between images in brightness, contrast, and structure. They applied structure similarity as a loss function to train the generator directly as (10):

Adversarial Loss. Adversarial loss $L_{GAN}$ is a multiple-scale version of PatchGan from Pix2pixHD [33]. $L_{GAN}^{1024}$ is computed by $\hat{I}_{ihc}$ and $I_{ihc}$ in full resolution 1024$\times$1024. $L_{GAN}^{512}$ is computed in the same way as $L_{GAN}^{1024}$, but using resized $\hat{I}_{ihc}$ and $I_{ihc}$ in resolution 512$\times$512. $L_{GAN}$ is the mean of $L_{GAN}^{1024}$ and $L_{GAN}^{512}$ as (11).

Overall Loss. Overall loss is constructed as (12):

where $\lambda_{gfocal}$, $\lambda_{csim}$, $\lambda_{mae}$, $\lambda_{ssim}$ and $\lambda_{GAN}$ are weighting-parameters for corresponding losses.

Team Just4Fun has open-sourced their code at github: https://github.com/quqixun/BCIStainer.

Team lifangda02 summarized the challenging aspects of H&E-to-IHC translation into two points:

(1) Inconsistencies in the H&E-IHC pairs. Since re-staining a slice is physically infeasible, a matching pair of H&E-IHC slices are taken from two depth-wise consecutive cuts of the same tissue and scanned separately. This inevitably prevents pixel-perfect image correspondences due to morphology inconsistency and alignment error. The former is inherent to the fact that the image pair is from separate cuts and their preparation routines might differ. The latter is only exacerbated by the former in the image registration process.

(2) Reproducing the diagnosis-critical characteristics. In this challenge, IHC staining highlights tissue regions with a positive HER2 expression with a brownish color. The higher the HER2 expression is, the darker the brown and the higher the contrast against the benign tissue regions. Therefore, correctly reflecting the HER2 expression levels in the generated IHC-stained images is a huge challenge, especially given the much lower contrast levels between the malignant and benign regions in the H&E-stained images. Additionally, doing so accurately and in a visually discriminative manner is of the core interest of H&E-to-IHC translation.

To address the first challenge, the participants approached the problem of H&E-to-IHC stain transfer from the perspective of “weakly” supervised image-to-image translation. The solution was built on top of the Contrastive Unpaired Translation (CUT) framework by [58]. They augmented the CUT framework with a novel paired contrastive loss, aimed to mitigate the inconsistencies in the H&E-IHC image pairs. To further partially address the second challenge, they designated the discriminator to classify the HER2 level as an auxiliary task.

The CUT framework ensures the content is consistent in the generated image by maximizing the mutual information between input and output. This is implemented by minimizing a patch-based InfoNCE contrastive loss, which aims to learn an embedding that associates corresponding patches to each other, while disassociating them from others. Given a query (a patch) in the output image, the positive is the corresponding patch and the negatives are noncorresponding patches, both from the input image. This loss is denoted as $L_{NCE}$. For more details, please refer to (3) in work [58].

The innovative contribution of team lifangda02 is the introduction of paired InfoNCE contrastive loss $L_{pNCE}$, which extends $L_{NCE}$ to paired images especially to combat the inconsistencies in H&E-IHC image pairs. More specifically, given an output patch as query, the corresponding IHC-stained patch is designated as the positive and the noncorresponding patches are designated as the negatives. Then they used the same InfoNCE-based formulation for $L_{pNCE}$.

The key intuition behind $L_{pNCE}$ is that it can be seen as a soft image reconstruction learning criteria. Instead of using a predefined loss term that may not work well on inconsistent ground truth pairs, $L_{pNCE}$ punishes dissimilarities between the query and the positive in a learned latent space. Therefore, owing to this adaptiveness, $L_{pNCE}$ is more robust towards noisy supervision.

The participants used the resnet-9-blocks generator architecture with the loss function in (13):

where $L_{dis-cls}$ is the auxiliary cross-entropy-based classification loss using the discriminator and $L_{multi-scale}$ is the multi-scale image reconstruction loss as introduced in work [34].

An extended version of the method by team lifangda02 can be found in [59], where the authors further extended the $L_{pNCE}$ loss to adaptively learn from H&E-IHC image pairs that are more consistent.

Team lifangda02 has open-sourced their code at github: https://github.com/lifangda01/AdaptiveSupervisedPatchNCE.

Supervised methods are generally the best methods if paired datasets are available in image translation. However, it is difficult to obtain well paired H&E-IHC images. Unsupervised methods can carry out image translation using unpaired datasets, while the results are less than satisfactory. Therefore, weakly supervised learning may be a better way for H&E to IHC-stained image translation. The method submitted by team stan9 is based on WeCREST [60], which is a weakly supervised deep generative network for style transformation. The backbone of their method is consistent with U-GAT-IT [61]. In each iteration of the training, the input images were sampled according to the sampling rule, which is determined by (14):

where $\sigma_{S_{i}}$ and $\sigma_{S_{i}}$ are the standard deviations of the source image $S_{i}$ and target image $T_{i}$, $cov(\cdot)$ is the covariance, $H_{i}$ is a vector of the normalized image histogram for image $i$, and $N$ is the total number of images. The discriminator can classify images into $N+1$ classes, including $N$ classes in the pool of real image styles and a fake image style. In addition, the existing methods only consider style transformation but ignore the positive/negative consistency. It is hard for the network to identify cancer areas and the colors of generated images are incorrect sometimes. Therefore, the participants added an auxiliary classifier to the discriminator. The role of the classifier is to classify images according to the HER2 expression status. H&E-stained images are labeled according to the expression status of the corresponding IHC-stained images. As the training goes on, the classification module can make the generator learn pathological characteristics and keep the expression status of the input image and the generated image consistent. The loss function (15) of the generator is composed of adversarial loss $L_{adv}$, class loss $L_{class}$, cam loss $L_{cam}$ [61], and cycle loss $L_{cycle}$.

where $\lambda_{G1}$, $\lambda_{G2}$, $\lambda_{G3}$, $\lambda_{G4}$ are weighting-parameters; adversarial loss $L_{adv}$ has two formats: $L_{adv}^{s\to t}$ and $L_{adv}^{t\to s}$ which are determined by (16) and  17, respectively.

where $D_{t}$ is the discriminator of HER2 images, $Y_{i}$ and $Y_{0}$ are one-hot style labels for image $i$ and the fake images.

where $D_{s}$ is the discriminator of H&E-stained images, $Y_{i}$ and $Y_{0}$ are one-hot style labels for image $i$ and the fake images. The loss function of the discriminator ((18)) is composed of adversarial loss $L_{adv}$, class loss $L_{class}$, and cam loss $L_{cam}$.

where $\lambda_{D1}$, $\lambda_{D2}$, $\lambda_{D3}$ are weighting-parameters.

Fig. 10 presents a general overview of the proposed wavelet-based pix2pix model that generates an IHC-stained image from the H&E-stained source image. Team vived23 employed conditional generative adversarial network (cGAN) [32] based on the paired images. The model comprises two sub-networks: a generator that generates a fake or synthetic image, and a discriminator that classifies the generated (fake) image against the corresponding ground truth. The generator network consists of an encoder and a decoder. In the encoder, they incorporated 9 intermediate residual blocks from the ImageNet pre-trained ResNet18 network [15]. Unlike traditional color image-based encoder that works directly on three color channels, they applied the discrete wavelet transform (DWT) to extract four-channel spatial and frequency domain features from the given H&E images [62]. DWT splits the lower and higher-frequency details into sub-bands that help in precisely measuring sharp changes in the input image. In the generator network’s architecture, the first convolutional layer employs 64 filters with a kernel size of 7$\times$7 and stride 1, followed by the InstanceNorm and the ReLU activation function [36]. While the encoded features are decoded by the two ConvTranspose2D deconvolutional layers.

This team defined $i$ as the input H&E image, $gt$ as the corresponding IHC-stained image, and $z$ as a random variable. Generator $G$ and Discriminator $D$, generate the output of $G(i,z)$ and $D(i,G(i,z))$, respectively. Therefore, the loss function of the generator network $G$ consists of the Binary CrossEntropy (BCE) loss and $L1$ loss that can be formulated as (19):

where $\lambda$ is an empirical weighting factor that is set to 100. The $L1$ loss helps in reducing the number of false positives and fosters the training process by generating sharp images. The discriminator network utilizes five convolutional layers with a kernel of 4$\times$4, and stride of 2$\times$2. The early four layers are followed by batch normalization and non-linear leaky ReLU (slope 0.2) activation function. The last layer uses a sigmoid activation function to discriminate between real and fake generated outcomes. The discriminator loss can be defined as (20):

Equation (20) utilizes the BCE loss function for real IHC-stained images against the generated (fake) ones. During training, the discriminator network enforces the generator network in generating a better synthetic IHC-stained image while comparing it with actual ground truth. The discriminator network is not involved in the model’s evaluation phase.

Table II shows the PSNR and SSIM metrics of the participants in the challenge. Among them, the team arpitdec5 achieved the highest SSIM and the second highest PSNR, and according to (4), they obtained the highest final ranking. The team Just4Fun obtained the highest PSNR and the second highest SSIM and finally ranked second. Finally, the third to sixth rankings were awarded to teams lifangda02, stan9, guanxianchao, and vivek23, respectively.

Fig. 12 shows the generated IHC-stained images submitted by the participants. In the results submitted by the team Just4Fun, the color depth of the cells is overall consistent with the ground truth, which indicates that their results can accurately reflect the expression level of HER2 to a large extent. The results submitted by the team stan9 can approach the ground truth when HER2 expression levels are 0, 1+, and 2+, but when HER2 is highly expressed (3+), their results cannot accurately reflect the HER2 expression level. The results of the other four teams show similar staining intensity at HER2 expression levels of 0, 1+, 2+, and 3+, and these results cannot accurately reflect the information on HER2 expression levels.

The difficulty of this challenge is how to generate IHC-stained images that can correctly reflect the expression level of HER2 based on H&E images. Most of the participants’ methods have the problem of not being able to identify the high-level expression of HER2 in breast tissue. For example, the coloring degree of the IHC-stained images generated by the teams arpitdec5, lifangda02 and vivek23 almost have the same tone, showing light brown, which is a phenomenon of mode collapse. The images submitted by Just4fun can reflect the expression level of HER2 to a large extent: when the expression level of HER2 is low (0/1+), the generated IHC-stained images are lightly colored, and when the expression level of HER2 is high (2+/3+), the generated IHC-stained images exhibit darker coloration.

The ability of the generated IHC-stained images to accurately reflect the HER2 expression level is highly related to whether the corresponding method uses HER2 expression level information. Team Just4fun made good use of the category information of the original WSIs: their method uses category information to supervise the classification of H&E-stained images ($G_{class}$), and uses H&E category information to intervene in the generation of IHC-stained images; at the same time, the method also inputs the generated IHC-stained images and the real IHC-stained images into the classification network $C$, and uses cosine similarity loss to constrain the category information of the two to be consistent. The team stan9 also used label information. Their methed uses a cycle structure similar to cycleGAN [36], and adds a classification branch to the two discriminators, constraining the two discriminators to agree on the classification of an H&E-stained image and the corresponding IHC-stained image. Therefore, the results submitted by the team stan9 can also generate IHC-stained images with different degrees of coloring, and achieve relatively accurate results in the case of IHC 2+, but still cannot generate correctly stained IHC images in the case of IHC 3+.