A novel model for Ki67 assessment in breast cancer

被引:29
|
作者
Romero, Quinci [1 ]
Bendahl, Par-Ola [1 ]
Ferno, Marten [1 ]
Grabau, Dorthe [3 ]
Borgquist, Signe [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Lund Univ, Div Oncol, Dept Clin Sci Lund, SE-22185 Lund, Sweden
[2] Skane Univ Hosp, Dept Oncol, Lund, Sweden
[3] Lund Univ, Dept Clin Sci, Div Pathol, SE-22185 Lund, Sweden
来源
DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY | 2014年 / 9卷
关键词
Ki67; Breast cancer; Proliferation; Counting strategy; Statistical model; PROLIFERATIVE ACTIVITY; KI-67; ANTIGEN; MIB-1; RECOMMENDATIONS; METAANALYSIS; BIOMARKERS; MARKERS;
D O I
10.1186/1746-1596-9-118
中图分类号
R36 [病理学];
学科分类号
100104 ;
摘要
Background: Ki67 is currently the proliferation biomarker of choice, with both prognostic and predictive value in breast cancer. A lack of consensus regarding Ki67 use in pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical practice may hinder its formal acceptance in the clinical setting. Methods: One hundred breast cancer samples were stained for Ki67. A standard estimation of Ki67 using fixed denominators of 200, 400 and 1 000 counted tumor cells was performed, and a cut-off at 20% was applied, Ki67static. A novel stepwise counting strategy for Ki67 estimation, Ki67(scs), was developed based on rejection regions derived from exact two-sided binomial confidence intervals for proportions. Ki67scs was defined by the following parameters: the cut-off (20%), minimum (50) and maximum (400) number of tumor cells to count, increment (10) and overall significance level of the test procedure (0.05). Results from Ki67scs were compared to results from the Ki67static estimation with fixed denominators. Results: For Ki67scs, the median number of tumor cells needed to determine Ki67 status was 100; the average, 175. Among 38 highly proliferative samples, the average Ki67scs fraction was 45%. For these samples, the fraction decreased from 39% to 37% to 35% with static counting of 200, 400 and 1 000 cells, respectively. The largest absolute difference between the estimation methods was 23% (42% (Ki67scs) vs. 19% (Ki67static)) and resulted in an altered sample classification. Among the 82 unequivocal samples, 74 samples received the same classification using both Ki67scs and Ki67static. Of the eight disparate samples, seven were classified highly proliferative by Ki67static when 200 cells were counted; whereas all eight cases were classified as low proliferative when 1 000 cells were counted. Conclusions: Ki67 estimation using fixed denominators may be inadequate, particularly for tumors demonstrating extensive heterogeneity. We propose a time saving stepwise counting strategy, which acknowledges small highly proliferative hot spots. Virtual Slides: The virtual slide(s) for this article can be found here: http://www.diagnosticpathology.diagnomx.eu/vs/3588156111195336
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] An international multicenter study to evaluate reproducibility of automated scoring for assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer
    Rimm, David L.
    Leung, Samuel C. Y.
    McShane, Lisa M.
    Bai, Yalai
    Bane, Anita L.
    Bartlett, John M. S.
    Bayani, Jane
    Chang, Martin C.
    Dean, Michelle
    Denkert, Carsten
    Enwere, Emeka K.
    Galderisi, Chad
    Gholap, Abhi
    Hugh, Judith C.
    Jadhav, Anagha
    Kornaga, Elizabeth N.
    Laurinavicius, Arvydas
    Levenson, Richard
    Lima, Joema
    Miller, Keith
    Pantanowitz, Liron
    Piper, Tammy
    Ruan, Jason
    Srinivasan, Malini
    Virk, Shakeel
    Wu, Ying
    Yang, Hua
    Hayes, Daniel F.
    Nielsen, Torsten O.
    Dowsett, Mitch
    MODERN PATHOLOGY, 2019, 32 (01) : 59 - 69
  • [42] Digital image analysis of Ki67 in hot spots is superior to both manual Ki67 and mitotic counts in breast cancer
    Stalhammar, Gustav
    Robertson, Stephanie
    Wedlund, Lena
    Lippert, Michael
    Rantalainen, Mattias
    Bergh, Jonas
    Hartman, Johan
    HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2018, 72 (06) : 974 - 989
  • [43] Independent Clinical Validation of the Automated Ki67 Scoring Guideline from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group
    Boyaci, Ceren
    Sun, Wenwen
    Robertson, Stephanie
    Acs, Balazs
    Hartman, Johan
    BIOMOLECULES, 2021, 11 (11)
  • [44] Assessment of Ki67 expression for breast cancer subtype classification and prognosis in the Nurses' Health Study
    Healey, Megan A.
    Hirko, Kelly A.
    Beck, Andrew H.
    Collins, Laura C.
    Schnitt, Stuart J.
    Eliassen, A. Heather
    Holmes, Michelle D.
    Tamimi, Rulla M.
    Hazra, Aditi
    BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2017, 166 (02) : 613 - 622
  • [45] Impact of different Ki67 assessment methods on St.Gallen subtyping of breast cancer
    Focke, C. M.
    Glaeser, D.
    Finsterbusch, K.
    Decker, T.
    BREAST, 2015, 24 : S36 - S36
  • [46] Ki67 assessment protocol as an integral biomarker for avoiding radiotherapy in the LUMINA breast cancer trial
    Nielsen, Torsten O.
    Leung, Samuel C. Y.
    Riaz, Nazia
    Mulligan, Anna M.
    Kos, Zuzana
    Bane, Anita
    Whelan, Timothy J.
    HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2023, 83 (06) : 903 - 911
  • [47] A simple digital image analysis system for automated Ki67 assessment in primary breast cancer
    Alataki, Anastasia
    Zabaglo, Lila
    Tovey, Holly
    Dodson, Andrew
    Dowsett, Mitch
    HISTOPATHOLOGY, 2021, 79 (02) : 200 - 209
  • [48] Assessment of Ki67 expression for breast cancer subtype classification and prognosis in the Nurses’ Health Study
    Megan A. Healey
    Kelly A. Hirko
    Andrew H. Beck
    Laura C. Collins
    Stuart J. Schnitt
    A. Heather Eliassen
    Michelle D. Holmes
    Rulla M. Tamimi
    Aditi Hazra
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 2017, 166 : 613 - 622
  • [50] Prognostic factor Ki67 for breast cancer patients in each subgroup
    Niikura, Naoki
    Masuda, Shinobu
    Terada, Mizuho
    Terao, Mayako
    Kumaki, Nobue
    Oshitanai, Risa
    Morioka, Toru
    Tuda, Banri
    Okamura, Takuho
    Saito, Yuki
    Suzuki, Yasuhiro
    Tokuda, Yutaka
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2012, 30 (15)