Akira I Hida1, Kenji Bando2, Atsuro Sugita3, Toshiharu Maeda4, Norifumi Ueda5, Shoichi Matsukage6, Mamoru Nakanishi6, Katsumi Kito4, Tatsuhiko Miyazaki7, Yuji Ohtsuki8, Yumi Oshiro1, Hiromichi Inoue9, Hidetoshi Kawaguchi9, Natsumi Yamashita10, Kenjiro Aogi11, Takuya Moriya12. 1. Department of Pathology, Matsuyama Red Cross Hospital, Matsuyama, Ehime, Japan. 2. Department of Pathology, Saiseikai Imabari Hospital, Imabari, Ehime, Japan. 3. Pathology Division, Ehime University Hospital, Toon, Ehime, Japan. 4. Department of Pathology, Ehime Prefectural Central Hospital, Matsuyama, Ehime, Japan. 5. Saiseikai Saijo Medical Center, Saijo, Ehime, Japan. 6. Division of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, Uwajima City Hospital, Uwajima, Ehime, Japan. 7. Pathology Division, Gifu University Hospital, Gifu, Japan. 8. Division of Pathology, Matsuyama-shimin Hospital, Matsuyama, Ehime, Japan. 9. Department of Breast Surgery, Matsuyama Red Cross Hospital, Matsuyama, Ehime, Japan. 10. Division of Clinical Biostatistics, Center for Clinical Research, National Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer Center, Matsuyama, Ehime, Japan. 11. Department of Breast Oncology, National Hospital Organization Shikoku Cancer Center, Matsuyama, Ehime, Japan. 12. Department of Pathology 2, Kawasaki Medical School, Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan.
Abstract
AIMS: Personalised breast cancer therapy requires pathological characterisation of tumours. The proliferative index, based on Ki67, is pivotal, but a standard method has not been established. Here we look for an easy and practical way to evaluate Ki67. METHODS: Immunohistochemical staining of estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, HER2 and Ki67 (MIB-1) was performed on resected specimens from 406 primary invasive ductal carcinomas. Ki67 labelling index (LI) from manual counting was compared with visual assessment using a 5-grade scale (Eye-5). Next, 10 pathologists evaluated 100 samples with marked hot spots by using Eye-5. Another 100 samples without marking were also assessed by eight pathologists. One year later, two pathologists reviewed 222 cases with Eye-5. Prognosis was analysed among estrogen receptor-positive cases with postoperative endocrine therapy. RESULTS: Eye-5 showed good correlation to LI. All 136 cases of score 4-5 had LI >20% and all 56 cases of score 1 had LI<20%, which means that manual counting was not necessary for about half of the cases. Interobserver and intraobserver variability was low even when a hot spot was not fixed. Eye-5 also correlated with histological grade and lymph node metastasis. Combining Eye-5 and histological grade created a new algorism to predict LI, which allows 80% of all cases (74% of luminal cases) without manual counting. Cases of Eye-5 score 1-2 had significantly better survival than score 3-5. CONCLUSIONS: Visual assessment of Ki67 by a 5-grade scale (Eye-5) is fast, easy, and reliable with acceptably low interobserver and intraobserver variability. Eye-5 can replace LI in many luminal tumours, and is a strong candidate as a standard method of evaluating Ki67. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
AIMS: Personalised breast cancer therapy requires pathological characterisation of tumours. The proliferative index, based on Ki67, is pivotal, but a standard method has not been established. Here we look for an easy and practical way to evaluate Ki67. METHODS: Immunohistochemical staining of estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, HER2 and Ki67 (MIB-1) was performed on resected specimens from 406 primary invasive ductal carcinomas. Ki67 labelling index (LI) from manual counting was compared with visual assessment using a 5-grade scale (Eye-5). Next, 10 pathologists evaluated 100 samples with marked hot spots by using Eye-5. Another 100 samples without marking were also assessed by eight pathologists. One year later, two pathologists reviewed 222 cases with Eye-5. Prognosis was analysed among estrogen receptor-positive cases with postoperative endocrine therapy. RESULTS: Eye-5 showed good correlation to LI. All 136 cases of score 4-5 had LI >20% and all 56 cases of score 1 had LI<20%, which means that manual counting was not necessary for about half of the cases. Interobserver and intraobserver variability was low even when a hot spot was not fixed. Eye-5 also correlated with histological grade and lymph node metastasis. Combining Eye-5 and histological grade created a new algorism to predict LI, which allows 80% of all cases (74% of luminal cases) without manual counting. Cases of Eye-5 score 1-2 had significantly better survival than score 3-5. CONCLUSIONS: Visual assessment of Ki67 by a 5-grade scale (Eye-5) is fast, easy, and reliable with acceptably low interobserver and intraobserver variability. Eye-5 can replace LI in many luminal tumours, and is a strong candidate as a standard method of evaluating Ki67. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
BREAST CANCER; BREAST PATHOLOGY; TUMOUR BIOLOGY
Authors: Phuong Dinh; J Dinny Graham; Elisabeth N Elder; Masrura Kabir; Tram B Doan; James French; Farid Meybodi; Rina Hui; Nicholas R Wilcken; Paul R Harnett; Jeremy Hsu; Kirsty E Stuart; Tim Wang; Verity Ahern; Meagan Brennan; Stephen B Fox; Rachel F Dear; Elgene Lim; Michelle White; G Bruce Mann; Nirmala Pathmanathan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Ah-Young Kwon; Ha Young Park; Jiyeon Hyeon; Seok Jin Nam; Seok Won Kim; Jeong Eon Lee; Jong-Han Yu; Se Kyung Lee; Soo Youn Cho; Eun Yoon Cho Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Torsten O Nielsen; Samuel C Y Leung; David L Rimm; Andrew Dodson; Balazs Acs; Sunil Badve; Carsten Denkert; Matthew J Ellis; Susan Fineberg; Margaret Flowers; Hans H Kreipe; Anne-Vibeke Laenkholm; Hongchao Pan; Frédérique M Penault-Llorca; Mei-Yin Polley; Roberto Salgado; Ian E Smith; Tomoharu Sugie; John M S Bartlett; Lisa M McShane; Mitch Dowsett; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506