Literature DB >> 25698062

An international study to increase concordance in Ki67 scoring.

Mei-Yin C Polley1, Samuel C Y Leung2, Dongxia Gao2, Mauro G Mastropasqua3, Lila A Zabaglo4, John M S Bartlett5, Lisa M McShane1, Rebecca A Enos6, Sunil S Badve7, Anita L Bane8, Signe Borgquist9, Susan Fineberg10, Ming-Gang Lin11, Allen M Gown12, Dorthe Grabau9, Carolina Gutierrez13, Judith C Hugh14, Takuya Moriya15, Yasuyo Ohi16, C Kent Osborne13, Frédérique M Penault-Llorca17, Tammy Piper18, Peggy L Porter11, Takashi Sakatani19, Roberto Salgado20, Jane Starczynski21, Anne-Vibeke Lænkholm22, Giuseppe Viale23, Mitch Dowsett24, Daniel F Hayes25, Torsten O Nielsen2.   

Abstract

Although an important biomarker in breast cancer, Ki67 lacks scoring standardization, which has limited its clinical use. Our previous study found variability when laboratories used their own scoring methods on centrally stained tissue microarray slides. In this current study, 16 laboratories from eight countries calibrated to a specific Ki67 scoring method and then scored 50 centrally MIB-1 stained tissue microarray cases. Simple instructions prescribed scoring pattern and staining thresholds for determination of the percentage of stained tumor cells. To calibrate, laboratories scored 18 'training' and 'test' web-based images. Software tracked object selection and scoring. Success for the calibration was prespecified as Root Mean Square Error of scores compared with reference <0.6 and Maximum Absolute Deviation from reference <1.0 (log2-transformed data). Prespecified success criteria for tissue microarray scoring required intraclass correlation significantly >0.70 but aiming for observed intraclass correlation ≥0.90. Laboratory performance showed non-significant but promising trends of improvement through the calibration exercise (mean Root Mean Square Error decreased from 0.6 to 0.4, Maximum Absolute Deviation from 1.6 to 0.9; paired t-test: P=0.07 for Root Mean Square Error, 0.06 for Maximum Absolute Deviation). For tissue microarray scoring, the intraclass correlation estimate was 0.94 (95% credible interval: 0.90-0.97), markedly and significantly >0.70, the prespecified minimum target for success. Some discrepancies persisted, including around clinically relevant cutoffs. After calibrating to a common scoring method via a web-based tool, laboratories can achieve high inter-laboratory reproducibility in Ki67 scoring on centrally stained tissue microarray slides. Although these data are potentially encouraging, suggesting that it may be possible to standardize scoring of Ki67 among pathology laboratories, clinically important discrepancies persist. Before this biomarker could be recommended for clinical use, future research will need to extend this approach to biopsies and whole sections, account for staining variability, and link to outcomes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25698062     DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2015.38

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mod Pathol        ISSN: 0893-3952            Impact factor:   7.842


  20 in total

Review 1.  From genome to bedside: are we lost in translation?

Authors:  Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.380

2.  Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers.

Authors:  Richard M Simon; Soonmyung Paik; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 13.506

3.  Objective quantification of the Ki67 proliferative index in neuroendocrine tumors of the gastroenteropancreatic system: a comparison of digital image analysis with manual methods.

Authors:  Laura H Tang; Mithat Gonen; Cyrus Hedvat; Irvin M Modlin; David S Klimstra
Journal:  Am J Surg Pathol       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 6.394

Review 4.  Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential.

Authors:  Rinat Yerushalmi; Ryan Woods; Peter M Ravdin; Malcolm M Hayes; Karen A Gelmon
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 41.316

5.  Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group.

Authors:  Mitch Dowsett; Torsten O Nielsen; Roger A'Hern; John Bartlett; R Charles Coombes; Jack Cuzick; Matthew Ellis; N Lynn Henry; Judith C Hugh; Tracy Lively; Lisa McShane; Soon Paik; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Ljudmila Prudkin; Meredith Regan; Janine Salter; Christos Sotiriou; Ian E Smith; Giuseppe Viale; Jo Anne Zujewski; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-09-29       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review.

Authors:  Elisabeth Luporsi; Fabrice André; Frédérique Spyratos; Pierre-Marie Martin; Jocelyne Jacquemier; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Nicole Tubiana-Mathieu; Brigitte Sigal-Zafrani; Laurent Arnould; Anne Gompel; Caroline Egele; Bruno Poulet; Krishna B Clough; Hubert Crouet; Alain Fourquet; Jean-Pierre Lefranc; Carole Mathelin; Nicolas Rouyer; Daniel Serin; Marc Spielmann; Margaret Haugh; Marie-Pierre Chenard; Etienne Brain; Patricia de Cremoux; Jean-Pierre Bellocq
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2011-11-03       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  How reliable is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of Breast- and Gynecopathologists.

Authors:  Zsuzsanna Varga; Joachim Diebold; Corina Dommann-Scherrer; Harald Frick; Daniela Kaup; Aurelia Noske; Ellen Obermann; Christian Ohlschlegel; Barbara Padberg; Christiane Rakozy; Sara Sancho Oliver; Sylviane Schobinger-Clement; Heide Schreiber-Facklam; Gad Singer; Coya Tapia; Urs Wagner; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Giuseppe Viale; Hans-Anton Lehr
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-25       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update.

Authors:  Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth H Hammond; David G Hicks; Mitch Dowsett; Lisa M McShane; Kimberly H Allison; Donald C Allred; John M S Bartlett; Michael Bilous; Patrick Fitzgibbons; Wedad Hanna; Robert B Jenkins; Pamela B Mangu; Soonmyung Paik; Edith A Perez; Michael F Press; Patricia A Spears; Gail H Vance; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel F Hayes
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 5.534

9.  Ki-67 is a prognostic parameter in breast cancer patients: results of a large population-based cohort of a cancer registry.

Authors:  E C Inwald; M Klinkhammer-Schalke; F Hofstädter; F Zeman; M Koller; M Gerstenhauer; O Ortmann
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2013-05-16       Impact factor: 4.872

10.  Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013.

Authors:  A Goldhirsch; E P Winer; A S Coates; R D Gelber; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2013-08-04       Impact factor: 32.976

View more
  67 in total

1.  Reproducibility and Prognostic Potential of Ki-67 Proliferation Index when Comparing Digital-Image Analysis with Standard Semi-Quantitative Evaluation in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Balázs Ács; Lilla Madaras; Kristóf Attila Kovács; Tamás Micsik; Anna-Mária Tőkés; Balázs Győrffy; Janina Kulka; Attila Marcell Szász
Journal:  Pathol Oncol Res       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 3.201

2.  Digital image analysis outperforms manual biomarker assessment in breast cancer.

Authors:  Gustav Stålhammar; Nelson Fuentes Martinez; Michael Lippert; Nicholas P Tobin; Ida Mølholm; Lorand Kis; Gustaf Rosin; Mattias Rantalainen; Lars Pedersen; Jonas Bergh; Michael Grunkin; Johan Hartman
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-02-26       Impact factor: 7.842

3.  Tailoring therapies--improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015.

Authors:  A S Coates; E P Winer; A Goldhirsch; R D Gelber; M Gnant; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 32.976

4.  Quality assurance trials for Ki67 assessment in pathology.

Authors:  M Raap; S Ließem; J Rüschoff; A Fisseler-Eckhoff; A Reiner; S Dirnhofer; R von Wasielewski; H Kreipe
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 4.064

5.  Is Ki67 prognostic for aggressive prostate cancer? A multicenter real-world study.

Authors:  Joseph J Fantony; Lauren E Howard; Ilona Csizmadi; Andrew J Armstrong; Amy L Lark; Colette Galet; William J Aronson; Stephen J Freedland
Journal:  Biomark Med       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 2.851

6.  Reproducibility of the NEPTUNE descriptor-based scoring system on whole-slide images and histologic and ultrastructural digital images.

Authors:  Laura Barisoni; Jonathan P Troost; Cynthia Nast; Serena Bagnasco; Carmen Avila-Casado; Jeffrey Hodgin; Matthew Palmer; Avi Rosenberg; Adil Gasim; Chrysta Liensziewski; Lino Merlino; Hui-Ping Chien; Anthony Chang; Shane M Meehan; Joseph Gaut; Peter Song; Lawrence Holzman; Debbie Gibson; Matthias Kretzler; Brenda W Gillespie; Stephen M Hewitt
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 7.  [Histological grading of breast cancer].

Authors:  M Christgen; F Länger; H Kreipe
Journal:  Pathologe       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 1.011

8.  Standardized evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in breast cancer: results of the ring studies of the international immuno-oncology biomarker working group.

Authors:  Carsten Denkert; Stephan Wienert; Audrey Poterie; Sibylle Loibl; Jan Budczies; Sunil Badve; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Anita Bane; Shahinaz Bedri; Jane Brock; Ewa Chmielik; Matthias Christgen; Cecile Colpaert; Sandra Demaria; Gert Van den Eynden; Giuseppe Floris; Stephen B Fox; Dongxia Gao; Barbara Ingold Heppner; S Rim Kim; Zuzana Kos; Hans H Kreipe; Sunil R Lakhani; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Giancarlo Pruneri; Nina Radosevic-Robin; David L Rimm; Stuart J Schnitt; Bruno V Sinn; Peter Sinn; Nicolas Sirtaine; Sandra A O'Toole; Giuseppe Viale; Koen Van de Vijver; Roland de Wind; Gunter von Minckwitz; Frederick Klauschen; Michael Untch; Peter A Fasching; Toralf Reimer; Karen Willard-Gallo; Stefan Michiels; Sherene Loi; Roberto Salgado
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 7.842

Review 9.  Current Status of Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy in Early Stage Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Tomás Reinert; Rodrigo Gonçalves; Matthew J Ellis
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2018-04-16

10.  Inter-Individual Variation in Response to Estrogen in Human Breast Explants.

Authors:  Karen A Dunphy; Amye L Black; Amy L Roberts; Aman Sharma; Zida Li; Sneha Suresh; Eva P Browne; Kathleen F Arcaro; Jennifer Ser-Dolansky; Carol Bigelow; Melissa A Troester; Sallie S Schneider; Grace Makari-Judson; Giovanna M Crisi; D Joseph Jerry
Journal:  J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia       Date:  2020-03-09       Impact factor: 2.673

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.