Literature DB >> 25959664

Highly reproducible results of breast cancer biomarkers when analysed in accordance with national guidelines - a Swedish survey with central re-assessment.

Maria Ekholm1, Dorthe Grabau, Pär-Ola Bendahl, Jonas Bergh, Göran Elmberger, Hans Olsson, Leila Russo, Giuseppe Viale, Mårten Fernö.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Biomarkers are crucial for decisions regarding adjuvant therapy in primary breast cancer, and their correct assessment is therefore of the utmost importance. AIMS: To investigate the concordance between Swedish pathology departments and a reference laboratory, for routine analysis of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), Ki67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), alone, and in combination (St Gallen subtypes).
METHODS: This survey included 27 of the 28 pathology laboratories in Sweden, covering 98% of cases of primary breast cancer surgery in Sweden. Paraffin-embedded tumour blocks (n = 270) were collected and sent to the central reference laboratory, together with the originally stained slides, for re-analysis. The primary evaluations were previously performed according to national Swedish guidelines, without any knowledge of the subsequent central assessment.
RESULTS: The agreement for ER, PR, and Ki67 was 99% [kappa value (κ) = 0.95], 95% (κ = 0.85), and 85% (κ = 0.70), respectively. The agreement for HER2 (0/1 + vs. 2+/3+) was 85% (κ = 0.64), but when equivocal tumours were further analysed with in situ hybridisation, only one discrepancy was observed. Discrepancies between results for ER and PR seem to be explained by analytical differences, whereas the interpretation of staining seems to be more critical for Ki67 and HER2 immunohistochemistry. The agreement between the results from the Swedish laboratories and the reference laboratory, based on the St Gallen subtypes, was 88% (κ = 0.81).
CONCLUSIONS: When applying national guidelines, highly reproducible results were obtained in routine assessment of breast cancer biomarkers, and the results of this study confirm the clinical utility of these markers for decisions regarding the treatment of primary breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25959664     DOI: 10.3109/0284186X.2015.1037012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acta Oncol        ISSN: 0284-186X            Impact factor:   4.089


  10 in total

1.  Ki67 Changes Identify Worse Outcomes in Residual Breast Cancer Tumors After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy.

Authors:  Paula Cabrera-Galeana; Wendy Muñoz-Montaño; Fernando Lara-Medina; Alberto Alvarado-Miranda; Victor Pérez-Sánchez; Cynthia Villarreal-Garza; R Marisol Quintero; Fany Porras-Reyes; Enrique Bargallo-Rocha; Ignacio Del Carmen; Alejandro Mohar; Oscar Arrieta
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2018-02-28

2.  Clinical Value of RNA Sequencing-Based Classifiers for Prediction of the Five Conventional Breast Cancer Biomarkers: A Report From the Population-Based Multicenter Sweden Cancerome Analysis Network-Breast Initiative.

Authors:  Christian Brueffer; Johan Vallon-Christersson; Dorthe Grabau; Anna Ehinger; Jari Häkkinen; Cecilia Hegardt; Janne Malina; Yilun Chen; Pär-Ola Bendahl; Jonas Manjer; Martin Malmberg; Christer Larsson; Niklas Loman; Lisa Rydén; Åke Borg; Lao H Saal
Journal:  JCO Precis Oncol       Date:  2018-03-09

Review 3.  Improving accuracy of breast cancer biomarker testing in India.

Authors:  Tanuja Shet
Journal:  Indian J Med Res       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Agreement between molecular subtyping and surrogate subtype classification: a contemporary population-based study of ER-positive/HER2-negative primary breast cancer.

Authors:  Christine Lundgren; Pär-Ola Bendahl; Åke Borg; Anna Ehinger; Cecilia Hegardt; Christer Larsson; Niklas Loman; Martin Malmberg; Helena Olofsson; Lao H Saal; Tobias Sjöblom; Henrik Lindman; Marie Klintman; Jari Häkkinen; Johan Vallon-Christersson; Mårten Fernö; Lisa Rydén; Maria Ekholm
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 4.872

5.  Low correlation between Ki67 assessed by qRT-PCR in Oncotype Dx score and Ki67 assessed by Immunohistochemistry.

Authors:  Zohair Selmani; Chloé Molimard; Alexis Overs; Fernando Bazan; Loic Chaigneau; Erion Dobi; Nathalie Meneveau; Laura Mansi; Marie-Justine Paillard; Guillaume Meynard; Julien Viot; Marie-Paule Algros; Christophe Borg; Jean-Paul Feugeas; Xavier Pivot; Jean-Luc Prétet; Elsa Curtit
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-07       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Systematically higher Ki67 scores on core biopsy samples compared to corresponding resection specimen in breast cancer: a multi-operator and multi-institutional study.

Authors:  Balazs Acs; Samuel C Y Leung; Kelley M Kidwell; Indu Arun; Renaldas Augulis; Sunil S Badve; Yalai Bai; Anita L Bane; John M S Bartlett; Jane Bayani; Gilbert Bigras; Annika Blank; Henk Buikema; Martin C Chang; Robin L Dietz; Andrew Dodson; Susan Fineberg; Cornelia M Focke; Dongxia Gao; Allen M Gown; Carolina Gutierrez; Johan Hartman; Zuzana Kos; Anne-Vibeke Lænkholm; Arvydas Laurinavicius; Richard M Levenson; Rustin Mahboubi-Ardakani; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Sharon Nofech-Mozes; C Kent Osborne; Frédérique M Penault-Llorca; Tammy Piper; Mary Anne Quintayo; Tilman T Rau; Stefan Reinhard; Stephanie Robertson; Roberto Salgado; Tomoharu Sugie; Bert van der Vegt; Giuseppe Viale; Lila A Zabaglo; Daniel F Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; Torsten O Nielsen; David L Rimm
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2022-06-21       Impact factor: 8.209

7.  Conventional Pathology Versus Gene Signatures for Assessing Luminal A and B Type Breast Cancers: Results of a Prospective Cohort Study.

Authors:  Julia E C van Steenhoven; Anne Kuijer; Paul J van Diest; Joost M van Gorp; Marieke Straver; Sjoerd G Elias; Jelle Wesseling; Emiel Rutgers; Johanna N H Timmer-Bonte; Peter Nieboer; Tineke J Smilde; Alex Imholz; Charlotte F J M Blanken; Sabine Siesling; Thijs van Dalen
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 4.096

8.  Re-evaluation of HER2 status in 606 breast cancers-gene protein assay on tissue microarrays versus routine pathological assessment.

Authors:  Emma Sandén; Somayeh Khazaei; Helga Tryggvadottir; Signe Borgquist; Karolin Isaksson; Karin Jirström; Helena Jernström
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 4.064

9.  UK NEQAS ICC & ISH Ki-67 Data Reveal Differences in Performance of Primary Antibody Clones.

Authors:  Suzanne Parry; Mitch Dowsett; Andrew Dodson
Journal:  Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol       Date:  2021-02-01

10.  Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group.

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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.