| Literature DB >> 26770831 |
M G Joseph1, A Shibani2, N Panjwani3, A Arab4, J Shepherd5, L W Stitt4, R Inculet6.
Abstract
Background. Evaluation of Ki-67 index in lung carcinoid tumors (LCTs) has been of interest in order to identify high risk subsets. Our objectives are (1) to evaluate the usefulness of Ki-67 index, mitoses, and tumor size in predicting metastasis and (2) to compare the Manual Conventional Method (MCM) and the Computer Assisted Image Analysis Method (CIAM) for Ki-67 calculation. Methods. We studied 48 patients with LCTs from two academic centres in Canada. For Ki-67 calculation, digital images of 5000 cells were counted using an image processing software and 2000 cells by MCM. Mitoses/10 HPF was counted. Results. We had 37 typical carcinoids (TCs) and 11 atypical carcinoids (ACs). 7/48 patients developed metastasis. There was a positive relationship between metastasis and carcinoid type (P = 0.039) and metastasis and mitoses (≥2) (P = 0.017). Although not statistically significant, the mean Ki-67 index for ACs was higher than for TCs (0.95% versus 0.72%, CIAM, P = 0.299). Similarly, although not statistically significant, the mean Ki-67 index for metastatic group (MG) was higher than for nonmetastatic group (NMG) (1.01% versus 0.71% by CIAM, P = 0.281). However when Ki-67 index data was categorized at various levels, there is suggestion of a useful cutoff (≥0.50%) to predict metastasis (P = 0.106, CIAM). A significantly higher proportion of patients with mitosis ≥2 and Ki-67 index ≥0.50% had metastasis (P = 0.033) compared to other patients. Similarly patients with tumor size ≥3 cm and Ki-67 ≥0.50% had a greater percentage of metastases than others (P = 0.039). Although there was a strong correlation between two (MCM versus CIAM) counting methods (r = 0.929, P = 0.001), overall the calculated Ki-67 index was slightly higher by MCM (range 0 to 6.4, mean 1.5) compared to CIAM (range 0 to 2.9, mean 0.75). Conclusion. This study confirms that mitoses ≥2 is a powerful predictor of metastasis in LCTs. Although this is a small sample size, there is suggestion that analysis of Ki-67 index along with mitoses and tumor size may be a useful adjunct for predicting metastasis in LCTs.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26770831 PMCID: PMC4685137 DOI: 10.1155/2015/545601
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lung Cancer Int ISSN: 2090-3200
Figure 1Counting of Ki-67 positive cells by computer-assisted image analyzer method. The positive cells are dark brown and indicated by black arrows. The negative cells are blue and numbered in red (inset).
Correlation between Ki-67 index calculation methods and type of carcinoid and metastasis.
| AC (%)/TC (%) | MG (%)/NMG (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | |
| Ki-67 (MCM) | 2.32/1.37 | 2.10/1.39 |
| (0.71) | (0.239) | |
|
| ||
| Ki-67 (CIAM) | 0.95/0.72 | 1.01/0.71 |
| (0.299) | (0.281) | |
AC: atypical carcinoid; TC: typical carcinoid; MG: metastatic group; NMG: nonmetastatic group; MCM: manual conventional method; CIAM: computer image analysis method.
Relationship between various clinical and pathologic factors and metastasis.
| Metastasis | Sensitivity | Specificity | OR |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Absent ( | Present ( | (%) | (%) | (95% CI) | ||
| Carcinoid type | ||||||
| Typical | 34 | 3 | 57.1 | 82.9 | 6.48 | 0.039 |
| Atypical | 7 | 4 | (1.18, 35.58) | |||
| Size, cm | ||||||
| <3 | 29 | 2 | 71.4 | 70.7 | 6.04 | 0.080 |
| ≥3 | 12 | 5 | (1.03, 35.54) | |||
| Mitosis | ||||||
| <2.00 | 36 | 3 | 57.1 | 87.8 | 9.60 | 0.017 |
| ≥2.00 | 5 | 4 | (1.64, 56.09) | |||
| Ki67 (MCM) | ||||||
| <0.50 | 13 | 0 | 100.0 | 31.7 | — | 0.166 |
| ≥0.50 | 28 | 7 | ||||
| Ki67 (CIAM) | ||||||
| <0.50 | 21 | 1 | 85.7 | 51.2 | 0.16 | 0.106 |
| ≥0.50 | 20 | 6 | (0.02, 1.44) | |||
| Mitosis ≥2 and Ki67 (CIAM) ≥0.50 | ||||||
| No | 38 | 4 | 42.9 | 92.7 | 9.50 | 0.033 |
| Yes | 3 | 3 | (1.42, 63.72) | |||
| Size ≥3 and Ki67 (CIAM) ≥0.50 | ||||||
| No | 34 | 3 | 57.1 | 82.9 | 6.48 | 0.039 |
| Yes | 7 | 4 | (1.18, 35.58) | |||
| Mitosis ≥2 and size ≥3 | ||||||
| No | 39 | 4 | 42.9 | 95.1 | 14.62 | 0.018 |
| Yes | 2 | 3 | (1.86, 115.19) | |||
MCM: manual conventional method; CIAM: computer image analysis method; OR: odd ratio; CI: confidence interval.
The reference category for calculation of sensitivity, specificity, and odd ratios.
ΨStatistical comparisons made using Fisher's exact two-tailed test.
Figure 2This plot diagram illustrates a linear relationship between computer image analysis and manual method for calculating Ki-67 index.
Ki-67 index: correlation between CIAM and MCM.
| Method | Ki-67 index | Pearson correlation coefficient |
|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) |
| |
| CIAM | 0.77 (0.68) | 0.929 (0.001) |
| MCM | 1.6 (1.5) |
r > 0.8 indicates strong correlation; P value <0.05, significant; CIAM: computer image analysis method; MCM: manual conventional method; SD: standard deviation.
A summary of select reported Ki-67 labeling indices in lung carcinoid tumors.
| Studies | Number of cases | % of Ki-67 positive cells, mean (range) | Counting method | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TC | AC | |||
| Costes et al. 1995 [ | 47 | 0.45 (0–3.04) | 2.43 (0–6.05) | CIAM |
| Arbiser et al. 2001 [ | 10 | 1 | 9 | MCM |
| Igarashi et al. 2004 [ | 18 | 1.3 (0.3–2.3) | 8.6 (0.2–17) | MCM |
| Pelosi et al. 2005 [ | 7 | 0.5 (0-1) | 7.2 (1–17) | NS |
| Walts et al. 2012 [ | 101 | 3.7 | 18.8 | CIAM |
| Zahel et al. 2012 [ | 200 | 1.8 | 3.7 | MCM |
| Rindi et al. 2014 [ | 197 | <4 | 4–<25 | MCM, AACAM, and CAMM |
| Present case | 48 | 0.72 | 0.95 | MCM and CIAM |
CIAM indicates computer image analysis method; MCM: manual conventional method; NS: not specified; AACAM: Aperio automated computer assisted method; CAMM: computer assisted manual method; TC: typical carcinoid; AC: atypical carcinoid.