| Literature DB >> 27910946 |
Sarah Kitson1,2, Vanitha N Sivalingam1,2, James Bolton3, Rhona McVey3, Mashid Nickkho-Amiry1,2, Melanie E Powell4, Alexandra Leary5, Hans W Nijman6, Remi A Nout7, Tjalling Bosse8, Andrew G Renehan1, Henry C Kitchener1, Richard J Edmondson1,2, Emma J Crosbie1,2.
Abstract
Ki-67, a marker of cellular proliferation, is increasingly being used in pre-surgical window studies in endometrial cancer as a primary outcome measure. Unlike in breast cancer, however, there are no guidelines standardizing its measurement and its clinical relevance as a response biomarker is undetermined. It is, therefore, imperative that Ki-67 scoring protocols are optimized and its association with patient survival rigorously evaluated, in order to be able to clinically interpret the results of these studies. Using the International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group guidelines as a basis, whole slide, hot spot and invasive edge scoring protocols were evaluated using endometrial biopsies and hysterectomy specimens from 179 women. Whole sections and tissue microarrays, manual and semi-automated scoring using Definiens Developer software were additionally compared. Ki-67 scores were related to clinicopathological variables and cancer-specific survival in uni- and multivariate analysis. Against criteria of time efficiency, intra- and inter-observer variability and consistency, semi-automated hot spot scoring was the preferred method. Ki-67 scores positively correlated with grade, stage and depth of myometrial invasion (P-values all <0.03). By univariate analysis, higher Ki-67 scores were associated with a significant reduction in cancer-specific survival (P≤0.05); however, this effect was substantially attenuated in the multivariate model. In conclusion, hot spot scoring of whole sections using Definiens is an optimal method to quantify Ki-67 in endometrial cancer window study specimens. Measured this way, it is a clinically relevant marker, though further work is required to determine whether reductions in Ki-67 in neoadjuvant intervention studies translate into improved patient outcome.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27910946 PMCID: PMC5337118 DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2016.203
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mod Pathol ISSN: 0893-3952 Impact factor: 7.842
Figure 1Ki-67 immunohistochemistry and scoring using Definiens Developer on whole sections and tissue microarrays. The accuracy of the solution to correctly identify individual positively and negatively stained nuclei was manually checked by comparing individual endometrial cancer glands with and without the solution applied. (a) Photomicrograph of endometrial cancer gland with Ki-67 immunohistochemistry applied (b) digital scoring output (× 20 magnification). Positively stained nuclei are yellow, negatively stained nuclei are blue. (c) Representative tissue microarray core following Ki-67 immunohistochemistry. (d) Same tissue microarray core following the application of Definiens Developer solution, with endometrial cancer glands shown in orange and the surrounding stroma in dark blue. Areas of the slide without the presence of tissue are colored pale blue. (e) Whole section of tumor following Ki-67 immunohistochemistry. Compared with the tissue microarray, a significantly greater tumor area is present on a whole section and is a better representation of the heterogeneity in proliferation seen across endometrial cancers. (f) The same section of tumor with the five areas selected at random using Definiens Developer software highlighted in orange to determine the whole slide score. (g) Three areas of greatest proliferation identified to provide a hot spot score. (h) Three areas along the endometrial/myometrial interface to quantify the invasive edge score.
Figure 2Frequency distribution of Ki-67 scores, as measured by the hot spot scoring method in 179 patients. The median Ki-67 score was 40%, with an interquartile range of 24–52%.
Comparison of manual and semi-automated scoring of Ki-67 expression
| Intra-observer intra-class correlation coefficient | 0.91 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.75 |
| Inter-observer intra-class correlation coefficient | 0.92 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.87 |
| Percentage of slides possible to score in cohort | 100 | 100 | 100 | 50 |
| Time per slide (min) | 7.7 | 3.1 (+2 min to run solution) | 2.3 (+2 min to run solution) | 2.2 (+2 min to run solution) |
Invasive edge scoring had lower intra- and inter-observer reproducibility than manual, whole slide or hot spot scoring and could only be performed on the 50% of available slides in which the endometrial–myometrial interface was sampled. Manual scoring had ‘almost perfect' intra- and inter-observer reproducibility but took considerably longer to perform than whole slide and hot spot scoring using the Definiens Developer algorithm.
Figure 3Comparison of different slide preparation and tumor-sampling techniques. Each point shows the difference between techniques plotted against the average of the two values. (a) Tissue microarray vs whole section from same tumor. Significant discrepancy was noted between tissue microarray and whole sections scores, with 95% limits of agreement lying at +17% and −44%. Endometrial cancer specimens were obtained from the same patient by blinded endometrial sampling performed immediately prior to surgery (pipelle) and after the uterus had been surgical removed (hysterectomy). (b) Whole slide scoring method. Significant variation between the two tumor-sampling techniques was noted using whole slide scoring (95% limits of agreement −18 to +38%). (c) Hot spot scoring method. In contrast, hot spot scoring appeared more consistent, with the exception of a single outlier.
Comparison of tissue microarray and whole slide scores for matched tumors
| Number of matched tissue microarray and whole slide sections | ||
| Median Ki-67 score (interquartile range) | 19% (10–31%) | 32% (21–47%) |
| Number of sections in which the tissue microarray and whole section scores were within 10% of each other |
Tissue microarrays were constructed from the same blocks as those used to cut whole slides and therefore have overlapping areas of tumor.
Relation between patient characteristics and Ki-67 score
| P | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| All | 179 | 40 (24–52) | |
| 0.022* | |||
| Median (years) | 68 | ||
| Interquartile range (years) | 60–74 | ||
| 0.663 | |||
| <25 | 22 (12) | 44 (26–58) | |
| 25–29.9 | 35 (20) | 28 (17–47) | |
| ≥30 | 64 (36) | 41 (26–51) | |
| Missing data | 58 (32) | 43 (28–55) | |
| 1 | 39 (22) | 23 (10–39) | <0.0001**** |
| 2 | 36 (20) | 41 (26–50) | |
| 3 | 104 (58) | 44 (30–55) | |
| 0.014** | |||
| 1 | 108 (60) | 36 (22–50) | |
| 2 | 22 (12) | 37 (24–55) | |
| 3 | 42 (24) | 44 (29–56) | |
| 4 | 6 (3) | 54 (45–67) | |
| Missing data | 1 (1) | 17 (17–17) | |
| 0.246 | |||
| Endometrioid | 116 (65) | 37 (23–51) | |
| Non-endometrioid | 63 (35) | 44 (28–54) | |
| 0.138 | |||
| Absent | 93 (52) | 37 (22–50) | |
| Present | 70 (39) | 42 (25–55) | |
| Missing data | 16 (9) | 45 (31–53) | |
| 0.030* | |||
| <50% | 83 (46) | 32 (20–50) | |
| ≥50% | 92 (51) | 43 (28–53) | |
| Missing data | 4 (2) | 42 (33–51) | |
| 0.031* | |||
| No | 61 (34) | 32 (22–49) | |
| Yes | 102 (57) | 44 (27–55) | |
| Missing data | 16 (9) | 35 (26–45) |
Ki-67 expression positively correlated with age at the time of surgery, grade, and stage of endometrial cancer. Higher scores were seen in tumors with >50% myoinvasion compared with more superficially invasive cancers and women receiving adjuvant therapy. There was no association between Ki-67 and body mass index, histological type of endometrial cancer, and lymphovascular space invasion (P>0.05).
Grade 3 endometrioid tumors are classified within the endometrioid subtype. Non-endometrioid tumors include serous, clear cell, carcinosarcomas, mixed, and undifferentiated cancers.
Adjuvant treatment included external beam radiotherapy (44, 25%), vaginal brachytherapy (21, 12%) or both (25, 14%), and/or chemotherapy (39, 22%), which was single-agent carboplatin (2, 1%) or carboplatin/paclitaxel-based (29, 16%). Data on chemotherapy regime absent in 8 (5%) of cases. *p≤0.05, **p≤0.01, ***p≤0.001, ****p≤0.0001.
Figure 4Cancer-specific survival stratified by Ki-67 expression. Ki-67 score was divided into two groups using the median score of 40% to denote low (Ki-67 score ≤40%) and high (Ki-67 score >40%) expression. It demonstrated a significant relationship with cancer-specific survival, with outcome worsening as the Ki-67 score increased. At 5 years, a Ki-67 score ≤40% was associated with cancer-specific survival rate of 88% compared with 58% for those with a Ki-67 score >40% (P=0.05).
Univariate and multivariate analysis of associations between Ki-67 score and standard variables and cancer-specific survival in 179 women with endometrial cancer
| P | P | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (1 year) | 1.10 | 1.05–1.15 | <0.0001**** | 1.06 | 1.001–1.13 | 0.028* |
| <30 kg/m2 | 1.00 | — | 0.52 | — | — | — |
| ≥30 kg/m2 | 1.51 | 0.43–5.25 | ||||
| 1 | 1.00 | — | 0.014** | — | — | — |
| 2 | 0.584 | 0.05–6.44 | ||||
| 3 | 4.975 | 1.17–21.12 | ||||
| 1 | 1.00 | — | <0.0001**** | 1.00 | — | 0.004** |
| 2 | 0.96 | 0.12–7.99 | 3.27 | 0.34–31.78 | ||
| 3 | 7.8 | 3.03–20.11 | 6.44 | 2.07–20.06 | ||
| 4 | 23.36 | 6.49–84.05 | 16.09 | 2.83–91.36 | ||
| Endometrioid | 1.00 | — | <0.0001**** | 1.00 | — | 0.002** |
| Non-endometrioid | 8.16 | 3.27–20.39 | 5.72 | 1.93–16.95 | ||
| Absent | 1.00 | — | ||||
| Present | 4.54 | 2.21–9.33 | <0.0001**** | — | — | — |
| <50% | 1.00 | — | — | — | — | |
| ≥50% | 2.46 | 1.03–5.90 | 0.043* | |||
| No | 1.00 | — | 0.202 | — | — | — |
| Yes | 2.05 | 0.68–6.19 | ||||
| Ki-67 score (10% increase) | 1.31 | 1.07–1.60 | 0.010** | 1.14 | 0.91–1.41 | 0.257 |
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.
Ki-67 was no longer statistically significantly associated with cancer-specific survival when included in the multivariate analysis.
Variables found to be statistically significantly associated with cancer-specific survival in the univariate analysis (P≤0.05) were included in the multivariate analysis; ‘—' represents not statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. *p≤0.05, **p≤0.01, ***p≤0.001, ****p≤0.0001.