Literature DB >> 28829990

Interlaboratory variability of Ki67 staining in breast cancer.

Cornelia M Focke1, Horst Bürger2, Paul J van Diest3, Kai Finsterbusch4, Doreen Gläser4, Eberhard Korsching5, Thomas Decker4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Postanalytic issues of Ki67 assessment in breast cancers like counting method standardisation and interrater bias have been subject of various studies, but little is known about analytic variability of Ki67 staining between pathology labs. Our aim was to study interlaboratory variability of Ki67 staining in breast cancer using tissue microarrays (TMAs) and central assessment to minimise preanalytic and postanalytic influences.
METHODS: Thirty European pathology labs stained serial slides of a TMA set of breast cancer tissues with Ki67 according to their routine in-house protocol. The Ki67-labelling index (Ki67-LI) of 70 matched samples was centrally assessed by one observer who counted all cancer cells per sample. We then tested for differences between the labs in Ki67-LI medians by analysing variance on ranks and in proportions of tumours classified as luminal A after dichotomising oestrogen receptor-positive cancers into cancers showing low (<14%, luminal A) and high (≥14%, luminal B HER2 negative) Ki67-LI using Cochran's Q.
RESULTS: Substantial differences between the 30 labs were indicated for median Ki67-LI (0.65%-33.0%, p < 0.0001) and proportion of cancers classified as luminal A (17%-57%, p < 0.0001). The differences remained significant when labs using the same antibody (MIB-1, SP6, or 30-9) were analysed separately or labs without prior participation in external quality assurance programs were excluded (p < 0.0001, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Substantial variability in Ki67 staining of breast cancer tissue was found between 30 routine pathology labs. Clinical use of the Ki67-LI for therapeutic decisions should be considered only fully aware of lab-specific reference values.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer; Immunohistochemistry; Ki67; Proliferation; St Gallen consensus; Subtyping; Variability

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28829990     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cancer        ISSN: 0959-8049            Impact factor:   9.162


  26 in total

1.  68 Ga-DOTATATE Positron Emission Tomography-Computed Tomography Quantification Predicts Response to Somatostatin Analog Therapy in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors.

Authors:  Hwan Lee; Jennifer R Eads; Daniel A Pryma
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2020-09-17

Review 2.  Fit-for-Purpose Immunohistochemical Biomarkers.

Authors:  Emina Emilia Torlakovic
Journal:  Endocr Pathol       Date:  2018-06       Impact factor: 3.943

3.  Prognostic value of residual cancer burden and Miller-Payne system after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

Authors:  Wei Wang; Yinhua Liu; Hong Zhang; Shuang Zhang; Xuening Duan; Jingming Ye; Ling Xu; Jianxin Zhao; Yuanjia Cheng; Qian Liu
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-12

4.  Comparison of Genomic Profiling Data with Clinical Parameters: Implications for Breast Cancer Prognosis.

Authors:  José A López-Ruiz; Jon A Mieza; Ignacio Zabalza; María D M Vivanco
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 6.575

5.  Novel Immune-Related Gene Signature for Risk Stratification and Prognosis of Survival in ER (+) and/or PR (+) and HER2 (-) Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Feng Du; Fangchao Zheng; Ying Han; Jiuda Zhao; Peng Yuan
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 5.988

6.  Clinical Validation of BCT Scores With Prognostic Factors in Hormone Receptor-positive, HER2-negative Early Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Jeeyeon Lee; Won Hwa Kim; Ji-Young Park; Ho Yong Park; Jin Hyang Jung; Wan Wook Kim; Chan Sub Park; Ryu Kyung Lee; Jee Young Park; Yee Soo Chae; Soo Jung Lee; Hye Jung Kim
Journal:  In Vivo       Date:  2019 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.155

7.  An Image Analysis Solution For Quantification and Determination of Immunohistochemistry Staining Reproducibility.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Chlipala; Christine M Bendzinski; Charlie Dorner; Raili Sartan; Karen Copeland; Roger Pearce; Faye Doherty; Brad Bolon
Journal:  Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol       Date:  2020-07

8.  Ki67 Quantitative Interpretation: Insights using Image Analysis.

Authors:  Zoya Volynskaya; Ozgur Mete; Sara Pakbaz; Doaa Al-Ghamdi; Sylvia L Asa
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2019-03-08

9.  Refinement of breast cancer molecular classification by miRNA expression profiles.

Authors:  Rolf Søkilde; Helena Persson; Anna Ehinger; Anna Chiara Pirona; Mårten Fernö; Cecilia Hegardt; Christer Larsson; Niklas Loman; Martin Malmberg; Lisa Rydén; Lao Saal; Åke Borg; Johan Vallon-Christerson; Carlos Rovira
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 3.969

Review 10.  Precision immunoprofiling by image analysis and artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Viktor H Koelzer; Korsuk Sirinukunwattana; Jens Rittscher; Kirsten D Mertz
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2018-11-23       Impact factor: 4.064

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.