Gustav Stålhammar1,2, Stephanie Robertson1,3, Lena Wedlund3,4, Michael Lippert5, Mattias Rantalainen6, Jonas Bergh1,7, Johan Hartman1,3,4. 1. Department of Oncology and Pathology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. St Erik Eye Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Clinical Pathology and Cytology, Karolinska University Laboratory, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Stockholm South General Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Visiopharm A/S, Hoersholm, Denmark. 6. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 7. Radiumhemmet, Karolinska Oncology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
AIMS: During pathological examination of breast tumours, proliferative activity is routinely evaluated by a count of mitoses. Adding immunohistochemical stains of Ki67 provides extra prognostic and predictive information. However, the currently used methods for these evaluations suffer from imperfect reproducibility. It is still unclear whether analysis of Ki67 should be performed in hot spots, in the tumour periphery, or as an average of the whole tumour section. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical relevance of mitoses, Ki67 and phosphohistone H3 in two cohorts of primary breast cancer specimens (total n = 294). METHODS AND RESULTS: Both manual and digital image analysis scores were evaluated for sensitivity and specificity for luminal B versus A subtype as defined by PAM50 gene expression assays, for high versus low transcriptomic grade, for axillary lymph node status, and for prognostic value in terms of prediction of overall and relapse-free survival. Digital image analysis of Ki67 outperformed the other markers, especially in hot spots. Tumours with high Ki67 expression and high numbers of phosphohistone H3-positive cells had significantly increased hazard ratios for all-cause mortality within 10 years from diagnosis. Replacing manual mitotic counts with digital image analysis of Ki67 in hot spots increased the differences in overall survival between the highest and lowest histological grades, and added significant prognostic information. CONCLUSIONS: Digital image analysis of Ki67 in hot spots is the marker of choice for routine analysis of proliferation in breast cancer.
AIMS: During pathological examination of breast tumours, proliferative activity is routinely evaluated by a count of mitoses. Adding immunohistochemical stains of Ki67 provides extra prognostic and predictive information. However, the currently used methods for these evaluations suffer from imperfect reproducibility. It is still unclear whether analysis of Ki67 should be performed in hot spots, in the tumour periphery, or as an average of the whole tumour section. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical relevance of mitoses, Ki67 and phosphohistone H3 in two cohorts of primary breast cancer specimens (total n = 294). METHODS AND RESULTS: Both manual and digital image analysis scores were evaluated for sensitivity and specificity for luminal B versus A subtype as defined by PAM50 gene expression assays, for high versus low transcriptomic grade, for axillary lymph node status, and for prognostic value in terms of prediction of overall and relapse-free survival. Digital image analysis of Ki67 outperformed the other markers, especially in hot spots. Tumours with high Ki67 expression and high numbers of phosphohistone H3-positive cells had significantly increased hazard ratios for all-cause mortality within 10 years from diagnosis. Replacing manual mitotic counts with digital image analysis of Ki67 in hot spots increased the differences in overall survival between the highest and lowest histological grades, and added significant prognostic information. CONCLUSIONS: Digital image analysis of Ki67 in hot spots is the marker of choice for routine analysis of proliferation in breast cancer.
Authors: Kevin Sandeman; Sami Blom; Ville Koponen; Anniina Manninen; Juuso Juhila; Antti Rannikko; Tuomas Ropponen; Tuomas Mirtti Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-04-20
Authors: Deirdre Cronin-Fenton; Emiel A M Janssen; Nina Gran Egeland; Kristin Jonsdottir; Kristina Lystlund Lauridsen; Ivar Skaland; Cathrine F Hjorth; Einar G Gudlaugsson; Stephen Hamilton-Dutoit; Timothy L Lash Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2020-07-20 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Garazi Serna; Sara Simonetti; Roberta Fasani; Francesca Pagliuca; Xavier Guardia; Paqui Gallego; Jose Jimenez; Vicente Peg; Cristina Saura; Serenella Eppenberger-Castori; Santiago Ramon Y Cajal; Luigi Terracciano; Paolo Nuciforo Journal: Breast Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: Famke Aeffner; Mark D Zarella; Nathan Buchbinder; Marilyn M Bui; Matthew R Goodman; Douglas J Hartman; Giovanni M Lujan; Mariam A Molani; Anil V Parwani; Kate Lillard; Oliver C Turner; Venkata N P Vemuri; Ana G Yuil-Valdes; Douglas Bowman Journal: J Pathol Inform Date: 2019-03-08
Authors: Gustav Stålhammar; Thonnie Rose O See; Stephen Phillips; Stefan Seregard; Hans E Grossniklaus Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-05-06 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Esther Abels; Liron Pantanowitz; Famke Aeffner; Mark D Zarella; Jeroen van der Laak; Marilyn M Bui; Venkata Np Vemuri; Anil V Parwani; Jeff Gibbs; Emmanuel Agosto-Arroyo; Andrew H Beck; Cleopatra Kozlowski Journal: J Pathol Date: 2019-09-03 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Haydee Lara; Zaibo Li; Esther Abels; Famke Aeffner; Marilyn M Bui; Ehab A ElGabry; Cleopatra Kozlowski; Michael C Montalto; Anil V Parwani; Mark D Zarella; Douglas Bowman; David Rimm; Liron Pantanowitz Journal: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol Date: 2021-08-01