Literature DB >> 30850279

Laboratory validation studies in Ki-67 digital image analysis of breast carcinoma: a pathway to routine quality assurance.

Morgan Wang1, Sally McLaren1, Roopaa Jeyathevan1, Benjamin Michael Allanson1, Amanda Ireland1, Alexandra Kang1, Katie Meehan2, Carla Thomas2, Cleo Robinson2, Marais Combrinck3, Jennet Harvey4, Greg Sterrett3, Benjamin Dessauvagie5.   

Abstract

Ki-67 proliferative index (PI) has prognostic and predictive value in invasive breast carcinoma (IBC), but clinical uptake has been hampered by suboptimal accuracy, reproducibility and standardisation. Published guidelines have addressed pre-analytical and analytical factors to improve Ki-67 PI utility; however, practicalities of ongoing monitoring of Ki-67 PI quality in IBC reporting have not been established. We aimed to evaluate the internal and external quality of our established digital Ki-67 PI IBC reporting practice at a tertiary institution. In the 5 years since initial validation work, we've completed a series of internal and external quality assurance (QA) projects: (1) an interobserver agreement study, (2) a two site interlaboratory agreement study, (3) determination of the error of our Ki-67 results, (4) an audit of the year-to-year Ki-67 values, (5) an audit of Ki-67 in neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) treated cases, and (6) comparison of our Ki-67 datasets with similar published datasets. There was excellent concordance (intra-class correlation = 0.98) and good agreement [kappa (κ) = 0.76-0.96] between pathologists, excellent concordance [Pearson correlation (R) = 0.94] and very good agreement (κ = 0.80) between laboratories and excellent concordance (R = 0.92-0.95) and good agreement (κ = 0.67-1.0) over time for our Ki-67 results. No significant difference was observed in Ki-67 data from year-to-year. Expected associations with clinico-pathological prognosticators, pathological complete response following NAC and mitotic index were evident. The median Ki-67 values from the overall and NAC treated datasets were within the range reported in other studies, and our data could be separated into similarly proportioned 'high' and 'low' Ki-67 PI groups when dichotomised as per protocols in other studies. Collectively, our work provides evidence of adequate internal and external quality control for our digital Ki-67 PI IBC reporting protocols. Given the paucity of formal Ki-67 QA programs, our approach could be emulated, and results compared between laboratories as a framework for internal and external Ki-67 QA. Crown
Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Ki-67; breast cancer; digital image analysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30850279     DOI: 10.1016/j.pathol.2018.12.416

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pathology        ISSN: 0031-3025            Impact factor:   5.306


  3 in total

1.  Digital Image Analysis of Ki-67 Stained Tissue Microarrays and Recurrence in Tamoxifen-Treated Breast Cancer Patients.

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

2.  Ki-67 Proliferation Index Assessment in Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors by Digital Image Analysis With Stringent Case and Hotspot Level Concordance Requirements.

Authors:  Sarag A Boukhar; Matthew D Gosse; Andrew M Bellizzi; Anand Rajan K D
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2021-09-08       Impact factor: 2.493

3.  EndoPredict® in early hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  K Almstedt; S Mendoza; M Otto; M J Battista; J Steetskamp; A S Heimes; S Krajnak; A Poplawski; A Gerhold-Ay; A Hasenburg; C Denkert; M Schmidt
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-05-20       Impact factor: 4.872

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.