| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Nielsen, TO, et al.
(författare)
-
Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1460-2105 .- 0027-8874. ; 113:7, s. 808-819
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Ki67 immunohistochemistry (IHC), commonly used as a proliferation marker in breast cancer, has limited value for treatment decisions due to questionable analytical validity. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (IKWG) consensus meeting, held in October 2019, assessed the current evidence for Ki67 IHC analytical validity and clinical utility in breast cancer, including the series of scoring studies the IKWG conducted on centrally stained tissues. Consensus observations and recommendations are: 1) as for estrogen receptor and HER2 testing, preanalytical handling considerations are critical; 2) a standardized visual scoring method has been established and is recommended for adoption; 3) participation in and evaluation of quality assurance and quality control programs is recommended to maintain analytical validity; and 4) the IKWG accepted that Ki67 IHC as a prognostic marker in breast cancer has clinical validity but concluded that clinical utility is evident only for prognosis estimation in anatomically favorable estrogen receptor–positive and HER2-negative patients to identify those who do not need adjuvant chemotherapy. In this T1-2, N0-1 patient group, the IKWG consensus is that Ki67 5% or less, or 30% or more, can be used to estimate prognosis. In conclusion, analytical validity of Ki67 IHC can be reached with careful attention to preanalytical issues and calibrated standardized visual scoring. Currently, clinical utility of Ki67 IHC in breast cancer care remains limited to prognosis assessment in stage I or II breast cancer. Further development of automated scoring might help to overcome some current limitations.
|
|
| 5. |
- Nielsen, Torsten O, et al.
(författare)
-
Abstract P2-03-01: Analytical validation of a standardized scoring protocol for Ki67 assessed on breast excision whole sections: An international multicenter collaboration
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Cancer research. Supplement. - 1538-7445. ; 78:4
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: (i) Determine whether between-observer reproducibility for Ki67 when assessed on whole sections according to a standardized scoring protocol is adequate for clinical application. (ii) Compare between-observer reproducibility of Ki67 scores assessed on hot-spots to scores using a global method that averages across a tissue section.Background: The nuclear proliferation biomarker Ki67 has multiple potential roles in breast cancer, including aiding decisions based on prognosis, but unacceptable levels of between-laboratory variability have been observed. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group has undertaken a systematic program to determine whether Ki67 measurement can be analytically validated and standardized across labs. In phase 1, variability in visual interpretation was identified as an important source of variability. Phases 2 and 3a showed that adherence to defined scoring methods substantially improved reproducibility in scoring tissue microarrays and core-cut biopsies. We now assess whether acceptable reproducibility can be achieved on whole sections.Methods: Adjacent sections from 30 primary ER+ breast cancers were centrally stained for Ki67 to assemble 4 sets of 30 stained tumor sections, circulated around 23 labs in 12 countries. Ki67 was scored by 2 methods by all labs: (a) global: 4 fields of 100 tumor cells each were selected to reflect observed heterogeneity in nuclear staining (b) hot-spot: the field with highest Ki67 percentage of tumor cells with nuclear staining was selected and up to 500 cells scored. Ki67 scores were log2-transformed for statistical analyses and back-transformed for presentation. The primary objective was to assess whether either method could achieve an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) significantly greater than 0.8, considered substantial to almost-perfect reproducibility. Secondary objectives were to assess which method had highest observed ICC and to assess whether observers identified the same “hot-spots”.Results: ICC for the global method was 0.87 (95%CI: 0.799-0.93), marginally meeting the prespecified success criterion. The ICC for the hot-spot method was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.74-0.90) and had a CI extending below the success criterion. Across the 23 labs, geometric mean value of the 30 scores ranged from 8.5 to 19.6 for the global method and from 12.8 to 30.3 for the hot-spot method. The overall mean (95% CI) of these values was 12.9 (11.9-14.0) and 20.9 (19.1-22.8), respectively. Visually, between-laboratory agreement in location of selected hot-spot varies between cases. The median times for scoring were 9 and 6 minutes for global and hot-spot methods respectively.Conclusions: The global method marginally met the prespecified criterion of success; it should now be evaluated for clinical validity in appropriate cohorts of cases. The hot-spot method was observed to have slightly less reproducibility between labs. The time taken for scoring by either method is practical using counting software we are making publicly available. Establishment of external quality assessment schemes is likely to improve the reproducibility between labs further
|
|
