Analytical validation of a standardised scoring protocol for Ki67 immunohistochemistry on breast cancer excision whole sections: an international multicentre collaboration

Aims The nuclear proliferation marker Ki67 assayed by immunohistochemistry has multiple potential uses in breast cancer, but an unacceptable level of interlaboratory variability has hampered its clinical utility. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group has undertaken a systematic programme to determine whether Ki67 measurement can be analytically validated and standardised among laboratories. This study addresses whether acceptable scoring reproducibility can be achieved on excision whole sections. Methods and results Adjacent sections from 30 primary ER+ breast cancers were centrally stained for Ki67 and sections were circulated among 23 pathologists in 12 countries. All pathologists scored Ki67 by two methods: (i) global: four fields of 100 tumour cells each were selected to reflect observed heterogeneity in nuclear staining; (ii) hot-spot: the field with highest apparent Ki67 index was selected and up to 500 cells scored. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the global method [confidence interval (CI) = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.799-0.93] marginally met the prespecified success criterion (lower 95% CI >= 0.8), while the ICC for the hot-spot method (0.83; 95% CI = 0.74-0.90) did not. Visually, interobserver concordance in location of selected hot-spots varies between cases. The median times for scoring were 9 and 6 min for global and hot-spot methods, respectively. Conclusions The global scoring method demonstrates adequate reproducibility to warrant next steps towards evaluation for technical and clinical validity in appropriate cohorts of cases. 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 laboratories further

Analytical validation of a standardized scoring protocol for Ki67: phase 3 of an international multicenter collaboration

Pathological analysis of the nuclear proliferation biomarker Ki67 has multiple potential roles in breast and other cancers. However, clinical utility of the immunohistochemical (IHC) assay for Ki67 immunohistochemistry has been hampered by unacceptable between-laboratory analytical variability. The International Ki67 Working Group has conducted a series of studies aiming to decrease this variability and improve the evaluation of Ki67. This study tries to assess whether acceptable performance can be achieved on prestained core-cut biopsies using a standardized scoring method. Sections from 30 primary ER+ breast cancer core biopsies were centrally stained for Ki67 and circulated among 22 laboratories in 11 countries. Each laboratory scored Ki67 using three methods: (1) global (4 fields of 100 cells each); (2) weighted global (same as global but weighted by estimated percentages of total area); and (3) hot-spot (single field of 500 cells). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), a measure of interlaboratory agreement, for the unweighted global method (0.87; 95% credible interval (CI): 0.81–0.93) met the prespecified success criterion for scoring reproducibility, whereas that for the weighted global (0.87; 95% CI: 0.7999–0.93) and hot-spot methods (0.84; 95% CI: 0.77–0.92) marginally failed to do so. The unweighted global assessment of Ki67 IHC analysis on core biopsies met the prespecified criterion of success for scoring reproducibility. A few cases still showed large scoring discrepancies. Establishment of external quality assessment schemes is likely to improve the agreement between laboratories further. Additional evaluations are needed to assess staining variability and clinical validity in appropriate cohorts of samples

St Gallen 2015 subtyping of luminal breast cancers : impact of different Ki67-based proliferation assessment methods

Ki67 has been proposed as prognostic proliferation marker in luminal breast cancer (BC), but little is known on the influence of Ki67 assessment methods on subtyping into luminal A- and B-like tumors. Our aim was to study the influence of different Ki67-labeling index (Ki67-LI) assessment methods on the proportion of BCs classified as luminal A-like. 280 early BCs were subtyped according to the St Gallen 2015 definitions into 71 % luminal (HER2 negative), 6 % luminal B-like (HER2 positive), 13 % triple negative, 1 % HER2 positive (nonluminal), and 9 % special type. Digitized whole slides were counted manually on the screen. We used nine defined counting methods to assess the Ki67-LI (including the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group recommendations), and compared the resulting medians and the proportions of cancers classified as luminal A-like according to the formerly used cut-off <20 %. Methods assessing hot spots and tumor periphery resulted in significantly higher Ki67-LI medians than those measuring an average proliferation (27.45 % vs 16.96 %, p < 0.0001). Substantially lower median Ki67-LI were found when assessing 1020 compared to counting 100, 200, 300 cells (17.65 vs 33 %, vs 28 %, vs 24.33 %, respectively; p < 0.0001), or 510 cells (20.59 %, p = 0.019). Applying a standard Ki67-LI cut-off <20 % to define low proliferation for all methods, the proportion of luminal A-like cancers varied between 13 and 44 %. The proportion of BCs classified as luminal A-like is highly influenced by the Ki67-LI assessment method. As a consequence, the selection of a specific Ki67-LI assessment method may have a direct effect on the proportion of patients considered having low-risk disease and thus influence therapeutic decision making. This calls for a standardized assessment method

St Gallen 2015 subtyping of luminal breast cancers : impact of different Ki67-based proliferation assessment methods

Ki67 has been proposed as prognostic proliferation marker in luminal breast cancer (BC), but little is known on the influence of Ki67 assessment methods on subtyping into luminal A- and B-like tumors. Our aim was to study the influence of different Ki67-labeling index (Ki67-LI) assessment methods on the proportion of BCs classified as luminal A-like. 280 early BCs were subtyped according to the St Gallen 2015 definitions into 71 % luminal (HER2 negative), 6 % luminal B-like (HER2 positive), 13 % triple negative, 1 % HER2 positive (nonluminal), and 9 % special type. Digitized whole slides were counted manually on the screen. We used nine defined counting methods to assess the Ki67-LI (including the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group recommendations), and compared the resulting medians and the proportions of cancers classified as luminal A-like according to the formerly used cut-off <20 %. Methods assessing hot spots and tumor periphery resulted in significantly higher Ki67-LI medians than those measuring an average proliferation (27.45 % vs 16.96 %, p < 0.0001). Substantially lower median Ki67-LI were found when assessing 1020 compared to counting 100, 200, 300 cells (17.65 vs 33 %, vs 28 %, vs 24.33 %, respectively; p < 0.0001), or 510 cells (20.59 %, p = 0.019). Applying a standard Ki67-LI cut-off <20 % to define low proliferation for all methods, the proportion of luminal A-like cancers varied between 13 and 44 %. The proportion of BCs classified as luminal A-like is highly influenced by the Ki67-LI assessment method. As a consequence, the selection of a specific Ki67-LI assessment method may have a direct effect on the proportion of patients considered having low-risk disease and thus influence therapeutic decision making. This calls for a standardized assessment method

Intratumoral heterogeneity of Ki67 expression in early breast cancers exceeds variability between individual tumours

Aims: Regional differences in proliferative activity are commonly seen within breast cancers, but little is known on the extent of intratumoral heterogeneity of Ki67 expression. Our aim was to study the intratumoral heterogeneity of Ki67 expression in early breast cancers and its association with clinicopathological features, such as oestrogen receptor (ER) status, grade and histological subtype. Methods and results: The Ki67-labelling index (Ki67-LI) was assessed in hot, cold and intermediate spots of 233 invasive breast cancers by counting a total of 1020 cells, according to a protocol of the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group. Differences between the spots per tumour were analysed further for clinicopathological subgroups defined by ER status, grade and histological subtype. All clinicopathological subgroups showed significant differences in Ki67-LI between hot, intermediate and cold spots (P <0.0001). The coefficient of variance (CV) between the spots was higher in ER-positive than in ER-negative cancers (72.6 versus 49.2%, P <0.0001), and was highest in grade 3 (96.12%), grade 1 (87.27%) and invasive lobular tumours (83.59%) and lowest in medullary (26.48%) cancers. Nested analysis of variance indicated that in both ER-positive and ER-negative cancers, variance in Ki67-LI within tumours contributed more to the total variance (56% for ER-positive, 60% for ER-negative cancers) than the variance between tumours. Conclusion: Intratumoral heterogeneity in Ki67-LI is a ubiquitous phenomenon across various pathological subgroups of breast cancer that may impact assessment of Ki67 levels for clinical decision-making, and sheds new light on recommended cut-offs

The reliability of histological grade in breast cancer core needle biopsies depends on biopsy size : a comparative study with subsequent surgical excisions

Aims In breast cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, histological grading needs to be performed on core needle biopsies (CNBs) that may not be representative of the whole tumour when they are small. Our aim was to study the influence of biopsy size on agreement rates for histological grade between CNBs and subsequent surgical excision biopsies (SEBs). Methods and results We calculated agreement and Cohen's κ between CNBs and SEBs of 300 early-stage breast cancers. The number of cores, total core length, total tumour length and tumour/tissue ratio were assessed for each CNB set. Agreement rates for grade were calculated for different classes of core number and tumour/tissue ratio, and for total core lengths and tumour lengths per CNB set in 5–15-mm intervals. Agreement on grade between CNBs and SEBs was 73% (κ = 0.59), with underestimation of grade in CNBs in 26% of cases and overestimation in 1% of cases. There was significantly higher concordance between CNBs and SEBs at a total core length of ≥50 mm than at a total core length of <50 mm (83% versus 68% agreement, P = 0.007), at a tumour length of ≥15 mm than at tumour length of <15 mm in CNBs (79% versus 67% agreement, P = 0.036), and at three or more cores than at fewer than three cores (75% versus 58% agreement, P = 0.048). The tumour/tissue ratio, pathological tumour size and radiological tumour size were not statistically different between concordant and discordant cases. Conclusions Agreement rates for histological grade in CNBs versus SEBs improve with increasing biopsy sample size

Interlaboratory variability of Ki67 staining in breast cancer

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

Analytical validation of a standardized scoring protocol for Ki67 assessed on breast excision whole sections:An international multicenter collaboration

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 furthe

Interlaboratory variability of Ki67 staining in breast cancer

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