How Reliable Is Ki-67 Immunohistochemistry in Grade 2 Breast Carcinomas? A QA Study of the Swiss Working Group of Breast- and Gynecopathologists

Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer are increasingly based on the pathologist's assessment of tumor proliferation. The Swiss Working Group of Gyneco- and Breast Pathologists has surveyed inter- and intraobserver consistency of Ki-67-based proliferative fraction in breast carcinomas. Methods Five pathologists evaluated MIB-1-labeling index (LI) in ten breast carcinomas (G1, G2, G3) by counting and eyeballing. In the same way, 15 pathologists all over Switzerland then assessed MIB-1-LI on three G2 carcinomas, in self-selected or pre-defined areas of the tumors, comparing centrally immunostained slides with slides immunostained in the different laboratoires. To study intra-observer variability, the same tumors were re-examined 4 months later. Results The Kappa values for the first series of ten carcinomas of various degrees of differentiation showed good to very good agreement for MIB-1-LI (Kappa 0.56–0.72). However, we found very high inter-observer variabilities (Kappa 0.04–0.14) in the read-outs of the G2 carcinomas. It was not possible to explain the inconsistencies exclusively by any of the following factors: (i) pathologists' divergent definitions of what counts as a positive nucleus (ii) the mode of assessment (counting vs. eyeballing), (iii) immunostaining technique, and (iv) the selection of the tumor area in which to count. Despite intensive confrontation of all participating pathologists with the problem, inter-observer agreement did not improve when the same slides were re-examined 4 months later (Kappa 0.01–0.04) and intra-observer agreement was likewise poor (Kappa 0.00–0.35). Conclusion Assessment of mid-range Ki-67-LI suffers from high inter- and intra-observer variability. Oncologists should be aware of this caveat when using Ki-67-LI as a basis for treatment decisions in moderately differentiated breast carcinomas

Histological analysis of surgical lumbar intervertebral disc tissue provides evidence for an association between disc degeneration and increased body mass index

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Although histopathological grading systems for disc degeneration are frequently used in research, they are not yet integrated into daily care routine pathology of surgical samples. Therefore, data on histopathological changes in surgically excised disc material and their correlation to clinical parameters such as age, gender or body mass index (BMI) is limited to date. The current study was designed to correlate major physico-clinical parameters from a population of orthopaedic spine center patients (gender, age and BMI) with a quantitative histologic degeneration score (HDS).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Excised lumbar disc material from 854 patients (529 men/325 women/mean age 56 (15-96) yrs.) was graded based on a previously validated histologic degeneration score (HDS) in a cohort of surgical disc samples that had been obtained for the treatment of either disc herniation or discogenic back pain. Cases with obvious inflammation, tumor formation or congenital disc pathology were excluded. The degree of histological changes was correlated with sex, age and BMI.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The HDS (0-15 points) showed significantly higher values in the nucleus pulposus (NP) than in the annulus fibrosus (AF) (Mean: NP 11.45/AF 7.87), with a significantly higher frequency of histomorphological alterations in men in comparison to women. Furthermore, the HDS revealed a positive significant correlation between the BMI and the extent of histological changes. No statistical age relation of the degenerative lesions was seen.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study demonstrated that histological disc alterations in surgical specimens can be graded in a reliable manner based on a quantitative histologic degeneration score (HDS). Increased BMI was identified as a positive risk factor for the development of symptomatic, clinically significant disc degeneration.</p

The contribution of physician assistants in primary care: a systematic review

The research evidence of the contribution of PAs to primary care was mixed and limited. However, the continued growth in employment of PAs in American primary care suggests that this professional group is judged to be of value by increasing numbers of employers. Further specific studies are needed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about the effectiveness of PAs' contribution to the international primary care workforce