16 research outputs found
Lobular breast cancers lack the inverse relationship between ER/PR status and cell growth rate characteristic of ductal cancers in two independent patient cohorts: implications for tumor biology and adjuvant therapy
Assessment of the contribution of the IHC4+C score to decision making in clinical practice in early breast cancer
BACKGROUND: The immunohistochemical (IHC) 4+C score is a cost-effective prognostic tool that uses clinicopathologic factors and four standard IHC assays: oestrogen receptor (ER), PR, HER2 and Ki67. We assessed its utility in personalising breast cancer treatment in a clinical practice setting, through comparison with Adjuvant! Online (AoL) and the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI). METHODS: We prospectively gathered clinicopathologic data for postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, N0-3 resected early breast cancer treated consecutively at our institution. We retrospectively calculated and compared prognostic scores. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients reclassified from AoL-defined intermediate-risk by application of the IHC4+C score. RESULTS: The median age of the 101 patients included in the analysis was 63. In all, 15 of the 26 patients classified as intermediate-risk by AoL were reallocated to a low-risk group by application of the IHC4+C score and no patient was reclassified as high-risk group. Of the 59 patients classified as intermediate-risk group by the NPI, 24 were reallocated to a low-risk group and 13 to a high-risk group. CONCLUSION: IHC4+C reclassifies more than half of the patients stratified as being in intermediate-risk group by the AoL and NPI. The use of IHC4+C may substantially improve decision-making on adjuvant chemotherapy
Abstract P2-03-01: 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