Factors influencing Ki67 calculation in neuroendocrine neoplasia

IF 1.2
C. Castañeda, Miluska Castillo, Juvenal Sanchez, S. Casavilca, C. Gonzalez, C. Flores, Luis Cano, Carolina Belmar-López, Rosario Villa-Robles, Gabriela Rios-Martini, Yun Wu
{"title":"Factors influencing Ki67 calculation in neuroendocrine neoplasia","authors":"C. Castañeda, Miluska Castillo, Juvenal Sanchez, S. Casavilca, C. Gonzalez, C. Flores, Luis Cano, Carolina Belmar-López, Rosario Villa-Robles, Gabriela Rios-Martini, Yun Wu","doi":"10.2217/IJE-2016-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: We compared different methodologies to evaluate Ki67 in neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN). Patients & methods: ki67 was evaluated using three methods in 70 NEN cases: manual-count, eyeballed estimate made by three pathologists and ImmunoRatio-software. Manual-count was the standard method and agreement with it was evaluated through intraclass correlation (ICC). Results: Agreement between manual-count and eyeballed estimate had ICC: 0.887–0.929. Eyeballed estimate by three pathologists produced upgradation in 5.7–32.9% and downgradation in 5.7% of NEN cases. Agreement for ImmunoRatio-count had ICC: 0.989. Immunoratio produced upgradation in 17.1% and downgradation in 8.5% cases. Agreement between all methods was higher at low-Ki67. Cellularity, immune-cell infiltration, staining and sample quality did not affect agreement. Conclusion: Eyeballed estimate and ImmunoRatio showed good accuracy, especially at low-Ki67.","PeriodicalId":42691,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Endocrine Oncology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2217/IJE-2016-0011","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Endocrine Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2217/IJE-2016-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: We compared different methodologies to evaluate Ki67 in neuroendocrine neoplasia (NEN). Patients & methods: ki67 was evaluated using three methods in 70 NEN cases: manual-count, eyeballed estimate made by three pathologists and ImmunoRatio-software. Manual-count was the standard method and agreement with it was evaluated through intraclass correlation (ICC). Results: Agreement between manual-count and eyeballed estimate had ICC: 0.887–0.929. Eyeballed estimate by three pathologists produced upgradation in 5.7–32.9% and downgradation in 5.7% of NEN cases. Agreement for ImmunoRatio-count had ICC: 0.989. Immunoratio produced upgradation in 17.1% and downgradation in 8.5% cases. Agreement between all methods was higher at low-Ki67. Cellularity, immune-cell infiltration, staining and sample quality did not affect agreement. Conclusion: Eyeballed estimate and ImmunoRatio showed good accuracy, especially at low-Ki67.
影响神经内分泌肿瘤Ki67计算的因素
目的:比较不同方法对神经内分泌瘤(NEN) Ki67的评价。患者与方法:对70例NEN病例采用三种方法对ki67进行评估:手工计数、三名病理学家的目测和ImmunoRatio-software。手工计数为标准方法,并通过类内相关性(ICC)评价其一致性。结果:手工计数与目测的一致性ICC: 0.887-0.929。三名病理学家的肉眼估计导致5.7-32.9%的NEN病例升级,5.7%的NEN病例降级。免疫协议计数ICC: 0.989。免疫接种导致17.1%的患者升级,8.5%的患者降级。在低ki67时,所有方法之间的一致性更高。细胞结构、免疫细胞浸润、染色和样品质量不影响一致性。结论:肉眼估计和免疫比具有良好的准确性,特别是在低ki67时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Endocrine Oncology is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that helps the clinician to keep up to date with best practice in this fast-moving field. The journal highlights significant advances in basic and translational research, and places them in context for future therapy. The journal presents the latest research findings in diagnosis and management of endocrine cancer, together with authoritative reviews, cutting-edge editorials and perspectives that highlight hot topics and controversy in the field. Independent drug evaluations assess newly approved medications and their role in clinical practice. The journal welcomes the unsolicited submission of article proposals and original research manuscripts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信