Therese Bocklage, Virgilius Cornea, Caylin Hickey, Justin Miller, Jessica Moss, Mara Chambers, S Emily Bachert
{"title":"乳腺癌的 Ki-67 检测:评估评分方法和标本类型的可变性及其对治疗资格的潜在影响。","authors":"Therese Bocklage, Virgilius Cornea, Caylin Hickey, Justin Miller, Jessica Moss, Mara Chambers, S Emily Bachert","doi":"10.1097/PAI.0000000000001188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Abemaciclib was originally FDA approved for patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer with Ki-67 expression ≥20%. However, there were no guidelines provided on which specimen to test or which scoring method to use. We performed a comprehensive study evaluating the variation in Ki-67 expression in breast specimens from 50 consecutive patients who could have been eligible for abemaciclib therapy. Three pathologists with breast expertise each performed a blinded review with 3 different manual scoring methods [estimated (EST), unweighted (UNW), and weighted (WT) (WT recommended by the International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group)]. Quantitative image analysis (QIA) using the HALO platform was also performed. Three different specimen types [core needle biopsy (CNB) (n=63), resection (RES) (n=52), and axillary lymph node metastasis (ALN) (n=50)] were evaluated for each patient. The average Ki-67 for all specimens was 14.68% for EST, 14.46% for UNW, 14.15% for WT, and 11.15% for QIA. For the manual methods, the range between the lowest and highest Ki-67 for each specimen between the 3 pathologists was 8.44 for EST, 5.94 for WT, and 5.93 for UNW. The WT method limited interobserver variability with ICC1=0.959 (EST ICC1=0.922 and UNW=0.949). Using the aforementioned cutoff of Ki-67 ≥20% versus <20% to determine treatment eligibility, the averaged EST method yields 20 of 50 patients (40%) who would have been treatment-eligible, versus 15 (30%) for the UNW, 17 (34%) for the WT, and 12 (24%) for the QIA. There was no statistically significant difference in Ki-67 among the 3 specimen types. The average Ki-67 difference was 4.36 for CNB vs RES, 6.95 for CNB versus ALN, and RES versus ALN (P=0.93, 0.99, and 0.94, respectively). Our study concludes that further refinement in Ki-67 scoring is advisable to reduce clinically significant variation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48952,"journal":{"name":"Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology","volume":"32 3","pages":"119-124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ki-67 Testing in Breast Cancer: Assessing Variability With Scoring Methods and Specimen Types and the Potential Subsequent Impact on Therapy Eligibility.\",\"authors\":\"Therese Bocklage, Virgilius Cornea, Caylin Hickey, Justin Miller, Jessica Moss, Mara Chambers, S Emily Bachert\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PAI.0000000000001188\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Abemaciclib was originally FDA approved for patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer with Ki-67 expression ≥20%. However, there were no guidelines provided on which specimen to test or which scoring method to use. We performed a comprehensive study evaluating the variation in Ki-67 expression in breast specimens from 50 consecutive patients who could have been eligible for abemaciclib therapy. Three pathologists with breast expertise each performed a blinded review with 3 different manual scoring methods [estimated (EST), unweighted (UNW), and weighted (WT) (WT recommended by the International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group)]. Quantitative image analysis (QIA) using the HALO platform was also performed. Three different specimen types [core needle biopsy (CNB) (n=63), resection (RES) (n=52), and axillary lymph node metastasis (ALN) (n=50)] were evaluated for each patient. The average Ki-67 for all specimens was 14.68% for EST, 14.46% for UNW, 14.15% for WT, and 11.15% for QIA. For the manual methods, the range between the lowest and highest Ki-67 for each specimen between the 3 pathologists was 8.44 for EST, 5.94 for WT, and 5.93 for UNW. The WT method limited interobserver variability with ICC1=0.959 (EST ICC1=0.922 and UNW=0.949). Using the aforementioned cutoff of Ki-67 ≥20% versus <20% to determine treatment eligibility, the averaged EST method yields 20 of 50 patients (40%) who would have been treatment-eligible, versus 15 (30%) for the UNW, 17 (34%) for the WT, and 12 (24%) for the QIA. There was no statistically significant difference in Ki-67 among the 3 specimen types. The average Ki-67 difference was 4.36 for CNB vs RES, 6.95 for CNB versus ALN, and RES versus ALN (P=0.93, 0.99, and 0.94, respectively). Our study concludes that further refinement in Ki-67 scoring is advisable to reduce clinically significant variation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology\",\"volume\":\"32 3\",\"pages\":\"119-124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000001188\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000001188","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Ki-67 Testing in Breast Cancer: Assessing Variability With Scoring Methods and Specimen Types and the Potential Subsequent Impact on Therapy Eligibility.
Abemaciclib was originally FDA approved for patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer with Ki-67 expression ≥20%. However, there were no guidelines provided on which specimen to test or which scoring method to use. We performed a comprehensive study evaluating the variation in Ki-67 expression in breast specimens from 50 consecutive patients who could have been eligible for abemaciclib therapy. Three pathologists with breast expertise each performed a blinded review with 3 different manual scoring methods [estimated (EST), unweighted (UNW), and weighted (WT) (WT recommended by the International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group)]. Quantitative image analysis (QIA) using the HALO platform was also performed. Three different specimen types [core needle biopsy (CNB) (n=63), resection (RES) (n=52), and axillary lymph node metastasis (ALN) (n=50)] were evaluated for each patient. The average Ki-67 for all specimens was 14.68% for EST, 14.46% for UNW, 14.15% for WT, and 11.15% for QIA. For the manual methods, the range between the lowest and highest Ki-67 for each specimen between the 3 pathologists was 8.44 for EST, 5.94 for WT, and 5.93 for UNW. The WT method limited interobserver variability with ICC1=0.959 (EST ICC1=0.922 and UNW=0.949). Using the aforementioned cutoff of Ki-67 ≥20% versus <20% to determine treatment eligibility, the averaged EST method yields 20 of 50 patients (40%) who would have been treatment-eligible, versus 15 (30%) for the UNW, 17 (34%) for the WT, and 12 (24%) for the QIA. There was no statistically significant difference in Ki-67 among the 3 specimen types. The average Ki-67 difference was 4.36 for CNB vs RES, 6.95 for CNB versus ALN, and RES versus ALN (P=0.93, 0.99, and 0.94, respectively). Our study concludes that further refinement in Ki-67 scoring is advisable to reduce clinically significant variation.
期刊介绍:
Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology covers newly developed identification and detection technologies, and their applications in research and diagnosis for the applied immunohistochemist & molecular Morphologist.
Official Journal of the International Society for Immunohistochemisty and Molecular Morphology.