IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0123435.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standardization for Ki-67 Assessment in Moderately Differentiated Breast Cancer. A Retrospective Analysis of the SAKK 28/12 Study

Author

Listed:
  • Zsuzsanna Varga
  • Estelle Cassoly
  • Qiyu Li
  • Christian Oehlschlegel
  • Coya Tapia
  • Hans Anton Lehr
  • Dirk Klingbiel
  • Beat Thürlimann
  • Thomas Ruhstaller

Abstract

Background: Proliferative activity (Ki-67 Labelling Index) in breast cancer increasingly serves as an additional tool in the decision for or against adjuvant chemotherapy in midrange hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Ki-67 Index has been previously shown to suffer from high inter-observer variability especially in midrange (G2) breast carcinomas. In this study we conducted a systematic approach using different Ki-67 assessments on large tissue sections in order to identify the method with the highest reliability and the lowest variability. Materials and Methods: Five breast pathologists retrospectively analyzed proliferative activity of 50 G2 invasive breast carcinomas using large tissue sections by assessing Ki-67 immunohistochemistry. Ki-67-assessments were done on light microscopy and on digital images following these methods: 1) assessing five regions, 2) assessing only darkly stained nuclei and 3) considering only condensed proliferative areas (‘hotspots’). An individual review (the first described assessment from 2008) was also performed. The assessments on light microscopy were done by estimating. All measurements were performed three times. Inter-observer and intra-observer reliabilities were calculated using the approach proposed by Eliasziw et al. Clinical cutoffs (14% and 20%) were tested using Fleiss’ Kappa. Results: There was a good intra-observer reliability in 5 of 7 methods (ICC: 0.76–0.89). The two highest inter-observer reliability was fair to moderate (ICC: 0.71 and 0.74) in 2 methods (region-analysis and individual-review) on light microscopy. Fleiss’-kappa-values (14% cut-off) were the highest (moderate) using the original recommendation on light-microscope (Kappa 0.58). Fleiss’ kappa values (20% cut-off) were the highest (Kappa 0.48 each) in analyzing hotspots on light-microscopy and digital-analysis. No methodologies using digital-analysis were superior to the methods on light microscope. Conclusion: Our results show that all methods on light-microscopy for Ki-67 assessment in large tissue sections resulted in a good intra-observer reliability. Region analysis and individual review (the original recommendation) on light-microscopy yielded the highest inter-observer reliability. These results show slight improvement to previously published data on poor-reproducibility and thus might be a practical-pragmatic way for routine assessment of Ki-67 Index in G2 breast carcinomas.

Suggested Citation

  • Zsuzsanna Varga & Estelle Cassoly & Qiyu Li & Christian Oehlschlegel & Coya Tapia & Hans Anton Lehr & Dirk Klingbiel & Beat Thürlimann & Thomas Ruhstaller, 2015. "Standardization for Ki-67 Assessment in Moderately Differentiated Breast Cancer. A Retrospective Analysis of the SAKK 28/12 Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0123435
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123435
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123435
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123435&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0123435?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0123435. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.