Search

Aims: The LUMINA trial demonstrated a very low local recurrence rate in women ≥55 years with low-risk luminal A breast cancer (defined as grade I-II, T1N0, hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative and Ki67 index ≤13.25%) treated with breast-conserving surgery and endocrine therapy (but no other systemic therapy), supporting the safe omission of radiation in these women. Here we describe the protocol for Ki67 assessment, the companion diagnostic used to guide omission of adjuvant radiotherapy., Methods: Ki67 immunohistochemistry was performed on full-face sections at one of three regional labs. Pathologists trained in the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (IKWG) method demarcated tumour areas on scanned slides and scored 100 nuclei from each of at least five randomly selected 1-mm fields. For cases with high Ki67 heterogeneity, further virtual cores were selected and scored in order to confidently assign a case as luminal A (≤13.25%) or B (>13.25%). Interlaboratory variability was assessed through an annual quality assurance programme during the study period., Results: From the quality assurance programme, the mean Ki67 index across all cases/labs was 13%. The observed intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa statistics were ≥0.9 and ≥0.7, respectively, indicating a substantial level of agreement. Median scoring time was 4 min per case. The IKWG-recommended scoring method, performed directly from slides, requiring up to four scored fields, is concordant with the LUMINA scoring method (ICC ≥ 0.9)., Conclusion: Ki67 is a practical, reproducible, and inexpensive biomarker that can identify low-risk luminal A breast cancers as potential candidates for radiation de-escalation., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01791829., (© 2023 The Authors. Histopathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Ki67 has potential clinical importance in breast cancer but has yet to see broad acceptance due to inter-laboratory variability. Here we tested an open source and calibrated automated digital image analysis (DIA) platform to: (i) investigate the comparability of Ki67 measurement across corresponding core biopsy and resection specimen cases, and (ii) assess section to section differences in Ki67 scoring. Two sets of 60 previously stained slides containing 30 core-cut biopsy and 30 corresponding resection specimens from 30 estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer patients were sent to 17 participating labs for automated assessment of average Ki67 expression. The blocks were centrally cut and immunohistochemically (IHC) stained for Ki67 (MIB-1 antibody). The QuPath platform was used to evaluate tumoral Ki67 expression. Calibration of the DIA method was performed as in published studies. A guideline for building an automated Ki67 scoring algorithm was sent to participating labs. Very high correlation and no systematic error (p = 0.08) was found between consecutive Ki67 IHC sections. Ki67 scores were higher for core biopsy slides compared to paired whole sections from resections (p ≤ 0.001; median difference: 5.31%). The systematic discrepancy between core biopsy and corresponding whole sections was likely due to pre-analytical factors (tissue handling, fixation). Therefore, Ki67 IHC should be tested on core biopsy samples to best reflect the biological status of the tumor., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

We analysed the reproducibility of Ki67 labelling index (LI) between two scorers using the International Ki67 Working Group (IKWG) global methods on an Android application (APP), correlated the APP and eyeball estimate (EBE) with digital image analysis (DIA) scores and determined the prognostic significance of Ki67LI. Global weighted (GW) and global unweighted (GUW) Ki67 app scores of hormone receptor-positive and HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2)-negative breast cancer patients were obtained. Reproducibility of Ki67LI between 2 scorers and correlation of APP and EBE scores with DIA scores were performed. The prognostic significance of APP scores and its correlation with other clinico-pathologic variables were evaluated. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) between 2 scorers showed excellent reliability with both GW and GUW methods. ICC between DIA and APP scores was significantly greater than DIA versus EBE. The three categories of APP scores based on median value and cut points of 10%, 18% and 38% were significantly associated with poor DFS. On multivariate analysis, significant association between Ki67LI, tumour size, nodal involvement and DFS was noted. Our study shows that the visual Ki67 scoring app is effective in bringing consistency to KI67LI and APP scores showed significant correlation with DFS., (© 2021 Scandinavian Societies for Medical Microbiology and Pathology.)

Ki67 immunohistochemistry (IHC), commonly used as a proliferation marker in breast cancer, has limited value for treatment decisions due to questionable analytical validity. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (IKWG) consensus meeting, held in October 2019, assessed the current evidence for Ki67 IHC analytical validity and clinical utility in breast cancer, including the series of scoring studies the IKWG conducted on centrally stained tissues. Consensus observations and recommendations are: 1) as for estrogen receptor and HER2 testing, preanalytical handling considerations are critical; 2) a standardized visual scoring method has been established and is recommended for adoption; 3) participation in and evaluation of quality assurance and quality control programs is recommended to maintain analytical validity; and 4) the IKWG accepted that Ki67 IHC as a prognostic marker in breast cancer has clinical validity but concluded that clinical utility is evident only for prognosis estimation in anatomically favorable estrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative patients to identify those who do not need adjuvant chemotherapy. In this T1-2, N0-1 patient group, the IKWG consensus is that Ki67 5% or less, or 30% or more, can be used to estimate prognosis. In conclusion, analytical validity of Ki67 IHC can be reached with careful attention to preanalytical issues and calibrated standardized visual scoring. Currently, clinical utility of Ki67 IHC in breast cancer care remains limited to prognosis assessment in stage I or II breast cancer. Further development of automated scoring might help to overcome some current limitations., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Purpose: Alterations to mismatch repair (MMR) pathways are a known cause of cancer, particularly colorectal and endometrial carcinomas. Recently, checkpoint inhibitors have been approved for use in MMR-deficient cancers of any type (Prasad et al. in JAMA Oncol 4:157-158, 2018). Functional studies in breast cancer have shown associations between MMR loss, resistance to aromatase inhibitors and sensitivity to palbociclib (Haricharan et al. in Cancer Discov 7:1168-1183, 2017). Herein, we investigate the clinical meaning of MMR deficiency in breast cancer by immunohistochemical assessment of MSH2, MSH6, MLH1 and PMS2 on a large series of breast cancers linked to detailed biomarker and long-term outcome data., Methods: Cases were classified as MMR intact when all four markers expressed nuclear reactivity, but MMR-deficient when at least one of the four biomarkers displayed loss of nuclear staining in the presence of positive internal stromal controls on the tissue microarray core., Results: Among the 1635 cases with interpretable staining, we identified 31 (1.9%) as MMR-deficient. In our cohort, MMR deficiency was present across all major breast cancer subtypes, and was associated with high-grade, low-progesterone receptor expression and high tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte counts. MMR deficiency is significantly associated with inferior overall (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.02-5.17, p = 0.040) and disease-specific survival (HR 2.71, 95% CI 1.00-7.35, p = 0.042) in the 431 estrogen receptor-positive patients who were uniformly treated with tamoxifen as their sole adjuvant systemic therapy., Conclusion: Overall, this study supports the concept that breast cancer patients with MMR deficiency as assessed by immunohistochemistry may be good candidates for alternative treatment approaches such as immune checkpoint or CDK4 inhibitors.

Aims: The nuclear proliferation marker Ki67 assayed by immunohistochemistry has multiple potential uses in breast cancer, but an unacceptable level of interlaboratory variability has hampered its clinical utility. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group has undertaken a systematic programme to determine whether Ki67 measurement can be analytically validated and standardised among laboratories. This study addresses whether acceptable scoring reproducibility can be achieved on excision whole sections., Methods and Results: Adjacent sections from 30 primary ER + breast cancers were centrally stained for Ki67 and sections were circulated among 23 pathologists in 12 countries. All pathologists scored Ki67 by two methods: (i) global: four fields of 100 tumour cells each were selected to reflect observed heterogeneity in nuclear staining; (ii) hot-spot: the field with highest apparent Ki67 index was selected and up to 500 cells scored. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the global method [confidence interval (CI) = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.799-0.93] marginally met the prespecified success criterion (lower 95% CI ≥ 0.8), while the ICC for the hot-spot method (0.83; 95% CI = 0.74-0.90) did not. Visually, interobserver concordance in location of selected hot-spots varies between cases. The median times for scoring were 9 and 6 min for global and hot-spot methods, respectively., Conclusions: The global scoring method demonstrates adequate reproducibility to warrant next steps towards evaluation for technical and clinical validity in appropriate cohorts of cases. 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 laboratories further., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The nuclear proliferation biomarker Ki67 has potential prognostic, predictive, and monitoring roles in breast cancer. Unacceptable between-laboratory variability has limited its clinical value. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group investigated whether Ki67 immunohistochemistry can be analytically validated and standardized across laboratories using automated machine-based scoring. Sets of pre-stained core-cut biopsy sections of 30 breast tumors were circulated to 14 laboratories for scanning and automated assessment of the average and maximum percentage of tumor cells positive for Ki67. Seven unique scanners and 10 software platforms were involved in this study. Pre-specified analyses included evaluation of reproducibility between all laboratories (primary) as well as among those using scanners from a single vendor (secondary). The primary reproducibility metric was intraclass correlation coefficient between laboratories, with success considered to be intraclass correlation coefficient >0.80. Intraclass correlation coefficient for automated average scores across 16 operators was 0.83 (95% credible interval: 0.73-0.91) and intraclass correlation coefficient for maximum scores across 10 operators was 0.63 (95% credible interval: 0.44-0.80). For the laboratories using scanners from a single vendor (8 score sets), intraclass correlation coefficient for average automated scores was 0.89 (95% credible interval: 0.81-0.96), which was similar to the intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.87 (95% credible interval: 0.81-0.93) achieved using these same slides in a prior visual-reading reproducibility study. Automated machine assessment of average Ki67 has the potential to achieve between-laboratory reproducibility similar to that for a rigorously standardized pathologist-based visual assessment of Ki67. The observed intraclass correlation coefficient was worse for maximum compared to average scoring methods, suggesting that maximum score methods may be suboptimal for consistent measurement of proliferation. Automated average scoring methods show promise for assessment of Ki67 scoring, but requires further standardization and subsequent clinical validation.

Ki67 expression has been a valuable prognostic variable in breast cancer, but has not seen broad adoption due to lack of standardization between institutions. Automation could represent a solution. Here we investigate the reproducibility of Ki67 measurement between three image analysis platforms with supervised classifiers performed by the same operator, by multiple operators, and finally we compare their accuracy in prognostic potential. Two breast cancer patient cohorts were used for this study. The standardization was done with the 30 cases of ER+ breast cancer that were used in phase 3 of International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group initiatives where blocks were centrally cut and stained for Ki67. The outcome cohort was from 149 breast cancer cases from the Yale Pathology archives. A tissue microarray was built from representative tissue blocks with median follow-up of 120 months. The Mib-1 antibody (Dako) was used to detect Ki67 (dilution 1:100). HALO (IndicaLab), QuantCenter (3DHistech), and QuPath (open source software) digital image analysis (DIA) platforms were used to evaluate Ki67 expression. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to measure reproducibility. Between-DIA platform reproducibility was excellent (ICC: 0.933, CI: 0.879-0.966). Excellent reproducibility was found between all DIA platforms and the reference standard Ki67 values of Spectrum Webscope (QuPath-Spectrum Webscope ICC: 0.970, CI: 0.936-0.986; HALO-Spectrum Webscope ICC: 0.968, CI: 0.933-0.985; QuantCenter-Spectrum Webscope ICC: 0.964, CI: 0.919-0.983). All platforms showed excellent intra-DIA reproducibility (QuPath ICC: 0.992, CI: 0.986-0.996; HALO ICC: 0.972, CI: 0.924-0.988; QuantCenter ICC: 0.978, CI: 0.932-0.991). Comparing each DIA against outcome, the hazard ratios were similar. The inter-operator reproducibility was particularly high (ICC: 0.962-0.995). Our results showed outstanding reproducibility both within and between-DIA platforms, including one freely available DIA platform (QuPath). We also found the platforms essentially indistinguishable with respect to prediction of breast cancer patient outcome. Results justify multi-institutional DIA studies to assess clinical utility.

Although an important biomarker in breast cancer, Ki67 lacks scoring standardization, which has limited its clinical use. Our previous study found variability when laboratories used their own scoring methods on centrally stained tissue microarray slides. In this current study, 16 laboratories from eight countries calibrated to a specific Ki67 scoring method and then scored 50 centrally MIB-1 stained tissue microarray cases. Simple instructions prescribed scoring pattern and staining thresholds for determination of the percentage of stained tumor cells. To calibrate, laboratories scored 18 'training' and 'test' web-based images. Software tracked object selection and scoring. Success for the calibration was prespecified as Root Mean Square Error of scores compared with reference <0.6 and Maximum Absolute Deviation from reference <1.0 (log2-transformed data). Prespecified success criteria for tissue microarray scoring required intraclass correlation significantly >0.70 but aiming for observed intraclass correlation ≥0.90. Laboratory performance showed non-significant but promising trends of improvement through the calibration exercise (mean Root Mean Square Error decreased from 0.6 to 0.4, Maximum Absolute Deviation from 1.6 to 0.9; paired t-test: P=0.07 for Root Mean Square Error, 0.06 for Maximum Absolute Deviation). For tissue microarray scoring, the intraclass correlation estimate was 0.94 (95% credible interval: 0.90-0.97), markedly and significantly >0.70, the prespecified minimum target for success. Some discrepancies persisted, including around clinically relevant cutoffs. After calibrating to a common scoring method via a web-based tool, laboratories can achieve high inter-laboratory reproducibility in Ki67 scoring on centrally stained tissue microarray slides. Although these data are potentially encouraging, suggesting that it may be possible to standardize scoring of Ki67 among pathology laboratories, clinically important discrepancies persist. Before this biomarker could be recommended for clinical use, future research will need to extend this approach to biopsies and whole sections, account for staining variability, and link to outcomes.

Background: In breast cancer, immunohistochemical assessment of proliferation using the marker Ki67 has potential use in both research and clinical management. However, lack of consistency across laboratories has limited Ki67's value. A working group was assembled to devise a strategy to harmonize Ki67 analysis and increase scoring concordance. Toward that goal, we conducted a Ki67 reproducibility study., Methods: Eight laboratories received 100 breast cancer cases arranged into 1-mm core tissue microarrays-one set stained by the participating laboratory and one set stained by the central laboratory, both using antibody MIB-1. Each laboratory scored Ki67 as percentage of positively stained invasive tumor cells using its own method. Six laboratories repeated scoring of 50 locally stained cases on 3 different days. Sources of variation were analyzed using random effects models with log2-transformed measurements. Reproducibility was quantified by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and the approximate two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the true intraclass correlation coefficients in these experiments were provided., Results: Intralaboratory reproducibility was high (ICC = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.93 to 0.97). Interlaboratory reproducibility was only moderate (central staining: ICC = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.78; local staining: ICC = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.68). Geometric mean of Ki67 values for each laboratory across the 100 cases ranged 7.1% to 23.9% with central staining and 6.1% to 30.1% with local staining. Factors contributing to interlaboratory discordance included tumor region selection, counting method, and subjective assessment of staining positivity. Formal counting methods gave more consistent results than visual estimation., Conclusions: Substantial variability in Ki67 scoring was observed among some of the world's most experienced laboratories. Ki67 values and cutoffs for clinical decision-making cannot be transferred between laboratories without standardizing scoring methodology because analytical validity is limited.