Abstract 3145: Comparing the Reproducibility and Prognostic Value of Proliferation Markers Ki67, MAI, PPH3 in Node Negative Breast Cancer

Jan P. Baak,Einar Gudlaugsson,Ivar Skaland,Anais Malpica,Shao Zhimin,Emilius Janssen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2011-3145
IF: 11.2
2011-01-01
Cancer Research
Abstract:Abstract Background. The proliferation factor Ki67 is prognostic but determination methods differ. Their reproducibility and independent prognostic value is largely unknown. Aim. To evaluate the reproducibility of different Ki67 assessment methods and compare their prognostic value with Mitotic Activity Index (MAI), Phosphohistone-3 (PPH3) and other prognosticators. Methods. In 240 T1,2N0M0 breast cancers without systemic adjuvant treatment, standardized automated quantitative immunohistochemistry was used for Ki7 and PPH3 and a strictly formalized protocol for MAI assessment. The percentages of Ki67 positive nuclei were assessed by two pathologists, computerized interactive morphometry (CIM) and fully automated digital image analysis (DIA). Reproducibility was studied by duplicate blind assessments. Continuous variables were discretized. We analyzed the prognostic value of widely used Ki67 thresholds (15%, 20%), others). We also tested at which places within the tumour (periphery, center), Ki67 was prognostically strongest. Univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed. Results. The Ki67 results of the two pathologists differed and their optimal prognostic thresholds greatly varied (4% and 14%). Moreover, Ki67% by one pathologist was well reproducible but not strongly prognostic, the other was strongly prognostic but not well reproducible. On the other hand, subjective Ki67% assessments were strongly prognostic (<0.0001) over a wide range of Ki67% thresholds (between 5% and 20%) (with an optimum Hazard Ratio for thresholds between 10%-14%). DIA-Ki67 and CIM-Ki67 were very well reproducible (r>0.99 and 0.94) and also strongly prognostic (P<0.0001 for both methods). Ki67 determinations are prognostically strongest in the periphery of the tumor. DIA-Ki67-6.5 is the strongest prognosticator, overshadowing subjective Ki67 assessments, Ki67-15% and 20% thresholds, tumor diameter, grade, ER, PR, Her2, CK5-6. CIM-Ki67 is a cheap well reproducible strongly prognostic alternative. MAI (<3 versus ≥3) or PPH3 (<13 versus ≥13) were slightly prognostically stronger than Ki67-DIA and considerably stronger than Ki-67-CIM. Conclusions. In node negative breast cancer without adjuvant systemic treatment, Ki67 by digital image analysis or computerized morphometry but not by subjective counts is well reproducible and prognostically strong. MAI or PPH3 were prognostically slightly stronger. Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2011 Apr 2-6; Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2011;71(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 3145. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2011-3145
What problem does this paper attempt to address?