Analytical validation of a standardised scoring protocol for Ki67 immunohistochemistry on breast cancer excision whole sections: an international multicentre collaboration
Samuel C Y Leung,Torsten O Nielsen,Lila A Zabaglo,Indu Arun,Sunil S Badve,Anita L Bane,John M S Bartlett,Signe Borgquist,Martin C Chang,Andrew Dodson,Anna Ehinger,Susan Fineberg,Cornelia M Focke,Dongxia Gao,Allen M Gown,Carolina Gutierrez,Judith C Hugh,Zuzana Kos,Anne‐Vibeke Lænkholm,Mauro G. Mastropasqua,Takuya Moriya,Sharon Nofech‐Mozes,C Kent Osborne,Frédérique M Penault‐Llorca,Tammy Piper,Takashi Sakatani,Roberto Salgado,Jane Starczynski,Tomoharu Sugie,Bert Vegt,Giuseppe Viale,Daniel F Hayes,Lisa M McShane,Mitch Dowsett,on behalf of the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group of the Breast International Group and North American Breast Cancer Group,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13880
2019-07-08
Histopathology
Abstract:The nuclear proliferation marker Ki67 assayed by immunohistochemistry has multiple potential uses in breast cancer, but an unacceptable level of inter‐laboratory variability has hampered its clinical utility. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group has undertaken a systematic program to determine whether Ki67 measurement can be analytically validated and standardized across laboratories. This study addresses whether acceptable scoring reproducibility can be achieved on excision whole sections.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: (a) global: 4 fields of 100 tumor cells each were selected to reflect observed heterogeneity in nuclear staining; (b) 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 (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, inter‐observer concordance in location of selected hot‐spots varies between cases. The median times for scoring were 9 and 6 minutes for global and hot‐spot methods, respectively.The global scoring method demonstrates adequate reproducibility to warrant next steps toward 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.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
pathology,cell biology