Standardized Assessment of Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Patients Using Virtual Slides and an Automated Analyzer in Comparison to Central/Local Pathological Assessments

Yoshio Mizuno, Hiromi Fuchikami, Tsuneo Natori, Naoko Takeda, Yuko Inoue, Junichi Yamada, Hiroaki Abe, Hiroshi Seto, Kazuhiko Sato

Clinical Testing Business, Testing Division, SRL, Inc., Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Breast Oncology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Department of Clinical Pathology, Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Inoue Ladies Clinic, Tokyo, Japan.
Seto Hospital, Tokorozawa, Japan.

DOI: 10.4236/jct.2014.52017                

Abstract

Purpose: To standardize the methods to measure Ki-67, there is an interest in automating the assessment of Ki-67. Therefore, we reviewed the possibility of introducing an automated analyzer to standardize the Ki-67 evaluation method. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a clinical database of patients who underwent surgery for early breast cancer at Tokyo-West Tokushukai Hospital. Among them, those who underwent preoperative core needle biopsy (CNB) were enrolled. The concordance rates of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki-67 by local pathologists were reviewed (valuations made by local pathologists), and nonmatching cases (from August 2008 to October 2011) were reassessed both by central review and using an automated analyzer with virtual slides. The results were compared with the evaluations made by local pathologists, and we reexamined the concordance rate by using central review and the automated analyzer. Results: The concordance rate of Ki-67 evaluations made by local pathologists in the preoperative CNB and surgical specimens was 78.7% in 287 cases pathologically assessed from October 2008 to March 2013. This rate was significantly lower (p < 0.01) than that of ER (95.6%), PgR (88.5%), and HER2 (91.6%). Reassessment of the 37 cases of nonmatching Ki-67 values from 2008 to October 2011 using central review and an automated analyzer resulted in clear improvement in matching of 22 (92.1%) and 24 (93.1%) of 37 cases, respectively. Conclusion: The concordance rate of Ki-67 in preoperative CNB and surgical specimens was lower than that of other biological markers; however, they were nearly equal by reassessment using central review and an automated analyzer.

Keywords

Ki-67; Core Needle Biopsy; Concordance Rate; Virtual Slides; Automated Analyzer; Standardized Assessment

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	F. Lopez, F. Belloc, F. Lacombe, et al., “Modalities of Synthesis of Ki-67 Antigen during the Stimulation of Lymphocytes,” Cytometry, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1991, pp. 42-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cyto. 990120107
[2]	A. Urruticoechea, I. E. Smith and M. Dowsett, “Proliferation Marker Ki-67 in Early Breast Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 23, No. 28, 2005, pp. 7212-7220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO. 2005.07.501
[3]	H. Trihia, S. Murray, K. Price, et al., “Ki-67 Expression in Breast Carcinoma: Its Association with Grading Systems, Clinical Parameters, and Other Prognostic Factors—A Surrogate Marker?” Cancer, Vol. 97, No. 5, 2003, pp. 1321-1331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11188
[4]	N. Bouzubar, K. J. Walker, K. Griffiths, et al., “Ki67 Immunostaining in Primary Breast Cancer: Pathological and Clinical Associations,” British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 59, 1989, pp. 943-947. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1989.200
[5]	F. Spyratos, M. Ferrero-Pous, M. Trassard, et al., “Correlation between MIB-1and Other Proliferation Markers: Clinical Implications of the MIB-1 Cutoff Value,” Cancer, Vol. 94, No. 8, 2002, pp. 2151-2159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cncr.10458
[6]	M. C. Cheang, S. K. Chia, D. Voduc, et al., “Ki67 Index, HER2 Status, and Prognosis of Patients with Luminal B Breast Cancer,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 101, No. 10, 2009, pp. 736-750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djp082
[7]	A. Prat, M. C. U. Cheang, M. Martín, et al., “Prognostic Significance of Progesterone Receptor-Positive Tumor Cells within Immunohistochemically Defined Luminal A Breast Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2012, pp. 203-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.43.4134
[8]	M. Dowsett, S. R. Ebbs, J. M. Dixon, et al., “Biomarker Changes during Neoadjuvant Anastrozole, Tamoxifen, or the Combination: Influence of Hormonal Status and HER-2 in Breast Cancer—A Study from the IMPACT Trialists,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 23, No. 11, 2005, pp. 2477-2492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.07.559
[9]	M. J. Ellis, V. J. Suman, J. Hoog, et al., “Randomized Phase II Neoadjuvant Comparison between Letrozole, Anastrozole, and Exemestane for Postmenopausal Women with estrogen Receptor-Rich Stage 2 to 3 Breast Cancer: Clinical and Biomarker Outcomes and Predictive Value of the Baseline PAM50-Based Intrinsic Subtype— ACOSOG Z1031,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 29, No. 17, 2011, pp. 2342-2349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.31.6950
[10]	M. J. Ellis and C. Ma, “Letrozole in the Neoadjuvant Setting: The P024 Trial,” Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, Vol. 105, No. 1, 2007, pp. 33-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9701-x
[11]	M. Dowsett, S. R. Ebbs, J. M. Dixon, et al., “Biomarker Changes during Neoadjuvant Anastrozole, Tamoxifen, or the Combination: Influence of Hormonal Status and HER-2 in Breast Cancer—A Study from the IMPACT Trialists,” Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 23, No. 11, 2005, pp. 2477-2492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.07.559
[12]	M. Dowsett, I. E .Smith, S. R. Ebbs, et al., “Proliferation and Apoptosis as Markers of Benefit in Neoadjuvant Endocrine Therapy of Breast Cancer,” Clinical Cancer Research, Vol. 12, 2006, pp. 1024s-1030s. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.07.559
[13]	M. Dowsett, T. O. Nielsen, R. A’Hern, et al., “Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 103, No. 22, 2011, pp. 1656-1664. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.07.559
[14]	M. J. Beresford, G. D. Wilson and A. Makris, “Measuring Proliferation in Breast Cancer: Practicalities and Applications,” Breast Cancer Research, Vol. 8, 2006, p. 216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr1618
[15]	N. Pathmanathan and R. L. Balleine, “Ki67 and Proliferation in Breast Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Pathology, Vol. 66, No. 6, 2013, pp. 512-516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2012-201085
[16]	R. Yerushalmi, R. Woods, P. M. Ravdin, et al., “Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Prognostic and Predictive Potential,” The Lancet Oncology, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2010, pp. 174-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70262-1
[17]	X. Chen, L. Sun, Y. Mao, et al., “Preoperative Core Needle Biopsy Is Accurate in Determining Molecular Subtypes in Invasive Breast Cancer,” BMC Cancer, Vol. 13, 2013, p. 390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-390
[18]	F. Liebens, B. Carly, P. Cusumano, et al., “Breast Cancer Seeding Associated with Core Needle Biopsies: A Systematic Review.” Maturitas, Vol. 62, No. 2, 2009, pp. 113-123.
[19]	P. Crystal, M. Koretz, S. Shcharynsky, et al., “Accuracy of Sonographically Guided 14-Gauge Core-Needle Biopsy: Results of 715 Consecutive Breast Biopsies with at Least Two-Year Follow-Up of Benign Lesions,” Journal of Clinical Ultrasound, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2005, pp. 47-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jcu.20089
[20]	W. Hanna, P. Barnes, R. Berendt, et al., “Testing for Her2 in Breast Cancer: Current Pathology Challenges Faced in Canada.” Current Oncology, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2012, pp. 315-323. http://dx.doi.org/10.3747/co.19.1173
[21]	Y. Mizuno, T. Natori, N. Takeda, et al., “The Reliability of Assessment of Ki-67 Expression on Core Needle Biopsy and the Surgical Specimens of Invasive Breast Cancer: Comparison of Local Pathologists’ Assessment and Central Review,” Journal of Cancer Therapy, Vol. 3, 2012, pp. 841-845. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jct.2012.325107
[22]	W. Bruening, J. Fontanarosa, K. Tipton, et al., “Systematic Review: Comparative Effectiveness of Core-Needle and Open Surgical Biopsy to Diagnose Breast Lesions,” Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 152, No. 4, 2010, pp. 238-246. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-152-1-201001050-00190
[23]	A. Sheri and M. Dowsett, “Developments in Ki67 and Other Biomarkers for Treatment Decision Making in Breast Cancer,” Annals of Oncology, Vol. 23, No. 10, 2012, pp. X219-X227. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1093/annonc/mds307
[24]	S. Fasanella, E. Leonardi, C. Cantaloni, et al., “Proliferative Activity in Human Breast Cancer: Ki-67 Automated Evaluation and the Influence of Different Ki-67 Equivalent Antibodies,” Diagnostic Pathology, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2011, p. S7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-6-S1-S7
[25]	Z. M. A. Mohammed, D. C. McMillan, B. Elsberger, et al., “Comparison of Visual and Automated Assessment of Ki-67 Proliferative Activity and Their Impact on Outcome in Primary Operable Invasive Ductal Breast Cancer,” British Journal of Cancer, Vol. 106, No. 2, 2012, pp. 383-388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.569