乳腺癌的 Ki-67 检测:评估评分方法和标本类型的可变性及其对治疗资格的潜在影响。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-07 DOI:10.1097/PAI.0000000000001188
Therese Bocklage, Virgilius Cornea, Caylin Hickey, Justin Miller, Jessica Moss, Mara Chambers, S Emily Bachert
{"title":"乳腺癌的 Ki-67 检测:评估评分方法和标本类型的可变性及其对治疗资格的潜在影响。","authors":"Therese Bocklage, Virgilius Cornea, Caylin Hickey, Justin Miller, Jessica Moss, Mara Chambers, S Emily Bachert","doi":"10.1097/PAI.0000000000001188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Abemaciclib was originally FDA approved for patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer with Ki-67 expression ≥20%. However, there were no guidelines provided on which specimen to test or which scoring method to use. We performed a comprehensive study evaluating the variation in Ki-67 expression in breast specimens from 50 consecutive patients who could have been eligible for abemaciclib therapy. Three pathologists with breast expertise each performed a blinded review with 3 different manual scoring methods [estimated (EST), unweighted (UNW), and weighted (WT) (WT recommended by the International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group)]. Quantitative image analysis (QIA) using the HALO platform was also performed. Three different specimen types [core needle biopsy (CNB) (n=63), resection (RES) (n=52), and axillary lymph node metastasis (ALN) (n=50)] were evaluated for each patient. The average Ki-67 for all specimens was 14.68% for EST, 14.46% for UNW, 14.15% for WT, and 11.15% for QIA. For the manual methods, the range between the lowest and highest Ki-67 for each specimen between the 3 pathologists was 8.44 for EST, 5.94 for WT, and 5.93 for UNW. The WT method limited interobserver variability with ICC1=0.959 (EST ICC1=0.922 and UNW=0.949). Using the aforementioned cutoff of Ki-67 ≥20% versus <20% to determine treatment eligibility, the averaged EST method yields 20 of 50 patients (40%) who would have been treatment-eligible, versus 15 (30%) for the UNW, 17 (34%) for the WT, and 12 (24%) for the QIA. There was no statistically significant difference in Ki-67 among the 3 specimen types. The average Ki-67 difference was 4.36 for CNB vs RES, 6.95 for CNB versus ALN, and RES versus ALN (P=0.93, 0.99, and 0.94, respectively). Our study concludes that further refinement in Ki-67 scoring is advisable to reduce clinically significant variation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48952,"journal":{"name":"Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology","volume":"32 3","pages":"119-124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ki-67 Testing in Breast Cancer: Assessing Variability With Scoring Methods and Specimen Types and the Potential Subsequent Impact on Therapy Eligibility.\",\"authors\":\"Therese Bocklage, Virgilius Cornea, Caylin Hickey, Justin Miller, Jessica Moss, Mara Chambers, S Emily Bachert\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/PAI.0000000000001188\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Abemaciclib was originally FDA approved for patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer with Ki-67 expression ≥20%. However, there were no guidelines provided on which specimen to test or which scoring method to use. We performed a comprehensive study evaluating the variation in Ki-67 expression in breast specimens from 50 consecutive patients who could have been eligible for abemaciclib therapy. Three pathologists with breast expertise each performed a blinded review with 3 different manual scoring methods [estimated (EST), unweighted (UNW), and weighted (WT) (WT recommended by the International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group)]. Quantitative image analysis (QIA) using the HALO platform was also performed. Three different specimen types [core needle biopsy (CNB) (n=63), resection (RES) (n=52), and axillary lymph node metastasis (ALN) (n=50)] were evaluated for each patient. The average Ki-67 for all specimens was 14.68% for EST, 14.46% for UNW, 14.15% for WT, and 11.15% for QIA. For the manual methods, the range between the lowest and highest Ki-67 for each specimen between the 3 pathologists was 8.44 for EST, 5.94 for WT, and 5.93 for UNW. The WT method limited interobserver variability with ICC1=0.959 (EST ICC1=0.922 and UNW=0.949). Using the aforementioned cutoff of Ki-67 ≥20% versus <20% to determine treatment eligibility, the averaged EST method yields 20 of 50 patients (40%) who would have been treatment-eligible, versus 15 (30%) for the UNW, 17 (34%) for the WT, and 12 (24%) for the QIA. There was no statistically significant difference in Ki-67 among the 3 specimen types. The average Ki-67 difference was 4.36 for CNB vs RES, 6.95 for CNB versus ALN, and RES versus ALN (P=0.93, 0.99, and 0.94, respectively). Our study concludes that further refinement in Ki-67 scoring is advisable to reduce clinically significant variation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48952,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology\",\"volume\":\"32 3\",\"pages\":\"119-124\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000001188\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000001188","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Abemaciclib最初被FDA批准用于Ki-67表达≥20%的ER阳性/HER2阴性乳腺癌患者。然而,对于检测哪种标本或使用哪种评分方法并没有提供指导。我们进行了一项综合研究,评估了 50 例符合阿巴西利治疗条件的连续患者乳腺标本中 Ki-67 表达的变化。三名具有乳腺专业知识的病理学家分别采用 3 种不同的手动评分方法[估计 (EST)、非加权 (UNW) 和加权 (WT)(国际乳腺癌 Ki-67 工作组推荐使用 WT)]进行了盲法审查。此外,还使用 HALO 平台进行了定量图像分析(QIA)。对每位患者的三种不同标本类型[核心针活检(CNB)(n=63)、切除(RES)(n=52)和腋窝淋巴结转移(ALN)(n=50)]进行了评估。所有标本的平均 Ki-67 分别为:EST 14.68%、UNW 14.46%、WT 14.15%、QIA 11.15%。就手工方法而言,3 位病理学家对每份标本的最低和最高 Ki-67 之间的范围分别是:EST 为 8.44,WT 为 5.94,UNW 为 5.93。WT 方法限制了观察者之间的变异性,ICC1=0.959(EST ICC1=0.922,UNW=0.949)。采用上述 Ki-67 ≥20% 与
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ki-67 Testing in Breast Cancer: Assessing Variability With Scoring Methods and Specimen Types and the Potential Subsequent Impact on Therapy Eligibility.

Abemaciclib was originally FDA approved for patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer with Ki-67 expression ≥20%. However, there were no guidelines provided on which specimen to test or which scoring method to use. We performed a comprehensive study evaluating the variation in Ki-67 expression in breast specimens from 50 consecutive patients who could have been eligible for abemaciclib therapy. Three pathologists with breast expertise each performed a blinded review with 3 different manual scoring methods [estimated (EST), unweighted (UNW), and weighted (WT) (WT recommended by the International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group)]. Quantitative image analysis (QIA) using the HALO platform was also performed. Three different specimen types [core needle biopsy (CNB) (n=63), resection (RES) (n=52), and axillary lymph node metastasis (ALN) (n=50)] were evaluated for each patient. The average Ki-67 for all specimens was 14.68% for EST, 14.46% for UNW, 14.15% for WT, and 11.15% for QIA. For the manual methods, the range between the lowest and highest Ki-67 for each specimen between the 3 pathologists was 8.44 for EST, 5.94 for WT, and 5.93 for UNW. The WT method limited interobserver variability with ICC1=0.959 (EST ICC1=0.922 and UNW=0.949). Using the aforementioned cutoff of Ki-67 ≥20% versus <20% to determine treatment eligibility, the averaged EST method yields 20 of 50 patients (40%) who would have been treatment-eligible, versus 15 (30%) for the UNW, 17 (34%) for the WT, and 12 (24%) for the QIA. There was no statistically significant difference in Ki-67 among the 3 specimen types. The average Ki-67 difference was 4.36 for CNB vs RES, 6.95 for CNB versus ALN, and RES versus ALN (P=0.93, 0.99, and 0.94, respectively). Our study concludes that further refinement in Ki-67 scoring is advisable to reduce clinically significant variation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology
Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology ANATOMY & MORPHOLOGY-MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
153
期刊介绍: ​Applied Immunohistochemistry & Molecular Morphology covers newly developed identification and detection technologies, and their applications in research and diagnosis for the applied immunohistochemist & molecular Morphologist. Official Journal of the International Society for Immunohistochemisty and Molecular Morphology​.
期刊最新文献
Loss of Cytokeratin 7 (CK7) Expression Can be Seen in Significant Proportion of Solid Papillary Carcinoma of Breast and Associated Invasive Component. The Impact of Type, Dose, and Duration of Prebiopsy Corticosteroids Use on Histomorphology and Immunohistochemical Stains in B-Cell Lymphoma: A Case-Control Study to Highlight the "Atypical" Cytoplasmic and Extra-Cellular Granular Staining Pattern of CD20. Immunohistochemical Investigation of the Proliferative Activity of Odontogenic Cysts and Tumors. Smooth Muscle Myosin Heavy Chain Expression in Nodal and Extranodal Follicular Dendritic Cell Sarcoma. The Relationship of PRAME Expression with Clinicopathologic Parameters and Immunologic Markers in Melanomas: In Silico Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1