Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

How reliable is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of breast- and gynecopathologists


Varga, Zsuzsanna; Diebold, Joachim; Dommann-Scherrer, Corina; Frick, Harald; Kaup, Daniela; Obermann, Ellen; Noske, Aurelia; Ohlschlegel, Christian; Padberg, Barbara; Rakozy, Christiane; Sancho Oliver, Sara; Schobinger-Clement, Sylviane; Schreiber-Facklam, Heide; Singer, Gad; Tapia, Coya; Wagner, Urs; Mastropasqua, Mauro G; Viale, Giuseppe; Lehr, Hans-Anton (2012). How reliable is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of breast- and gynecopathologists. PLoS ONE, 7(5):e37379.

Abstract

Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer are increasingly based on the pathologist's assessment of tumor proliferation. The Swiss Working Group of Gyneco- and Breast Pathologists has surveyed inter- and intraobserver consistency of Ki-67-based proliferative fraction in breast carcinomas.
Methods
Five pathologists evaluated MIB-1-labeling index (LI) in ten breast carcinomas (G1, G2, G3) by counting and eyeballing. In the same way, 15 pathologists all over Switzerland then assessed MIB-1-LI on three G2 carcinomas, in self-selected or pre-defined areas of the tumors, comparing centrally immunostained slides with slides immunostained in the different laboratoires. To study intra-observer variability, the same tumors were re-examined 4 months later.
Results
The Kappa values for the first series of ten carcinomas of various degrees of differentiation showed good to very good agreement for MIB-1-LI (Kappa 0.56–0.72). However, we found very high inter-observer variabilities (Kappa 0.04–0.14) in the read-outs of the G2 carcinomas. It was not possible to explain the inconsistencies exclusively by any of the following factors: (i) pathologists' divergent definitions of what counts as a positive nucleus (ii) the mode of assessment (counting vs. eyeballing), (iii) immunostaining technique, and (iv) the selection of the tumor area in which to count. Despite intensive confrontation of all participating pathologists with the problem, inter-observer agreement did not improve when the same slides were re-examined 4 months later (Kappa 0.01–0.04) and intra-observer agreement was likewise poor (Kappa 0.00–0.35).
Conclusion
Assessment of mid-range Ki-67-LI suffers from high inter- and intra-observer variability. Oncologists should be aware of this caveat when using Ki-67-LI as a basis for treatment decisions in moderately differentiated breast carcinomas.

Abstract

Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer are increasingly based on the pathologist's assessment of tumor proliferation. The Swiss Working Group of Gyneco- and Breast Pathologists has surveyed inter- and intraobserver consistency of Ki-67-based proliferative fraction in breast carcinomas.
Methods
Five pathologists evaluated MIB-1-labeling index (LI) in ten breast carcinomas (G1, G2, G3) by counting and eyeballing. In the same way, 15 pathologists all over Switzerland then assessed MIB-1-LI on three G2 carcinomas, in self-selected or pre-defined areas of the tumors, comparing centrally immunostained slides with slides immunostained in the different laboratoires. To study intra-observer variability, the same tumors were re-examined 4 months later.
Results
The Kappa values for the first series of ten carcinomas of various degrees of differentiation showed good to very good agreement for MIB-1-LI (Kappa 0.56–0.72). However, we found very high inter-observer variabilities (Kappa 0.04–0.14) in the read-outs of the G2 carcinomas. It was not possible to explain the inconsistencies exclusively by any of the following factors: (i) pathologists' divergent definitions of what counts as a positive nucleus (ii) the mode of assessment (counting vs. eyeballing), (iii) immunostaining technique, and (iv) the selection of the tumor area in which to count. Despite intensive confrontation of all participating pathologists with the problem, inter-observer agreement did not improve when the same slides were re-examined 4 months later (Kappa 0.01–0.04) and intra-observer agreement was likewise poor (Kappa 0.00–0.35).
Conclusion
Assessment of mid-range Ki-67-LI suffers from high inter- and intra-observer variability. Oncologists should be aware of this caveat when using Ki-67-LI as a basis for treatment decisions in moderately differentiated breast carcinomas.

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
109 citations in Web of Science®
115 citations in Scopus®
180 citations in Microsoft Academic
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

309 downloads since deposited on 04 Jun 2012
21 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Institute of Pathology and Molecular Pathology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2012
Deposited On:04 Jun 2012 11:48
Last Modified:23 Sep 2018 05:26
Publisher:Public Library of Science (PLoS)
ISSN:1932-6203
OA Status:Gold
Free access at:PubMed ID. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037379
PubMed ID:22662150

Download

Download PDF  'How reliable is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of breast- and gynecopathologists'.
Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 2MB
View at publisher
Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)