An International Ki67 Reproducibility Study
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 7 November 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Vol. 105 (24), 1897-1906
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt306
Abstract
In breast cancer, immunohistochemical assessment of proliferation using the marker Ki67 has potential use in both research and clinical management. However, lack of consistency across laboratories has limited Ki67’s value. A working group was assembled to devise a strategy to harmonize Ki67 analysis and increase scoring concordance. Toward that goal, we conducted a Ki67 reproducibility study. Eight laboratories received 100 breast cancer cases arranged into 1-mm core tissue microarrays—one set stained by the participating laboratory and one set stained by the central laboratory, both using antibody MIB-1. Each laboratory scored Ki67 as percentage of positively stained invasive tumor cells using its own method. Six laboratories repeated scoring of 50 locally stained cases on 3 different days. Sources of variation were analyzed using random effects models with log2-transformed measurements. Reproducibility was quantified by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and the approximate two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the true intraclass correlation coefficients in these experiments were provided. Intralaboratory reproducibility was high (ICC = 0.94; 95% CI = 0.93 to 0.97). Interlaboratory reproducibility was only moderate (central staining: ICC = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.47 to 0.78; local staining: ICC = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.68). Geometric mean of Ki67 values for each laboratory across the 100 cases ranged 7.1% to 23.9% with central staining and 6.1% to 30.1% with local staining. Factors contributing to interlaboratory discordance included tumor region selection, counting method, and subjective assessment of staining positivity. Formal counting methods gave more consistent results than visual estimation. Substantial variability in Ki67 scoring was observed among some of the world’s most experienced laboratories. Ki67 values and cutoffs for clinical decision-making cannot be transferred between laboratories without standardizing scoring methodology because analytical validity is limited.Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working GroupJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2011
- Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011Annals Of Oncology, 2011
- 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 Z1031Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2011
- Proliferative activity in human breast cancer: Ki-67 automated evaluation and the influence of different Ki-67 equivalent antibodiesDiagnostic Pathology, 2011
- Development and evaluation of a virtual microscopy application for automated assessment of Ki-67 expression in breast cancerBMC Clinical Pathology, 2011
- Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potentialThe Lancet Oncology, 2010
- Use of Archived Specimens in Evaluation of Prognostic and Predictive BiomarkersJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2009
- The Evaluation of Genomic Applications in Practice and Prevention (EGAPP) initiative: methods of the EGAPP Working GroupGenetics in Medicine, 2009
- American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 Update of Recommendations for the Use of Tumor Markers in Breast CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2007
- STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENTThe Lancet, 1986