Cargando…
Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review
Clinicians can use biomarkers to guide therapeutic decisions in estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer. One such biomarker is cellular proliferation as evaluated by Ki-67. This biomarker has been extensively studied and is easily assayed by histopathologists but it is not currently accepted...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer US
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3332349/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22048814 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1837-z |
_version_ | 1782230212047536128 |
---|---|
author | Luporsi, Elisabeth André, Fabrice Spyratos, Frédérique Martin, Pierre-Marie Jacquemier, Jocelyne Penault-Llorca, Frédérique Tubiana-Mathieu, Nicole Sigal-Zafrani, Brigitte Arnould, Laurent Gompel, Anne Egele, Caroline Poulet, Bruno Clough, Krishna B. Crouet, Hubert Fourquet, Alain Lefranc, Jean-Pierre Mathelin, Carole Rouyer, Nicolas Serin, Daniel Spielmann, Marc Haugh, Margaret Chenard, Marie-Pierre Brain, Etienne de Cremoux, Patricia Bellocq, Jean-Pierre |
author_facet | Luporsi, Elisabeth André, Fabrice Spyratos, Frédérique Martin, Pierre-Marie Jacquemier, Jocelyne Penault-Llorca, Frédérique Tubiana-Mathieu, Nicole Sigal-Zafrani, Brigitte Arnould, Laurent Gompel, Anne Egele, Caroline Poulet, Bruno Clough, Krishna B. Crouet, Hubert Fourquet, Alain Lefranc, Jean-Pierre Mathelin, Carole Rouyer, Nicolas Serin, Daniel Spielmann, Marc Haugh, Margaret Chenard, Marie-Pierre Brain, Etienne de Cremoux, Patricia Bellocq, Jean-Pierre |
author_sort | Luporsi, Elisabeth |
collection | PubMed |
description | Clinicians can use biomarkers to guide therapeutic decisions in estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer. One such biomarker is cellular proliferation as evaluated by Ki-67. This biomarker has been extensively studied and is easily assayed by histopathologists but it is not currently accepted as a standard. This review focuses on its prognostic and predictive value, and on methodological considerations for its measurement and the cut-points used for treatment decision. Data describing study design, patients’ characteristics, methods used and results were extracted from papers published between January 1990 and July 2010. In addition, the studies were assessed using the REMARK tool. Ki-67 is an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (HR 1.05–1.72) in multivariate analyses studies using samples from randomized clinical trials with secondary central analysis of the biomarker. The level of evidence (LOE) was judged to be I-B with the recently revised definition of Simon. However, standardization of the techniques and scoring methods are needed for the integration of this biomarker in everyday practice. Ki-67 was not found to be predictive for long-term follow-up after chemotherapy. Nevertheless, high KI-67 was found to be associated with immediate pathological complete response in the neoadjuvant setting, with an LOE of II-B. The REMARK score improved over time (with a range of 6–13/20 vs. 10–18/20, before and after 2005, respectively). KI-67 could be considered as a prognostic biomarker for therapeutic decision. It is assessed with a simple assay that could be standardized. However, international guidelines are needed for routine clinical use. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3332349 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | Springer US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-33323492012-05-14 Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review Luporsi, Elisabeth André, Fabrice Spyratos, Frédérique Martin, Pierre-Marie Jacquemier, Jocelyne Penault-Llorca, Frédérique Tubiana-Mathieu, Nicole Sigal-Zafrani, Brigitte Arnould, Laurent Gompel, Anne Egele, Caroline Poulet, Bruno Clough, Krishna B. Crouet, Hubert Fourquet, Alain Lefranc, Jean-Pierre Mathelin, Carole Rouyer, Nicolas Serin, Daniel Spielmann, Marc Haugh, Margaret Chenard, Marie-Pierre Brain, Etienne de Cremoux, Patricia Bellocq, Jean-Pierre Breast Cancer Res Treat Review Clinicians can use biomarkers to guide therapeutic decisions in estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer. One such biomarker is cellular proliferation as evaluated by Ki-67. This biomarker has been extensively studied and is easily assayed by histopathologists but it is not currently accepted as a standard. This review focuses on its prognostic and predictive value, and on methodological considerations for its measurement and the cut-points used for treatment decision. Data describing study design, patients’ characteristics, methods used and results were extracted from papers published between January 1990 and July 2010. In addition, the studies were assessed using the REMARK tool. Ki-67 is an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (HR 1.05–1.72) in multivariate analyses studies using samples from randomized clinical trials with secondary central analysis of the biomarker. The level of evidence (LOE) was judged to be I-B with the recently revised definition of Simon. However, standardization of the techniques and scoring methods are needed for the integration of this biomarker in everyday practice. Ki-67 was not found to be predictive for long-term follow-up after chemotherapy. Nevertheless, high KI-67 was found to be associated with immediate pathological complete response in the neoadjuvant setting, with an LOE of II-B. The REMARK score improved over time (with a range of 6–13/20 vs. 10–18/20, before and after 2005, respectively). KI-67 could be considered as a prognostic biomarker for therapeutic decision. It is assessed with a simple assay that could be standardized. However, international guidelines are needed for routine clinical use. Springer US 2011-11-03 2012-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3332349/ /pubmed/22048814 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1837-z Text en © Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011 |
spellingShingle | Review Luporsi, Elisabeth André, Fabrice Spyratos, Frédérique Martin, Pierre-Marie Jacquemier, Jocelyne Penault-Llorca, Frédérique Tubiana-Mathieu, Nicole Sigal-Zafrani, Brigitte Arnould, Laurent Gompel, Anne Egele, Caroline Poulet, Bruno Clough, Krishna B. Crouet, Hubert Fourquet, Alain Lefranc, Jean-Pierre Mathelin, Carole Rouyer, Nicolas Serin, Daniel Spielmann, Marc Haugh, Margaret Chenard, Marie-Pierre Brain, Etienne de Cremoux, Patricia Bellocq, Jean-Pierre Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review |
title | Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review |
title_full | Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review |
title_fullStr | Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review |
title_full_unstemmed | Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review |
title_short | Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review |
title_sort | ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3332349/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22048814 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1837-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT luporsielisabeth ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT andrefabrice ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT spyratosfrederique ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT martinpierremarie ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT jacquemierjocelyne ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT penaultllorcafrederique ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT tubianamathieunicole ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT sigalzafranibrigitte ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT arnouldlaurent ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT gompelanne ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT egelecaroline ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT pouletbruno ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT cloughkrishnab ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT crouethubert ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT fourquetalain ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT lefrancjeanpierre ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT mathelincarole ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT rouyernicolas ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT serindaniel ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT spielmannmarc ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT haughmargaret ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT chenardmariepierre ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT brainetienne ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT decremouxpatricia ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview AT bellocqjeanpierre ki67levelofevidenceandmethodologicalconsiderationsforitsroleintheclinicalmanagementofbreastcanceranalyticalandcriticalreview |