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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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