Cargando…

Prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer: a centralised evaluation of 8088 patients from 10 study groups

BACKGROUND: The value of KI67 in breast cancer prognostication has been questioned due to concerns on the analytical validity of visual KI67 assessment and methodological limitations of published studies. Here, we investigate the prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in a large, multicentre stu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abubakar, Mustapha, Orr, Nick, Daley, Frances, Coulson, Penny, Ali, H. Raza, Blows, Fiona, Benitez, Javier, Milne, Roger, Brenner, Herman, Stegmaier, Christa, Mannermaa, Arto, Chang-Claude, Jenny, Rudolph, Anja, Sinn, Peter, Couch, Fergus J., Devilee, Peter, Tollenaar, Rob A. E. M., Seynaeve, Caroline, Figueroa, Jonine, Sherman, Mark E., Lissowska, Jolanta, Hewitt, Stephen, Eccles, Diana, Hooning, Maartje J., Hollestelle, Antoinette, Martens, John W. M., van Deurzen, Carolien H. M., Investigators, kConFab, Bolla, Manjeet K., Wang, Qin, Jones, Michael, Schoemaker, Minouk, Wesseling, Jelle, van Leeuwen, Flora E., Van ‘t Veer, Laura, Easton, Douglas, Swerdlow, Anthony J., Dowsett, Mitch, Pharoah, Paul D., Schmidt, Marjanka K., Garcia-Closas, Montserrat
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5070183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27756439
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0765-6
_version_ 1782461090480783360
author Abubakar, Mustapha
Orr, Nick
Daley, Frances
Coulson, Penny
Ali, H. Raza
Blows, Fiona
Benitez, Javier
Milne, Roger
Brenner, Herman
Stegmaier, Christa
Mannermaa, Arto
Chang-Claude, Jenny
Rudolph, Anja
Sinn, Peter
Couch, Fergus J.
Devilee, Peter
Tollenaar, Rob A. E. M.
Seynaeve, Caroline
Figueroa, Jonine
Sherman, Mark E.
Lissowska, Jolanta
Hewitt, Stephen
Eccles, Diana
Hooning, Maartje J.
Hollestelle, Antoinette
Martens, John W. M.
van Deurzen, Carolien H. M.
Investigators, kConFab
Bolla, Manjeet K.
Wang, Qin
Jones, Michael
Schoemaker, Minouk
Wesseling, Jelle
van Leeuwen, Flora E.
Van ‘t Veer, Laura
Easton, Douglas
Swerdlow, Anthony J.
Dowsett, Mitch
Pharoah, Paul D.
Schmidt, Marjanka K.
Garcia-Closas, Montserrat
author_facet Abubakar, Mustapha
Orr, Nick
Daley, Frances
Coulson, Penny
Ali, H. Raza
Blows, Fiona
Benitez, Javier
Milne, Roger
Brenner, Herman
Stegmaier, Christa
Mannermaa, Arto
Chang-Claude, Jenny
Rudolph, Anja
Sinn, Peter
Couch, Fergus J.
Devilee, Peter
Tollenaar, Rob A. E. M.
Seynaeve, Caroline
Figueroa, Jonine
Sherman, Mark E.
Lissowska, Jolanta
Hewitt, Stephen
Eccles, Diana
Hooning, Maartje J.
Hollestelle, Antoinette
Martens, John W. M.
van Deurzen, Carolien H. M.
Investigators, kConFab
Bolla, Manjeet K.
Wang, Qin
Jones, Michael
Schoemaker, Minouk
Wesseling, Jelle
van Leeuwen, Flora E.
Van ‘t Veer, Laura
Easton, Douglas
Swerdlow, Anthony J.
Dowsett, Mitch
Pharoah, Paul D.
Schmidt, Marjanka K.
Garcia-Closas, Montserrat
author_sort Abubakar, Mustapha
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The value of KI67 in breast cancer prognostication has been questioned due to concerns on the analytical validity of visual KI67 assessment and methodological limitations of published studies. Here, we investigate the prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in a large, multicentre study, and compare this with pathologists’ visual scores available in a subset of patients. METHODS: We utilised 143 tissue microarrays containing 15,313 tumour tissue cores from 8088 breast cancer patients in 10 collaborating studies. A total of 1401 deaths occurred during a median follow-up of 7.5 years. Centralised KI67 assessment was performed using an automated scoring protocol. The relationship of KI67 levels with 10-year breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) was investigated using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard regression models adjusted for known prognostic factors. RESULTS: Patients in the highest quartile of KI67 (>12 % positive KI67 cells) had a worse 10-year BCSS than patients in the lower three quartiles. This association was statistically significant for ER-positive patients (hazard ratio (HR) (95 % CI) at baseline = 1.96 (1.31–2.93); P = 0.001) but not for ER-negative patients (1.23 (0.86–1.77); P = 0.248) (P-heterogeneity = 0.064). In spite of differences in characteristics of the study populations, the estimates of HR were consistent across all studies (P-heterogeneity = 0.941 for ER-positive and P-heterogeneity = 0.866 for ER-negative). Among ER-positive cancers, KI67 was associated with worse prognosis in both node-negative (2.47 (1.16–5.27)) and node-positive (1.74 (1.05–2.86)) tumours (P-heterogeneity = 0.671). Further classification according to ER, PR and HER2 showed statistically significant associations with prognosis among hormone receptor-positive patients regardless of HER2 status (P-heterogeneity = 0.270) and among triple-negative patients (1.70 (1.02–2.84)). Model fit parameters were similar for visual and automated measures of KI67 in a subset of 2440 patients with information from both sources. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this large-scale multicentre analysis with centrally generated automated KI67 scores show strong evidence in support of a prognostic value for automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer. Given the advantages of automated scoring in terms of its potential for standardisation, reproducibility and throughput, automated methods appear to be promising alternatives to visual scoring for KI67 assessment. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13058-016-0765-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5070183
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50701832016-10-24 Prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer: a centralised evaluation of 8088 patients from 10 study groups Abubakar, Mustapha Orr, Nick Daley, Frances Coulson, Penny Ali, H. Raza Blows, Fiona Benitez, Javier Milne, Roger Brenner, Herman Stegmaier, Christa Mannermaa, Arto Chang-Claude, Jenny Rudolph, Anja Sinn, Peter Couch, Fergus J. Devilee, Peter Tollenaar, Rob A. E. M. Seynaeve, Caroline Figueroa, Jonine Sherman, Mark E. Lissowska, Jolanta Hewitt, Stephen Eccles, Diana Hooning, Maartje J. Hollestelle, Antoinette Martens, John W. M. van Deurzen, Carolien H. M. Investigators, kConFab Bolla, Manjeet K. Wang, Qin Jones, Michael Schoemaker, Minouk Wesseling, Jelle van Leeuwen, Flora E. Van ‘t Veer, Laura Easton, Douglas Swerdlow, Anthony J. Dowsett, Mitch Pharoah, Paul D. Schmidt, Marjanka K. Garcia-Closas, Montserrat Breast Cancer Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The value of KI67 in breast cancer prognostication has been questioned due to concerns on the analytical validity of visual KI67 assessment and methodological limitations of published studies. Here, we investigate the prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in a large, multicentre study, and compare this with pathologists’ visual scores available in a subset of patients. METHODS: We utilised 143 tissue microarrays containing 15,313 tumour tissue cores from 8088 breast cancer patients in 10 collaborating studies. A total of 1401 deaths occurred during a median follow-up of 7.5 years. Centralised KI67 assessment was performed using an automated scoring protocol. The relationship of KI67 levels with 10-year breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) was investigated using Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazard regression models adjusted for known prognostic factors. RESULTS: Patients in the highest quartile of KI67 (>12 % positive KI67 cells) had a worse 10-year BCSS than patients in the lower three quartiles. This association was statistically significant for ER-positive patients (hazard ratio (HR) (95 % CI) at baseline = 1.96 (1.31–2.93); P = 0.001) but not for ER-negative patients (1.23 (0.86–1.77); P = 0.248) (P-heterogeneity = 0.064). In spite of differences in characteristics of the study populations, the estimates of HR were consistent across all studies (P-heterogeneity = 0.941 for ER-positive and P-heterogeneity = 0.866 for ER-negative). Among ER-positive cancers, KI67 was associated with worse prognosis in both node-negative (2.47 (1.16–5.27)) and node-positive (1.74 (1.05–2.86)) tumours (P-heterogeneity = 0.671). Further classification according to ER, PR and HER2 showed statistically significant associations with prognosis among hormone receptor-positive patients regardless of HER2 status (P-heterogeneity = 0.270) and among triple-negative patients (1.70 (1.02–2.84)). Model fit parameters were similar for visual and automated measures of KI67 in a subset of 2440 patients with information from both sources. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this large-scale multicentre analysis with centrally generated automated KI67 scores show strong evidence in support of a prognostic value for automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer. Given the advantages of automated scoring in terms of its potential for standardisation, reproducibility and throughput, automated methods appear to be promising alternatives to visual scoring for KI67 assessment. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13058-016-0765-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-10-18 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5070183/ /pubmed/27756439 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0765-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Abubakar, Mustapha
Orr, Nick
Daley, Frances
Coulson, Penny
Ali, H. Raza
Blows, Fiona
Benitez, Javier
Milne, Roger
Brenner, Herman
Stegmaier, Christa
Mannermaa, Arto
Chang-Claude, Jenny
Rudolph, Anja
Sinn, Peter
Couch, Fergus J.
Devilee, Peter
Tollenaar, Rob A. E. M.
Seynaeve, Caroline
Figueroa, Jonine
Sherman, Mark E.
Lissowska, Jolanta
Hewitt, Stephen
Eccles, Diana
Hooning, Maartje J.
Hollestelle, Antoinette
Martens, John W. M.
van Deurzen, Carolien H. M.
Investigators, kConFab
Bolla, Manjeet K.
Wang, Qin
Jones, Michael
Schoemaker, Minouk
Wesseling, Jelle
van Leeuwen, Flora E.
Van ‘t Veer, Laura
Easton, Douglas
Swerdlow, Anthony J.
Dowsett, Mitch
Pharoah, Paul D.
Schmidt, Marjanka K.
Garcia-Closas, Montserrat
Prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer: a centralised evaluation of 8088 patients from 10 study groups
title Prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer: a centralised evaluation of 8088 patients from 10 study groups
title_full Prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer: a centralised evaluation of 8088 patients from 10 study groups
title_fullStr Prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer: a centralised evaluation of 8088 patients from 10 study groups
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer: a centralised evaluation of 8088 patients from 10 study groups
title_short Prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer: a centralised evaluation of 8088 patients from 10 study groups
title_sort prognostic value of automated ki67 scoring in breast cancer: a centralised evaluation of 8088 patients from 10 study groups
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5070183/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27756439
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0765-6
work_keys_str_mv AT abubakarmustapha prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT orrnick prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT daleyfrances prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT coulsonpenny prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT alihraza prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT blowsfiona prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT benitezjavier prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT milneroger prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT brennerherman prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT stegmaierchrista prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT mannermaaarto prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT changclaudejenny prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT rudolphanja prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT sinnpeter prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT couchfergusj prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT devileepeter prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT tollenaarrobaem prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT seynaevecaroline prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT figueroajonine prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT shermanmarke prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT lissowskajolanta prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT hewittstephen prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT ecclesdiana prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT hooningmaartjej prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT hollestelleantoinette prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT martensjohnwm prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT vandeurzencarolienhm prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT investigatorskconfab prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT bollamanjeetk prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT wangqin prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT jonesmichael prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT schoemakerminouk prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT wesselingjelle prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT vanleeuwenflorae prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT vantveerlaura prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT eastondouglas prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT swerdlowanthonyj prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT dowsettmitch prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT pharoahpauld prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT schmidtmarjankak prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups
AT garciaclosasmontserrat prognosticvalueofautomatedki67scoringinbreastcanceracentralisedevaluationof8088patientsfrom10studygroups