Cargando…

Prognostic potential of automated Ki67 evaluation in breast cancer: different hot spot definitions versus true global score

PURPOSE: The proliferation-associated biomarker Ki67 has potential utility in breast cancer, including aiding decisions based on prognosis, but has unacceptable inter- and intralaboratory variability. The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic potential for Ki67 hot spot scoring and global...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Robertson, Stephanie, Acs, Balazs, Lippert, Michael, Hartman, Johan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer US 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7376512/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32572716
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05752-w
_version_ 1783562057852911616
author Robertson, Stephanie
Acs, Balazs
Lippert, Michael
Hartman, Johan
author_facet Robertson, Stephanie
Acs, Balazs
Lippert, Michael
Hartman, Johan
author_sort Robertson, Stephanie
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: The proliferation-associated biomarker Ki67 has potential utility in breast cancer, including aiding decisions based on prognosis, but has unacceptable inter- and intralaboratory variability. The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic potential for Ki67 hot spot scoring and global scoring using different digital image analysis (DIA) platforms. METHODS: An ER+/HER2− breast cancer cohort (n = 139) with whole slide images of sequential sections stained for hematoxylin–eosin, pancytokeratin and Ki67, was analyzed using two DIA platforms. For hot spot analysis virtual dual staining was applied, aligning pancytokeratin and Ki67 images and 22 hot spot algorithms with different features were designed. For global Ki67 scoring an automated QuPath algorithm was applied on Ki67-stained whole slide images. Clinicopathological data included overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) along with PAM50 molecular subtypes. RESULTS: We show significant variations in Ki67 hot spot scoring depending on number of included tumor cells, hot spot size, shape and location. The higher the number of scored tumor cells, the higher the reproducibility of Ki67 proliferation values. Hot spot scoring had greater prognostic potential for RFS in high versus low Ki67 subgroups (hazard ratio (HR) 6.88, CI 2.07–22.87, p = 0.002), compared to global scoring (HR 3.13, CI 1.41–6.96, p = 0.005). Regarding OS, global scoring (HR 7.46, CI 2.46–22.58, p < 0.001) was slightly better than hot spot scoring (HR 6.93, CI 1.61–29.91, p = 0.009). In adjusted multivariate analysis, only global scoring was an independent prognostic marker for both RFS and OS. In addition, global Ki67-based surrogate subtypes reached higher concordance with PAM50 molecular subtype for luminal A and B tumors (66.3% concordance rate, κ = 0.345), than using hot spot scoring (55.8% concordance rate, κ = 0.250). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the automated global Ki67 scoring is feasible and shows clinical validity, which, however, needs to be confirmed in a larger cohort before clinical implementation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05752-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7376512
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer US
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73765122020-07-27 Prognostic potential of automated Ki67 evaluation in breast cancer: different hot spot definitions versus true global score Robertson, Stephanie Acs, Balazs Lippert, Michael Hartman, Johan Breast Cancer Res Treat Epidemiology PURPOSE: The proliferation-associated biomarker Ki67 has potential utility in breast cancer, including aiding decisions based on prognosis, but has unacceptable inter- and intralaboratory variability. The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic potential for Ki67 hot spot scoring and global scoring using different digital image analysis (DIA) platforms. METHODS: An ER+/HER2− breast cancer cohort (n = 139) with whole slide images of sequential sections stained for hematoxylin–eosin, pancytokeratin and Ki67, was analyzed using two DIA platforms. For hot spot analysis virtual dual staining was applied, aligning pancytokeratin and Ki67 images and 22 hot spot algorithms with different features were designed. For global Ki67 scoring an automated QuPath algorithm was applied on Ki67-stained whole slide images. Clinicopathological data included overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) along with PAM50 molecular subtypes. RESULTS: We show significant variations in Ki67 hot spot scoring depending on number of included tumor cells, hot spot size, shape and location. The higher the number of scored tumor cells, the higher the reproducibility of Ki67 proliferation values. Hot spot scoring had greater prognostic potential for RFS in high versus low Ki67 subgroups (hazard ratio (HR) 6.88, CI 2.07–22.87, p = 0.002), compared to global scoring (HR 3.13, CI 1.41–6.96, p = 0.005). Regarding OS, global scoring (HR 7.46, CI 2.46–22.58, p < 0.001) was slightly better than hot spot scoring (HR 6.93, CI 1.61–29.91, p = 0.009). In adjusted multivariate analysis, only global scoring was an independent prognostic marker for both RFS and OS. In addition, global Ki67-based surrogate subtypes reached higher concordance with PAM50 molecular subtype for luminal A and B tumors (66.3% concordance rate, κ = 0.345), than using hot spot scoring (55.8% concordance rate, κ = 0.250). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the automated global Ki67 scoring is feasible and shows clinical validity, which, however, needs to be confirmed in a larger cohort before clinical implementation. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-020-05752-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer US 2020-06-22 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7376512/ /pubmed/32572716 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05752-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Epidemiology
Robertson, Stephanie
Acs, Balazs
Lippert, Michael
Hartman, Johan
Prognostic potential of automated Ki67 evaluation in breast cancer: different hot spot definitions versus true global score
title Prognostic potential of automated Ki67 evaluation in breast cancer: different hot spot definitions versus true global score
title_full Prognostic potential of automated Ki67 evaluation in breast cancer: different hot spot definitions versus true global score
title_fullStr Prognostic potential of automated Ki67 evaluation in breast cancer: different hot spot definitions versus true global score
title_full_unstemmed Prognostic potential of automated Ki67 evaluation in breast cancer: different hot spot definitions versus true global score
title_short Prognostic potential of automated Ki67 evaluation in breast cancer: different hot spot definitions versus true global score
title_sort prognostic potential of automated ki67 evaluation in breast cancer: different hot spot definitions versus true global score
topic Epidemiology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7376512/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32572716
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05752-w
work_keys_str_mv AT robertsonstephanie prognosticpotentialofautomatedki67evaluationinbreastcancerdifferenthotspotdefinitionsversustrueglobalscore
AT acsbalazs prognosticpotentialofautomatedki67evaluationinbreastcancerdifferenthotspotdefinitionsversustrueglobalscore
AT lippertmichael prognosticpotentialofautomatedki67evaluationinbreastcancerdifferenthotspotdefinitionsversustrueglobalscore
AT hartmanjohan prognosticpotentialofautomatedki67evaluationinbreastcancerdifferenthotspotdefinitionsversustrueglobalscore