How reliable is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of Breast- and Gynecopathologists

Varga, Zsuzsanna; Diebold, Joachim; Dommann-Scherrer, Corina; Frick, Harald; Kaup, Daniela; Noske, Aurelia; Obermann, Ellen; Ohlschlegel, Christian; Padberg, Barbara; Rakozy, Christiane; Sancho Oliver, Sara; Schobinger-Clement, Sylviane; Schreiber-Facklam, Heide; Singer, Gad; Tapia, Coya; Wagner, Urs; Mastropasqua, Mauro G.; Viale, Giuseppe; Lehr, Hans-Anton (2012). How reliable is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of Breast- and Gynecopathologists. PLoS ONE, 7(5), e37379. Lawrence, Kans.: Public Library of Science 10.1371/journal.pone.0037379

[img]
Preview
Text
journal.pone.0037379.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY).

Download (2MB) | Preview

Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer are increasingly based on the pathologist's assessment of tumor proliferation. The Swiss Working Group of Gyneco- and Breast Pathologists has surveyed inter- and intraobserver consistency of Ki-67-based proliferative fraction in breast carcinomas. Methods Five pathologists evaluated MIB-1-labeling index (LI) in ten breast carcinomas (G1, G2, G3) by counting and eyeballing. In the same way, 15 pathologists all over Switzerland then assessed MIB-1-LI on three G2 carcinomas, in self-selected or pre-defined areas of the tumors, comparing centrally immunostained slides with slides immunostained in the different laboratoires. To study intra-observer variability, the same tumors were re-examined 4 months later. Results The Kappa values for the first series of ten carcinomas of various degrees of differentiation showed good to very good agreement for MIB-1-LI (Kappa 0.56–0.72). However, we found very high inter-observer variabilities (Kappa 0.04–0.14) in the read-outs of the G2 carcinomas. It was not possible to explain the inconsistencies exclusively by any of the following factors: (i) pathologists' divergent definitions of what counts as a positive nucleus (ii) the mode of assessment (counting vs. eyeballing), (iii) immunostaining technique, and (iv) the selection of the tumor area in which to count. Despite intensive confrontation of all participating pathologists with the problem, inter-observer agreement did not improve when the same slides were re-examined 4 months later (Kappa 0.01–0.04) and intra-observer agreement was likewise poor (Kappa 0.00–0.35). Conclusion Assessment of mid-range Ki-67-LI suffers from high inter- and intra-observer variability. Oncologists should be aware of this caveat when using Ki-67-LI as a basis for treatment decisions in moderately differentiated breast carcinomas.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Service Sector > Institute of Pathology

UniBE Contributor:

Tapia, Coya

ISSN:

1932-6203

Publisher:

Public Library of Science

Language:

English

Submitter:

Factscience Import

Date Deposited:

04 Oct 2013 14:32

Last Modified:

16 Dec 2014 07:45

Publisher DOI:

10.1371/journal.pone.0037379

PubMed ID:

22662150

Web of Science ID:

000305342300039

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.12449

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/12449 (FactScience: 218793)

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback