UK NEQAS ICC & ISH Ki-67 Data Reveal Differences in Performance of Primary Antibody Clones.
Journal
Applied immunohistochemistry & molecular morphology : AIMM
ISSN: 1533-4058
Titre abrégé: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100888796
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2021
01 02 2021
Historique:
received:
08
06
2020
accepted:
16
11
2020
pubmed:
19
12
2020
medline:
30
10
2021
entrez:
18
12
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We examined data from 374 laboratories staining for Ki-67 as part of external quality assessment over 8 runs between 2013 and 2017 (total data sets=2601). One of 5 primary antibodies was used for 94.8% of submissions, with MIB-1 (Agilent Dako) comprising 58.8% of the total. Examining assessment score as a continuous variable showed the 30-9 (Ventana) and K2 (Leica Biosystems) clones were associated with the highest mean scores (17.0; 95% confidence interval, 16.8-17.2 and 16.3; 95% confidence interval, 15.9-16.6, respectively). Stain quality was not significantly different between them. Both were associated with significantly better staining compared with MIB-1 (Agilent Dako), MM1 (Leica Biosystems), and SP6 from various suppliers (P<0.05). Similarly, categorical assessment of "Good" versus "Not good" staining quality showed that the 30-9 and K2 clones were both significantly associated with "Good" staining (both P<0.001). Other methodological parameters were examined for significant primary antibody-specific effects; none were seen for 30-9, K2, or SP6. The MM1 clone was more likely to be associated with good quality staining when it was used with Leica Biosystems sourced antigen retrieval, detection, and platform, all statistically significant at P<0.01. MIB-1 was more likely to be associated with good quality staining results when it was used with Agilent Dako antigen retrieval, detection, and staining platforms (P<0.0001), and less likely at the same significance level when used with Leica Biosystems reagents and equipment. The data presented here show the importance of not just primary antibody choice but also matching that choice to other methodological factors.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33337635
doi: 10.1097/PAI.0000000000000899
pii: 00129039-202102000-00002
pmc: PMC7993918
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antibodies, Monoclonal
0
Antibodies, Neoplasm
0
Ki-67 Antigen
0
MKI67 protein, human
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
86-94Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Références
Denkert C, Budczies J, von Minckwitz G, et al. Strategies for developing Ki67 as a useful biomarker in breast cancer. Breast. 2015;24(suppl 2):S67–S72.
Penault-Llorca F, Radosevic-Robin N. Ki67 assessment in breast cancer: an update. Pathology. 2017;49:166–171.
Dowsett M, Dunbier AK. Emerging biomarkers and new understanding of traditional markers in personalized therapy for breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:8019–8026.
Focke CM, Burger H, van Diest PJ, et al. Interlaboratory variability of Ki67 staining in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2017;84:219–227.
Focke CM, van Diest PJ, Decker T. St Gallen 2015 subtyping of luminal breast cancers: impact of different Ki67-based proliferation assessment methods. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;159:257–263.
Leung SCY, Nielsen TO, Zabaglo LA, et al. Analytical validation of a standardised scoring protocol for Ki67 immunohistochemistry on breast cancer excision whole sections: an international multicentre collaboration. Histopathology. 2019;75:225–235.
Leung SCY, Nielsen TO, Zabaglo L, et al. Analytical validation of a standardized scoring protocol for Ki67: phase 3 of an international multicenter collaboration. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2016;2:16014.
Ekholm M, Grabau D, Bendahl PO, et al. Highly reproducible results of breast cancer biomarkers when analysed in accordance with national guidelines—a Swedish survey with central re-assessment. Acta Oncol. 2015;54:1040–1048.
Acs B, Pelekanou V, Bai Y, et al. Ki67 reproducibility using digital image analysis: an inter-platform and inter-operator study. Lab Invest. 2019;99:107–117.
Koopman T, Buikema HJ, Hollema H, et al. Digital image analysis of Ki67 proliferation index in breast cancer using virtual dual staining on whole tissue sections: clinical validation and inter-platform agreement. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;169:33–42.
Smith IE, Robertson J, Kilburn L, et al. Long-term outcome and prognostic value of Ki67 after peri-operative aromatase inhibitor therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone sensitive early breast cancer: The POETIC (peri-operative endocrine therapy–individualising care) trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020:1443–1454.
Abubakar M, Orr N, Daley F, et al. Prognostic value of automated KI67 scoring in breast cancer: a centralised evaluation of 8088 patients from 10 study groups. Breast Cancer Res. 2016;18:104.
Polley MY, Leung SC, McShane LM, et al. An international Ki67 reproducibility study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1897–1906.
Cattoretti G, Becker MH, Key G, et al. Monoclonal antibodies against recombinant parts of the Ki-67 antigen (MIB 1 and MIB 3) detect proliferating cells in microwave-processed formalin-fixed paraffin sections. J Pathol. 1992;168:357–363.
Gerdes J, Dallenbach F, Lennert K, et al. Growth fractions in malignant non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL) as determined in situ with the monoclonal antibody Ki-67. Hematol Oncol. 1984;2:365–371.
Roge R, Nielsen S, Riber-Hansen R, et al. Impact of primary antibody clone, format, and stainer platform on Ki67 proliferation indices in breast carcinomas. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2019;27:732–739.