Peer-to-peer validation of Ki-67 scoring in a pathology quality circle as a tool to assess interobserver variability: are we better than we thought?
Ki‐67
Round Robin
immunohistochemistry
interlaboratory reliability
Journal
APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica
ISSN: 1600-0463
Titre abrégé: APMIS
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 8803400
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jul 2024
01 Jul 2024
Historique:
received:
27
02
2024
accepted:
17
06
2024
medline:
2
7
2024
pubmed:
2
7
2024
entrez:
1
7
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Ki-67, a nuclear protein expressed in all stages of cellular proliferation, is a valuable tool to assess tumor proliferation and has been linked to more aggressive tumor behavior. However, interlaboratory staining heterogeneity and inter-observer variability challenge its reproducibility. Round Robin tests are a suitable tool to standardize and harmonize immunohistochemical and molecular analyses in histopathology. The study investigates the interrater and interlaboratory reproducibility of Ki-67-scoring using both manual and automated approaches. Unstained TMA slides comprising diverse tumor types (breast cancer, neuroendocrine tumors, lymphomas, and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma) were distributed to six pathology laboratories, each employing their routine staining protocols. Manual and automated scoring methods were applied, and interrater and interlaboratory agreement assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). The results highlight good-to-excellent reliability overall, with automated scoring demonstrating higher consistency (ICC 0.955) than manual scoring (ICC 0.871). Results were more variable when looking at the individual entities. Reliability remained good for lymphomas (ICC 0.878) and breast cancer (ICC 0.784) and was poor in well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors (ICC 0.354). This study clearly advocates standardized practices and training to ensure consistency in Ki-67-assessment, and it demonstrates that this can be achieved in a peer-to-peer approach in local quality-circles.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Author(s). APMIS published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Scandinavian Societies for Pathology, Medical Microbiology and Immunology.
Références
Gerdes J, Lemke H, Baisch H, Wacker HH, Schwab U, Stein H. Cell cycle analysis of a cell proliferation‐associated human nuclear antigen defined by the monoclonal antibody Ki‐67. J Immunol. 1984;133:1710–1715.
Gerdes J, Schwab U, Lemke H, Stein H. Production of a mouse monoclonal antibody reactive with a human nuclear antigen associated with cell proliferation. Int J Cancer. 1983;31:13–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.2910310104
Schlüter C, Duchrow M, Wohlenberg C, Becker MH, Key G, Flad HD, et al. The cell proliferation‐associated antigen of antibody Ki‐67: a very large, ubiquitous nuclear protein with numerous repeated elements, representing a new kind of cell cycle‐maintaining proteins. J Cell Biol. 1993;123:513–522. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.123.3.513
Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell. 2011;144:646–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2011.02.013
Tretiakova MS, Wei W, Boyer HD, Newcomb LF, Hawley S, Auman H, et al. Prognostic value of Ki67 in localized prostate carcinoma: a multi‐institutional study of 1000 prostatectomies. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis. 2016;19:264–270. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2016.12
Denkert C, Budczies J, von Minckwitz G, Wienert S, Loibl S, Klauschen F. Strategies for developing Ki67 as a useful biomarker in breast cancer. Breast. 2015;24 Suppl 2:S67–S72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2015.07.017
Pan D, Wei K, Ling Y, Su S, Zhu M, Chen G. The prognostic role of Ki‐67/MIB‐1 in cervical cancer: a systematic review with meta‐analysis. Med Sci Monit. 2015;21:882–889. https://doi.org/10.12659/MSM.892807
Chen W‐J, He D‐S, Tang R‐X, Ren F‐H, Chen G. Ki‐67 is a valuable prognostic factor in gliomas: evidence from a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2015;16:411–420. https://doi.org/10.7314/apjcp.2015.16.2.411
Chalkidou A, Landau DB, Odell EW, Cornelius VR, O'Doherty MJ, Marsden PK. Correlation between Ki‐67 immunohistochemistry and 18F‐fluorothymidine uptake in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:3499–3513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.05.001
Szczuraszek K, Mazur G, Jeleń M, Dziegiel P, Surowiak P, Zabel M. Prognostic significance of Ki‐67 antigen expression in non‐Hodgkin's lymphomas. Anticancer Res. 2008;28:1113–1118.
Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A'Hern R, Bartlett J, Coombes RC, Cuzick J, et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the international Ki67 in breast cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1656–1664. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr393
Denkert C, Budczies J, Regan MM, Loibl S, Dell'Orto P, von Minckwitz G, et al. Clinical and analytical validation of Ki‐67 in 9069 patients from IBCSG VIII + IX, BIG1‐98 and GeparTrio trial: systematic modulation of interobserver variance in a comprehensive in silico ring trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;176:557–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549‐018‐05112‐9
Polley M‐YC, Leung SC, McShane LM, Gao D, Hugh JC, Mastropasqua MG, et al. An international Ki67 reproducibility study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1897–1906. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt306
Lokuhetty D, White VA, Watanabe R, Cree IA, editors. Breast tumours. 5th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2019.
Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e.V. (AWMF). S3‐Leitlinie Mammakarzinom. Langversion 4.4. AWMF Registernummer 032‐045OL. 2021.
Loibl S, André F, Bachelot T, Barrios CH, Bergh J, Burstein HJ, et al. Early breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow‐up†. Ann Oncol. 2023;35:159–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2023.11.016
Abele N, Tiemann K, Krech T, Wellmann A, Schaaf C, Länger F, et al. Noninferiority of artificial intelligence‐assisted analysis of Ki‐67 and estrogen/progesterone receptor in breast cancer routine diagnostics. Mod Pathol. 2023;36:100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.modpat.2022.100033
Jöhrens K, Grassow M, Baretton G, Sperling F. Ringversuche – ein zentrales Mittel der externen qualitätssicherung. Pathologie (Heidelb). 2022;43:346–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292‐022‐01102‐3
Qualitätssicherungs‐Initiative Pathologie QuIP. QuIP. Available from: https://www.quip.eu/de_DE/ringversuche. Accessed 29 Jan 2024.
Nielsen TO, Leung SCY, Rimm DL, Dodson A, Acs B, Badve S, et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: updated recommendations from the international Ki67 in breast cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113:808–819. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa201
NordiQC. Nordic immunohistochemical quality control (NordiQC). 2024. Available from: https://www.nordiqc.org/index.php. Accessed 29 Jan 2024.
Dufraing K, Fenizia F, Torlakovic E, Wolstenholme N, Deans ZC, Rouleau E, et al. Biomarker testing in oncology – requirements for organizing external quality assessment programs to improve the performance of laboratory testing: revision of an expert opinion paper on behalf of IQNPath ABSL. Virchows Arch. 2021;478:553–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428‐020‐02928‐z
van Krieken JH, Normanno N, Blackhall F, Boone E, Botti G, Carneiro F, et al. Guideline on the requirements of external quality assessment programs in molecular pathology. Virchows Arch. 2013;462:27–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428‐012‐1354‐4
Jöhrens K, Fischer J, Möbs M, Junker K, Kirfel J, Perner S, et al. Nachweis der BRAF‐V600E‐mutation beim metastasierten kolorektalen Karzinom: Ein QuIP‐Ringversuch. Pathologe. 2022;43:126–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292‐021‐01022‐8
Jöhrens K, Dietmaier W, Utpatel K, Dietel M, Rüschoff J, Fischer J. Qualitätssicherung in der dMMR‐ und MSI‐Diagnostik. Pathologe. 2021;42:405–413. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292‐021‐00930‐z
Raap M, Ließem S, Rüschoff J, Fisseler‐Eckhoff A, Reiner A, Dirnhofer S, et al. Quality assurance trials for Ki67 assessment in pathology. Virchows Arch. 2017;471:501–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428‐017‐2142‐y
International Agency for Research on Cancer, editor. Digestive system tumours. 5th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2019.
Gioacchini FM, Alicandri‐Ciufelli M, Magliulo G, Rubini C, Presutti L, Re M. The clinical relevance of Ki‐67 expression in laryngeal squamous cell carcinoma. Eur Arch Otorrinolaringol. 2015;272:1569–1576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405‐014‐3117‐0
Almangush A, Heikkinen I, Mäkitie AA, Coletta RD, Läärä E, Leivo I, et al. Prognostic biomarkers for oral tongue squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Br J Cancer. 2017;117:856–866. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.244
Bankhead P, Loughrey MB, Fernández JA, Dombrowski Y, McArt DG, Dunne PD, et al. QuPath: open source software for digital pathology image analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:16878. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐017‐17204‐5
R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. In MSOR Connections. 2014;1. Available from: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:215755663
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting Intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
Røge R, Nielsen S, Riber‐Hansen R, Vyberg M. Ki‐67 proliferation index in breast cancer as a function of assessment method: a NordiQC experience. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2021;29:99–104. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000000846
Polley M‐YC, Leung SCY, Gao D, Mastropasqua MG, Zabaglo LA, Bartlett JMS, et al. An international study to increase concordance in Ki67 scoring. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:778–786. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2015.38
Varga Z, Diebold J, Dommann‐Scherrer C, Frick H, Kaup D, Noske A, et al. 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. 2012;7:e37379. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037379
Acs B, Pelekanou V, Bai Y, Martinez‐Morilla S, Toki M, Leung SCY, et al. Ki67 reproducibility using digital image analysis: an inter‐platform and inter‐operator study. Lab Investig. 2019;99:107–117. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41374‐018‐0123‐7
Kristiansen G, Schmid M. Application of computer‐generated images to train pattern recognition used in semiquantitative immunohistochemistry scoring. APMIS. 2022;130:26–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/apm.13188
Leung SCY, Nielsen TO, Zabaglo L, Arun I, Badve SS, Bane AL, et al. Analytical validation of a standardized scoring protocol for Ki67: phase 3 of an international multicenter collaboration. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2016;2:16014. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjbcancer.2016.14
WHO & International Agency for Research on Cancer, editor. WHO classification of tumours editorial board. Head and neck tumours. [Internet; beta version ahead of print]. WHO classification of tumours series, Vol 9. 5th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer. Available from: https://tumorclassification.iarc.who.int/chapters/52. Accessed 03 Feb 2024.
Reid MD, Bagci P, Ohike N, Saka B, Erbarut Seven I, Dursun N, et al. Calculation of the Ki67 index in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a comparative analysis of four counting methodologies. Mod Pathol. 2016;29:93. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2015.124
Park JH, Shin S‐J, Jeon N, Lim BJ. Clinicopathologic characteristics of neuroendocrine tumors with assessment by digital image analysis for Ki‐67 index with a focus on the gastroenteropancreatic tract: a single‐center study. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2023;16:225–234.
Rinke A, Wiedenmann B, Auernhammer C, Bartenstein P, Bartsch DK, Begum N, et al. S2k‐leitlinie neuroendokrine tumore. Z Gastroenterol. 2018;56:583–681. https://doi.org/10.1055/a‐0604‐2924
Haroske G, Zwönitzer R, Hufnagl P. Leitfaden des Bundesverbandes Deutscher Pathologen “Digitale Pathologie in der Diagnostik – Befunderstellung an digitalen Bildern”. Pathologe. 2018;39:250–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292‐018‐0528‐5
Focke CM, Bürger H, van Diest PJ, Finsterbusch K, Gläser D, Korsching E, et al. Interlaboratory variability of Ki67 staining in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2017;84:219–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.07.041
Ács B, Kulka J, Kovács KA, Teleki I, Tőkés AM, Meczker Á, et al. Comparison of 5 Ki‐67 antibodies regarding reproducibility and capacity to predict prognosis in breast cancer: does the antibody matter? Hum Pathol. 2017;65:31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2017.01.011
Røge R, Nielsen S, Riber‐Hansen R, Vyberg M. Impact of primary antibody clone, format, and Stainer platform on Ki67 proliferation indices in breast carcinomas. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2019;27:732–739. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000000799
Ahn S, Woo JW, Lee K, Park SY. HER2 status in breast cancer: changes in guidelines and complicating factors for interpretation. J Pathol Transl Med. 2020;54:34–44. https://doi.org/10.4132/jptm.2019.11.03
Jöhrens K, Rüschoff J. The challenge to the pathologist of PD‐L1 expression in tumor cells of non‐small‐cell lung cancer‐an overview. Curr Oncol. 2021;28:5227–5239. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol28060437
Walker RA, Bartlett JMS, Dowsett M, Ellis IO, Hanby AM, Jasani B, et al. HER2 testing in the UK: further update to recommendations. J Clin Pathol. 2008;61:818–824. https://doi.org/10.1136/jcp.2007.054866
Røge R, Nielsen S, Riber‐Hansen R, Vyberg M. Image analyses assessed cell lines as potential performance controls of Ki‐67 Immunostained slides. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2021;29:95–98. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000000845
Lanng MB, Møller CB, Andersen ASH, Pálsdóttir ÁA, Røge R, Østergaard LR, et al. Quality assessment of Ki67 staining using cell line proliferation index and stain intensity features. Cytometry A. 2019;95:381–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.23683
Iwuajoku V, Haas A, Ekici K, Khan MZ, Stögbauer F, Steiger K, et al. Digitalisierung der histopathologischen Routinediagnostik: dos and don'ts! Pathologie (Heidelb). 2024;45:98–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292‐023‐01291‐5
Bera K, Schalper KA, Rimm DL, Velcheti V, Madabhushi A. Artificial intelligence in digital pathology – new tools for diagnosis and precision oncology. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2019;16:703–715. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571‐019‐0252‐y
Jung M, Song SG, Cho SI, Shin S, Lee T, Jung W, et al. Augmented interpretation of HER2, ER, and PR in breast cancer by artificial intelligence analyzer: enhancing interobserver agreement through a reader study of 201 cases. Breast Cancer Res. 2024;26:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058‐024‐01784‐y
Löser H, Röttjer P, Paape M, Drebber U. Nutzen und Herausforderungen der Qualitätssicherung in der modernen Pathologie. Onkologe. 2021;27:1011–1015. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00761‐021‐01005‐7
Bragoni A, Gambella A, Pigozzi S, Grigolini M, Fiocca R, Mastracci L, et al. Quality control in diagnostic immunohistochemistry: integrated on‐slide positive controls. Histochem Cell Biol. 2017;148:569–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00418‐017‐1596‐y
Curelea D‐MS, Hartmann A, Várnai‐Händel A. Die akkreditierung in der pathologie und neuropathologie in Deutschland: rahmenbedingungen und voraussetzungen. Pathologie (Heidelb). 2022;43:334–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00292‐022‐01097‐x
College of American Pathologists. Proficiency testing (PT)/external quality assessment (EQA) programs process. Available from: https://www.cap.org/laboratory‐improvement/laboratories‐outside‐the‐usa/proficiency‐testing‐pt‐external‐quality‐assessment‐eqa‐programs/proficiency‐testing‐pt‐external‐quality‐assessment‐eqa‐programs‐process. Accessed 05 March 2024.
International Quality Network for Pathology. External quality assessment European Society of Pathology. 2015. Available from: https://www.iqnpath.org/esp‐qa/. Accessed 05 March 2024.
College of American Pathologists. Surveys and anatomic pathology education programs. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists; 2024. p. 283–314.
Qualitätssicherungs‐Initiative Pathologie QuIP. Ringversuche 2023. Zürich: Universitätsspital Zürich; 2023. p. 23–24.
Qualitätssicherungs‐initiative Pathologie QuIP. Ringversuche 2024. Bonn: Referenzinstitut für Bioanalytik; 2024. p. 22–23.
Fitzgibbons PL, Bradley LA, Fatheree LA, Alsabeh R, Fulton RS, Goldsmith JD, et al. Principles of analytic validation of immunohistochemical assays: guideline from the College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138:1432–1443. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2013‐0610‐CP
Lott RL, Riccelli PV, Sheppard EA, Wharton KA, Walk EE, Kennedy G, et al. Immunohistochemical validation of rare tissues and antigens with low frequency of occurrence: recommendations from the anatomic pathology patient interest association (APPIA). Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2021;29:327–334. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000000821