Sinn Hans-Peter, Schneeweiss Andreas, Keller Marius, Schlombs Kornelia, Laible Mark, Seitz Julia, Lakis Sotirios, Veltrup Elke, Altevogt Peter, Eidt Sebastian, Wirtz Ralph M, Marmé Frederik
Institute of Pathology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 220-221, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
National Center for Tumor Diseases, University-Hospital Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 460, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
BMC Cancer. 2017 Feb 13;17(1):124. doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3111-1.
Proliferation may predict response to neoadjuvant therapy of breast cancer and is commonly assessed by manual scoring of slides stained by immunohistochemistry (IHC) for Ki-67 similar to ER and PgR. This method carries significant intra- and inter-observer variability. Automatic scoring of Ki-67 with digital image analysis (qIHC) or assessment of MKI67 gene expression with RT-qPCR may improve diagnostic accuracy.
Ki-67 IHC visual assessment was compared to the IHC nuclear tool (AperioTM) on core biopsies from a randomized neoadjuvant clinical trial. Expression of ESR1, PGR and MKI67 by RT-qPCR was performed on RNA extracted from the same formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue. Concordance between the three methods (vIHC, qIHC and RT-qPCR) was assessed for all 3 markers. The potential of Ki-67 IHC and RT-qPCR to predict pathological complete response (pCR) was evaluated using ROC analysis and non-parametric Mann-Whitney Test.
Correlation between methods (qIHC versus RT-qPCR) was high for ER and PgR (spearman´s r = 0.82, p < 0.0001 and r = 0.86, p < 0.0001, respectively) resulting in high levels of concordance using predefined cut-offs. When comparing qIHC of ER and PgR with RT-qPCR of ESR1 and PGR the overall agreement was 96.6 and 91.4%, respectively, while overall agreement of visual IHC with RT-qPCR was slightly lower for ER/ESR1 and PR/PGR (91.2 and 92.9%, respectively). In contrast, only a moderate correlation was observed between qIHC and RT-qPCR continuous data for Ki-67/MKI67 (Spearman's r = 0.50, p = 0.0001). Up to now no predictive cut-off for Ki-67 assessment by IHC has been established to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Setting the desired sensitivity at 100%, specificity for the prediction of pCR (ypT0ypN0) was significantly higher for mRNA than for protein (68.9% vs. 22.2%). Moreover, the proliferation levels in patients achieving a pCR versus not differed significantly using MKI67 RNA expression (Mann-Whitney p = 0.002), but not with qIHC of Ki-67 (Mann-Whitney p = 0.097) or vIHC of Ki-67 (p = 0.131).
Digital image analysis can successfully be implemented for assessing ER, PR and Ki-67. IHC for ER and PR reveals high concordance with RT-qPCR. However, RT-qPCR displays a broader dynamic range and higher sensitivity than IHC. Moreover, correlation between Ki-67 qIHC and RT-qPCR is only moderate and RT-qPCR with MammaTyper® outperforms qIHC in predicting pCR. Both methods yield improvements to error-prone manual scoring of Ki-67. However, RT-qPCR was significantly more specific.
增殖情况可能预测乳腺癌新辅助治疗的反应,通常通过对免疫组化(IHC)染色的切片进行手工评分来评估Ki-67,类似于雌激素受体(ER)和孕激素受体(PgR)。这种方法存在显著的观察者内和观察者间变异性。使用数字图像分析(qIHC)对Ki-67进行自动评分或通过逆转录定量聚合酶链反应(RT-qPCR)评估MKI67基因表达可能会提高诊断准确性。
在一项随机新辅助临床试验的核心活检标本上,将Ki-67免疫组化视觉评估与免疫组化核工具(AperioTM)进行比较。对从相同福尔马林固定石蜡包埋组织中提取的RNA进行RT-qPCR,检测ESR1、PGR和MKI67的表达。评估三种方法(视觉免疫组化、qIHC和RT-qPCR)对所有三种标志物的一致性。使用ROC分析和非参数曼-惠特尼检验评估Ki-67免疫组化和RT-qPCR预测病理完全缓解(pCR)的潜力。
对于ER和PgR,方法之间(qIHC与RT-qPCR)的相关性很高(斯皮尔曼相关系数r分别为0.82,p<0.0001和r为0.86,p<0.0001),使用预定义的临界值时一致性水平很高。当比较ER和PgR的qIHC与ESR1和PGR的RT-qPCR时,总体一致性分别为96.6%和91.4%,而视觉免疫组化与RT-qPCR对于ER/ESR1和PR/PGR的总体一致性略低(分别为91.2%和92.9%)。相比之下,对于Ki-67/MKI67,qIHC和RT-qPCR连续数据之间仅观察到中等相关性(斯皮尔曼相关系数r = 0.50,p = 0.0001)。到目前为止,尚未建立通过免疫组化评估Ki-67来预测新辅助化疗反应的预测临界值。将所需敏感性设定为100%时,mRNA预测pCR(ypT0ypN0)的特异性显著高于蛋白质(68.9%对22.2%)。此外,使用MKI67 RNA表达时,达到pCR与未达到pCR的患者的增殖水平有显著差异(曼-惠特尼检验p = 0.002),但使用Ki-67的qIHC(曼-惠特尼检验p = 0.097)或Ki-67的视觉免疫组化(p = 0.131)时无显著差异。
数字图像分析可成功用于评估ER、PR和Ki-67。ER和PR的免疫组化与RT-qPCR显示出高度一致性。然而,RT-qPCR显示出比免疫组化更宽的动态范围和更高的敏感性。此外,Ki-67 qIHC与RT-qPCR之间的相关性仅为中等,并且使用MammaTyper®的RT-qPCR在预测pCR方面优于qIHC。两种方法都对容易出错的Ki-67手工评分有改进。然而,RT-qPCR的特异性显著更高。