Suppr超能文献

一项采用两种不同评估方法的观察者间Ki67重复性研究:代表丹麦病理学科学委员会、丹麦乳腺癌合作组(DBCG)开展。

An inter-observer Ki67 reproducibility study applying two different assessment methods: on behalf of the Danish Scientific Committee of Pathology, Danish breast cancer cooperative group (DBCG).

作者信息

Laenkholm Anne-Vibeke, Grabau Dorthe, Møller Talman Maj-Lis, Balslev Eva, Bak Jylling Anne Marie, Tabor Tomasz Piotr, Johansen Morten, Brügmann Anja, Lelkaitis Giedrius, Di Caterino Tina, Mygind Henrik, Poulsen Thomas, Mertz Henrik, Søndergaard Gorm, Bruun Rasmussen Birgitte

机构信息

a Department of Surgical Pathology , Zealand University Hospital , Slagelse , Denmark.

b Department of Pathology , Skåne University Hospital , Lund , Sweden.

出版信息

Acta Oncol. 2018 Jan;57(1):83-89. doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2017.1404127. Epub 2017 Dec 5.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

In 2011, the St. Gallen Consensus Conference introduced the use of pathology to define the intrinsic breast cancer subtypes by application of immunohistochemical (IHC) surrogate markers ER, PR, HER2 and Ki67 with a specified Ki67 cutoff (>14%) for luminal B-like definition. Reports concerning impaired reproducibility of Ki67 estimation and threshold inconsistency led to the initiation of this quality assurance study (2013-2015). The aim of the study was to investigate inter-observer variation for Ki67 estimation in malignant breast tumors by two different quantification methods (assessment method and count method) including measure of agreement between methods.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fourteen experienced breast pathologists from 12 pathology departments evaluated 118 slides from a consecutive series of malignant breast tumors. The staining interpretation was performed according to both the Danish and Swedish guidelines. Reproducibility was quantified by intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and Lights Kappa with dichotomization of observations at the larger than (>) 20% threshold. The agreement between observations by the two quantification methods was evaluated by Bland-Altman plot.

RESULTS

For the fourteen raters the median ranged from 20% to 40% by the assessment method and from 22.5% to 36.5% by the count method. Light's Kappa was 0.664 for observation by the assessment method and 0.649 by the count method. The ICC was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.77-0.86) by the assessment method vs. 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87) by the count method.

CONCLUSION

Although the study in general showed a moderate to good inter-observer agreement according to both ICC and Lights Kappa, still major discrepancies were identified in especially the mid-range of observations. Consequently, for now Ki67 estimation is not implemented in the DBCG treatment algorithm.

摘要

引言

2011年,圣加仑共识会议引入了通过应用免疫组化(IHC)替代标志物雌激素受体(ER)、孕激素受体(PR)、人表皮生长因子受体2(HER2)和Ki67来定义乳腺内在癌亚型的方法,并为管腔B样定义设定了特定的Ki67临界值(>14%)。关于Ki67评估的可重复性受损和阈值不一致的报道促使开展了这项质量保证研究(2013 - 2015年)。该研究的目的是通过两种不同的量化方法(评估法和计数法)调查恶性乳腺肿瘤中Ki67评估的观察者间差异,包括方法之间的一致性测量。

材料与方法

来自12个病理科的14名经验丰富的乳腺病理学家评估了一系列连续的恶性乳腺肿瘤的118张玻片。染色解读按照丹麦和瑞典的指南进行。通过组内相关系数(ICC)和Lights Kappa对可重复性进行量化,在大于(>)20%阈值处对观察结果进行二分法分析。通过Bland - Altman图评估两种量化方法观察结果之间的一致性。

结果

对于这14名评估者,评估法得出的中位数范围为20%至40%,计数法得出的中位数范围为22.5%至36.5%。评估法观察的Lights Kappa为0.664,计数法为0.649。评估法的ICC为0.82(95%置信区间:0.77 - 0.86),计数法为0.84(95%置信区间:0.80 - 0.87)。

结论

尽管总体而言,根据ICC和Lights Kappa,该研究显示观察者间一致性为中等至良好,但在观察结果的中值范围尤其发现了较大差异。因此,目前Ki67评估未纳入丹麦乳腺癌合作组(DBCG)的治疗算法中。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验