Department of Pathology, Bellvitge University Hospital, IDIBELL, CIBERONC, Barcelona, Spain.
Catalan Breast Unit, Catalan Institute of Oncology, ICO L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
Virchows Arch. 2019 Feb;474(2):169-176. doi: 10.1007/s00428-018-2481-3. Epub 2018 Nov 21.
Ki-67 proliferative index (Ki-67) is a predictive and prognostic factor in breast cancer (BC). However, some international committees do not recommend its use in routine practice due to insufficient clinical evidence and lack of standardisation and assessment method reproducibility. Scoring of Ki-67 by digital pathology may contribute to overcome these drawbacks. We evaluated 136 core biopsies of BC patients and calculated the correlation of Ki-67 scored by two breast pathologists with two methods, eyeballing visual assessment (EB) on the microscope and digital image analysis (DI), both assessed from hot spot areas (HS) and the average between hot and cold spot areas (AVE). Good and higher correlation between pathologists was observed for HS using DI in comparison to EB (0.861 vs. 0.828). Correlation in HS with both methods was very similar in homogeneous tumours (0.869 vs. 0.866). Lower correlation was found in heterogeneous tumours if EB was used instead of DI (0.691 vs. 0.838). Good agreement with DI in AVE areas was observed in both homogenous and heterogeneous tumours (0.898 and 0.887). Concordance of tumour molecular profiles based on Ki-67 was better using DI in comparison to EB (Kappa index, 0.589 vs. 0675). Whereas EB and DI were alike in homogeneous tumour, DI improved agreement in heterogeneous tumours, particularly in AVE areas. Subgroup analysis for tumour grades also showed improvement of correlation by DI in AVE areas in all G1/G2/G3 groups. Digital pathology using AVE method can be useful for Ki-67 scoring in daily practice, especially in heterogeneous and G2 tumours, by a substantial improvement of agreement between observers and results accuracy.
Ki-67 增殖指数(Ki-67)是乳腺癌(BC)的预测和预后因素。然而,由于临床证据不足以及缺乏标准化和评估方法的可重复性,一些国际委员会不建议在常规实践中使用它。数字病理学对 Ki-67 的评分可能有助于克服这些缺点。我们评估了 136 例 BC 患者的核心活检,并计算了两位乳腺病理学家使用两种方法(显微镜下的目测评估(EB)和数字图像分析(DI))对 Ki-67 的评分与热点区域(HS)和热点与冷点区域之间的平均值(AVE)之间的相关性。与 EB 相比,使用 DI 在 HS 中观察到病理学家之间的相关性更好(0.861 对 0.828)。在同质肿瘤中,两种方法在 HS 中的相关性非常相似(0.869 对 0.866)。如果使用 EB 而不是 DI,则在异质肿瘤中相关性较低(0.691 对 0.838)。在同质和异质肿瘤中,AVE 区域与 DI 具有良好的一致性(0.898 和 0.887)。基于 Ki-67 的肿瘤分子谱的一致性使用 DI 更好,与 EB 相比(kappa 指数,0.589 对 0.675)。尽管 EB 和 DI 在同质肿瘤中相似,但 DI 提高了异质肿瘤的一致性,特别是在 AVE 区域。肿瘤分级的亚组分析也表明,在所有 G1/G2/G3 组中,AVE 区域的 DI 改善了相关性。AVE 方法的数字病理学可用于日常实践中的 Ki-67 评分,尤其是在异质和 G2 肿瘤中,通过观察者之间的一致性和结果准确性的显著提高。