Thomas Susanna, Kabir Masrura, Butcher Belinda E, Chou Shaun, Mahajan Hema, Farshid Gelareh, Balleine Rosemary, Pathmanathan Nirmala
Westmead Breast Cancer Institute, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia.
Western Sydney Local Health District, Westmead, NSW, 2145, Australia.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021 Aug;188(3):729-737. doi: 10.1007/s10549-021-06188-6. Epub 2021 Mar 22.
This study aimed to determine the interobserver concordance of two methods for proliferation assessment in breast cancer using Ki67 immunohistochemistry.
Ki67 was independently assessed in randomly selected tumour samples from patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer using two different methods: either cell counting or visual estimation of hot spot areas. For hot spot cell counting, positive and negative cell numbers were recorded for total cell counts of 300-500, 500-800 and 800-1000 cells. Visual estimation involved allocation of a score from 1 to 5 using a visual scale to estimate percentage positivity. Interobserver agreement for hot spot counting was calculated using a two-way fixed effects intraclass correlation model, and by using Cohen's kappa measure for visual assessment. Prognostic concordance between the two methods was also calculated using Cohen's kappa.
Samples from 96 patients were included in this analysis. Interobserver agreement for hot spot cell counting was excellent (> 0.75) across all three cell count ranges, with correlation coefficients of 0.88 (95% CI 0.84-0.92), 0.87 (95% CI 0.82-0.91) and 0.89 (95% CI 0.85-0.92), respectively. Interobserver agreement with visual estimation was greatest for hot spots compared with areas of intermediate or low proliferation, with kappa scores of 0.49, 0.42 and 0.40, respectively. Both assessment methods demonstrated excellent prognostic agreement.
Interobserver and prognostic concordance in Ki67 immunohistochemistry assessments was high using either hot spot cell counting or visual estimation, further supporting the utility and reproducibility of these cost-efficient methods to assess proliferation.
本研究旨在确定使用Ki67免疫组织化学评估乳腺癌增殖的两种方法在观察者间的一致性。
使用两种不同方法对随机选取的淋巴结阴性乳腺癌患者的肿瘤样本独立评估Ki67:细胞计数或热点区域视觉估计。对于热点细胞计数,记录300 - 500、500 - 800和800 - 1000个细胞总数中的阳性和阴性细胞数。视觉估计是使用视觉量表从1到5分配一个分数来估计阳性百分比。使用双向固定效应组内相关模型计算热点计数的观察者间一致性,并使用Cohen's kappa测量进行视觉评估。还使用Cohen's kappa计算两种方法之间的预后一致性。
本分析纳入了96例患者的样本。在所有三个细胞计数范围内,热点细胞计数的观察者间一致性都非常好(> 0.75),相关系数分别为0.88(95% CI 0.84 - 至0.92)、0.87(95% CI 0.82 - 0.91)和0.89(95% CI 0.85 - 0.92)。与增殖程度中等或较低的区域相比,热点的视觉估计观察者间一致性最高,kappa分数分别为0.49、0.42和0.40。两种评估方法均显示出良好的预后一致性。
使用热点细胞计数或视觉估计,Ki67免疫组织化学评估中的观察者间一致性和预后一致性都很高,进一步支持了这些经济高效的增殖评估方法的实用性和可重复性。