Dataset Information

Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group.

ABSTRACT: Ki67 immunohistochemistry (IHC), commonly used as a proliferation marker in breast cancer, has limited value for treatment decisions due to questionable analytical validity. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (IKWG) consensus meeting, held in October 2019, assessed the current evidence for Ki67 IHC analytical validity and clinical utility in breast cancer, including the series of scoring studies the IKWG conducted on centrally stained tissues. Consensus observations and recommendations are: 1) as for estrogen receptor and HER2 testing, preanalytical handling considerations are critical; 2) a standardized visual scoring method has been established and is recommended for adoption; 3) participation in and evaluation of quality assurance and quality control programs is recommended to maintain analytical validity; and 4) the IKWG accepted that Ki67 IHC as a prognostic marker in breast cancer has clinical validity but concluded that clinical utility is evident only for prognosis estimation in anatomically favorable estrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative patients to identify those who do not need adjuvant chemotherapy. In this T1-2, N0-1 patient group, the IKWG consensus is that Ki67 5% or less, or 30% or more, can be used to estimate prognosis. In conclusion, analytical validity of Ki67 IHC can be reached with careful attention to preanalytical issues and calibrated standardized visual scoring. Currently, clinical utility of Ki67 IHC in breast cancer care remains limited to prognosis assessment in stage I or II breast cancer. Further development of automated scoring might help to overcome some current limitations.

SUBMITTER: Nielsen TO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8487652 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Evolving treatments, disease phenotypes, and biology, together with a changing drug development environment, have created the need to revise castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) clinical trial recommendations to succeed those from prior Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Groups.An international expert committee of prostate cancer clinical investigators (the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 [PCWG3]) was reconvened and expanded and met in 2012-2015 to formulate updated criteria on the basis of emerging trial data and validation studies of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 recommendations.PCWG3 recommends that baseline patient assessment include tumor histology, detailed records of prior systemic treatments and responses, and a detailed reporting of disease subtypes based on an anatomic pattern of metastatic spread. New recommendations for trial outcome measures include the time to event end point of symptomatic skeletal events, as well as time to first metastasis and time to progression for trials in the nonmetastatic CRPC state. PCWG3 introduces the concept of no longer clinically benefiting to underscore the distinction between first evidence of progression and the clinical need to terminate or change treatment, and the importance of documenting progression in existing lesions as distinct from the development of new lesions. Serial biologic profiling using tumor samples from biopsies, blood-based diagnostics, and/or imaging is also recommended to gain insight into mechanisms of resistance and to identify predictive biomarkers of sensitivity for use in prospective trials.PCWG3 moves drug development closer to unmet needs in clinical practice by focusing on disease manifestations most likely to affect prognosis adversely for therapeutics tested in both nonmetastatic and metastatic CRPC populations. Consultation with regulatory authorities is recommended if a trial is intended to seek support for drug approval.

Project description:BackgroundUpdating is important to ensure clinical guideline (CG) recommendations remain valid. However, little research has been undertaken in this field. We assessed CGs produced by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) to identify and describe updated recommendations and to investigate potential factors associated with updating. Also, we evaluated the reporting and presentation of recommendation changes.MethodsWe performed a descriptive analysis of original and updated CGs and recommendations, and an assessment of presentation formats and methods for recording information. We conducted a case-control study, defining cases as original recommendations that were updated ('new-replaced' recommendations), and controls as original recommendations that were considered to remain valid ('not changed' recommendations). We performed a comparison of main characteristics between cases and controls, and we planned a multiple regression analysis to identify potential predictive factors for updating.ResultsWe included nine updated CGs (1,306 recommendations) and their corresponding original versions (1,106 recommendations). Updated CGs included 812 (62%) recommendations 'not reviewed', 368 (28.1%) 'new' recommendations, 104 (7.9%) 'amended' recommendations, and 25 (1.9%) recommendations reviewed but unchanged. The presentation formats used to indicate the changes in recommendations varied widely across CGs. Changes in 'amended', 'deleted', and 'new-replaced' recommendations (n?=?296) were reported infrequently, mostly in appendices. These changes were recorded in 167 (56.4%) recommendations; and were explained in 81 (27.4%) recommendations. We retrieved a total of 7.1% (n?=?78) case recommendations ('new-replaced') and 2.4% (n?=?27) control recommendations ('not changed') in original CGs. The updates were mainly from 'Fertility CG', about 'gynaecology, pregnancy and birth' topic, and 'treatment' or 'prevention' purposes. We did not perform the multiple regression analysis as originally planned due to the small sample of recommendations retrieved.ConclusionOur study is the first to describe and assess updated CGs and recommendations from a national guideline program. Our results highlight the pressing need to standardise the reporting and presentation of updated recommendations and the research gap about the optimal way to present updates to guideline users. Furthermore, there is a need to investigate updating predictive factors.

Project description:BackgroundAs a marker for tumor cell proliferation, Ki67 has important impacts on breast cancer (BC) prognosis. Although immunohistochemical staining is the current standard method, variations in analytical practice make it difficult for pathologists to manually measure Ki67 index. This study was to develop a fluorescent spectrum-based quantitative analysis of Ki67 expression by quantum-dots (QDs) multiple imaging technique.MethodsA QDs-based in situ multiple fluorescent imaging method was developed, which stained nuclear Ki67 as red signal and cytoplasmic cytokeratin (CK) as green signal. Both Ki67 and CK signals were automatically separated and quantified by professional spectrum analysis software. This technique was applied to tissue microarrays from 240 BC patients. Both Ki67 and CK values, and Ki67/CK ratio were obtained for each patient, and their prognostic value on 5-year disease free survival was assessed.ResultsThis method simultaneously stains nuclear Ki67 and cytoplasmic CK with clear signal contrast, making it easy for signal separation and quantification. The total fluorescent signal intensities of both Ki67 sum and CK sum were obtained, and Ki67/CK ratio calculated. Ki67 sum and Ki67/CK ratio were each attributed into two grades by X-tile software based on the best P value principle. Multivariate analysis showed Ki67 grade (P = 0.047) and Ki67/CK grade (P = 0.004) were independent prognostic factors. Furthermore, area under curve (AUC) of ROC analysis for Ki67/CK grade (AUC: 0.683, 95%CI: 0.613-0.752) was higher than Ki67 grade (AUC: 0.665, 95%CI: 0.596-0.734) and HER-2 gene (AUC: 0.586, 95%CI: 0.510-0.661), but lower than N stage (AUC: 0.760, 95%CI: 0.696-0.823) and histological grade (AUC: 0.756, 95%CI: 0.692-0.820) on predicting the risk for recurrence.ConclusionsA QDs-based quantitative and in situ multiple imaging on Ki67 and CK was developed to improve Ki67 assessment in BC, and Ki67/CK grade had better performance than Ki67 grade in predicting prognosis.

Dataset Information

Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets