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)

References

• Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000;406:747–752.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2817–2826.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S, et al. Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10:R65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G, Jr., et al. Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:1504–1513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luporsi E, Andre F, Spyratos F, et al. Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;132:895–915.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Ravdin PM, et al. Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11:174–183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:736–750.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, et al. Strategies for subtypes–dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1736–1747.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:2206–2223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prat A, Cheang MC, Martin M, et al. Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor-positive tumor cells within immunohistochemically defined luminal A breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:203–209.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A'Hern R, et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1656–1664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–428.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polley MY, Leung SC, McShane LM, et al. An international Ki67 reproducibility study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:1897–1906.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–174.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung SCY, Nielsen TO, Zabaglo L, et al. Analytical validation of a standardized scoring protocol for Ki67: phase 3 of an international multicenter collaboration. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2016;2:16014.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Light RJ. Measures of response agreement for qualitative data: some generalizations and alternatives. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:365–377.
   Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999;8:135–160.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carstensen B. Comparing methods of measurement: extending the LoA by regression. Stat Med. 2010;29:401–410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22:276–282.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, E PW, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1700–1712.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varga Z, Diebold J, Dommann-Scherrer C, et al. How reliable is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of Breast- and Gynecopathologists. PLoS One. 2012;7:e37379.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Focke CM, Burger H, van Diest PJ, et al. Interlaboratory variability of Ki67 staining in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2017;84:219–227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polley MY, Leung SC, Gao D, et al. An international study to increase concordance in Ki67 scoring. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:778–786.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shui R, Yu B, Bi R, et al. An interobserver reproducibility analysis of Ki67 visual assessment in breast cancer. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0125131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cserni G, Voros A, Liepniece-Karele I, et al. Distribution pattern of the Ki67 labelling index in breast cancer and its implications for choosing cut-off values. Breast. 2014;23:259–263.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hida AI, Oshiro Y, Inoue H, et al. Visual assessment of Ki67 at a glance is an easy method to exclude many luminal-type breast cancers from counting 1000 cells. Breast Cancer. 2015;22:129–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekholm M, Grabau D, Bendahl PO, et al. Highly reproducible results of breast cancer biomarkers when analysed in accordance with national guidelines – a Swedish survey with central re-assessment. Acta Oncol. 2015;54:1040–1048.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roge R, Riber-Hansen R, Nielsen S, et al. Proliferation assessment in breast carcinomas using digital image analysis based on virtual Ki67/cytokeratin double staining. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016; 158:11–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stalhammar G, Fuentes Martinez N, Lippert M, et al. Digital image analysis outperforms manual biomarker assessment in breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2016;29:318–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hequet D, Callens C, Gentien D, et al. Prospective, multicenter French study evaluating the clinical impact of the Breast Cancer Intrinsic Subtype-Prosigna(R) Test in the management of early-stage breast cancers. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0185753.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viale G, de Snoo FA, Slaets L, et al. Immunohistochemical versus molecular (BluePrint and MammaPrint) subtyping of breast carcinoma. Outcome results from the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017. doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4509-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, et al. Tailoring therapies – improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1533–1546.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laenkholm AV, Jensen MB, Eriksen JO, et al. The PAM50 risk of recurrence score predicts 10 year distant recurrence in a comprehensive Danish cohort of 2558 postmenopausal women allocated to 5 yr of endocrine therapy for hormone receptor positive early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2018;57:in press.
   Google Scholar
• Gnant M, Sestak I, Filipits M, et al. Identifying clinically relevant prognostic subgroups of postmenopausal women with node-positive hormone receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy: a combined analysis of ABCSG-8 and ATAC using the PAM50 risk of recurrence score and intrinsic subtype. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1685–1691.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krop I, Ismaila N, Stearns V. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice focused update guideline summary. J Oncol Pract. 2017;13:763–766.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris LN, Ismaila N, McShane LM, et al. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:1134–1150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon RM, Paik S, Hayes DF. Use of archived specimens in evaluation of prognostic and predictive biomarkers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1446–1452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar