Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interlaboratory variability of MIB1 staining in well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Virchows Archiv Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Neuroendocrine tumors (NET) are routinely graded and staged to judge prognosis. Proliferation index using MIB1 staining has been introduced to assess grading. There are vivid discussions on cutoff definitions, automated counting, and interobserver variability. However, no data exist regarding interlaboratory reproducibility for low proliferation indices which are of importance to discriminate between G1 and G2 NET. We performed MIB1 staining in three different university hospital-based pathology laboratories on a tissue micro array (TMA) of a well-characterized patient cohort, containing pancreatic NET of 61 patients. To calculate the proliferation index, number of positive tumor nuclei was divided by the total number of tumor nuclei. Labeling index was compared to mitotic counts in whole tissue sections and to clinical outcome. Linear regression analysis, intraclass comparison, and log-rank analysis were performed. Intraclass correlation showed moderate-to-fair agreement. Especially low proliferating tumors were affected by interlaboratory differences. Log-rank analysis was performed for each lab and resulted in three different cutoffs (5.0, 3.0, and 0.5 %). Every calculated cutoff stratified the patient cohort to a significant extent for the underlying stain (p < 0.001, <0.001, and <0.001) but showed no or lesser significance when applied to the other stains. Significant and relevant interlab differences for MIB1 exist. Since the MIB1 proliferation index influences grading, local cutoffs or external standardization should urgently be introduced to achieve reliability and reproducibility.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Couvelard A, O'Toole D, Turley H, Leek R, Sauvanet A, Degott C, Ruszniewski P, Belghiti J, Harris AL, Gatter K, Pezzella F (2005) Microvascular density and hypoxia-inducible factor pathway in pancreatic endocrine tumours: negative correlation of microvascular density and VEGF expression with tumour progression. Br J Cancer 92:94–101. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602245

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hochwald SN, Zee S, Conlon KC, Colleoni R, Louie O, Brennan MF, Klimstra DS (2002) Prognostic factors in pancreatic endocrine neoplasms: an analysis of 136 cases with a proposal for low-grade and intermediate-grade groups. J Clin Oncol 20:2633–2642

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. La Rosa S, Sessa F, Capella C, Riva C, Leone BE, Klersy C, Rindi G, Solcia E (1996) Prognostic criteria in nonfunctioning pancreatic endocrine tumours. Virchows Arch 429:323–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pelosi G, Bresaola E, Bogina G, Pasini F, Rodella S, Castelli P, Iacono C, Serio G, Zamboni G (1996) Endocrine tumors of the pancreas: Ki-67 immunoreactivity on paraffin sections is an independent predictor for malignancy: a comparative study with proliferating-cell nuclear antigen and progesterone receptor protein immunostaining, mitotic index, and other clinicopathologic variables. Hum Pathol 27:1124–1134

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ekeblad S, Skogseid B, Dunder K, Oberg K, Eriksson B (2008) Prognostic factors and survival in 324 patients with pancreatic endocrine tumor treated at a single institution. Clin Cancer Res 14:7798–7803. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-0734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rindi G, Kloppel G, Alhman H, Caplin M, Couvelard A, de Herder WW, Erikssson B, Falchetti A, Falconi M, Komminoth P, Korner M, Lopes JM, McNicol AM, Nilsson O, Perren A, Scarpa A, Scoazec JY, Wiedenmann B (2006) TNM staging of foregut (neuro)endocrine tumors: a consensus proposal including a grading system. Virchows Arch 449:395–401

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Scarpa A, Mantovani W, Capelli P, Beghelli S, Boninsegna L, Bettini R, Panzuto F, Pederzoli P, Delle Fave G, Falconi M (2010) Pancreatic endocrine tumors: improved TNM staging and histopathological grading permit a clinically efficient prognostic stratification of patients. Mod Pathol 23:824–833. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2010.58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Heitz P, Komminoth P, Perren A, Klimstra DS, Dayal Y, Bordi C, Lechago J, Centeno BA, Klöppel G (2004) WHO classification of tumours, Pathology and genetics of tumours of endocrine organs. In: De Lellis R, Heitz P, Lloyd R, Eng C (eds) Tumours of the endocrine pancreas (chapter 4). IARC, Lyon

    Google Scholar 

  9. Pavel M, Baudin E, Couvelard A, Krenning E, Oberg K, Steinmuller T, Anlauf M, Wiedenmann B, Salazar R, Conference BC (2012) ENETS consensus guidelines for the management of patients with liver and other distant metastases from neuroendocrine neoplasms of foregut, midgut, hindgut, and unknown primary. Neuroendocrinology 95:157–176. doi:10.1159/000335597

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cattoretti G, Becker MH, Key G, Duchrow M, Schluter C, Galle J, Gerdes J (1992) Monoclonal antibodies against recombinant parts of the Ki-67 antigen (MIB 1 and MIB 3) detect proliferating cells in microwave-processed formalin-fixed paraffin sections. J Pathol 168:357–363. doi:10.1002/path.1711680404

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gerdes J, Schwab U, Lemke H, Stein H (1983) Production of a mouse monoclonal antibody reactive with a human nuclear antigen associated with cell proliferation. Int J Cancer 31:13–20

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jamali M, Chetty R (2008) Predicting prognosis in gastroentero-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: an overview and the value of Ki-67 immunostaining. Endocr Pathol 19:282–288

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Clarke MR, Baker EE, Weyant RJ, Hill L, Carty SE (1997) Proliferative activity in pancreatic endocrine tumors: association with function, metastases, and survival. Endocr Pathol 8:181–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Panzuto F, Boninsegna L, Fazio N, Campana D, Pia Brizzi M, Capurso G, Scarpa A, De Braud F, Dogliotti L, Tomassetti P, Delle Fave G, Falconi M (2011) Metastatic and locally advanced pancreatic endocrine carcinomas: analysis of factors associated with disease progression. J Clin Oncol 29:2372–2377

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Klimstra DS, Modlin IR, Adsay NV, Chetty R, Deshpande V, Gonen M, Jensen RT, Kidd M, Kulke MH, Lloyd RV, Moran C, Moss SF, Oberg K, O'Toole D, Rindi G, Robert ME, Suster S, Tang LH, Tzen CY, Washington MK, Wiedenmann B, Yao J (2010) Pathology reporting of neuroendocrine tumors: application of the Delphic consensus process to the development of a minimum pathology data set. Am J Surg Pathol 34:300–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lowe K, Khithani A, Liu E, Winston T, Christian D, Saad J, Jeyarajah DR (2012) Ki-67 labeling: a more sensitive indicator of malignant phenotype than mitotic count or tumor size? J Surg Oncol 106:724–727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rindi G, Klersy C, Inzani F, Fellegara G, Ampollini L, Ardizzoni A, Campanini N, Carbognani P, De Pas TM, Galetta D, Granone PL, Righi L, Rusca M, Spaggiari L, Tiseo M, Viale G, Volante M, Papotti M, Pelosi G (2014) Grading the neuroendocrine tumors of the lung: an evidence-based proposal. Endocr Relat Cancer 21:1–16. doi:10.1530/ERC-13-0246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Goodell PP, Krasinskas AM, Davison JM, Hartman DJ (2012) Comparison of methods for proliferative index analysis for grading pancreatic well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors. Am J Clin Pathol 137:576–582. doi:10.1309/AJCP92UCXPJMMSDU

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Reid MD, Bagci P, Ohike N, Saka B, Erbarut Seven I, Dursun N, Balci S, Gucer H, Jang KT, Tajiri T, Basturk O, Kong SY, Goodman M, Akkas G, Adsay V (2015) Calculation of the Ki67 index in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a comparative analysis of four counting methodologies. Mod Pathol 28:686–694. doi:10.1038/modpathol.2014.156

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tang LH, Gonen M, Hedvat C, Modlin IM, Klimstra DS (2012) Objective quantification of the Ki67 proliferative index in neuroendocrine tumors of the gastroenteropancreatic system: a comparison of digital image analysis with manual methods. Am J Surg Pathol 36:1761–1770. doi:10.1097/PAS.0b013e318263207c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Varga Z, Diebold J, Dommann-Scherrer C, Frick H, Kaup D, Noske A, Obermann E, Ohlschlegel C, Padberg B, Rakozy C, Sancho Oliver S, Schobinger-Clement S, Schreiber-Facklam H, Singer G, Tapia C, Wagner U, Mastropasqua MG, Viale G, Lehr HA (2012) 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 7:e37379. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037379

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hsu CY, Ho DM, Yang CF, Chiang H (2003) Interobserver reproducibility of MIB-1 labeling index in astrocytic tumors using different counting methods. Mod Pathol 16:951–957. doi:10.1097/01.MP.0000084631.64279.BC

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mengel M, von Wasielewski R, Wiese B, Rudiger T, Muller-Hermelink HK, Kreipe H (2002) Inter-laboratory and inter-observer reproducibility of immunohistochemical assessment of the Ki-67 labelling index in a large multi-centre trial. J Pathol 198:292–299

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schmitt AM, Anlauf M, Rousson V, Schmid S, Kofler A, Riniker F, Bauersfeld J, Barghorn A, Probst-Hensch NM, Moch H, Heitz PU, Kloeppel G, Komminoth P, Perren A (2007) WHO 2004 criteria and CK19 are reliable prognostic markers in pancreatic endocrine tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 31:1677–1682. doi:10.1097/PAS.0b013e31805f675d

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Voss SM, Riley MP, Lokhandwala PM, Wang M, Yang Z (2015) Mitotic count by phosphohistone H3 immunohistochemical staining predicts survival and improves interobserver reproducibility in well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas. Am J Surg Pathol 39:13–24. doi:10.1097/PAS.0000000000000341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Klimstra DSCC, Arnold R (2010) Neuroendocrine neoplasms of the pancreas. IARC, Lyon

  27. Kloppel G, Perren A, Heitz PU (2004) The gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine cell system and its tumors: the WHO classification. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1014:13–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Muller MM (2000) Implementation of reference systems in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 46:1907–1909

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Verderio P, Dittadi R, Marubini E, Pizzamiglio S, Gion M, De Apollonia L, Paradiso A, Italian Network for Quality Assessment of Tumor Biomarkers Group (2007) An Italian program of external quality control for chromogranin A (CgA) assay: performance evaluation of CgA determination. Clin Chem Lab Med 45:1244–1250. doi:10.1515/CCLM.2007.251

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Yang Z, Tang LH, Klimstra DS (2011) Effect of tumor heterogeneity on the assessment of Ki67 labeling index in well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors metastatic to the liver: implications for prognostic stratification. Am J Surg Pathol 35:853–860. doi:10.1097/PAS.0b013e31821a0696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bai Y, Tolles J, Cheng H, Siddiqui S, Gopinath A, Pectasides E, Camp RL, Rimm DL, Molinaro AM (2011) Quantitative assessment shows loss of antigenic epitopes as a function of pre-analytic variables. Lab Investig 91:1253–1261. doi:10.1038/labinvest.2011.75

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Benini E, Rao S, Daidone MG, Pilotti S, Silvestrini R (1997) Immunoreactivity to MIB-1 in breast cancer: methodological assessment and comparison with other proliferation indices. Cell Prolif 30:107–115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Srinivasan M, Sedmak D, Jewell S (2002) Effect of fixatives and tissue processing on the content and integrity of nucleic acids. Am J Pathol 161:1961–1971. doi:10.1016/S0002-9440(10)64472-0

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Frost AR, Sparks D, Grizzle WE (2000) Methods of antigen recovery vary in their usefulness in unmasking specific antigens in immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 8:236–243

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Heuschmid M, Hofmockel G, Dexler B, Dammrich J, Bassukas ID (2002) Different antigen unmasking techniques lead to significant differences in immunohistochemical staining of Ki-67 (Mib-1) in renal cell carcinomas. Oncol Rep 9:19–22

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Munakata S, Hendricks JB (1993) Effect of fixation time and microwave oven heating time on retrieval of the Ki-67 antigen from paraffin-embedded tissue. J Histochem Cytochem 41:1241–1246

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. McCormick D, Yu C, Hobbs C, Hall PA (1993) The relevance of antibody concentration to the immunohistological quantification of cell proliferation-associated antigens. Histopathology 22:543–547

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C, Olson N, Russo I, Russo J, Glass A, Zehnbauer BA, Lister K, Parwaresch R, Cooperative Breast Cancer Tissue Resource (2005) Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom-Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod Pathol 18:1067–1078. doi:10.1038/modpathol.3800388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vereecken P, Laporte M, Heenen M (2007) Significance of cell kinetic parameters in the prognosis of malignant melanoma: a review. J Cutan Pathol 34:139–145. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0560.2006.00588.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Grimaldi F, Muser D, Beltrami CA, Machin P, Morelli A, Pizzolitto S, Talmassons G, Marciello F, Colao AA, Monaco R, Monaco G, Faggiano A (2011) Partitioning of bronchopulmonary carcinoids in two different prognostic categories by ki-67 score. Front Endocrinol 2:20. doi:10.3389/fendo.2011.00020

    Google Scholar 

  41. Zahel T, Krysa S, Herpel E, Stenzinger A, Goeppert B, Schirmacher P, Hoffmann H, Schnabel PA, Warth A (2012) Phenotyping of pulmonary carcinoids and a Ki-67-based grading approach. Virchows Arch 460:299–308

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bern, Institute of Pathology, Murtenstr. 31, CH-3012, Bern, Switzerland

    Annika Blank, Ilaria Marinoni, Laura Amanda Boos, Anja Maria Schmitt & Aurel Perren

  2. Department of Cardiology, Pneumology and Internal Intensive Care Medicine, Klinikum Neuperlach, Städtisches Klinikum München GmbH, Oskar-Maria-Graf-Ring 5, 83575, Munich, Germany

    Laura Wehweck

  3. University of Heidelberg, Institute of Pathology, Im Neuenheimer Feld 224, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Frank Bergmann

Authors
  1. Annika Blank
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Laura Wehweck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ilaria Marinoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Amanda Boos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Frank Bergmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anja Maria Schmitt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Aurel Perren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annika Blank.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Blank, A., Wehweck, L., Marinoni, I. et al. Interlaboratory variability of MIB1 staining in well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Virchows Arch 467, 543–550 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1843-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-015-1843-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation