Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of Monitor-Image and Printout-Image Methods in Ki-67 Scoring of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors

  • Published:
Endocrine Pathology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NET) are classified according to tumor grade. Ki-67 and mitotic count are the two determinants of this classification. Therefore, Ki-67 scoring becomes very important in classifying the patients accurately. Eye-balling, counting of cells through the microscope, automated image analysis systems, and manual counting of printed image are the four major scoring methods in use. The aim of this study is to show the agreement between monitor-image method (MIM) and printout-image method (PIM) of Ki-67 scoring. In our study, 120 GEP-NETs from 85 patients diagnosed between January 2005 and July 2017 were evaluated. Thirty-seven cases with either polypectomy or resection material were selected. Seven different scoring methods using either a monitor-image or a printout-image were applied for Ki-67 scoring. They are as follows: whole-PIM, 1/9-PIM, whole-MIM, 1/4-MIM, 1/6-MIM, 1/9-MIM, and 1/12-MIM. In the comparison of Ki-67 scoring methods, intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.951 to 0.999 were found. The Bland-Altman analysis showed near-perfect agreement between whole-MIM and whole-PIM as well as 1/9-MIM and 1/9-PIM. The level of agreements among the other methods were sufficient too, but there was a relative decrease in the level of agreement as the area of counting becomes smaller. The average application time decreased from 373.7 to 41.7 s gradually as the scoring area becomes smaller. Our study shows that there is a remarkable agreement between the MIM and PIM used in Ki-67 scoring.

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
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Considering the Ki-67 values obtained by W-PIM

  2. The total cell count being the denominator in the calculation

References

  1. Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, Theise ND (2010) WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System, 4th edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Klöppel G, Couvelard A, Hruban RH, Klimstra DS, Komminoth P, Osamura RY, et al (2017) Neoplasms of the neuroendocrine pancreas. In: Lloyd RV, Osamura RY, Klöppel G, Rosai J (ed) WHO Classification of Tumours of Endocrine Organs, 4th edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Klöppel G, Rindi G, Perren A, Komminoth P, Klimstra D (2010) The ENETS and AJCC/UICC TNM classifications of the neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal tract and the pancreas: a statement. Virchows Arch 456(6):595–597. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-010-0924-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rindi G, Klimstra DS, Abedi-Ardekani B, Asa SL, Bosman FT, Brambilla E, Busam KJ, de Krijger RR, Dietel M, el-Naggar AK, Fernandez-Cuesta L, Klöppel G, McCluggage WG, Moch H, Ohgaki H, Rakha EA, Reed NS, Rous BA, Sasano H, Scarpa A, Scoazec JY, Travis WD, Tallini G, Trouillas J, van Krieken JH, Cree IA (2018) A common framework for neuroendocrine neoplasms: an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and World Health Organization (WHO) expert consensus proposal. Mod Pathol. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41379-018-0110-y

  5. Shi C, Adsay V, Bergsland EK, Berlin J, Branton PA, Fitzgibbons PL, et al (2017) Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with neuroendocrine tumors (carcinoid tumors) of the stomach. College of American Pathologists Cancer Protocols. www.cap.org/cancerprotocols. Accessed 11 September 2018.

  6. Matsukuma K, Olson KA, Gui D, Gandour-Edwards R, Li Y, Beckett L (2017) Synaptophysin-Ki67 double stain: a novel technique that improves interobserver agreement in the grading of well-differentiated gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors. Mod Pathol 30(4):620–629. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2016.225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 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(5):686–694. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2014.156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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(12):1761–1770. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e318263207c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Remes SM, Tuominen VJ, Helin H, Isola J, Arola J (2012) Grading of neuroendocrine tumors with Ki-67 requires high-quality assessment practices. Am J Surg Pathol 36(9):1359–1363. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3182632038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Adsay V (2012) Ki67 labeling index in neuroendocrine tumors of the gastrointestinal and pancreatobiliary tract. Am J Surg Pathol 36(12):1743–1746. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e318272ff77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cottenden J, Filter ER, Cottreau J, Moore D, Bullock M, Huang WY, Arnason T (2018) Validation of a cytotechnologist manual counting service for the Ki67 index in neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas and gastrointestinal tract. Arch Pathol Lab Med 142(3):402–407. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2017-0203-OA.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ozturk Sari S, Taskin OC, Yegen G, Ozluk Y, Gulluoglu M (2018) Ki67 scoring in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors by a new method. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 26(4):283–287. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000000415.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McGraw KO, Wong SP (1996) Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods 1:30–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Mardin State Hospital, Mardin, Turkey

    Fatih Mert Dogukan & Rabia Dogukan

  2. Department of Pathology, University of Health Sciences Sisli Hamidiye Etfal Education and Research Center, Istanbul, Turkey

    Banu Yilmaz Ozguven & Fevziye Kabukcuoglu

Authors
  1. Fatih Mert Dogukan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Banu Yilmaz Ozguven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rabia Dogukan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fevziye Kabukcuoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatih Mert Dogukan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dogukan, F.M., Yilmaz Ozguven, B., Dogukan, R. et al. Comparison of Monitor-Image and Printout-Image Methods in Ki-67 Scoring of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors. Endocr Pathol 30, 17–23 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12022-018-9554-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12022-018-9554-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation