Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 1251–1257 | Cite as

Reliability of the Ki67-Labelling Index in Core Needle Biopsies of Luminal Breast Cancers is Unaffected by Biopsy Volume

Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Assessing prognostic and predictive factors like the Ki67 labelling index (Ki67-LI) in breast cancer core needle biopsies (CNB) may be hampered by undersampling. Our aim was to arrive at a representative assessment of Ki67-LI in CNB of luminal breast cancers by defining optimal cutoffs and establishing the minimum CNB volume needed for highest concordance of Ki67-LI between CNB and subsequent surgical excision biopsy (SEB).

Methods

We assessed the Ki67-LI in CNB and subsequent SEB of 170 luminal breast cancers according to two counting methods recommended by the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group and applied the cutoffs to distinguish low and high proliferation given by the St Gallen 2013 and 2015 consensus, respectively. We then compared CNB volume characteristics for cases with concordant and discordant Ki67-LI between CNB versus SEB.

Results

Highest concordance (75%, κ = 0.44) between CNB and SEB was achieved using the method that assesses the average tumor Ki67-LI and a cutoff of 20%. No significant differences were found between cases with concordant and discordant Ki67-LI in CNB versus SEB for number of biopsy cores, total core length, tumor tissue length, or total CNB or tumor tissue area size in the CNB for two various cutoffs.

Conclusions

A concordance of 75% between CNB and SEB can be achieved for the Ki67-LI using a method assessing average Ki67-LI at the threshold of 20%. Increasing CNB volume did not result in improved agreement rates, indicating that reliability of Ki67 levels in CNB of luminal breast cancers is unaffected by CNB volume.

Notes

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Nassar A, Radhakrishnan A, Cabrero IA, et al. Intratumoral heterogeneity of immunohistochemical marker expression in breast carcinoma: a tissue microarray–based study. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2010;18:433–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greer LT, Rosman M, Mylander WC, et al. Does breast tumor heterogeneity necessitate further immunohistochemical staining on surgical specimens? J Am Coll Surg. 2013;216:239–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rakha EA, Ellis IO. An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60:1300–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:e48–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    5. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131:18–43.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3997–4013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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;103:1656–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Denkert C, Budczies J, von Minckwitz G, Wienert S, Loibl S, Klauschen F. Strategies for developing Ki67 as a useful biomarker in breast cancer. Breast. 2015:24:S67–S72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdv221.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hayes DF. From genome to bedside: are we lost in translation? Breast. 2013;22(Suppl 2):S22–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    12. Hayes DF. Biomarker validation and testing. Mol Oncol. 2015;9:960–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guiu S, Michiels S, Andre F, et al. Molecular subclasses of breast cancer: how do we define them? The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group statement. Ann Oncol. 2012;23:2997–3006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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;24:2206–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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;22:1736–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ricci MD, Calvano Filho CM, Oliveira Filho HR, et al. Analysis of the concordance rates between core needle biopsy and surgical excision in patients with breast cancer. Rev Assoc Med Bras. 2012;58:532–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knutsvik G, Stefansson IM, Aziz S, et al. Evaluation of Ki67 expression across distinct categories of breast cancer specimens: a population-based study of matched surgical specimens, core needle biopsies and tissue microarrays. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e112121.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Romero Q, Bendahl PO, Klintman M, et al. Ki67 proliferation in core biopsies versus surgical samples—a model for neo-adjuvant breast cancer studies. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:341.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen X, Sun L, Mao Y, et al. Preoperative core needle biopsy is accurate in determining molecular subtypes in invasive breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:390.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Connor CS, Tawfik OW, Joyce AJ, et al. A comparison of prognostic tumor markers obtained on image-guided breast biopsies and final surgical specimens. Am J Surg. 2002;184:322–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ough M, Velasco J, Hieken TJ. A comparative analysis of core needle biopsy and final excision for breast cancer: histology and marker expression. Am J Surg. 2011;201:692–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    22. Decker T, Ruhnke M, Schneider W. [Standardized pathologic examination of breast excision specimen. Relevance within an interdisciplinary practice protocol for quality management of breast saving therapy]. Pathologe. 1997;18:53–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Perry N, Broeders M, de WC, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition—summary document. Ann Oncol. 2008;19:614–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kwok TC, Rakha EA, Lee AH, et al. Histological grading of breast cancer on needle core biopsy: the role of immunohistochemical assessment of proliferation. Histopathology. 2010;57:212–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harris GC, Denley HE, Pinder SE, et al. Correlation of histologic prognostic factors in core biopsies and therapeutic excisions of invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27:11–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    26. Daveau C, Baulies S, Lalloum M, et al. Histological grade concordance between diagnostic core biopsy and corresponding surgical specimen in HR-positive/HER2-negative breast carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:2195–200.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    27. Zheng J, Alsaadi T, Blaichman J, et al. Invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: correlation between tumor grade determined by ultrasound-guided core biopsy and surgical pathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200:W71–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gudlaugsson E, Skaland I, Janssen EA, et al. Comparison of the effect of different techniques for measurement of Ki67 proliferation on reproducibility and prognosis prediction accuracy in breast cancer. Histopathology. 2012;61:1134–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O’Shea AM, Rakha EA, Hodi Z, et al. Histological grade of invasive carcinoma of the breast assessed on needle core biopsy—modifications to mitotic count assessment to improve agreement with surgical specimens. Histopathology. 2011;59:543–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    30. Dhaliwal CA, Graham C, Loane J. Grading of breast cancer on needle core biopsy: does a reduction in mitotic count threshold improve agreement with grade on excised specimens? J Clin Pathol. 2014;67:1106–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH, et al. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3153–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyDietrich Bonhoeffer Medical CentreNeubrandenburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of PathologyUniversity Medical Centre UtrechtUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations