Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between Ki67 labeling index determined using image analysis software with virtual slide system and that determined visually in breast cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In recent papers, Ki67 labeling index (LI) has been used to classify breast cancer patients into the low and high Ki67LI groups for comparison studies, which showed significant differences in many prognostic factors. It has not been clarified whether image analysis software can be used for calculating LI in breast cancer. In our study, we examined whether Ki67LI in breast cancer calculated using image analysis software correlates with that measured on the basis of visual.

Methods

Fifty patients were randomly selected among breast cancer patients who underwent surgical operation from March, 2010 to May, 2010 in our hospital without preoperative chemotherapy. In this study, for the virtual slide system (VSS: VS120-L100, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan), the high-resolution VSs of all the 50 patients were prepared as samples. The image analysis software use for calculating LI was Tissuemorph Digital Pathology (Tissuemorph DP: Visiopharm, Hoersholm, Denmark). The calculated LI was extracted from 3 to 5 views containing hot spots. The LI calculated using Tissuemorph DP was designed as LI/image/T. The digital image of 3 to 5 LI/image/T views was printed out, and on the digital photograph, we counted visually the number of Ki67-immunopositive cells in exactly the same area, and the percentage of Ki67-immunopositive cells was designed as LI/direct. Moreover, a pathologist’s assistant (PA) determined the tumor area in the same specimen using VSS and calculated LI using Tissuemorph DP, which was designed as LI/image/PA. The chief pathologist (CP) similarly calculated LI which was designed as LI/image/CP. We evaluated the degree of agreement between different data sets “LI/image/T and LI/direct” and “LI/image/T, LI/image/CP, and LI/image/PA” by using interclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

The average counts of cells were as follows: LI/direct, 3209.7 ± 1970.4 (SD); LI/image/T, 2601.6 ± 1697.1; LI/image/PA, 2886.5 ± 2027.5; LI/image/CP, 18805.5 ± 22293.4. The values of LI/direct and LI/image/T showed almost perfect agreement as showed by an ICC of 0.885 (95 % CI, 0.806–0.933; p < 0.001). The agreement among three investigators was almost perfect. The obtained ICC was 0.825 (95 % CI, 0.739–0.890; p < 0.001) among the data of LI/image/T, LI/image/CP and LI/image/PA. There were five cases that immunopositivity for Ki67 showed a more than 10 % disagreement between LI/direct and LI/image/T.

Conclusion

The merits of calculating Ki67 LI using Tissuemorph DP are as follows. First, the staining intensity of the cells to be counted can be adjusted. Second, the portion of a tumor including “hot spots” for counting can be chosen. Third, many cancer cells can be counted more rapidly using Tissuemorph DP than by visual observation. However, it is important that pathologist should check and carry out the final decision of the data, when Ki67 LI using Tissuemorph DP is calculated.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bago-Horvath Z, Rudas M, Dubsky P, Jakesz R, Singer CF, Kemmerling R, Greil R, Jelen A, Bohm G, Jasarevic Z, et al. Adjuvant sequencing of tamoxifen and anastrozole is superior to tamoxifen alone in postmenopausal women with low proliferating breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(24):7828–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Millar EK, Graham PH, McNeil CM, Browne L, O’Toole SA, Boulghourjian A, Kearsley JH, Papadatos G, Delaney G, Fox C, et al. Prediction of outcome of early ER+ breast cancer is improved using a biomarker panel, which includes Ki-67 and p53. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(2):272–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Viale G, Giobbie-Hurder A, Regan MM, Coates AS, Mastropasqua MG, Dell’Orto P, Maiorano E, MacGrogan G, Braye SG, Ohlschlegel C, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed Ki-67 labeling index in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: results from Breast International Group Trial 1-98 comparing adjuvant tamoxifen with letrozole. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(34):5569–75.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Reyal F, Hajage D, Savignoni A, Feron JG, Bollet MA, Kirova Y, Fourquet A, Pierga JY, Cottu P, Dieras V, et al. Long-term prognostic performance of Ki67 rate in early stage, pT1-pT2, pN0, invasive breast carcinoma. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(3):e55901.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J, Watson M, Davies S, Bernard PS, Parker JS, et al. Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(10):736–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kobayashi T, Iwaya K, Moriya T, Yamasaki T, Tsuda H, Yamamoto J, Matsubara O. A simple immunohistochemical panel comprising 2 conventional markers, Ki67 and p53, is a powerful tool for predicting patient outcome in luminal-type breast cancer. BMC Clin Pathol. 2013;13:5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Gudlaugsson E, Skaland I, Janssen EA, Smaaland R, Shao Z, Malpica A, Voorhorst F, Baak JP. Comparison of the effect of different techniques for measurement of Ki67 proliferation on reproducibility and prognosis prediction accuracy in breast cancer. Histopathology. 2012;61(6):1134–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Haglund F, Ma R, Huss M, Sulaiman L, Lu M, Nilsson IL, Hoog A, Juhlin CC, Hartman J, Larsson C. Evidence of a functional estrogen receptor in parathyroid adenomas. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(12):4631–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Skaland I, Janssen EA, Gudlaugsson E, Klos J, Kjellevold KH, Soiland H, Baak JP. Phosphohistone H3 expression has much stronger prognostic value than classical prognosticators in invasive lymph node-negative breast cancer patients less than 55 years of age. Mod Pathol. 2007;20(12):1307–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Janssen EA, Slewa A, Gudlaugsson E, Jonsdottir K, Skaland I, Soiland H, Baak JP. Biologic profiling of lymph node negative breast cancers by means of microRNA expression. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(12):1567–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mikami Y, Ueno T, Yoshimura K, Tsuda H, Kurosumi M, Masuda S, Horii R, Toi M, Sasano H. Interobserver concordance of Ki67 labeling index in breast cancer: Japan Breast Cancer Research Group Ki67 Ring Study. Cancer Sci. 2013;104:1539–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Niikura N, Sakatani T, Arima N, Ohi Y, Honma N, Kanomata N, Yoshida K, Kadoya T, Tamaki K, Kumaki N et al. Assessment of the Ki67 labeling index: a Japanese validation ring study. Breast Cancer (Tokyo, Japan) 2014.

  14. Knutsvik G, Stefansson IM, Aziz S, Arnes J, Eide J, Collett K, Akslen LA. 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(11):e112121.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, 2-16-1 Sugao, Miyamae-ku, Kawasaki, 216-8511, Japan

    Ichiro Maeda, Hirotaka Koizumi, Shinya Tajima, Hiromi Aoki, Junichi Tsuchiya & Masayuki Takagi

  2. Department of Clinical Pathology, St. Marianna University Hospital, Kawasaki, Japan

    Kayoko Abe

  3. Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan

    Chika Nakajima

  4. Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan

    Seiko Tsuchiya, Kyoko Tsuchiya, Arata Shimo & Koichiro Tsugawa

  5. Unit of Medical Statistics, Faculty of Medical Education and Culture, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan

    Takahiko Ueno & Shinobu Tatsunami

Authors
  1. Ichiro Maeda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kayoko Abe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hirotaka Koizumi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chika Nakajima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shinya Tajima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Hiromi Aoki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Junichi Tsuchiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Seiko Tsuchiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Kyoko Tsuchiya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Arata Shimo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Koichiro Tsugawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Takahiko Ueno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Shinobu Tatsunami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Masayuki Takagi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ichiro Maeda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maeda, I., Abe, K., Koizumi, H. et al. Comparison between Ki67 labeling index determined using image analysis software with virtual slide system and that determined visually in breast cancer. Breast Cancer 23, 745–751 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-015-0634-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-015-0634-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation