Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/17437
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJing, Nicola-
dc.contributor.authorFang, Catherine-
dc.contributor.authorWilliams, David S-
dc.date2017-
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-12T01:50:54Z-
dc.date.available2018-04-12T01:50:54Z-
dc.date.issued2017-06-
dc.identifier.citationPathology 2017; 49(4): 371-378-
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/17437-
dc.description.abstractKi-67 is a prognostic and predictive biomarker in oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer. However, its measurement is not well standardised. This study compared the validity, intra- and inter-observer reproducibility and reporting time of five methods of Ki-67 assessment on tissue microarrays (TMA) and whole slides. Ki-67 labelling index (LI) was assessed on 71 breast carcinomas of no special type (NST), using five methods: manual counting (gold standard), unaided visual estimation, visual estimation aided by reference photographs, semi-manual digital image analysis (DIA) and fully automated DIA (Aperio platform). On TMA, semi-manual DIA demonstrated the closest agreement with the gold standard [intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.98-0.99)]. All other methods also demonstrated close agreement [unaided estimation ICC=0.92 (0.90-0.93), aided estimation ICC=0.93 (0.92-0.95), fully automated DIA ICC=0.97 (0.96-0.97)]. On whole slides, both aided estimation and semi-manual DIA demonstrated excellent agreement with the gold standard [aided visual estimation ICC=0.91 (0.85-0.94), semi-manual DIA ICC=0.94 (0.89-0.96)]. Aided visual estimation significantly improved inter-observer reproducibility compared to unaided estimation [unaided ICC=0.87 (0.80-0.92); aided ICC=0.96 (0.93-0.97)] and corrected the underestimation bias seen in unaided estimation. Importantly, validity and reproducibility on whole slides were lower than on TMA for all methods of assessment, suggesting that field selection is an important source of variability in Ki-67 assessment. Values close to clinically used cut-off values therefore should be interpreted with caution.-
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectKi-67-
dc.subjectanalytical validity-
dc.subjectBreast cancer-
dc.subjectdigital image analysis-
dc.subjectproliferation marker-
dc.subjectreproducibility of results-
dc.subjecttissue microarrays-
dc.titleValidity and reliability of Ki-67 assessment in oestrogen receptor positive breast cancer.-
dc.typeJournal Article-
dc.identifier.journaltitlePathology-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Pathology, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationMelbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Cancer Medicine, Olivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute, Latrobe University, Heidelberg, Australia-
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Pathology, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.pathol.2017.02.001-
dc.identifier.pubmedid28450087-
dc.type.austinJournal Article-
local.name.researcherWilliams, David S
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.languageiso639-1en-
crisitem.author.deptOlivia Newton-John Cancer Research Institute-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

6
checked on Mar 27, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.