Efforts to standardise Ki-67 counting in breast cancer. A pilot study of the Swiss Working Group of Gyneco- and Breast Pathologists

Goals: Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer are increasing based on the pathologist's assessment of the proliferation fraction in the tumor. Yet, how good and how reproducible are we pathologists at providing reliable Ki-67 readings on breast carcinomas. Exactly how to count and in which areas to count within a tumor remains inadequately standardized. The Swiss Working Group of Gyneco- and Breast Pathologists has tried to appreciate this dilemma and to propose ways to obtain more reproducible results.Methods: In a first phase, 5 pathologists evaluated Ki67 counts in 10 breast cancers by exact counting (500 cells) and by eyeballing. Pathologists were free to select the region in which Ki67 was evaluated. In a second phase 16 pathologists evaluated Ki-67 counts in 3 breast cancers also by exact counting and eyeballing, but in predefined fields of interest. In both phases, Ki67 was assessed in centrally immunostained slides (ZH) and on slides immunostained in the 11 participating laboratories. In a third phase, these same 16 pathologists were once again asked to read the 3 cases from phase 2, plus three new cases, and this time exact guidelines were provided as to what exactly is considered a Ki-67 positive nucleus.Results: Discordance of Ki67 assessment was due to each of the following 4 factors: (i) pathologists' divergent definitions of what counts as a positive nucleus (ii) the mode of assessment (counting vs. eyeballing), (iii) immunostaining technique/protocol/antibody, and (iv) the selection of the area in which to count.Conclusion: Providing guidelines as to where to count (representative field in the tumor periphery and omitting hot spots) and what nuclei to count (even faintly immunostained nuclei count as positive) reduces the discordance rates of Ki67 readings between pathologists. Laboratory technique is only of minor importance (even over a large antibody dilution range), and counting nuclei does not improve accuracy, but rather aggravates deviations from the group mean values.Disclosure of Interest: None Declare