Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 24, 2025
Performing Data Mining And Integrative Analysis Of Biomarker in Breast Cancer Using Multiple Publicly Accessible Databases
Published on: May 17, 2019
Correlation of manual semi-quantitative and automated quantitative Ki-67 proliferative index with
Brian S Finkelman1, Amanda Meindl2, Carissa LaBoy3
1Department of Pathology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Background:
Ki-67 immunohistochemistry (IHC) staining is a widely used cancer proliferation assay; however, its limitations could be improved with automated scoring. The OncotypeDXTM Recurrence Score (ORS), which primarily evaluates cancer proliferation genes, is a prognostic indicator for breast cancer chemotherapy response; however, it is more expensive and slower than Ki-67.
Objective:
To compare manual Ki-67 (mKi-67) with automated Ki-67 (aKi-67) algorithm results based on manually selected Ki-67 "hot spots" in breast cancer, and correlate both with ORS.
Methods:
105 invasive breast carcinoma cases from 100 patients at our institution (2011-2013) with available ORS were evaluated. Concordance was assessed via Cohen's Kappa (κ).
Results:
57/105 cases showed agreement between mKi-67 and aKi-67 (κ 0.31, 95% CI 0.18-0.45), with 41 cases overestimated by aKi-67. Concordance was higher when estimated on the same image (κ 0.53, 95% CI 0.37-0.69). Concordance between mKi-67 score and ORS was fair (κ 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.42), and concordance between aKi-67 and ORS was poor (κ 0.10, 95% CI -0.03-0.23).
Conclusions:
These results highlight the limits of Ki-67 algorithms that use manual "hot spot" selection. Due to suboptimal concordance, Ki-67 is likely most useful as a complement to, rather than a surrogate for ORS, regardless of scoring method.
More Related Videos
11:34Building Up a High-throughput Screening Platform to Assess the Heterogeneity of HER2 Gene Amplification in Breast Cancers
Published on: December 5, 2017
09:32Multiplexed Immunofluorescence Analysis and Quantification of Intratumoral PD-1+ Tim-3+ CD8+ T Cells
Published on: February 8, 2018