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

Annals of Surgical Oncology

Volumn 24, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 1251-1257

  Focke, C M ^a,b   Decker, T ^a   van Diest, P J ^b  

^a Department of Pathology   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

KI 67 ANTIGEN;

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER DIAGNOSIS; CANCER PATIENT; CANCER TISSUE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSENSUS; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; EXCISION; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABELING INDEX; LUMINAL BREAST CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NEEDLE BIOPSY; SURGICAL EXCISION BIOPSY; TUMOR BIOPSY; TUMOR VOLUME; BREAST TUMOR; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; LARGE CORE NEEDLE BIOPSY; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; METABOLISM; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

BIOPSY, LARGE-CORE NEEDLE; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; KI-67 ANTIGEN; LYMPHATIC METASTASIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 85006850815     PISSN: 10689265     EISSN: 15344681     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-016-5730-1     Document Type: Article

References (31)

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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–S72
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.
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.
11. Hayes DF. From genome to bedside: are we lost in translation? Breast. 2013;22(Suppl 2):S22–6.
12. Hayes DF. Biomarker validation and testing. Mol Oncol. 2015;9:960–6.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.