Assessment of tumour proliferation by use of the mitotic activity index, and Ki67 and phosphohistone H3 expression, in early‐stage luminal breast cancer. Issue 4 (30th August 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: van Steenhoven, Julia E C; Kuijer, Anne; Kornegoor, Robert; van Leeuwen, Gijs; van Gorp, Joost; van Dalen, Thijs; van Diest, Paul J
• Is Part Of: Histopathology. Volume 77:Issue 4(2021)
• Page Start: 579
• Page End: 587
• Publication Date: 2020-08-30
• Subjects: breast cancer -- Ki67 -- mitotic activity index -- phosphohistone H3 -- reproducibility; Histology, Pathological -- Periodicals; 611.018
• DOI: 10.1111/his.14185
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0309-0167

Abstract

Abstract : Aims: Phosphohistone H3 (PhH3) has been proposed as a novel proliferation marker in breast cancer. This study compares the interobserver agreement for assessment of the mitotic activity index (MAI), Ki67 expression, and PhH3 in a cohort of oestrogen receptor (ER)‐positive breast cancer patients. Methods and results: Tumour samples of 159 luminal breast cancer patients were collected. MAI and PhH3 scores were assessed by three breast cancer pathologists. Ki67 scores were assessed separately by two of the three pathologists. PhH3‐positive cells were counted in an area of 2 mm 2, with a threshold of ≥13 positive cells being used to discriminate between low‐proliferative and high‐proliferative tumours. Ki67 expression was assessed with the global scoring method. Ki67 percentages of <20% were considered to be low. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Cohen's κ statistics were used to evaluate interobserver agreement. The impact on histological grading of replacing the MAI with PhH3 was assessed. Counting PhH3‐positive cells was highly reproducible among all three observers (ICC of 0.86). The κ scores for the categorical PhH3 count ( κ = 0.78, κ = 0.68, and κ = 0.80) reflected substantial agreement among all observers, whereas agreement for the MAI ( κ = 0.38, κ = 0.52, and κ = 0.26) and Ki67 ( κ = 0.55) was fair to moderate. When PhH3 was used to determine the histological grade, agreement in grading increased (PhH3, κ = 0.52, κ = 0.48, and κ = 0.52; MAI, κ = 0.43, κ = 0.35, and κ = 0.32), and the proportion of grade III tumours increased (14%, 18%, and 27%). Conclusion: PhH3 seems to outperform Ki67 and the MAI as a reproducible means to measure tumour proliferation in luminal‐type breast cancer. Variation in the assessment of histological grade might be reduced by using PhH3, but would result in an increase in the proportion of high‐grade cancers.