Comparison Between Manual and Automated Assessment of Ki-67 in Breast Carcinoma: Test of a Simple Method in Daily Practice

BackgroundIn the era of "precision medicine," the availability of high-quality tumor biomarker tests is critical and tumor proliferation evaluated by Ki-67 antibody is one of the most important prognostic factors in breast cancer. But the evaluation of Ki-67 index has been shown to suffer from some interobserver variability. The goal of the study is to develop an easy, automated, and reliable Ki-67 assessment approach for invasive breast carcinoma in routine practice. Patients and MethodsA total of 151 biopsies of invasive breast carcinoma were analyzed. The Ki-67 index was evaluated by 2 pathologists with MIB-1 antibody as a global tumor index and also in a hotspot. These 2 areas were also analyzed by digital image analysis (DIA). ResultsFor Ki-67 index assessment, in the global and hotspot tumor area, the concordances were very good between DIA and pathologists when DIA focused on the annotations made by pathologist (0.73 and 0.83, respectively). However, this was definitely not the case when DIA was not constrained within the pathologist's annotations and automatically established its global or hotspot area in the whole tissue sample (concordance correlation coefficients between 0.28 and 0.58). ConclusionsThe DIA technique demonstrated a meaningful concordance with the indices evaluated by pathologists when the tumor area is previously identified by a pathologist. In contrast, basing Ki-67 assessment on automatic tissue detection was not satisfactory and provided bad concordance results. A representative tumoral zone must therefore be manually selected prior to the measurement made by the DIA.