Ki67 in Breast Cancer Assay: An Ad Hoc Testing Recommendation from the Canadian Association of Pathologists Task Force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ki67, a marker of cellular proliferation, is commonly assessed in surgical pathology laboratories. In breast cancer, Ki67 is an established prognostic factor with higher levels associated with worse long-term survival. However, Ki67 IHC is considered of limited clinical use in breast cancer management largely due to issues related to standardization and reproducibility of scoring across laboratories. Recently, both the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada have approved the use of abemaciclib (CDK4/6 inhibitor) for patients with HR+/HER2: high-risk early breast cancers in the adjuvant setting. Health Canada and the FDA have included a Ki67 proliferation index of ≥20% in the drug monograph. The approval was based on the results from monarchE, a phase III clinical trial in early-stage chemotherapy-naïve, HR+, HER2 negative patients at high risk of early recurrence. The study has shown significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) with abemaciclib when combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy at two years. Therefore, there is an urgent need by the breast pathology and medical oncology community in Canada to establish national guideline recommendations for Ki67 testing as a predictive marker in the context of abemaciclib therapy consideration. The following recommendations are based on previous IKWG publications, available guidance from the monarchE trial and expert opinions. The current recommendations are by no means final or comprehensive, and their goal is to focus on its role in the selection of patients for abemaciclib therapy. The aim of this document is to guide Canadian pathologists on how to test and report Ki67 in invasive breast cancer. Testing should be performed upon a medical oncologist's request only. Testing must be performed on treatment-naïve tumor tissue. Testing on the core biopsy is preferred; however, a well-fixed resection specimen is an acceptable alternative. Adhering to ASCO/CAP fixation guidelines for breast biomarkers is advised. Readout training is strongly recommended. Visual counting methods, other than eyeballing, should be used, with global rather than hot spot assessment preferred. Counting 100 cells in at least four areas of the tumor is recommended. The Ki67 scoring app developed to assist pathologists with scoring Ki67 proposed by the IKWG, available for free download, may be used. Automated image analysis is very promising, and laboratories with such technology are encouraged to use it as an adjunct to visual counting. A score of <5 or >30 is more robust. The task force recommends that the results are best expressed as a continuous variable. The appropriate antibody clone and staining protocols to be used may take time to address. For the time being, the task force recommends having tonsils/+pancreas on-slide control and enrollment in at least one national/international EQA program. Analytical validation remains a pending goal. Until the data become available, using local ki67 protocols is acceptable. The task force recommends participation in upcoming calibration and technical validation initiatives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.047 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".