MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396744109 · doi:10.1016/j.labinv.2024.102076

Fit-for-Purpose Ki-67 Immunohistochemistry Assays for Breast Cancer

2024· article· en· W4396744109 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emina Torlakovic, Nick Baniak, Penny J. Barnes, Keith Chancey, Liam Chen, Carol C. Cheung, Sylvie Clairefond, Jean‐Claude Cutz, Hala Faragalla, Denis Gravel, Kelly Dakin Haché, P. Iyengar, Michael Komel, Zuzana Kos, Magali Lacroix‐Triki, Monna J. Marolt, Miralem Mrkonjic, Anna Marie Mulligan, Sharon Nofech‐Mozes, Paul C. Park, Anna Plotkin, Simon Raphael, Henrike Rees, H Seno, Duc-Vinh Thai, Megan L. Troxell, Sonal Varma, Gang Wang, Tao Wang, Bret Wehrli, Gilbert Bigras

Bibliographic record

VenueLaboratory Investigation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Cells and Metastasis
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreQueen's UniversityResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyManitoba HealthMount Sinai HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaSt. Michael's HospitalNorth York General HospitalCancerCare ManitobaUniversity of ManitobaTrillium Health CentreHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity Health NetworkOttawa HospitalSunnybrook Health Science CentreMcMaster UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaWestern UniversityNova Scotia Health AuthoritySaskatchewan Health AuthoritySaskatchewan HealthSaskatoon City HospitalDalhousie UniversityRoyal University HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsImmunohistochemistryBreast cancerPathologyMedicineCancerOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New therapies are being developed for breast cancer, and in this process, some "old" biomarkers are reutilized and given a new purpose. It is not always recognized that by changing a biomarker's intended use, a new biomarker assay is created. The Ki-67 biomarker is typically assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) to provide a proliferative index in breast cancer. Canadian laboratories assessed the analytical performance and diagnostic accuracy of their Ki-67 IHC laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) of relevance for the LDTs' clinical utility. Canadian clinical IHC laboratories enrolled in the Canadian Biomarker Quality Assurance Pilot Run for Ki-67 in breast cancer by invitation. The Dako Ki-67 IHC pharmDx assay was employed as a study reference assay. The Dako central laboratory was the reference laboratory. Participants received unstained slides of breast cancer tissue microarrays with 32 cases and performed their in-house Ki-67 assays. The results were assessed using QuPath, an open-source software application for bioimage analysis. Positive percent agreement (PPA, sensitivity) and negative percent agreement (NPA, specificity) were calculated against the Dako Ki-67 IHC pharmDx assay for 5%, 10%, 20%, and 30% cutoffs. Overall, PPA and NPA varied depending on the selected cutoff; participants were more successful with 5% and 10%, than with 20% and 30% cutoffs. Only 4 of 16 laboratories had robust IHC protocols with acceptable PPA for all cutoffs. The lowest PPA for the 5% cutoff was 85%, for 10% was 63%, for 20% was 14%, and for 30% was 13%. The lowest NPA for the 5% cutoff was 50%, for 10% was 33%, for 20% was 50%, and for 30% was 57%. Despite many years of international efforts to standardize IHC testing for Ki-67 in breast cancer, our results indicate that Canadian clinical LDTs have a wide analytical sensitivity range and poor agreement for 20% and 30% cutoffs. The poor agreement was not due to the readout but rather due to IHC protocol conditions. International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (IKWG) recommendations related to Ki-67 IHC standardization cannot take full effect without reliable fit-for-purpose reference materials that are required for the initial assay calibration, assay performance monitoring, and proficiency testing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaboratory InvestigationSame topicCancer Cells and MetastasisFrench-language works237,207