ABSTRACT
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.
ABSTRACT
CONTEXT: Laboratories must validate all assays before they can be used to test patient specimens, but currently there are no evidence-based guidelines regarding validation of immunohistochemical assays. OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for initial analytic validation and revalidation of immunohistochemical assays. DESIGN: The College of American Pathologists Pathology and Laboratory Quality Center convened a panel of pathologists and histotechnologists with expertise in immunohistochemistry to develop validation recommendations. A systematic evidence review was conducted to address key questions. Electronic searches identified 1463 publications, of which 126 met inclusion criteria and were extracted. Individual publications were graded for quality, and the key question findings for strength of evidence. Recommendations were derived from strength of evidence, open comment feedback, and expert panel consensus. RESULTS: Fourteen guideline statements were established to help pathology laboratories comply with validation and revalidation requirements for immunohistochemical assays. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratories must document successful analytic validation of all immunohistochemical tests before applying to patient specimens. The parameters for cases included in validation sets, including number, expression levels, fixative and processing methods, should take into account intended use and should be sufficient to ensure that the test accurately measures the analyte of interest in specimens tested in that laboratory. Recommendations are also provided for confirming assay performance when there are changes in test methods, reagents, or equipment.
