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
BACKGROUND: It has recently been reported that mismatch repair (MMR) status and microsatellite instability (MSI) status in gastroesophageal carcinomas predict surgical, chemotherapeutic and immunotherapeutic outcomes; however, there is extensive variability in the reported incidence and clinical implications of MMR/MSI status in gastroesophaegal adenocarcinomas. We characterized a Canadian surgical patient cohort with respect to MMR status, clinicopathologic correlates and anatomic tumour location. METHODS: We investigated MMR and BRAF V600E status of gastroesophaegal adenocarcinomas in patients who underwent gastrectomy or esophagectomy with extended (D2) lymphadenectomy at a single centre between 2011 and 2019. We correlated patterns of MMR expression in the overall cohort and in anatomic location-defined subgroups with treatment response and overall survival using multivariate analysis. RESULTS: In all, 226 cases of gastroesophaegal adenocarcinoma (63 esophageal, 98 gastroesophageal junctional and 65 gastric) were included. The MMR-deficient (dMMR) immunophenotype was found in 28 tumours (12.3%) (15 junctional [15.3%], 13 gastric [20.0%] and none of the esophageal). The majority (25 [89%]) of dMMR cases showed MLH1/PMS2 loss without concurrent BRAF V600E mutation. Two MSH2/ MSH6-deficient gastric tumours and 1 MSH6-deficient junctional tumour were detected. The pathologic response to preoperative chemotherapy was comparable in the dMMR and MMR-proficient (pMMR) cohorts. However, dMMR status was associated with significantly longer median overall survival than pMMR status (5.8 yr v. 2.4 yr, hazard ratio [HR] 1.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-3.46), particularly in junctional tumours (4.6 yr v. 1.9 yr, HR 2.97, 95% CI 1.27-6.94). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that MMR status has at least prognostic value, which supports the need for biomarker testing in gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas, including junctional adenocarcinomas. This highlights the clinical significance of determining the MMR status in all adenocarcinomas of the upper gastrointestinal tract. Response to induction chemotherapy, however, was not influenced by MMR status.
