Digital image analysis of Ki67 in hot spots is superior to both manual Ki67 and mitotic counts in breast cancer.

AIMS: During pathological examination of breast tumours, proliferative activity is routinely evaluated by a count of mitoses. Adding immunohistochemical stains of Ki67 provides extra prognostic and predictive information. However, the currently used methods for these evaluations suffer from imperfect reproducibility. It is still unclear whether analysis of Ki67 should be performed in hot spots, in the tumour periphery, or as an average of the whole tumour section. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical relevance of mitoses, Ki67 and phosphohistone H3 in two cohorts of primary breast cancer specimens (total n = 294). METHODS AND RESULTS: Both manual and digital image analysis scores were evaluated for sensitivity and specificity for luminal B versus A subtype as defined by PAM50 gene expression assays, for high versus low transcriptomic grade, for axillary lymph node status, and for prognostic value in terms of prediction of overall and relapse-free survival. Digital image analysis of Ki67 outperformed the other markers, especially in hot spots. Tumours with high Ki67 expression and high numbers of phosphohistone H3-positive cells had significantly increased hazard ratios for all-cause mortality within 10 years from diagnosis. Replacing manual mitotic counts with digital image analysis of Ki67 in hot spots increased the differences in overall survival between the highest and lowest histological grades, and added significant prognostic information. CONCLUSIONS: Digital image analysis of Ki67 in hot spots is the marker of choice for routine analysis of proliferation in breast cancer.

Intra-tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer has limited impact on transcriptomic-based molecular profiling.

BACKGROUND: Transcriptomic profiling of breast tumors provides opportunity for subtyping and molecular-based patient stratification. In diagnostic applications the specimen profiled should be representative of the expression profile of the whole tumor and ideally capture properties of the most aggressive part of the tumor. However, breast cancers commonly exhibit intra-tumor heterogeneity at molecular, genomic and in phenotypic level, which can arise during tumor evolution. Currently it is not established to what extent a random sampling approach may influence molecular breast cancer diagnostics. METHODS: In this study we applied RNA-sequencing to quantify gene expression in 43 pieces (2-5 pieces per tumor) from 12 breast tumors (Cohort 1). We determined molecular subtype and transcriptomic grade for all tumor pieces and analysed to what extent pieces originating from the same tumors are concordant or discordant with each other. Additionally, we validated our finding in an independent cohort consisting of 19 pieces (2-6 pieces per tumor) from 6 breast tumors (Cohort 2) profiled using microarray technique. Exome sequencing was also performed on this cohort, to investigate the extent of intra-tumor genomic heterogeneity versus the intra-tumor molecular subtype classifications. RESULTS: Molecular subtyping was consistent in 11 out of 12 tumors and transcriptomic grade assignments were consistent in 11 out of 12 tumors as well. Molecular subtype predictions revealed consistent subtypes in four out of six patients in this cohort 2. Interestingly, we observed extensive intra-tumor genomic heterogeneity in these tumor pieces but not in their molecular subtype classifications. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that macroscopic intra-tumoral transcriptomic heterogeneity is limited and unlikely to have an impact on molecular diagnostics for most patients.