Objective. Proliferative activity in tumor tissues is assessed as the percentage of Ki-67/MIB-1-positive cells, or the proliferative index (PI). The PI is routinely assessed manually. However, the subjectivity of manual assessments might result in poor reproducibility. We hypothesized that digital assessments might reduce the error. Method. In our study, we assessed Ki-67/MIB-1 PIs, both manually and digitally, with tissue microarrays constructed from 141 human meningioma samples. Spearman-rank correlation and κ statistics were applied for correlation and agreement analyses, respectively. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare MIB-1 PIs between groups. Prognostic ability was assessed with Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Results. We found a significant, high correlation (Spearman ρ = 0.832, P < .01) and moderate agreement (κ coefficient = 0.617, observed agreement = 80.9%) between the 2 methods. Both methods found significantly different Ki-67/MIB-1 PIs for different World Health Organization grades (P < .05). Neither method showed significant prognostic value. Conclusion. Digital determinations of Ki-67/MIB-1 PIs in human meningiomas are feasible for the daily routine.
OstromQTGittlemanHFulopJ, et al. CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous ystem tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2008-2012. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17(suppl 4):iv1-iv62.
2.
McFaline-FigueroaJRLeeEQ.Brain tumors. Am J Med. 2018;131:874-882.
3.
GoldbrunnerRMinnitiGPreusserM, et al. EANO guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of meningiomas. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17:e383-e391.
4.
PerryALouisDNBudkaH, et al. Meningioma. In: LouisDNOhgakiHWiestlerODCaveneeWK, eds. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Central Nervous System. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2016:231-245.
5.
HarterPNBraunYPlateKH.Classification of meningiomas—advances and controversies. Chin Clin Oncol. 2017;6(suppl 1):S2.
6.
LouisDNPerryAReifenbergerG, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131:803-820.
7.
BuerkiRAHorbinskiCMKruserTHorowitzPMJamesCDLukasRV.An overview of meningiomas. Future Oncol. 2018;14:2161-2177.
8.
JonatWArnoldN.Is the Ki-67 labelling index ready for clinical use?Ann Oncol. 2011;22:500-502.
9.
PraysonRA.Cell proliferation and tumors of the central nervous system, part II: radiolabeling, cytometric, and immunohistochemical techniques. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol. 2002;61:663-672.
10.
SobeckiMMroujKCamassesA, et al. The cell proliferation antigen Ki-67 organises heterochromatin. Elife. 2016;5:e13722.
AbryEThomassenIOSalvesenOOTorpSH.The significance of Ki-67/MIB-1 labeling index in human meningiomas: a literature study. Pathol Res Pract. 2010;206:810-815.
13.
MengelMvon WasielewskiRWieseBRudigerTMuller-HermelinkHKKreipeH.Inter laboratory and inter-observer reproducibility of immunohistochemical assessment of the Ki-67 labelling index in a large multi-centre trial. J Pathol. 2002;198:292-299.
14.
GralaBMarkiewiczTKozlowskiWOsowskiSSlodkowskaJPapierzW.New automated image analysis method for the assessment of Ki-67 labeling index in meningiomas. Folia Histochem Cytobiol. 2009;47:587-592.
15.
KimYJRomeikeBFUszkoreitJFeidenW.Automated nuclear segmentation in the determination of the Ki-67 labeling index in meningiomas. Clin Neuropathol. 2006;25:67-73.
16.
SwiderskaZKorzynskaAMarkiewiczT, et al. Comparison of the manual, semiautomatic, and automatic selection and leveling of hot spots in whole slide images for Ki-67 quantification in meningiomas. Anal Cell Pathol (Amst). 2015;2015:498746.
17.
SwiderskaZMarkiewiczTGralaBSlodkowskaJ.Hot-spot selection and evaluation methods for whole slice images of meningiomas and oligodendrogliomas. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2015;2015:6252-6256.
18.
Swiderska-ChadajZMarkiewiczTGralaBLorentM.Content-based analysis of Ki-67 stained meningioma specimens for automatic hot-spot selection. Diagn Pathol. 2016;11:93-104.
19.
AcsBMadarasLKovacsKA, et al. Reproducibility and prognostic potential of Ki-67 Proliferation Index when comparing digital-image analysis with standard semi-quantitative evaluation in breast cancer. Pathol Oncol Res. 2018;24:115-127.
20.
NielsenLAGBangsoJALindahlKH, et al. Evaluation of the proliferation marker Ki-67 in gliomas: interobserver variability and digital quantification. Diagn Pathol. 2018;13:38-45.
21.
SugitaSHiranoHHatanakaY, et al. Image analysis is an excellent tool for quantifying Ki-67 to predict the prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients. Pathol Int. 2018;68:7-11.
22.
RichardsenEAndersenSAl-SaadS, et al. Evaluation of the proliferation marker Ki-67 in a large prostatectomy cohort. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0186852.
23.
Backer-GrondahlTMoenBHSundstromSHTorpSH.Histopathology and prognosis in human meningiomas. APMIS. 2014;122:856-866.
24.
SimpsonD.The recurrence of intracranial meningiomas after surgical treatment. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1957;20:22-39.
25.
WintherTLArnliMBSalvesenOTorpSH.Phosphohistone-H3 Proliferation Index is superior to mitotic index and MIB-1 expression as a predictor of recurrence in human meningiomas. Am J Clin Pathol. 2016;146:510-520.
26.
ArnliMBBacker-GrondahlTYtterhusB, et al. Expression and clinical value of EGFR in human meningiomas. PeerJ. 2017;5:e3140.
27.
TorpSHLindboeCFGronbergBHLydersenSSundstromS.Prognostic significance of Ki-67/MIB-1 proliferation index in meningiomas. Clin Neuropathol. 2005;24:170-174.
28.
McHughML.Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22:276-282.
29.
FernebroEDictorMBendahlPOFernoMNilbertM.Evaluation of the tissue microarray technique for immunohistochemical analysis in rectal cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2002;126:702-705.
30.
HoosAUristMJStojadinovicA, et al. Validation of tissue microarrays for immunohistochemical profiling of cancer specimens using the example of human fibroblastic tumors. Am J Pathol. 2001;158:1245-1251.
31.
RubinMADunnRStrawdermanMPientaKJ.Tissue microarray sampling strategy for prostate cancer biomarker analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26:312-319.
