scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

23. Inclusion of KI67 significantly improves performance of the predict prognostication and prediction model for early breast cancer

01 May 2014-Ejso (Elsevier)-Vol. 40, Iss: 5, pp 607
About: This article is published in Ejso.The article was published on 2014-05-01 and is currently open access. It has received 2 citations till now.

Summary (2 min read)

Introduction

  • The aim of this study was to incorporate the prognostic effect of KI67 status in a new version (v3), and compare performance with the Predict model that includes HER2 status (v2).
  • The validation study was based on 1,726 patients with EBC treated in Nottingham between 1989 and 1998.

Background

  • Selection of appropriate patients for adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery for early breast cancer remains one of the greatest challenges for clinicians involved in the management of patients with early breast cancer.
  • While AURKA expression has been shown to be a more powerful prognosticator than KI67 [6], KI67 has been advocated as the marker of choice for measuring and monitoring tumour proliferation [7].
  • This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative ommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and iginal work is properly credited.
  • The Cox models were used to derive the baseline survivor function and the hazard ratio associated with each prognostic factor.
  • PREDICT uses the baseline survivor function and the hazard ratio estimates (Table 1) to predict survival for a patient with a specific set of prognostic factors without adjuvant therapy and with adjuvant hormone therapy or chemotherapy assuming the relative risk reductions reported by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group overview [10].

Methods

  • An estimate for the prognostic effect of KI67 status was based on an analysis of data from the SEARCH (studies of epidemiology and risk factors in cancer heredity) study [6].
  • SEARCH is a large prospective population-based study of women diagnosed with breast cancer, including prevalent cases diagnosed before the age of 55 years during 1991–1996 and still alive in 1996, and incident cases consisting of women under the age of 70 years diagnosed after 1996.
  • KI67 was dichotomised because there was little evidence for any trend in the HR associated with increasing KI67 score.
  • PREDICT v3 was generated by applying the HR associated with KI67 to the baseline hazards used in PREDICT v2 such that KI67negative ER-positive tumours have a relative hazard of 0.89 and the KI67-positive ER-positive tumours have a relative hazard of 1.16.

Validation study population

  • Data were available for 2,232 cases of invasive breast cancer treated in Nottingham from 1989-1998.
  • Information obtained from the Nottingham dataset included age at diagnosis, histological grade, tumour size, number of positive lymph nodes, ER status, HER2 status, KI67 and type of adjuvant systemic therapy (none, chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, both).
  • The number of cases with missing data for each variable is shown in Table 2.
  • Chemotherapy regimens were considered to be by PREDICT1.

Calibration

  • In the 1,274 patients with ER-positive tumours, there were 221 breast cancer deaths after ten years of follow-up.
  • The calibration of PREDICT v2 and PREDICTv3 was good with PREDICT v3 slightly out performing v2.
  • The observed and predicted numbers of deaths by clinical characteristics are shown in Table 2.
  • PREDICT performed well in all sub groups, with v3 performing better than v2 in all but the cases with large tumours (>30 mm) or cases with ten or more positive nodes.
  • The number of deaths in the 453 ER-negative cases predicted by PREDICT v2/v3 was the same as the number observed (n = 142).

Discrimination

  • The discrimination of both versions of PREDICT was also good and again was slightly better in v3 than in v2.
  • The receiver operating characteristics curves are shown in Figure 2.

Discussion and conclusions

  • Addition of KI67 to the Predict model has significantly improved both calibration and discrimination of PREDICT and this version (v3) of the model is now freely available online at www.predict.nhs.uk.
  • Furthermore, the incremental improvement in discrimination for the Oncotype DX® RS recurrence predictions over the established prognostic factors included in PREDICT is not known.
  • The authors recognise that there may be a better way to dichotomise KI67 positivity, but the 10% cut-off has been shown previously to be optimal [22], and the use of this simple cut off in their study demonstrated the validity of KI67 as a prognostic marker with improved performance of the PREDICT model.
  • Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J, Watson M, Davies S, Bernard PS, Parker JS, Perou CM, Ellis MJ, Nielsen TO: Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer.

Did you find this useful? Give us your feedback

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

RES E AR C H A R T I C L E Open Access
Inclusion of KI67 significantly improves
performance of the PREDICT prognostication and
prediction model for early breast cancer
Gordon C Wishart
1
, Emad Rakha
2
, Andrew Green
2
, Ian Ellis
2
, Hamid Raza Ali
3
, Elena Provenzano
3
, Fiona M Blows
3
,
Carlos Caldas
3
and Paul DP Pharoah
3*
Abstract
Background: PREDICT (www.predict.nhs.uk) is a prognostication and treatment benefit tool for early breast cancer
(EBC). The aim of this study was to incorporate the prognostic effect of KI67 status in a new version (v3), and
compare performance with the Predict model that includes HER2 status (v2).
Methods: The validation study was based on 1,726 patients with EBC treated in Nottingham between 1989 and
1998. KI67 positivity for PREDICT is defined as >10% of tumour cells staining positive. ROC curves were constructed
for Predict models with (v3) and without (v2) KI67 input. Comparison was made using the method of DeLong.
Results: In 1274 ER+ patients the predicted number of events at 10 years increased from 196 for v2 to 204 for v3
compared to 221 observed. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) improved from 0.7611 to 0.7676 (p = 0.005) in ER+
patients and from 0.7546 to 0.7595 (p = 0.0008) in all 1726 patients (ER+ and ER-).
Conclusion: Addition of KI67 to PREDICT has led to a statistically significant improvement in the model performance
for ER+ patients and will aid clinical decision making in these patients. Further studies should determine whether other
markers including gene expression profiling provide additional prognostic information to that provided by PREDICT.
Keywords: Breast cancer, KI67, Prognostic model
Background
Selection of appropriate patients for adjuvant chemo-
therapy following surgery for early breast cancer remains
one of the greatest challenges for clinicians involved in
the management of patients with early breast cancer. Re-
cent debate has focused on patients with oestrogen re-
ceptor (ER) + tumours, following identification that ER+
tumours can be split into at least two specific molecular
subtypes, Luminal A and Luminal B, with a marked dif-
ference in tumour characteristics and prognosis [1,2].
Luminal A tumour s in general have an excellent progno-
sis, and are unlikely to benefit from chemotherapy. Lu-
minal B tumours have a worse prognosis than Luminal
A tumours and can be identified by the high expression
of specific proliferation-related genes such as KI67 or
Aurora A kinase (AURKA). More recently additional sub-
types of ER+ tumours have been identified [3]. The classi-
fications based on gene expression can be recapitulated
using immunohistochemistry (IHC) [4,5]. While AURKA
expression has been shown to be a more powerful prog-
nosticator than KI67 [6], KI67 has been advocated as the
marker of choice for measuring and monitoring tumour
proliferation [7]. Furthermore, KI67 expression has been
used with other IHC markers to identify the proliferative
subgroup of HER2- & ER+ cases with a poor outcome [8],
who may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.
PREDICT is an online prognostication and treatment
benefit tool (www.predict.nhs.uk) that is based on clinico-
pathological factors including tumour size, tumour grade,
lymph node status, ER status, HER2 status and mode of de-
tection. PREDICT was developed using cancer registry data
on 5,694 women treated in East Anglia from 1999-2003.
Breast cancer mortality models for ER positive and ER
negative tumours were constructed using Cox proportional
* Correspondence: pp10001@medschl.cam.ac.uk
3
Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Strangeways Research
Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, UK
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
© 2014 Wishart et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,
unless otherwise stated.
Wishart et al. BMC Cancer 2014, 14:908
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/14/908

hazards, adjusted for known prognostic factors and mode
of detection (symptomatic versus screen-detected) [9]. The
Cox models were used to derive the baseline survivor func-
tion and the hazard ratio associated with each prognostic
factor. PREDICT uses the baseline survivor function and
the hazard ratio estimates (Table 1) to predict survival for a
patient with a specific set of prognostic factors without ad-
juvant therapy and with adjuvant hormone therapy or
chemotherapy assuming the relative risk reductions re-
ported by the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative
Group overview [10]. The survival estimates for an individ-
ual patient are based on the average co morbidity for
women with breast cancer of a similar age. The original
model (v1), which provides estimates of 5-and 10-year sur-
vival as well as absolute treatment benefits, has been vali-
dated in independent case-cohorts from the UK [9] and
Canada [11]. HER2 status was subsequently added to PRE-
DICT by incorporating an external estimate of the hazard
ratio associated with HER2 positivity i.e. an estimate from
a different data set than that used to derive PREDICT v1.
Following inclusion of HER2 status as an input variable, the
updated Predict model (v2) provided better breast cancer
specific survival estimates than Adjuvant, especially in the
subset of patients with HER2 positive tumours [12].
There appears little doubt that KI67 has great poten-
tial as a prognostic and predictive factor in early brea st
cancer [13], but integration into routine clinical manage-
ment has to date been hampered by a failure to identify
the optimal approach for its incorporation into prognos-
tic tools [14-16]. This study was not intended to inform
the current debate on finding the optimal threshold for
KI67 positivity or to promote the value of KI67 as a
prognostic marker. The aim of this study was to incorp-
orate the prognostic effect of KI67 status in a new ver-
sion of Predict (v3), and compare performance with the
current Predict model that includes HER2 status (v2) in
an independent patient cohort.
Methods
Prognostic effect of tumour KI67 status
An estimate for the prognostic effect of KI67 status was
based on an analysis of data from the SEARCH (studies of
epidemiology and risk factors in cancer heredity) study
[6]. SEARCH is a large prospective population-based study
of women diagnosed with breast cancer, including preva-
lent cases diagnosed before the age of 55 years during
19911996 and still alive in 1996, and incident cases con-
sisting of women under the age of 70 years diagnosed after
1996. From the SEARCH study, KI67 was available for a
total of 2,436 patients (1,835 ER positive, 601 ER negative)
and immunohistochemical (IHC) expression was cate-
gorised into one of five groups (0%, 1-10%. 11-33%, 34-
66%, >66%) according to an Allred proportion score. KI67
positivity, defined as >10% of tumour cells staining posi-
tive, was associated with a multi-variable adjusted hazard
ratio (HR) for breast cancer specific mortality of 1.3 in pa-
tients with ER-positive tumours. KI67 was dichotomised
because there was little evidence for any trend in the HR
associated with increasing KI67 score. PREDICT v3 was
generated by applying the HR associated with KI67 to the
baseline hazards used in PREDICT v2 such that KI67-
negative ER-positive tumours have a relative hazard of
0.89 and the KI67-positive ER-positive tumours have a
relative hazard of 1.16. The relative hazard between KI67-
positive and KI67-negative is then 1.3 with an average
relative hazard of one. PREDICT v2 and PREDICT v3 are
the same for ER-negative tumours as KI67 is not associ-
ated with prognosis in this sub-group.
Validation study population
Data were available for 2,232 cases of invasive breast
cancer treated in Nottingham from 1989-1998. Of these,
506 node-negative cases were excluded due to inad-
equate axillary node staging (<4 nodes sampled), leaving
1,726 patients (ER-, n = 452; ER+, n = 1,274) for the val-
idation study. Data are presented in detail for the 1,274
ER positive patients.
Information obtained from the Nottingham dataset in-
cluded age at diagnosis, histological grade, tumour size,
number of positive lymph nodes, ER status, HER2 status,
KI67 and type of adjuvant systemic therapy (none, chemo-
therapy, endocrine therapy, both). Mean imputation, with
the missing value replaced by the mean for that variable,
was used to account for missing data for tumour size,
tumour grade, HER2 status and KI67 status. The number
of cases with missing data for each variable is shown in
Table 2. Chemotherapy regimens were considered to be
Table 1 Hazard ratio estimates for prognostic variables used by PREDICT
1
Prognostic variable Hazard ratio per unit increase in variable category
(Categories) ER+ ER-
Node status (0, 1, 2 to 4, 5 to 9,10+) 1.75 1.55
Tumour size in mm <10, 10 to 19, 20 to 29, 30 to 49, 50+) 1.43 1.44
Grade (Low, intermediate, high) 2.33 1.50
Screen detected 0.70 0.86
1 Published in Wishart et al. [9].
Wishart et al. BMC Cancer 2014, 14:908 Page 2 of 6
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/14/908

first generation, as the patients were treated between 1989
and 1998.
This research was carried out in compliance with the
Helsinki Declaration. SEARCH is approved by the East
of England - Cambridge Research Ethics Committee (02/
5/42) and the Nottingham Breast Cancer study is ap-
proved by the Nottingha m Research Ethics Committ ee 2
(REC number C2020313).
The primary endpoint was 10-year breast cancer specific
survival (BCSS). Predicted survival was calculated for each
patient using v2 and v3 of PREDICT. Model calibration
was analysed as a comparison of the predicted mortality
estimates from each model with the observed mortality. In
addition to comparing calibration in the complete data set,
we evaluated calibration within strata of other prognostic
variables. We also evaluated calibration within quintile of
predicted mortality. A goodness-of-fit test was carried out
by using a χ
2
-test based on the observed and predicted
number of events within each quintile (5 d.f.). Model dis-
crimination was evaluated by calculating the area under
the receiver-operator-characteristic curve (AUC) calculated
for 10-year mortality. This is a measure of how well each
version of the model identifies those patients with worse
survival. The AUC is the probability that the predicted
mortality from a randomly selected patient who died will
be higher than the predicted mortality from a randomly se-
lected survivor. Comparison between v2 and v3 was made
using the method of DeLong [16].
Results
Calibration
In the 1,274 patients with ER-positive tumours, there were
221 breast cancer deaths after ten years of follow-up. The
calibration of PREDICT v2 and PREDICTv3 was good
with PREDICT v3 slightly out performing v2. V2 of PRE-
DICT estimated 196 deaths compared to 204 deaths esti-
mated by v3. The observed and predicted numbers of
deaths by clinical characteristics are shown in Table 2.
PREDICT performed well in all sub groups, with v3 per-
forming better than v2 in all but the cases with large tu-
mours (>30 mm) or cases with ten or more positive
nodes. Calibration of PREDICT v3 across quintiles of pre-
dicted risk was good (Figure 1, goodness-of-fit P = .065).
The number of deaths in the 453 ER-negative cases pre-
dicted by PREDICT v2/v3 was the same as the number
observed (n = 142).
Discrimination
The discrimination of both versions of PREDICT was
also good and again was slightly better in v3 than in v2.
Discrimination, as estimated from the AUC significantly
improved from 0.7611 for v2 to 0.7676 for v3 (p =
0.005). The receiver operating characteristics curves are
shown in Figure 2. When all 1,726 patients (ER+ and
ER-) were analysed, the addition of KI 67 to PREDICT
significantly improved the AUC from 0.7546 to 0.7595
(p = 0.000 8).
Discussion and conclusions
Addition of KI67 to the Predict model has significantly
improved both calibration and discrimination of PRE-
DICT and this version (v3) of the model is now freely
available online at www.predict.nhs.uk. It is anticipated
that this improvement in model performance will contrib-
ute to more accurate predictions of the chemotherapy
benefit for individual patients. Both versions of PREDICT,
with (v3) and without KI67 (v2), underestimated the num-
ber of breast cancer deaths by 8% and 11% respectively in
this case cohort. This may be partly explained by the fact
Table 2 Observed and predicted breast cancer deaths at
ten years by clinical characteristics in ER positive cases
Number
of cases
Breast cancer deaths (number)
Observed PREDICT v2 PREDICT v3
Total 221 196 204
Age group
<40 67 15 13 14
40-49 274 52 44 46
50-49 436 70 59 61
60+ 497 84 79 83
Size
<10 144 7 9 9
10-19 574 63 58 60
20-29 404 110 83 87
30-49 140 39 41 43
50+ 11 2 4 4
Missing 1 0 0 0
Node status
Negative 709 75 63 65
1+ 241 48 39 41
2-4+ 184 58 55 58
5-9+ 37 21 19 20
10+ 6 4 5 5
Missing 97 15 14 14
Grade
1 235 18 10 10
2 528 72 62 63
3 395 127 111 119
Missing 116 4 13 13
HER2 status
Negative 792 169 125 131
Positive 77 31 23 25
Missing 405 21 48 48
Wishart et al. BMC Cancer 2014, 14:908 Page 3 of 6
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/14/908

that the Nottingham dataset is an older cohort of pa-
tients diagnosed from 1989 to 1998, whereas PREDICT
is ba sed on women diagnosed in E a st Anglia, UK from
1999 to 2003.
Several multi-gene expression assays are now available
for use in breast cancer management. They are based on
mRNA expression in up to 70 cell cycle and proliferation
genes [17-19]. The Genomic Health recurrence score
(Oncotype Dx® RS) is a prognosticator (breast cancer re-
currence) based on a 21 gene expression profile. Oncotype
Dx® has recently been recommended by NICE (DG10) for
use in women with oestrogen receptor positive, lymph
node negative and HER2 negative early breast cancer to
guide chemotherapy decisions if the person is assessed as
being at intermediate risk using routine parameters, and
where the information on the biological features of the
cancer provided by Oncotype DX® is likely to help in pre-
dicting the course of the disease. While the analytic valid-
ity of the gene expression component of the Oncotype
D RS is well established, the clinical validity i.e the
calibration and discrimination of the recurrence predic-
tions of the Oncotype DX® RS - has not been published.
Furthermore, the incremental improvement in discrimin-
ation for the Oncotype D RS recurrence predictions
over the established prognostic factors included in PRE-
DICT is not known. A recent study has reported that the
Oncotype DX® RS is an independent prognostic factor in
ER-negative, HER2-negative tumours but the improve-
ment in discrimination from the RS compared to clinical
variables was less than the improvement obtained from
the improvement obtained by IHC4, an immunohisto-
chemistry test that includes KI67 [20]. Another recent
study explored the addition of the 70-gene signature
(MammaPrint) to Predict (v2) in 427 patients with early
stage breast cancer and found no significant improvement
in 5- or 10-year survival predictions [21].
There has been considerable debate about the utility of
KI67 IHC in routine clinical practice, partly because the
analytic validity of KI67 measurement by IHC is sub-
optimal and the optimal threshold for identifying KI67
positive tumours is not known. However, while such con-
siderations are germane to the incorporation on KI67 IHC
into a multi-variable risk prediction model, issues around
analytic validity are not of primary importance in this
study. The KI67 parameter included in the PREDICT
model was derived from data from one study SEARCH.
The validation of the PREDICT risk prediction model uti-
lized data from a completely independent case-cohort for
which KI67 had been measured in a completely different
laboratory. It is thus likely that the standardization of KI67
was sub-optimal. The calibration and discrimination of
PREDICT improved despite this limitation. This empha-
sizes the point that even a marker measured sub-optimally
can have clinical validity when that marker is used in the
context of risk prediction.
Inclusion of HER2 and KI67 in PREDICT has signifi-
cantly improved the performance to estimate breast can-
cer specific mortality. It is likely that the estimated
absolute 10-year benefits of adjuvant chemotherapy will
be similarly improved. The authors recognise that there
Figure 1 Calibration plots of observed outcomes with 95%
confidence intervals against predicted outcomes by quartiles of
the predicted value.
Figure 2 Receiver operator characteristic curves for breast
cancer specific mortality in 1,274 cases with ER positive disease
based on PREDICT v2 and PREDICT v3.
Wishart et al. BMC Cancer 2014, 14:908 Page 4 of 6
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/14/908

may be a better way to dichotomise KI67 positivity, but
the 10% cut-off has been shown previously to be optimal
[22], and the use of this simple cut off in our study dem-
onstrated the validity of KI67 as a prognostic marker
with improved performance of the PREDICT model.
This model, based on traditional clinico-pathological fac-
tors as well as IHC detection of 3 IHC markers (ER,
HER2 & KI67), now provides an ideal platform to test
the incremental improvement with the addition of any
new prognostic marker or gene expression profile . Inclu-
sion of progesterone receptor (PR) is the only widely
used IHC marker not currently included in the PRE-
DICT model and future studies will explore inclusion of
PR. The version of PRED ICT that includes KI67 is quick
to use, free and available for decision making at the clin-
ician desk-top. Oncotype Dx is now widely used in the
USA, but the cost has pre vented worldwide adoption for
risk a ssessment in patients with early-stage ER-positive
breast cancer. We believe that further research should
address whether gene-expression profiles such as Onco-
type Dx actua lly provide any incremental benefit in risk
prediction to that currently provided by the most recent
version of PREDICT.
Addition of KI67 to PREDICT has led to a statistically
significant improvement in the model performance for
ER+ patients and will aid clinical decision making in
these patients. Further studies should determine whether
other markers including gene expression profiling pro-
vide additional prognostic inf ormation to that provided
by PREDICT.
Competing interests
The authors declared that they have no competing interests.
Authors contributions
GCW designed the study and drafted the manuscript. ER generated and scored
the Nottingham tissue micro-array data, AG generated and managed the
Nottingham tissue micro-array data, IE designed the study and was responsible
for the collection of the Nottingham tissue micro-array data, HRA generated
and scored the SEARCH tissue micro-array data, EP generated and scored the
SEARCH tissue micro-array data, FB generated the SEARCH tissue micro-arrays,
CC designed the study, and PDPP designed the study, was responsible for the
collection of the SEARCH samples, carried out the statistical analysis and drafted
the manuscript. All authors contributed to the editing of the draft manuscript
and read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
We thank all the patients who took part in the SEARCH study as well as all
the clinicians who were part of the study team. SEARCH was funded through
a programme grant from Cancer Research UK (C490/A10124) and this work
is supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical
Research Centre at the University of Cambridge.
Author details
1
Faculty of Health, Social Care & Education, Anglia Ruskin University,
Cambridge, UK.
2
Division of Oncology, School of Medicine, University of
Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
3
Department of Oncology, University of
Cambridge, Strangeways Research Laboratory, Worts Causeway, Cambridge
CB1 8RN, UK.
Received: 7 May 2014 Accepted: 20 November 2014
Published: 3 December 2014
References
1. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, Pollack JR,
Ross DT, Johnsen H, Akslen LA, Fluge O, Pergamenschikov A, Williams C,
Zhu SX, Lonning PE, Borresen-Dale AL, Brown PO, Botstein D: Molecular
portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000, 406(6797):747752.
2. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, Hastie T, Eisen MB,
van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Thorsen T, Quist H, Matese JC, Brown PO, Botstein D,
Eystein Lonning P, Borresen-Dale AL: Gene expression patterns of breast
carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl
Acad SciUSA 2001, 98(19):1086910874.
3. Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin SF, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, Dunning MJ, Speed D, Lynch
AG, Samarajiwa S, Yuan Y, Graf S, Ha G, Haffari G, Bashashati A, Russell R,
McKinneyS,LangerodA,GreenA,ProvenzanoE,WishartG,PinderS,WatsonP,
Markowetz F, Murphy L, Ellis I, Purushotham A, Borresen-Dale AL, Brenton JD,
Tavare S, Caldas C, et al: The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000
breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 2012, 486(7403):34635 2.
4. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, Dressler LG, Cowan D, Conway K, Karaca G,
Troester MA, Tse CK, Edmiston S, Deming SL, Geradts J, Cheang MC, Nielsen
TO, Moorman PG, Earp HS, Millikan RC: Race, breast cancer subtypes, and
survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 2006, 295(21):24922502.
5. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, Hernandez-
Boussard T, Livasy C, Cowan D, Dressler L, Akslen LA, Ragaz J, Gown AM,
Gilks CB, van de Rijn M, Perou CM: Immunohistochemical and clinical
characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma.
Clin Cancer Res 2004, 10(16):53675374.
6. Ali HR, Dawson SJ, Blows FM, Provenzano E, Pharoah PD, Caldas C: Aurora
kinase A outperforms Ki67 as a prognostic marker in ER-positive breast
cancer. Br J Cancer 2012, 106(11):17981806.
7. Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A'Hern R, Bartlett J, Coombes RC, Cuzick J, Ellis M,
Henry NL, Hugh JC, Lively T, McShane L, Paik S, Penault-Llorca F, Prudkin L,
Regan M, Salter J, Sotiriou C, Smith IE, Viale G, Zujewski JA, Hayes DF,
International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working G: Assessment of Ki67 in
Breast Cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast
Cancer Working Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011, 103(22):16561664.
8. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J, Watson M, Davies
S, Bernard PS, Parker JS, Perou CM, Ellis MJ, Nielsen TO: Ki67 index, HER2
status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl
Cancer Inst 2009, 101(10):736750.
9. Wishart GC, Azzato EM, Greenberg DC, Rashbass J, Kearins O, Lawrence G,
Caldas C, Pharoah PD: PREDICT: a new UK prognostic model that predicts
survival following surgery for invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res
2010, 12(1):R1.
10. Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group:
Effects of chemotherapy and
hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival:
an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005, 365(9472):16871 717.
11. Wishart GC, Bajdik CD, Azzato EM, Dicks E, Greenberg DC, Rashbass J, Caldas
C, Pharoah PD: A population-based validation of the prognostic model
PREDICT for early breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol 2011, 37(5):411417.
12. Wishart GC, Bajdik CD, Dicks E, Provenzano E, Schmidt MK, Sherman M,
Greenberg DC, Green AR, Gelmon KA, Kosma VM, Olson JE, Beckmann MW,
Winqvist R, Cross SS, Severi G, Huntsman D, Pylkas K, Ellis I, Nielsen TO, Giles
G, Blomqvist C, Fasching PA, Couch FJ, Rakha E, Foulkes WD, Blows FM,
Begin LR, Van't Veer LJ, Southey M, Nevanlinna H, et al: PREDICT Plus:
development and validation of a prognostic model for early breast
cancer that includes HER2. Br J Cancer 2012, 107(5):800807.
13. Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Ravdin PM, Hayes MM, Gelmon KA: Ki67 in breast
cancer: prognostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol 2010, 11(2):174183.
14. Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S, Wale C, Salter J, Quinn E, Zabaglo L, Mallon
E, Green AR, Ellis IO, Howell A, Buzdar AU, Forbes JF: Prognostic value of a
combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human
epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and
comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast
cancer. J Clin Oncol 2011, 29(32):42734278.
15. Aleskandarany MA, Rakha EA, Macmillan RD, Powe DG, Ellis IO, Green AR:
MIB1/Ki-67 labelling index can classify grade 2 breast cancer into two
clinically distinct subgroups. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2011, 127(3):591599.
16. Pathmanathan N, Balleine RL: Ki67 and proliferation in breast cancer. J Clin
Pathol 2013, 66(6):512516.
17. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW, Schreiber
GJ, Peterse JL, Roberts C, Marton MJ, Parrish M, Atsma D, Witteveen A, Glas
A, Delahaye L, van der Velde T, Bartelink H, Rodenhuis S, Rutgers ET, Friend
Wishart et al. BMC Cancer 2014, 14:908 Page 5 of 6
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/14/908

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Overall, the prognostic models developed and validated for patients with breast cancer performed well in the development cohorts but less accurately in some independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and young and elderly patients.
Abstract: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide, with a great diversity in outcomes among individual patients. The ability to accurately predict a breast cancer outcome is important to patients, physicians, researchers, and policy makers. Many models have been developed and tested in different settings. We systematically reviewed the prognostic models developed and/or validated for patients with breast cancer. We conducted a systematic search in four electronic databases and some oncology websites, and a manual search in the bibliographies of the included studies. We identified original studies that were published prior to 1st January 2017, and presented the development and/or validation of models based mainly on clinico-pathological factors to predict mortality and/or recurrence in female breast cancer patients. From the 96 articles selected from 4095 citations found, we identified 58 models, which predicted mortality (n = 28), recurrence (n = 23), or both (n = 7). The most frequently used predictors were nodal status (n = 49), tumour size (n = 42), tumour grade (n = 29), age at diagnosis (n = 24), and oestrogen receptor status (n = 21). Models were developed in Europe (n = 25), Asia (n = 13), North America (n = 12), and Australia (n = 1) between 1982 and 2016. Models were validated in the development cohorts (n = 43) and/or independent populations (n = 17), by comparing the predicted outcomes with the observed outcomes (n = 55) and/or with the outcomes estimated by other models (n = 32), or the outcomes estimated by individual prognostic factors (n = 8). The most commonly used methods were: Cox proportional hazards regression for model development (n = 32); the absolute differences between the predicted and observed outcomes (n = 30) for calibration; and C-index/AUC (n = 44) for discrimination. Overall, the models performed well in the development cohorts but less accurately in some independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and young and elderly patients. An exception is the Nottingham Prognostic Index, which retains its predicting ability in most independent populations. Many prognostic models have been developed for breast cancer, but only a few have been validated widely in different settings. Importantly, their performance was suboptimal in independent populations, particularly in patients with high risk and in young and elderly patients.

90 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: PREDICT is a useful tool for providing reliable long-term (10-year) survival estimates for younger patients, however, for more accurate short-term estimates, the model requires further calibration using more data from young onset cases.
Abstract: Breast cancer is the most common cancer in younger women (aged ⩽40 years) in the United Kingdom. PREDICT ( http://www.predict.nhs.uk ) is an online prognostic tool developed to help determine the best available treatment and outcome for early breast cancer. This study was conducted to establish how well PREDICT performs in estimating survival in a large cohort of younger women recruited to the UK POSH study. The POSH cohort includes data from 3000 women aged ⩽40 years at breast cancer diagnosis. Study end points were overall and breast cancer-specific survival at 5, 8, and 10 years. Evaluation of PREDICT included model discrimination and comparison of the number of predicted versus observed events. PREDICT provided accurate long-term (8- and 10-year) survival estimates for younger women. Five-year estimates were less accurate, with the tool overestimating survival by 25% overall, and by 56% for patients with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumours. PREDICT underestimated survival at 5 years among patients with ER-negative tumours. PREDICT is a useful tool for providing reliable long-term (10-year) survival estimates for younger patients. However, for more accurate short-term estimates, the model requires further calibration using more data from young onset cases. Short-term prediction may be most relevant for the increasing number of women considering risk-reducing bilateral mastectomy.

26 citations


Cites methods from "23. Inclusion of KI67 significantly..."

  • ...Furthermore, inclusion of the proliferation marker KI67 in the PREDICT model has led to a statistically significant improvement in function of the PREDICT model for ERþ patients (Wishart et al, 2014), which may also improve prognostication for younger patients....

    [...]

Related Papers (5)
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Q1. What are the contributions mentioned in the paper "Inclusion of ki67 significantly improves performance of the predict prognostication and prediction model for early breast cancer" ?

The aim of this study was to incorporate the prognostic effect of KI67 status in a new version ( v3 ), and compare performance with the Predict model that includes HER2 status ( v2 ). Further studies should determine whether other markers including gene expression profiling provide additional prognostic information to that provided by PREDICT. 

Inclusion of progesterone receptor ( PR ) is the only widely used IHC marker not currently included in the PREDICT model and future studies will explore inclusion of PR. The authors believe that further research should address whether gene-expression profiles such as Oncotype Dx actually provide any incremental benefit in risk prediction to that currently provided by the most recent version of PREDICT. Further studies should determine whether other markers including gene expression profiling provide additional prognostic information to that provided by PREDICT. 13. Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Ravdin PM, Hayes MM, Gelmon KA: Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential.