Image analysis is an excellent tool for quantifying Ki‐67 to predict the prognosis of gastrointestinal stromal tumor patients

We investigated the quantification of Ki‐67 staining using digital image analysis (IA) as a complementary prognostic factor to the modified National Institutes of Health (NIH) classification in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). We examined 92 patients, focusing on the correlation between age, sex, primary tumor site, tumor size, predominant histologic type, mitotic index, modified NIH classification (low/intermediate vs high), Ki‐67 quantitation, and recurrence‐free survival (RFS). We compared two IA processes for whole slide imaging (WSI) and manually captured image (MCI) methods. A Ki‐67 quantitation cutoff was determined by receiver operator characteristics curve analysis. In the survival analysis, the high‐risk group of a modified NIH classification, a mitotic count >5 per 20 high‐powered fields, and Ki‐67 cutoffs of ≥6% and ≥8% obtained by IA of the WSI and MCI methods, respectively, had an adverse impact on RFS. On multivariate analysis, each Ki‐67 quantitation method strongly predicted prognosis, more strongly than the modified NIH classification. In addition, Ki‐67 quantitation using IA of the MCI method could stratify low or intermediate risk and high risk GIST patients. Thus, IA is an excellent tool for quantifying Ki‐67 to predict the prognosis of GIST patients, and this semiautomated approach may be preferable for patient care.

[1]  Cynthia Cohen,et al.  Whole Slide Imaging for Analytical Anatomic Pathology and Telepathology: Practical Applications Today, Promises, and Perils. , 2017, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[2]  H. Cao,et al.  Prognostic value of Ki67 index in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. , 2014, International journal of clinical and experimental pathology.

[3]  D. Neureiter,et al.  Robust linear regression model of Ki-67 for mitotic rate in gastrointestinal stromal tumors , 2014, Oncology letters.

[4]  Y. Matsuno,et al.  Prognostic significance of pathologic complete response and Ki67 expression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer , 2015, Breast Cancer.

[5]  Y. Matsuno,et al.  Validity and reproducibility of Ki‐67 assessment in gastrointestinal stromal tumors and leiomyosarcomas , 2013, Pathology international.

[6]  L. Lourenço,et al.  Ki-67 expression score correlates to survival rate in gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST). , 2012, Acta cirurgica brasileira.

[7]  Deepa T. Patil,et al.  Gastrointestinal stromal tumor: advances in diagnosis and management. , 2011, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[8]  C. Antonescu,et al.  NCCN Task Force report: update on the management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors. , 2010, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[9]  C. Oshima,et al.  Ki67 and p53 in gastrointestinal stromal tumors--GIST. , 2009, Arquivos de gastroenterologia.

[10]  H. Joensuu Risk stratification of patients diagnosed with gastrointestinal stromal tumor. , 2008, Human pathology.

[11]  T. Hasegawa Histological grading and MIB‐1 labeling index of soft‐tissue sarcomas , 2007, Pathology international.

[12]  B. Gonçalves,et al.  Expression of Ki‐67, Topoisomerase IIα and c‐MYC in astrocytic tumors: Correlation with the histopathological grade and proliferative status , 2006, Neuropathology : official journal of the Japanese Society of Neuropathology.

[13]  K. Hasegawa,et al.  Evaluation of malignancy using Ki-67 labeling index for gastric stromal tumor , 2003, Gastric Cancer.

[14]  J. Rodríguez-Peralto,et al.  Prognostic significance of DNA ploidy and proliferative index (MIB-1 index) in gastrointestinal stromal tumors. , 1997, Human pathology.