Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (sTILs) are important prognostic and predictive biomarkers in triple-negative (TNBC) and HER2-positive breast cancer. Incorporating sTILs into clinical practice necessitates reproducible assessment. Previously developed standardized scoring guidelines have been widely embraced by the clinical and research communities. We evaluated sources of variability in sTIL assessment by pathologists in three previous sTIL ring studies. We identify common challenges and evaluate impact of discrepancies on outcome estimates in early TNBC using a newly-developed prognostic tool. Discordant sTIL assessment is driven by heterogeneity in lymphocyte distribution. Additional factors include: technical slide-related issues; scoring outside the tumor boundary; tumors with minimal assessable stroma; including lymphocytes associated with other structures; and including other inflammatory cells. Small variations in sTIL assessment modestly alter risk estimation in early TNBC but have the potential to affect treatment selection if cutpoints are employed. Scoring and averaging multiple areas, as well as use of reference images, improve consistency of sTIL evaluation. Moreover, to assist in avoiding the pitfalls identified in this analysis, we developed an educational resource available at www.tilsinbreastcancer.org/pitfalls.

New therapies are being developed for breast cancer and in this process some "old" biomarkers are re-utilized 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 (CBQA) 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 (USA) was the reference laboratory. Participants received unstained slides of breast cancer tissue microarrays (TMAs) with 32 cases and performed their in-house Ki-67 assay. The results were assessed using QuPath, an open-source software for bio-image 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% cut-offs. Overall, PPA and NPA varied depending on the selected cut-off; participants were more successful with 5% and 10%, than with 20% and 30% cut-offs. Only four out of 16 laboratories had robust IHC protocols with acceptable PPA for all cut-offs. The lowest PPA for the 5% cut-off was 85%, for 10% was 63%, for 20% was 14%, and for 30% was 13%. The lowest NPA for the 5% cut-off 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% cut-offs. The poor agreement was not due to the readout, but rather due to IHC protocol conditions. 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.

Ki67, a marker of cellular proliferation, is commonly assessed in surgical pathology laboratories. In breast cancer, Ki67 is an established prognostic factor with higher levels associated with worse long-term survival. However, Ki67 IHC is considered of limited clinical use in breast cancer management largely due to issues related to standardization and reproducibility of scoring across laboratories. Recently, both the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Health Canada have approved the use of abemaciclib (CDK4/6 inhibitor) for patients with HR+/HER2: high-risk early breast cancers in the adjuvant setting. Health Canada and the FDA have included a Ki67 proliferation index of ≥20% in the drug monograph. The approval was based on the results from monarchE, a phase III clinical trial in early-stage chemotherapy-naïve, HR+, HER2 negative patients at high risk of early recurrence. The study has shown significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) with abemaciclib when combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy at two years. Therefore, there is an urgent need by the breast pathology and medical oncology community in Canada to establish national guideline recommendations for Ki67 testing as a predictive marker in the context of abemaciclib therapy consideration. The following recommendations are based on previous IKWG publications, available guidance from the monarchE trial and expert opinions. The current recommendations are by no means final or comprehensive, and their goal is to focus on its role in the selection of patients for abemaciclib therapy. The aim of this document is to guide Canadian pathologists on how to test and report Ki67 in invasive breast cancer. Testing should be performed upon a medical oncologist’s request only. Testing must be performed on treatment-naïve tumor tissue. Testing on the core biopsy is preferred; however, a well-fixed resection specimen is an acceptable alternative. Adhering to ASCO/CAP fixation guidelines for breast biomarkers is advised. Readout training is strongly recommended. Visual counting methods, other than eyeballing, should be used, with global rather than hot spot assessment preferred. Counting 100 cells in at least four areas of the tumor is recommended. The Ki67 scoring app developed to assist pathologists with scoring Ki67 proposed by the IKWG, available for free download, may be used. Automated image analysis is very promising, and laboratories with such technology are encouraged to use it as an adjunct to visual counting. A score of 30 is more robust. The task force recommends that the results are best expressed as a continuous variable. The appropriate antibody clone and staining protocols to be used may take time to address. For the time being, the task force recommends having tonsils/+pancreas on-slide control and enrollment in at least one national/international EQA program. Analytical validation remains a pending goal. Until the data become available, using local ki67 protocols is acceptable. The task force recommends participation in upcoming calibration and technical validation initiatives.

For more than a century, microscopic histology has been the cornerstone for cancer diagnosis, and breast carcinoma is no exception. In recent years, clinical biomarkers, gene expression profiles, and other molecular tests have shown increasing utility for identifying the key biological features that guide prognosis and treatment of breast cancer. Indeed, the most common histologic pattern—invasive ductal carcinoma of no special type—provides relatively little guidance to management beyond triggering grading, biomarker testing, and clinical staging. However, many less common histologic patterns can be recognized by trained pathologists, which in many cases can be linked to characteristic biomarker and gene expression patterns, underlying mutations, prognosis, and therapy. Herein we describe more than a dozen such histomorphologic subtypes (including lobular, metaplastic, salivary analog, and several good prognosis special types of breast cancer) in the context of their molecular and clinical features.

Aims: The LUMINA trial demonstrated a very low local recurrence rate in women ≥55 years with low‐risk luminal A breast cancer (defined as grade I‐II, T1N0, hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative and Ki67 index ≤13.25%) treated with breast‐conserving surgery and endocrine therapy (but no other systemic therapy), supporting the safe omission of radiation in these women. Here we describe the protocol for Ki67 assessment, the companion diagnostic used to guide omission of adjuvant radiotherapy.Methods: Ki67 immunohistochemistry was performed on full‐face sections at one of three regional labs. Pathologists trained in the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (IKWG) method demarcated tumour areas on scanned slides and scored 100 nuclei from each of at least five randomly selected 1‐mm fields. For cases with high Ki67 heterogeneity, further virtual cores were selected and scored in order to confidently assign a case as luminal A (≤13.25%) or B (>13.25%). Interlaboratory variability was assessed through an annual quality assurance programme during the study period.Results: From the quality assurance programme, the mean Ki67 index across all cases/labs was 13%. The observed intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa statistics were ≥0.9 and ≥0.7, respectively, indicating a substantial level of agreement. Median scoring time was 4 min per case. The IKWG‐recommended scoring method, performed directly from slides, requiring up to four scored fields, is concordant with the LUMINA scoring method (ICC ≥ 0.9).Conclusion: Ki67 is a practical, reproducible, and inexpensive biomarker that can identify low‐risk luminal A breast cancers as potential candidates for radiation de‐escalation.Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01791829