Abstract
Although Ki67 labeling index is a potential predictive marker for chemotherapy benefit, its clinical utility has been limited by the lack of a standard scoring method resulting in poor interobserver reproducibility. Especially, there is no consensus on the use of average versus hotspot score for reporting. In order to determine the best method for Ki67 scoring and validate manual scoring method proposed by the International Ki67 Working Group (IKWG), we systematically compared average versus hotspot score in 240 cases with a public domain image analysis program QuPath. We used OncotypeDx Recurrence Score (RS) as a benchmark to compare the potential clinical utility of each scoring methods. Both average and hotspot scores showed statistically significant but only modest correlation with OncotypeDx RS. Only hotspot score could meaningfully distinguish RS low-risk versus high-risk patients. However, hotspot score was less reproducible limiting its clinical utility. In summary, our data demonstrate that utility of the Ki67 labeling index is influenced by the choice of scoring method.