4.4 Article

Prognostic Evaluation of Ki67 Threshold Value in Canine Oral Melanoma

Journal

VETERINARY PATHOLOGY
Volume 48, Issue 1, Pages 41-53

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0300985810388947

Keywords

antigen Ki67; canine; melanoma; sensitivity and specificity; mitotic index

Funding

  1. Michigan State University [81-3214-A]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oral melanoma is a common canine cancer with a historically poor prognosis. Recent evidence suggests that a subset of cases may have a more favorable outcome, defined as long-term survival in the absence of intervention other than initial surgery. Traditional histological parameters have had prognostic significance in some studies but not in others, potentially due to inter-observer variation. We evaluated the prognostic utility of Ki67 immunohistochemistry in a group of 79 canine oral melanomas using a technique easily applied in a veterinary diagnostic laboratory. A threshold Ki67 value of >19.5 had a sensitivity and specificity of 87.1% and 85.4%, respectively, at predicting death or euthanasia due to melanoma by 1 year postdiagnosis. Threshold values for classical histological parameters were also identified for most cases and were >4 (>30%; sensitivity = 83.9%, specificity = 86.0%) for the nuclear atypia score and >4/10 hpfs (sensitivity = 90.3%, specificity = 84.4%) for the mitotic index. In this study, the percentages correctly classified with respect to death by 1 year postdiagnosis were comparable for Ki67 (86.1%, 68/ 79), the nuclear atypia score (86.3%, 63/73), and the mitotic index (86.8%, 66/76). High pigmentation (>50%) had a high negative predictive value of 90.9% (18/20), but overall, only 61.0% (47/77) of cases could be correctly classified by this parameter. Based on these results, we recommend a panel of prognostic parameters, including the nuclear atypia score, the mitotic index, Ki67, and pigmentation quantification to more accurately predict the likely outcome of canine oral melanomas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available