Efforts to standardise Ki-67 counting in breast cancer. A pilot study of the Swiss Working Group of Gyneco- and Breast Pathologists

Goals: Adjuvant chemotherapy decisions in breast cancer are increasing based on the pathologist's assessment of the proliferation fraction in the tumor. Yet, how good and how reproducible are we pathologists at providing reliable Ki-67 readings on breast carcinomas. Exactly how to count and in which areas to count within a tumor remains inadequately standardized. The Swiss Working Group of Gyneco- and Breast Pathologists has tried to appreciate this dilemma and to propose ways to obtain more reproducible results.Methods: In a first phase, 5 pathologists evaluated Ki67 counts in 10 breast cancers by exact counting (500 cells) and by eyeballing. Pathologists were free to select the region in which Ki67 was evaluated. In a second phase 16 pathologists evaluated Ki-67 counts in 3 breast cancers also by exact counting and eyeballing, but in predefined fields of interest. In both phases, Ki67 was assessed in centrally immunostained slides (ZH) and on slides immunostained in the 11 participating laboratories. In a third phase, these same 16 pathologists were once again asked to read the 3 cases from phase 2, plus three new cases, and this time exact guidelines were provided as to what exactly is considered a Ki-67 positive nucleus.Results: Discordance of Ki67 assessment was due to each of the following 4 factors: (i) pathologists' divergent definitions of what counts as a positive nucleus (ii) the mode of assessment (counting vs. eyeballing), (iii) immunostaining technique/protocol/antibody, and (iv) the selection of the area in which to count.Conclusion: Providing guidelines as to where to count (representative field in the tumor periphery and omitting hot spots) and what nuclei to count (even faintly immunostained nuclei count as positive) reduces the discordance rates of Ki67 readings between pathologists. Laboratory technique is only of minor importance (even over a large antibody dilution range), and counting nuclei does not improve accuracy, but rather aggravates deviations from the group mean values.Disclosure of Interest: None Declared

Individual patient data systematic review and meta-analysis of optic nerve sheath diameter ultrasonography for detecting raised intracranial pressure: protocol of the ONSD research group.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) research group project is to establish an individual patient-level database from high quality studies of ONSD ultrasonography for the detection of raised intracranial pressure (ICP), and to perform a systematic review and an individual patient data meta-analysis (IPDMA), which will provide a cutoff value to help physicians making decisions and encourage further research. Previous meta-analyses were able to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ONSD ultrasonography in detecting raised ICP but failed to determine a precise cutoff value. Thus, the ONSD research group was founded to synthesize data from several recent studies on the subject and to provide evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of ONSD ultrasonography in detecting raised ICP. METHODS: This IPDMA will be conducted in different phases. First, we will systematically search for eligible studies. To be eligible, studies must have compared ONSD ultrasonography to invasive intracranial devices, the current reference standard for diagnosing raised ICP. Subsequently, we will assess the quality of studies included based on the QUADAS-2 tool, and then collect and validate individual patient data. The objectives of the primary analyses will be to assess the diagnostic accuracy of ONSD ultrasonography and to determine a precise cutoff value for detecting raised ICP. Secondly, we will construct a logistic regression model to assess whether patient and study characteristics influence diagnostic accuracy. DISCUSSION: We believe that this IPD MA will provide the most reliable basis for the assessment of diagnostic accuracy of ONSD ultrasonography for detecting raised ICP and to provide a cutoff value. We also hope that the creation of the ONSD research group will encourage further study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42012003072.

Editorial research and the publication process in biomedicine and health: Report from the Esteve Foundation Discussion Group, December 2012.

Despite the fact that there are more than twenty thousand biomedical journals in the world, research into the work of editors and publication process in biomedical and health care journals is rare. In December 2012, the Esteve Foundation, a non-profit scientific institution that fosters progress in pharmacotherapy by means of scientific communication and discussion organized a discussion group of 7 editors and/or experts in peer review biomedical publishing. They presented findings of past editorial research, discussed the lack of competitive funding schemes and specialized journals for dissemination of editorial research, and reported on the great diversity of misconduct and conflict of interest policies, as well as adherence to reporting guidelines. Furthermore, they reported on the reluctance of editors to investigate allegations of misconduct or increase the level of data sharing in health research. In the end, they concluded that if editors are to remain gatekeepers of scientific knowledge they should reaffirm their focus on the integrity of the scientific record and completeness of the data they publish. Additionally, more research should be undertaken to understand why many journals are not adhering to editorial standards, and what obstacles editors face when engaging in editorial research.