Background: Ki67 reflects the proliferation activity in breast cancer (BC). However, an optimal method for its assessment in clinical settings has yet to be robustly defined. In this study we compared several methods to score Ki67 to identify a reliable and reproducible method for routine practice. Methods: Sections from luminal BC cohort (n = 1662) were immunohistochemically stained with Ki67 and were assessed for the percentage, pattern, and intensity of expression. Ki67 positivity was evaluated using three methods: (i) quantification of Ki67positive cells among 1000 invasive tumour cells within hotspot, (ii) average estimation of Ki67 within a defined hotspot, and (iii) average estimation of Ki67 positivity within the whole section. Time required for scoring, interobserver agreement and association with outcome were determined. Results:The mean percentage of Ki67 expression per 1000 cells method was 16%, while the mean value of Ki67 scores using the average estimation within hotspot and whole slide were 14% and 12%, respectively. Quantification of Ki67-positive cells within 1000 cells had the highest degree of consistency between observers, and the highest hazard ratio predicting patient outcome when compared to using different common Ki67 cutoffs, which was independent of the other two methods. Granular pattern of Ki67 expression was associated with poorer outcome as compared to the other patterns. Conclusion: Assessment of Ki67 expression using quantification positive cells among 1000 tumour cells is an optimal method to achieve high reliability and reproducibility. Comment on the predominant Ki67 expression pattern would add prognostic and predictive value in luminal BC.

The assessment of cell proliferation is a key morphological feature for diagnosing various pathological lesions and predicting their clinical behaviour. Visual assessment of mitotic figures in routine histological sections remains the gold-standard method to evaluate the proliferative activity and grading of cancer. Despite the apparent simplicity of such a well-established method, visual assessment of mitotic figures in breast cancer (BC) remains a challenging task with low concordance among pathologists which can lead to under or overestimation of tumour grade and hence affects management. Guideline recommendations for counting mitoses in BC have been published to standardise methodology and improve concordance; however, the results remain less satisfactory. Alternative approaches such as the use of the proliferation marker Ki67 have been recommended but these did not show better performance in terms of concordance or prognostic stratification. The advent of whole slide image technology has brought the issue of mitotic counting in BC into the light again with more challenges to develop objective criteria for identifying and scoring mitotic figures in digitalised images. Using reliable and reproducible morphological criteria can provide the highest degree of concordance among pathologists and could even benefit the further application of artificial intelligence (AI) in breast pathology, and this relies mainly on the explicit description of these figures. In this review, we highlight the morphology of mitotic figures and their mimickers, address the current caveats in counting mitoses in breast pathology and describe how to strictly apply the morphological criteria for accurate and reliable histological grade and AI models.

Atypical mitosis is considered a feature of malignancy, however, its significance in breast cancer (BC) remains elusive. Here, we aimed to assess the clinical value of atypical mitoses in BC and to explore their underlying molecular features. Atypical and typical mitotic figures were quantified and correlated with clinicopathological variables in a large cohort of primary BC tissue sections (n = 846) using digitalized hematoxylin and eosin whole-slide images (WSIs). In addition, atypical mitoses were assessed in The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) BC dataset (n = 1032) and were linked to the genetic alterations and pathways. In this study, the median of typical mitoses was 17 per 3 mm2 (range 0–120 mitoses), while the median of atypical mitoses was 4 (range 0–103 mitoses). High atypical mitoses were significantly associated with parameters characteristic of aggressive tumor behavior. The total number of mitoses, and a high atypical-to-typical mitoses ratio (>0.27) were associated with poor BC specific survival (BCSS), (p = 0.04 and 0.01, respectively). The atypical-to-typical mitoses ratio dichotomized triple negative-BC (TNBC) patients into two distinct groups in terms of the association with the outcome, while the overall number of mitoses was not. Moreover, TNBC patients with high atypical-to-typical mitoses ratio treated with adjuvant chemotherapy were associated with shorter survival (p = 0.003). Transcriptomic analysis of the TCGA-BRCA cohort dichotomized based on atypical mitoses identified 2494 differentially expressed genes. These included genes linked to pathways involved in chromosomal localization and segregation, centrosome assembly, spindle and microtubule formation, regulation of cell cycle and DNA repair. To conclude, the atypical-to-typical mitoses ratio has prognostic value independent of the overall mitotic count in BC patients and could predict the response to chemotherapy in TNBC.