P4-07-14: Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) Detection and HER2 Profiling by CellSearch® in Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: An International Ring Study To Assess Inter-Reader Variability.
Authors: M Ignatiadis, J-Y Pierga, M Campion, T Fehm, R Payne, B Rack, D Mavroudis, S Riethdorf, F Rothe, S Bessi, CM Aura, MT Sandri, E Borgen, J Kraan, LWMM Terstappen, M Piccart, C Sotiriou, S Michiels, K Pantel
Journal: Cancer Research (2011)

Abstract Background: Preliminary results from the Success and Remagus trials showed that CTC detection by CellSearch® has adverse prognostic value in non-metastatic breast cancer. Moreover, several investigators have characterized HER2 expression on CTCs in early breast cancer. Since the majority of CTC-positive women with non-metastatic breast cancer have only 1 CTC detected / blood volume analyzed, we wanted to evaluate the inter-reader variability in this setting. This is a crucial step before moving forward with multi-lab/multi-center prospective testing of the clinical utility of the CellSearch® technology in non-metastatic breast cancer. Methods: Five galleries of CellSearch® images from 3 European and one US institution (a total of 307 images) were mailed to 22 independent readers from 14 European and US academic laboratories and 8 readers from two CellSearch® Veridex laboratories in a blinded fashion. These images came mainly from studies on CTC and/or HER2−positive CTC detection in breast cancer and included healthy women (negative controls), women with metastatic (positive controls) and non-metastatic disease (Pierga et al SABCS 2010, Pierga et al ASCO 2011, Riedthorf et al CCR 2010, Ignatiadis et al PLoS ONE 2011). Each reader reported the images as either CTC-negative or CTC-positive/HER2−negative or CTC-positive/HER2−positive. Kappa statistics were used to assess inter-reader agreement. The 8 Veridex readers were summarized by a majority voting system to derive a gold standard in order to compare each independent reader using discordance rates. Results: Kappa statistics showed moderate to good agreement between independent readers depending on the gallery evaluated (gallery 1 K: 0.55, gallery 2 K:0.57 gallery 3 K:0.64, gallery 4 K:0.72, gallery 5 K:0.85). These differences were attributed to differences in scoring difficulty of each gallery. Discordances in CTC-positive vs CTC-negative events between each reader and the gold standard ranged from 2.3%-31.3% with 7 readers showing discordance rates &amp;lt;5%, 11 readers between 5–10%, 10 readers between 10–14% and only 2 readers showing discordance rates &amp;gt;14% as compared to the gold standard (median discordance rate: 9.3%). Image analysis showed that investigators with high discordance rates compared to the Veridex gold standard were not always taking into account “morphological characteristics” for defining an event as CTC-positive. Discordant results between readers were mainly due to discordance in CTC definition and to a lesser extent in the definition of HER2−positivity. Indeed, discordances in assigning a CTC-positive event as either HER2−negative or HER2−positive ranged from 0.3−13.7% with 19 readers showing discordance rates &amp;lt;5%, 7 readers between 5–10% and 4 readers with discordance rates &amp;gt;10% (median discordance rate: 3.9%). Conclusion: In non-metastatic breast cancer, we observed low discordance between most independent readers and the gold standard for defining a CellSearch® event as CTC with very few readers showing high discordance rates. Concordance can be improved through appropriate training and the use of all the tools provided by the CellSearch® system for image interpretation. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-07-14.