Hi All
I’d be interested to know if other people have had test results which include this thing called Ki-67 (or Ki67). Ki-67 was stated for the first time after tests had been done on the tumour that was removed, but not from the initial biopsy. The first onc I saw made no mention of Ki-67 but the one I went to for a 2nd opinion said it was a good indicator for long term prognosis since it tells them how fast the cells are multiplying. So low Ki-67 = good.
I googled it and found some interesting papers on the subject, all from the last few years so it may be something that’s not widely known about yet.
Anyone else know much about this? Is it something we should be informed on?
Sarah x
I was told mine was key67 after biopsy but you have just made me remember that! The test result day is a bit of a blur. I thought it was about how fast the cells were dividing but assumed that key (ki?) 67 was my result and that other tumours had different results, similar to grade 1,2,3. But what you say makes sense a bit more. Will have to ask on my next appointment as they probably told me more info which I have forgotten!! Hopefully one of the ladies who know the medical stuff will come on and explain.
Vickie
Hi Vickie
No one mentioned the Ki-67 results in any of my earlier appointments, but it appeared on letters from my consultant to my GP. Then the 2nd onc seemed to think it was important. I believe it’s not a factor which is included in the AdjuvantOnline calcs so probably gets ignored by many.
Sarah x
Hi
From what I have read ki67 is a way of grading a tumour, but lots of oncs just go by grade I 2 or 3. I have never asked if it is on my path report because I assume if there is anything I really need to know they will tell me. I think it is known about but I am not sure it adds anything to the grading they already do. I would be interested to known it people have grade 1 tumours with high ki 67 or grade 3 tumours with low ki 67. Hope you get some more replies. Debx
Thanks for this Sarah, never heard of ki-67 so just been googling. Sounds as though not all tumours are tested for levels.
I found some info to say that tumours with high ki-67 are more aggressive, and therefore respond better to chemotherapy.
It’s a minefield of information, so much of which we’re kept in the dark about.
xx Jane
Right, I will ask " my very good friend but must really be sick of me asking cancer questions" oncologist friend next time I see her!
Just checked my path report, makes no mention of the “ki-67” I assume it’s not part of current standard testing. But would now really like to know! Do they keep tumour samples for later tests?
Hi I didn’t get told anything about Ki-67 either - I don’t think I will ask now as I might hear something I didn’t want to know…
Tina your question about samples of tumours made me smile - I don’t know the answer to your question by the way, but in my mind I had a vision of all these ‘tumours’, different shapes, grades and sizes sitting around on a slab in a laboratory somewhere… I think I am losing the plot x
Hi All
I assume that the testing I had done was the standard stuff, and this included Ki-67. My first onc didn’t even mention it but the 2nd onc seemed to think it was significant.
As Midge said, it would be interesting to know if there is such a thing as a grade 1 tumour with high Ki-67 or a grade 3 with low Ki-67.
Over to tors to put her oncologist friend under a very bright spotlight and ask lots of questions!
Sarah x
Hi All,
I had a Ki-67 test done in July by my second onc but only because the hospital where I had my mastectomy in April failed to process my sample in time which meant the histology results were very inconclusive. It was hard to grade my deteriorated sample accurately and give clear advice on chemo etc which is why they did the extra test.
The Ki-67 results give a level indicating growth rate of cancer cells. Here’s a bit more info:
dslrf.org/breastcancer/content.asp?CATID=28&L2=3&L3=7&L4=0&PID=&sid=132&cid=1487
They do keep the slides from the samples for ages, apparently.
X
Thanks akfilm for the link to extra info. Does anyone know what levels of Ki-67 are considered to be high, medium, low etc? The article says greater than 20% is high, but it would be useful to know what a “normal” non-cancerous sort of reading would be. My Ki-67 was 10% and I had a grade 2 tumour, although the onc said she would have described it as being more like a large grade 1, since quite a bit around the edges was DCIS.
Sarah x
Hi Sarah,
It sounds like you are well on the ‘low’ end of the scale - mine was 20% and grade 2/3 and the onc still advised against chemo.
Hope that helps you feel reassured.
Annette X
Funnily enough the 1st onc I saw, who ignored the Ki-67 result, was suggesting that I should consider chemo, although not advising it outright. The onc I saw for a 2nd opinion said no way did I need chemo, and one reason (not the only reason) for that was the low Ki-67 result. So why are some oncs taking account of it and others not? Both oncs I saw were trained by the same consultant, but onc No. 1 seemed to put all his faith in the AdjuvantOnline software, whereas onc No. 2 used the same software but balanced that with her clinical experience and other factors - like the Ki-67. I had already decided not to have chemo since my instinct (after a lot of homework) was that it was OTT in my case, but was really reassured by the 2nd onc and the way she explained all the test results to me. It’s too easy for oncs to recommend the maximum treatment so they can’t be criticised later, but that doesn’t take into account the patient’s quality of life.
Merely my opinion and I’m sure some will feel differently - I know there are many posting on here who will take any treatment offered. I prefer to balance the risks against the costs, as long as those have been explained competently.
Sarah x
Hi
My BC was grade 3 and my Ki-67 result was 25%. Treatment-wise I had the lot.
I was really freaked out about it at first until I started googling which I found strangely reassuring (for a change). There are ladies on the american forum with results of 98% who are still fine 8 or 9 years out from dx.
Incidentally I came across a site which stated that low was up to 15%, medium 16 - 25% and high 26% and over. So I’ll stick with that as it puts me at the top end of medium!!!
Take care
Mal