MIB1/Ki-67 labelling index can classify grade 2 breast cancer into two clinically distinct subgroups
- 433 Downloads
Histological grade is recognized as one of the strongest prognostic factors in operable breast cancer (BC). Although grade 1 and grade 3 tumours are biologically and clinically distinct, grade 2 tumours bear considerable difficulty in outcome prediction and planning therapies. Several attempts such as genomic grade index have been performed to subclassify grade 2 into two subgroups with clinical relevance. Here, we present evidence that the routinely evaluable immunohistochemical MIB1/Ki67 labelling index (MIB-LI) can classify grade 2 tumours into two clinically distinct subgroups. In this study, growth fractions of 1,550 primary operable invasive breast carcinomas were immunohistochemically assayed on full-face tissue sections using the MIB1 clone of Ki-67. Growth fractions were assessed as number of MIB1 positive nuclei in 1,000 tumour nuclei at high-power magnification and expressed as MIB1-LI. Using a 10% cut-point of MIB1-LI, grade 2 BCs were classified into low (49.8%) and high (50.2%) proliferative subgroups. Univariate and multivariate survival analysis revealed statistically significant differences between these subgroups regarding patients’ BC specific survival (P < 0.001), and metastasis free survival (P < 0.001) which was independent of the well-established prognostic factors (HR = 2.944, 95% CI = 1.634–5.303, P < 0.001). In conclusion, our results further demonstrate that grade 2 BCs may represent at least two biological or behaviourally different entities. Assay of growth fraction in BC using MIB1/Ki67 immunohistochemistry is a robust cost-effective diagnostic tool that subdivides grade 2 tumours into low and high risk populations providing additional prognostic information in planning therapies and outcome prediction.
KeywordsBreast carcinoma Growth fraction Grade Immunohistochemistry Ki67
MAA is funded by the Ministry of High Education (Egypt). Part of this work has been partially funded by the Breast Cancer Campaign.
Conflict of interest statement
None of the authors has any competing interests.
- 2.Pereira H, Pinder SE, Sibbering DM, Galea MH, Elston CW, Blamey RW, Robertson JF, Ellis IO (1995) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. IV: should you be a typer or a grader? A comparative study of two histological prognostic features in operable breast carcinoma. Histopathology 27:219–226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Meyer JS, Alvarez C, Milikowski C, Olson N, Russo I, Russo J, Glass A, Zehnbauer BA, Lister K, Parwaresch R (2005) Breast carcinoma malignancy grading by Bloom–Richardson system vs proliferation index: reproducibility of grade and advantages of proliferation index. Mod Pathol 18:1067–1078PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Dai H, vant Veer L, Lamb J, He YD, Mao M, Fine BM, Bernards R, van de Vijver M, Deutsch P, Sachs A, Stoughton R, Friend S (2005) A cell proliferation signature is a marker of extremely poor outcome in a subpopulation of breast cancer patients 65:4059–4066Google Scholar
- 14.Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S, Farmer P, Pradervand S, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Ignatiadis M, Sengstag T, Schutz F, Goldstein DR, Piccart M, Delorenzi M (2008) Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res 10:R65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S, Harris A, Fox S, Smeds J, Nordgren H, Farmer P, Praz V, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Larsimont D, Cardoso F, Peterse H, Nuyten D, Buyse M, Van de Vijver MJ, Bergh J, Piccart M, Delorenzi M (2006) Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:262–272PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Ellis IO et al (2005) Pathology reporting of breast disease: a joint document incorporating the third edition of the NHS Breast Screening Programme’s Guidelines for pathology reporting in breast cancer screening and the second edition of the Royal College of Pathologists’ Minimum dataset for breast cancer histopathology. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes; Royal College of PathologistsGoogle Scholar
- 22.Abd El-Rehim DM, Ball G, Pinder SE, Rakha E, Paish C, Robertson JFR, Macmillan D, Blamey RW, Ellis IO (2005) High-throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well-characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses. Int J Cancer 116:340–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Rakha EA, Elsheikh SE, Aleskandarany MA, Habashi HO, Green AR, Powe DG, El-Sayed ME, Benhasouna A, Brunet JS, Akslen LA, Evans AJ, Blamey R, Reis-Filho JS, Foulkes WD, Ellis IO (2009) Triple-negative breast cancer: distinguishing between basal and nonbasal subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 15:2302–2310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Camp RL, Dolled-Filhart M, Rimm DL (2004) X-Tile: a new bio-informatics tool for biomarker assessment and outcome-based cut-point optimization 10:7252–7259Google Scholar
- 30.Le Doussal V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Friedman S, Hacene K, Spyratos F, Brunet M (1989) Prognostic value of histologic grade nuclear components of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR). An improved score modification based on a multivariate analysis of 1262 invasive ductal breast carcinomas. Cancer 64:1914–1921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Baak JP, van Diest PJ, Voorhorst FJ, van der Wall E, Beex LV, Vermorken JB, Janssen EA (2005) Prospective multicenter validation of the independent prognostic value of the mitotic activity index in lymph node-negative breast cancer patients younger than 55 years. J Clin Oncol 23:5993–6001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar