Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp 277–282 | Cite as

Prognostic value of Ki-67 labeling index in patients with node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer

  • Elisabetta MunzoneEmail author
  • E. Botteri
  • A. Sciandivasci
  • G. Curigliano
  • F. Nolè
  • M. Mastropasqua
  • N. Rotmensz
  • M. Colleoni
  • A. Esposito
  • L. Adamoli
  • A. Luini
  • A. Goldhirsch
  • G. Viale
Clinical trial

Abstract

The aim of this analysis was to investigate the usefulness of Ki-67 labeling index (LI) for the identification of different prognostic subgroups in primary node-negative, triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. From January 1997 to December 2005, 1,053 patients operated for TNBC were identified through the institutional clinical database. The study was performed in accordance with REMARK criteria. The relationship between Ki-67LI and the risk of breast-related deaths was evaluated with a multivariable Cox regression model. Cubic splines were used to model Ki-67LI as a continuous variable. We selected 496 consecutive patients with node-negative TNBC. Median age was 52 years, median Ki-67LI 48 % (range 4–95), and median follow up 6 years (range 0.5–13). Total deaths and deaths from BC were 52 (10.5 %) and 38 (7.7 %), respectively. Ki-67LI increased with decreasing age (P < 0.01), increasing tumor size (P < 0.01), and grade (P < 0.01). When analyzing Ki-67LI as a continuous variable, the risk of death from BC increased steeply with increasing Ki-67LI up to about 35 % and remained flat for higher values (adjusted effect of Ki-67 P = 0.049; adjusted nonlinear effect P = 0.021). Accordingly, when dividing patients into lower (≤35 %) and higher (>35 %) Ki-67LI subgroups, the 5-year cumulative incidence of breast-related deaths were 2.3 and 9.0 %, respectively, with an adjusted HR>35 vs ≤35 of 2.3 (95 % CI 1.0–5.8, P = 0.046). Within the group of patients with node-negative TNBC, Ki-67LI was associated with different prognoses subgroups. Ki-67LI might be useful in the design of trials of risk-adapted adjuvant therapies.

Keywords

Primary breast cancer Triple-negative Ki-67 Prognosis Adjuvant therapy 

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Gluz O, Liedtke C, Gottschalk N et al (2009) Triple negative breast cancer—current status and future directions. Ann Oncol 20:1913–1927PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hudis C, Gianni L (2011) Triple-negative breast cancer: an unmet medical need. Oncologist 16(suppl 1):1–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adamo B, Anders CK (2011) Stratifying triple-negative breast cancer: which definition(s) to use? Breast Cancer Res 13:105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C et al (2008) Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 14:1368–1376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prat A, Parker J, Karginova O et al (2010) Phenotypic and molecular characterization of the claudin-low intrinsic subtype of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 12:R68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Urruticoechea A, Smith IE, Dowsett M (2005) Proliferation marker Ki-67 in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(28):7212–7220PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Petit T, Wilt M, Velten M et al (2004) Comparative value of tumour grade, hormonal receptors, Ki-67, HER-2 and topoisomerase II alpha status as predictive markers in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 40:205–211PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pohl G, Rudas M, Taucher S et al (2003) Expression of cell cycle regulatory proteins in breast carcinomas before and after preoperative chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 78:97–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown RW, Allred CD, Clark GM et al (1996) Prognostic value of Ki-67 compared to S-phase fraction in axillary node-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2:585–592PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weikel W, Brumm C, Wilkens C, Beck T, Knapstein PG (1995) Growth fractions (Ki-67) in primary breast cancers, with particular reference to node-negative tumors. Cancer Detect Prev 19:446–450PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rhee J, Han SW, Oh DY et al (2008) The clinicopathologic characteristics and prognostic significance of triple-negativity in node-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 8:307PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’hern R et al (2011) Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1656–1664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hernandez-Aya LF, Chavez-MacGregor M, Lei X et al (2011) Nodal status and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:2628–2634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W et al (2006) Reporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res Treat 100:229–235PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosen PP, Oberman H (1993) Tumors of the mammary gland. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO (2002) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer, I: the value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 41:151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gray RJ (1988) A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat 16:1141–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Durrleman S, Simon R (1989) Flexible regression models with cubic splines. Stat Med 8:551–561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 13:4429–4434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keam B, Im SA, Lee KH et al (2011) Ki-67 can be used for further classification of triple negative breast cancer into two subtypes with different response and prognosis. Breast Cancer Res 13:R22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rakha EA, El-Rehim DA, Paish C et al (2006) Basal phenotype identifies a poor prognostic subgroup of breast cancer of clinical importance. Eur J Cancer 42:3149–3156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yamamoto Y, Ibusuki M, Nakano M et al (2009) Clinical significance of basal-like subtype in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer 16:260–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Munzone E, Curigliano G, Burstein HJ et al (2012) CMF revisited in the 21st century. Ann Oncol 23(2):305–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paik S (2011) Is gene array testing to be considered routine now? Breast 20:S87–S91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S et al (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(4):R65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabetta Munzone
    • 1
    Email author
  • E. Botteri
    • 2
  • A. Sciandivasci
    • 1
  • G. Curigliano
    • 1
  • F. Nolè
    • 1
  • M. Mastropasqua
    • 3
  • N. Rotmensz
    • 2
  • M. Colleoni
    • 1
  • A. Esposito
    • 1
  • L. Adamoli
    • 1
  • A. Luini
    • 4
  • A. Goldhirsch
    • 1
  • G. Viale
    • 3
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Medical Oncology, Department of MedicineEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  2. 2.Division of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  3. 3.Division of PathologyEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  4. 4.Division of SenologyEuropean Institute of OncologyMilanItaly
  5. 5.University of Milan School of MedicineMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations