Advertisement

Evaluation of phospho-histone H3 in Asian triple-negative breast cancer using multiplex immunofluorescence

  • Chi Peng Timothy Lai
  • Joe Poh Sheng Yeong
  • An Sen Tan
  • Chong Hui Clara Ong
  • Bernett Lee
  • Jeffrey Chun Tatt Lim
  • Aye Aye Thike
  • Jabed Iqbal
  • Rebecca Alexandra Dent
  • Elaine Hsuen Lim
  • Puay Hoon TanEmail author
Preclinical study
  • 26 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

We used multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF) to determine whether mitotic rate represents an independent prognostic marker in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Secondary aims were to confirm the prognostic significance of immune cells in TNBC, and to investigate the relationship between immune cells and proliferating tumour cells.

Methods

A retrospective Asian cohort of 298 patients with TNBC diagnosed from 2003 to 2015 at the Singapore General Hospital was used in the present study. Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded breast cancer samples were analysed on tissue microarrays using mIF, which combined phospho-histone H3 (pHH3) expression with cytokeratin (CK) and leukocyte common antigen (CD45) expression to identify tumour and immune cells, respectively.

Results

Multivariate analysis showed that a high pHH3 index was associated with significantly improved overall survival (OS; p = 0.004), but this was not significantly associated with disease-free survival (DFS; p = 0.22). Similarly, multivariate analysis also revealed that a pHH3 positive count of > 1 cell per high-power field in the malignant epithelial compartment was an independent favourable prognostic marker for OS (p = 0.033) but not for DFS (p = 0.250). Furthermore, a high CD45 index was an independent favourable prognostic marker for DFS (p = 0.018), and there was a significant positive correlation between CD45 and pHH3 index (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.250; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Mitotic rates as determined by pHH3 expression in epithelial cells are significantly associated with improved survival in TNBC. mIF analysis of pHH3 in combination with CK and CD45 could help clinicians in prognosticating patients with TNBC.

Keywords

pHH3 TNBC Immune Proliferation Prognosis Breast cancer 

Abbreviations

ALN

Axillary lymph node

CD45

Leukocyte common antigen

CK

Cytokeratin

DFS

Disease-free survival

ER

Oestrogen receptor

FFPE

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded

HER2

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

mIF

Multiplex immunofluorescence

OS

Overall survival

pHH3

Phospho-histone H3

PR

Progesterone receptor

TILs

Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes

TMA

Tissue microarray

TNBC

Triple-negative breast cancer

Notes

Author contributions

PT and JY conceived and directed the study. PT, and JY supervised the research. JL constructed TMAs, performed IHC, prepared samples for NanoString, and collated data. BL performed bioinformatics analysis. AT, JY and TL performed immunohistochemical scoring, interpreted the data and performed biostatistical analysis. CO constructed TMAs, performed IHC, and collated data. TP, AT, JI, RD, and EL contributed to the scientific content of the study. AT, JY, and TL drafted the manuscript with the assistance and final approval of all authors.

Funding

This research was funded by the A*STAR Biomedical Research Council, National Medical Research Council Stratified Medicine Programme Office (SMPO201302) awarded to Dr. Puay Hoon Tan. Dr. Jabed Iqbal is a recipient of the Transition Award from the Singapore National Medical Research Council (NMRC/TA/0041/2015).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The SingHealth Centralized Institutional Review Board (CIRB) approved the authors’ request for waiver of informed consent based on ethical consideration (Ref: 2011/433/F). The SingHealth CIRB operates in accordance with the ICH/Singapore Guideline for Good Clinical Practices, and with the applicable regulatory requirement(s). This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

The SingHealth Centralized Institutional Review Board (CIRB) approved the authors’ request for waiver of informed consent based on ethical consideration (Ref: 2011/433/F). The SingHealth CIRB operates in accordance with the ICH/Singapore Guideline for Good Clinical Practices, and with the applicable regulatory requirement(s).

Supplementary material

10549_2019_5396_MOESM1_ESM.doc (54 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 54 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Aysola K, Desai A, Welch C, Xu J, Qin Y, Reddy V et al (2013) Triple negative breast cancer—an overview. Hered Genet: Curr Res 2013(Suppl 2):001Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Plasilova ML, Hayse B, Killelea BK, Horowitz NR, Chagpar AB, Lannin DR (2016) Features of triple-negative breast cancer: analysis of 38,813 cases from the national cancer database. Medicine 95(35):e4614-eGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thike AA, Cheok PY, Jara-Lazaro AR, Tan B, Tan P, Tan PH (2010) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinicopathological characteristics and relationship with basal-like breast cancer. Mod Pathol 23:123–133Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jang N, Kwon HJ, Park MH, Kang SH, Bae YK (2018) Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte density assessed using a standardized method based on molecular subtypes and adjuvant chemotherapy in invasive breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 25(4):937–946Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Adams S, Gray RJ, Demaria S, Goldstein L, Perez EA, Shulman LN et al (2014) Prognostic value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in triple-negative breast cancers from two phase III randomized adjuvant breast cancer trials: ECOG 2197 and ECOG 1199. J Clin Oncol 32(27):2959–2966Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aaltomaa S, Lipponen P, Eskelinen M, Kosma VM, Marin S, Alhava E et al (1992) Lymphocyte infiltrates as a prognostic variable in female breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 28(4):859–864Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagalla S, Chou JW, Willingham MC, Ruiz J, Vaughn JP, Dubey P et al (2013) Interactions between immunity, proliferation and molecular subtype in breast cancer prognosis. Genome Biol 14(4):R34-RGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hendzel MJ, Wei Y, Mancini MA, Van Hooser A, Ranalli T, Brinkley BR et al (1997) Mitosis-specific phosphorylation of histone H3 initiates primarily within pericentromeric heterochromatin during G2 and spreads in an ordered fashion coincident with mitotic chromosome condensation. Chromosoma 106(6):348–360Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hans F, Dimitrov S (2001) Histone H3 phosphorylation and cell division. Oncogene 20(24):3021–3027Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olar A (2015) Phosphohistone H3: implications for clinical practice and risk assessment in meningioma. Neuro-oncology 17(5):631–633Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hale CS, Qian M, Ma MW, Scanlon P, Berman RS, Shapiro RL et al (2013) Mitotic rate in melanoma: prognostic value of immunostaining and computer-assisted image analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 37(6):882–889Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Varughese RK, Lind-Landström T, Habberstad AH, Salvesen Ø, Haug CS, Sundstrøm S et al (2016) Mitosin and pHH3 predict poorer survival in astrocytomas WHO grades II and III. J Clin Pathol 69(1):26Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chow KL, Tse KY, Cheung CL, Wong KW, Cheung AN, Wong RW et al (2017) The mitosis-specific marker phosphohistone-H3 (PHH3) is an independent prognosticator in uterine smooth muscle tumours: an outcome-based study. Histopathology 70(5):746–755Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elmaci I, Altinoz MA, Sari R, Bolukbasi FH (2018) Phosphorylated histone H3 (PHH3) as a novel cell proliferation marker and prognosticator for meningeal tumors: a short review. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol: AIMM 26(9):627–631Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Goltz D, Montani M, Braun M, Perner S, Wernert N, Jung K et al (2015) Prognostic relevance of proliferation markers (Ki-67, PHH3) within the cross-relation of ERG translocation and androgen receptor expression in prostate cancer. Pathology 47(7):629–636Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Skaland I, Janssen E, Gudlaugsson E, Klos J, Kjellevold KH, Søiland H et al (2007) Phosphohistone H3 expression has much stronger prognostic value than classical prognosticators in invasive lymph node-negative breast cancer patients less than 55 years of age. Mod Pathol 20(12):1307–1315Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerring Z, Pearson JF, Morrin HR, Robinson BA, Harris GC, Walker LC (2015) Phosphohistone H3 outperforms Ki67 as a marker of outcome for breast cancer patients. Histopathology 67(4):538–547Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lakhani S, Ellis I, Schnitt S, Tan P, Van de Vijver M (2012) World Health Organisation classification of tumors of the breast. Int Agency Res Cancer 4:142–147Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stack EC, Wang C, Roman KA, Hoyt CC (2014) Multiplexed immunohistochemistry, imaging, and quantitation: a review, with an assessment of Tyramide signal amplification, multispectral imaging and multiplex analysis. Methods 70(1):46–58Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abel EJ, Bauman TM, Weiker M, Shi F, Downs TM, Jarrard DF et al (2014) Analysis and validation of tissue biomarkers for renal cell carcinoma using automated high-throughput evaluation of protein expression. Hum Pathol 45(5):1092–1099Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lovisa S, LeBleu VS, Tampe B, Sugimoto H, Vadnagara K, Carstens JL et al (2015) Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition induces cell cycle arrest and parenchymal damage in renal fibrosis. Nat Med 21(9):998–1009Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garnelo M, Tan A, Her Z, Yeong J, Lim CJ, Chen J et al (2015) Interaction between tumour-infiltrating B cells and T cells controls the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut 15(310814):2015–310814Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yeong J, Thike AA, Lim JC, Lee B, Li H, Wong SC et al (2017) Higher densities of Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells are associated with better prognosis in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 163(1):21–35Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garnelo M, Tan A, Her Z, Yeong J, Lim CJ, Chen J et al (2017) Interaction between tumour-infiltrating B cells and T cells controls the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut 66(2):342–351Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lim JCT, Yeong JPS, Lim CJ, Ong CCH, Chew VSP, Ahmed SS, Tan PH, Iqbal J (in press) An automated staining protocol for 7-colour immunofluorescence of human tissue sections for diagnostic and prognostic use. J R Coll Pathol AustralasGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Esbona K, Inman D, Saha S, Jeffery J, Schedin P, Wilke L et al (2016) COX-2 modulates mammary tumor progression in response to collagen density. Breast Cancer Res 18(1):35Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mlecnik B, Bindea G, Kirilovsky A, Angell HK, Obenauf AC, Tosolini M et al (2016) The tumor microenvironment and immunoscore are critical determinants of dissemination to distant metastasis. Sci Transl Med 8(327):327ra26Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nghiem PT, Bhatia S, Lipson EJ, Kudchadkar RR, Miller NJ, Annamalai L et al (2016) PD-1 blockade with pembrolizumab in advanced merkel-cell carcinoma. New Engl J Med 374(26):2542–2552Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Feng Z, Jensen SM, Messenheimer DJ, Farhad M, Neuberger M, Bifulco CB et al (2016) Multispectral imaging of T and B cells in murine spleen and tumor. J Immunol 196(9):3943–3950Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yeong J, Lim JCT, Lee B, Li H, Chia N, Ong CCH et al (2018) High densities of tumor-associated plasma cells predict improved prognosis in triple negative breast cancer. Front Immunol 9:1209Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yeong J, Thike AA, Lim JC, Lee B, Li H, Wong SC et al (2017) Higher densities of Foxp3 + regulatory T cells are associated with better prognosis in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 23(10):017–4161Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fiore C, Bailey D, Conlon N, Wu X, Martin N, Fiorentino M et al (2012) Utility of multispectral imaging in automated quantitative scoring of immunohistochemistry. J Clin Pathol 65(6):496–502Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Feng Z, Bethmann D, Kappler M, Ballesteros-Merino C, Eckert A, Bell RB et al (2017) Multiparametric immune profiling in HPV—oral squamous cell cancer. JCI Insight 2(14):e93652Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    RStudio (2015) RStudio: integrated development environment for R. RStudio Inc, BostonGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    R Foundation for Statistical Computing (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Walker A. openxlsx: read, write and edit XLSX files. R package version 3.0.02015Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wickham H (2011) The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. J Stat Softw 40:1–29Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wickham H. tidyr: easily tidy data with `spread()` and `gather()` functions. R package version 0.6.02016Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wickham H. stringr: simple, consistent wrappers for common string operations. R package version 1.1.02016Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wickham H, Francois R. dplyr: a grammar of data manipulation. R package version 0.5.02016Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kassambara A, Kosinski M. survminer: drawing survival curves using ‘ggplot2’. R package version 0.2.42016Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lausen B, Schumacher M (1992) Maximally selected rank statistics. Biometrics 48(1):73–85Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stover DG, Coloff JL, Barry WT, Brugge JS, Winer EP, Selfors LM (2016) The role of proliferation in determining response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: a gene expression-based meta-analysis. Clin Cancer Res 22(24):6039–6050Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Amadori D, Volpi A, Maltoni R, Nanni O, Amaducci L, Amadori A et al (1997) Cell proliferation as a predictor of response to chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: a prospective study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 43(1):7–14Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Sillem M, Timme S, Bronsert P, Bogatyreva L, Hauschke D, Zur Hausen A et al (2017) Anti-Phosphohistone H3-positive mitoses are linked to pathological response in neoadjuvantly treated breast cancer. Breast Care 12(4):244–250Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Klintman M, Strand C, Ahlin C, Beglerbegovic S, Fjallskog ML, Grabau D et al (2013) The prognostic value of mitotic activity index (MAI), phosphohistone H3 (PPH3), cyclin B1, cyclin A, and Ki67, alone and in combinations, in node-negative premenopausal breast cancer. PLoS ONE 8(12):e81902Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gudlaugsson E, Klos J, Skaland I, Janssen EA, Smaaland R, Feng W et al (2013) Prognostic comparison of the proliferation markers (mitotic activity index, phosphohistone H3, Ki67), steroid receptors, HER2, high molecular weight cytokeratins and classical prognostic factors in T(1)(-)(2)N(0)M(0) breast cancer. Pol J Pathol 64(1):1–8Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gudlaugsson E, Skaland I, Undersrud E, Janssen EA, Soiland H, Baak JP (2011) D2-40/p63 defined lymph vessel invasion has additional prognostic value in highly proliferating operable node negative breast cancer patients. Mod Pathol 24(4):502–511Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kim J-Y, Jeong HS, Chung T, Kim M, Lee JH, Jung WH et al (2017) The value of phosphohistone H3 as a proliferation marker for evaluating invasive breast cancers: a comparative study with Ki67. Oncotarget 8(39):65064–65076Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rhee J, Han S-W, Oh D-Y, Kim JH, Im S-A, Han W et al (2008) The clinicopathologic characteristics and prognostic significance of triple-negativity in node-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 8(1):307Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, Hanna WM, Kahn HK, Sawka CA et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 13(15 Pt 1):4429–4434Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, Kearney T, Higgins SA, Weidhaas J et al (2006) Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(36):5652–5657Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Keam B, Im SA, Kim HJ, Oh DY, Kim JH, Lee SH et al (2007) Prognostic impact of clinicopathologic parameters in stage II/III breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant docetaxel and doxorubicin chemotherapy: paradoxical features of the triple negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 7:203Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sirohi B, Arnedos M, Popat S, Ashley S, Nerurkar A, Walsh G et al (2008) Platinum-based chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Oncol 19(11):1847–1852Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Uhm JE, Park YH, Yi SY, Cho EY, Choi YL, Lee SJ et al (2008) Treatment outcomes and clinicopathologic characteristics of triple-negative breast cancer patients who received platinum-containing chemotherapy. Int J Cancer 124(6):1457–1462Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, Gatti L, Moore DT, Collichio F et al (2007) The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 13(8):2329Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, Andre F, Tordai A, Mejia JA et al (2008) Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(8):1275–1281Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lelotte J, Mourin A, Fomekong E, Michotte A, Raftopoulos C, Maiter D (2018) Both invasiveness and proliferation criteria predict recurrence of non-functioning pituitary macroadenomas after surgery: a retrospective analysis of a monocentric cohort of 120 patients. Eur J Endocrinol 178(3):237–246Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Feng W, Malpica A, Skaland I, Gudlaugsson E, Robboy SJ, Dalen I et al (2013) Can proliferation biomarkers reliably predict recurrence in world health organization 2003 defined endometrial stromal sarcoma, low grade? PLoS ONE 8(10):e75899Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Ribelles N, Perez-Villa L, Jerez JM, Pajares B, Vicioso L, Jimenez B et al (2013) Pattern of recurrence of early breast cancer is different according to intrinsic subtype and proliferation index. Breast Cancer Res 15(5):R98-RGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Trowbridge IS (1978) Interspecies spleen-myeloma hybrid producing monoclonal antibodies against mouse lymphocyte surface glycoprotein, T200. J Exp Med 148(1):313–323Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Michaelson J, Scheid M, Boyse EA (1979) Biochemical features of Ly-5 alloantigen. Immunogenetics 9(1):193–197Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Scheid MP, Triglia D (1979) Further description of theLy-5 system. Immunogenetics 9(1):423–433Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Johansson M, Denardo DG, Coussens LM (2008) Polarized immune responses differentially regulate cancer development. Immunol Rev 222:145–154Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bai M, Agnantis NJ, Kamina S, Demou A, Zagorianakou P, Katsaraki A et al (2001) In vivo cell kinetics in breast carcinogenesis. Breast Cancer Res 3(4):276–283Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Lee JS, Kim HS, Jung JJ, Kim YB, Park CS, Lee MC (2001) Correlation between angiogenesis, apoptosis and cell proliferation in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast and their relation to tumor behavior. Anal Quant Cytol Histol 23(2):161–168Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lipponen P (1999) Apoptosis in breast cancer: relationship with other pathological parameters. Endocr Relat Cancer 6(1):13–16Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Schulte-Hermann R, Bursch W, Grasl-Kraupp B, Marian B, Torok L, Kahl-Rainer P et al (1997) Concepts of cell death and application to carcinogenesis. Toxicol Pathol 25(1):89–93Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Munang’andu HM, Fredriksen BN, Mutoloki S, Dalmo RA, Evensen Ø (2013) Antigen dose and humoral immune response correspond with protection for inactivated infectious pancreatic necrosis virus vaccines in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L). Vet Res 44(1):7Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ryan AA, Nambiar JK, Wozniak TM, Roediger B, Shklovskaya E, Britton WJ et al (2009) Antigen load governs the differential priming of CD8 T cells in response to the Bacille Calmette Guérin vaccine or Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. J Immunol 182(11):7172Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Henrickson SE, Mempel TR, Mazo IB, Liu B, Artyomov MN, Zheng H et al (2008) T cell sensing of antigen dose governs interactive behavior with dendritic cells and sets a threshold for T cell activation. Nat Immunol 9(3):282–291Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Externest D, Meckelein B, Schmidt MA, Frey A (2000) Correlations between antibody immune responses at different mucosal effector sites are controlled by antigen type and dosage. Infect Immun 68(7):3830Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Senkus E, Kyriakides S, Penault-Llorca F, Poortmans P, Thompson A, Zackrisson S et al (2013) Primary breast cancer: ESMO clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 24(Suppl 6):vi7–vi23Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Gnant M, Piccart-Gebhart M et al (2015) Tailoring therapies–improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann Oncol 26(8):1533–1546Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Teshome M, Hunt KK (2014) Neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 23(3):505–523Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Thompson AM, Moulder-Thompson SL (2012) Neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Ann Oncol 23(Suppl 10):x231–x236Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Park SY, Gonen M, Kim HJ, Michor F, Polyak K (2010) Cellular and genetic diversity in the progression of in situ human breast carcinomas to an invasive phenotype. J Clin Investig 120(2):636–644Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Torres L, Ribeiro FR, Pandis N, Andersen JA, Heim S, Teixeira MR (2007) Intratumor genomic heterogeneity in breast cancer with clonal divergence between primary carcinomas and lymph node metastases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 102(2):143–155Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Khan AM, Yuan Y (2016) Biopsy variability of lymphocytic infiltration in breast cancer subtypes and the ImmunoSkew score. Sci Rep 6:36231Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Tay TKY, Thike AA, Pathmanathan N, Jara-Lazaro AR, Iqbal J, Sng ASH et al (2018) Using computer assisted image analysis to determine the optimal Ki67 threshold for predicting outcome of invasive breast cancer. Oncotarget 9(14):11619–11630Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Yeong J, Lim JCT, Lee B, Li H, Ong CCH, Thike AA et al (2019) Prognostic value of CD8 + PD-1 + immune infiltrates and PDCD1 gene expression in triple negative breast cancer. J Immunother Cancer 7(1):34Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Bin Seow DY, Lim J, Ong C, Lim J, Thike AA, Lim E et al (2019) Role of tissue resident memory CD8 + T cells in triple negative breast cancer. Pathology 51:S98Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Bossard C, Jarry A, Colombeix C, Bach-Ngohou K, Moreau A, Loussouarn D et al (2006) Phosphohistone H3 labelling for histoprognostic grading of breast adenocarcinomas and computer-assisted determination of mitotic index. J Clin Pathol 59(7):706–710Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Zbytek B, Cohen C, Wang J, Page A, Williams DJ, Adams AL (2013) Nottingham-defined mitotic score: comparison with visual and image cytometric phosphohistone H3 labeling indices and correlation with Oncotype DX recurrence score. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 21(1):48–53Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chi Peng Timothy Lai
    • 1
  • Joe Poh Sheng Yeong
    • 2
    • 3
  • An Sen Tan
    • 1
  • Chong Hui Clara Ong
    • 2
  • Bernett Lee
    • 3
  • Jeffrey Chun Tatt Lim
    • 2
    • 4
  • Aye Aye Thike
    • 2
  • Jabed Iqbal
    • 2
    • 6
  • Rebecca Alexandra Dent
    • 5
  • Elaine Hsuen Lim
    • 5
  • Puay Hoon Tan
    • 2
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Lee Kong Chian School of MedicineNanyang Technological UniversitySingaporeSingapore
  2. 2.Division of PathologySingapore General HospitalSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.Singapore Immunology Network (SIgN), Agency of ScienceTechnology and Research (A*STAR)SingaporeSingapore
  4. 4.Institute of Molecular Cell Biology (IMCB), Agency of ScienceTechnology and Research (A*STAR)SingaporeSingapore
  5. 5.National Cancer Centre SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  6. 6.Duke-NUS Medical SchoolSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations