Breast Cancer

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 325–333 | Cite as

Analysis of clinically relevant values of Ki-67 labeling index in Japanese breast cancer patients

  • Kentaro Tamaki
  • Takanori Ishida
  • Nobumitsu Tamaki
  • Yoshihiko Kamada
  • Kanou Uehara
  • Minoru Miyashita
  • Masakazu Amari
  • Akiko Tadano-Sato
  • Yayoi Takahashi
  • Mika Watanabe
  • Keely McNamara
  • Noriaki Ohuchi
  • Hironobu Sasano
Original Article

Abstract

Background

It has become important to standardize the methods of Ki-67 evaluation in breast cancer patients, especially those used in the interpretation and scoring of immunoreactivity. Therefore, in this study, we examined the Ki-67 immunoreactivity of breast cancer surgical specimens processed and stained in the same manner in one single Japanese institution by counting nuclear immunoreactivity in the same fashion.

Methods

We examined 408 Japanese breast cancers with invasive ductal carcinoma and studied the correlation between Ki-67 labeling index and ER/HER2 status and histological grade of breast cancer. We also analyzed overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) of these patients according to individual Ki-67 labeling index.

Results

There were statistically significant differences of Ki-67 labeling index between ER positive/HER2 negative and ER positive/HER2 positive, ER negative/HER2 positive or ER negative/HER2 negative, and ER positive/HER2 positive and ER negative/HER2 negative groups (all P < 0.001). There were also statistically significant differences of Ki-67 labeling index among each histological grade (P < 0.001, respectively). As for multivariate analyses, Ki-67 labeling index was strongly associated with OS (HR 39.12, P = 0.031) and DFS (HR 10.85, P = 0.011) in ER positive and HER2 negative breast cancer patients. In addition, a statistically significant difference was noted between classical luminal A group and “20 % luminal A” in DFS (P = 0.039) but not between classical luminal A group and “25 % luminal A” (P = 0.105).

Conclusions

A significant positive correlation was detected between Ki-67 labeling index and ER/HER2 status and histological grades of the cases examined in our study. The suggested optimal cutoff point of Ki-67 labeling index is between 20 and 25 % in ER positive and HER2 negative breast cancer patients.

Keywords

Ki-67 Breast cancer Cutoff point Estrogen receptor HER2 Histological grade 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the continuous excellent technical assistance of the staff in the Department of Pathology, Tohoku University Hospital, Sendai, Japan, especially their uninterrupted laboratory service toward the care of breast cancer patients despite enormous and unprecedented damages inflicted upon glass slides and instruments such as tissue processors, cryostat instruments, and automatic stainers, and harsh working conditions such as continuous aftershocks, total blackout, and interruption of running water in our laboratory as a result of the 3/11 earthquake. This work was supported in part by a Grant-in Aid from the “Kurokawa Cancer Research Foundation”.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Clahsen PC, van de Velde CJ, Duval C, Pallud C, Mandard AM, Delobelle-Deroide A, et al. The unit of mitotic index, oestrogen receptor and Ki-67 measurements in the creation of novel prognostic indices for node-negative breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1999;25:356–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Viale G, Giobbie-Hurder A, Regan MM, Coates AS, Mastropasqua MG, Dell’Orto P, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed Ki-67 labeling index in postmenopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: results from Breast International Group Trial 1–98 comparing adjuvant tamoxifen with letrozole. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:5569–75.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’Hern R, Bartlett J, Coombes RC, Cuzick J, et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dressler LG, Seamer L, Owens MA, Clark GM, McGuire WL. Evaluation of a modeling system for S-phase estimation in breast cancer by flow cytometry. Cancer Res. 1987;47:5294–302.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tovey SM, Witton CJ, Bartlett JM, Stanton PD, Reeves JR, Cooke TG. Outcome and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) 1–4 status in invasive breast carcinomas with proliferation indices evaluated by bromodoxyuridine labeling. Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6:246–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gerdes J, Schwab U, Lemke H, Stein H. Production of a mouse monoclonal antibody reactive with a human nuclear antigen associated with cell proliferation. Int J Cancer. 1983;3:13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lehr HA, Hansen DA, Kussick S, Li M, Hwang H, Krummenauer F, et al. Assessment of proliferative activity in breast cancer: MIB-1 immunohistochemistry versus mitotic figure count. Hum Pathol. 1999;30:1314–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tamaki K, Moriya T, Sato Y, Ishida T, Maruo Y, Yoshinaga K, et al. Vasohibn-1 in human breast carcinoma: a potential negative feedback regulator of angiogenesis. Cancer Sci. 2009;100:88–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Trihia H, Murray S, Price K, Gelber RD, Golouh R, Goldhirsch A, et al. Ki-67 expression in breast carcinoma: its association with grading system, clinical parameters, and other prognostic factors-a surrogate marker? Cancer. 2003;97:1321–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G, Colozza M Jr, Mano MS, Durbecq V, et al. Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:1504–13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:2817–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B. Panel members. Strategies for subtypes-dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1736–47.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nishimura R, Osako T, Okumura Y, Hayashi M, Arima N. Clinical significance of Ki-67 in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer as a predictor for chemosensitivity and for prognosis. Breast Cancer. 2010;17:269–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B. Panel members. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2009. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1319–29.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tamaki K, Ishida T, Miyashita M, Amari M, Mori N, Ohuchi N, et al. Multidetector row helical computed tomography for invasive ductal carcinoma of breast: the correlation between radiological findings and the corresponding biological characteristic of the patients. Cancer Sci. 2012;103:67–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tamaki K, Sasano H, Ishida T, Ishida K, Miyashita M, Takeda M, et al. Comparison of core needle biopsy (CNB) and surgical specimens for accurate preoperative evaluation of ER, PgR and HER2 status of breast cancer patients. Cancer Sci. 2010;101:2074–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. World Health Organization classification of tumors. Tumor of the breast and female gential organs. Lyon: IARC; 2003.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosen PP. Rosen’s breast pathology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol. 1998;11:155–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:118–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Miyashita M, Ishida T, Ishida K, Tamaki K, Amari M, Watanabe M, et al. Histopathological subclassification of triple negative breast cancer using prognostic scoring system: five variables as candidates. Virchows Arch. 2011;458:65–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jalava P, Kuopio T, Juntti-Patinen L, Kotkansalo T, Kronqvist P, Collan Y. Ki67 immunohistochemistry: a valuable marker in prognostication but with a risk of misclassification: proliferation subgroups formed based on Ki67 immunoreactivity and standardized mitotic index. Histopathology. 2006;48:674–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dowsett M, Smith IE, Ebbs SR, Dixon JM, Skene A, A’Hern R, Salter J. Prognostic value of Ki67 expression after short term presurgical endocrine therapy for primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:167–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Spitale A, Mazzola P, Soldini D, Mazzucchelli L, Bordoni A. Breast cancer classification according to immunohistochemical markers: clinicopathologic features and short-term survival analysis in a population-based study from the South of Switzerland. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:628–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cheang MCU, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J. Ki67 index, Her2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:736–50.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nishimura R, Osako T, Okumura Y, Tashima R, Toyozumi Y, Arima N. Changes in the ER, PgR, HER2, p53 and Ki-67 biological markers between primary and recurrent breast cancer: discordance rates and prognosis. World J Surg Oncol. 2011;9:131.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nishimura R, Okumura Y, Arima N. Trastuzumab monotherapy versus combination therapy for treating recurrence breast cancer: time to progression and survival. Breast Cancer. 2008;15:57–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nishimura R, Arima N. Is triple negative a prognostic factor in breast cancer? Breast Cancer. 2008;15:303–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bhargava R, Striebel J, Beriwal S, Flickinger JC, Onisko A, Ahrendt G. Prevalence, morphologic features and proliferation indices of breast carcinoma molecular classes using immunohistochemical surrogate markers. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2009;2:444–55.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Wale C. Prognostic value of a combined ER, PgR, Ki67, HER2 immunohistochemical (IHC4) score and comparison with the GHI recurrence score-results from TransATAC. Cancer Res. 2009;69:503s.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kentaro Tamaki
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Takanori Ishida
    • 2
  • Nobumitsu Tamaki
    • 1
  • Yoshihiko Kamada
    • 1
  • Kanou Uehara
    • 1
  • Minoru Miyashita
    • 2
    • 3
  • Masakazu Amari
    • 2
  • Akiko Tadano-Sato
    • 2
  • Yayoi Takahashi
    • 3
  • Mika Watanabe
    • 3
  • Keely McNamara
    • 3
  • Noriaki Ohuchi
    • 2
  • Hironobu Sasano
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Breast SurgeryNahanishi ClinicNahaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Surgical OncologyTohoku University Graduate School of MedicineSendaiJapan
  3. 3.Department of PathologyTohoku University HospitalSendaiJapan

Personalised recommendations