DNA Flow Cytometry Measurements and Their Clinical Relevance in Node-Negative Breast Cancer Patients

  • L. G. Dressler
Conference paper
Part of the Recent Results in Cancer Research book series (RECENTCANCER, volume 127)

Abstract

There are at least two measurements of tumor aggressiveness that we can obtain using DNA flow cytometry techniques. One is the estimate of ploidy status or DNA content of a patient’s tumor, usually referred to as DNA diploid, if the tumor contains a normal amount of DNA, or DNA aneuploid, if the tumor contains an abnormal amount of DNA (hypo or hyperdiploid). The other prognostic factor is an estimate of a tumor’s proliferative capacity, obtained by measuring the percentage of nuclei in the DNA synthetic phase (S phase) of the cell cycle. The S phase is usually referred to as “high” or “low” (and sometimes intermediate), often based on a mean or median value obtained from a large database.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Overall Survival Phase Fraction Node Negative Breast Cancer Ploidy Status 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dressier LG, Bartow SA (1989) DNA flow cytometry in solid tumors: practical aspects and clinical applications. Semin Diagn Pathol 6:55–82Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coulson PB, Thornthwaite JR, Wooley TW et al. (1984) Prognostic indicators including DNA histogram type, receptor content, and staging related to human breast cancer survival. Cancer Res 44:4187–4196PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kallioniemi OP, Hietanen T, Mattila J et al. (1987) Aneuploid DNA content and high S phase fraction of tumor cells are related to poor prognosis in patients with primary breast cancer. Eur J Clin Oncol 23:277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kallioniemi OP, Blanco G, Alavaikko M et al. (1988) Improving the prognostic value of DNA flow cytometry in breast cancer by combining DNA index and S phase fraction: a proposed classification. Cancer 62:2183–2190PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sigurdsson H, Baldetorp B, Borg A et al. (1990) Indicators of prognosis in node negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 322:1045–1053PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Muss HB, Kute TE, Case LD et al. (1989) The relationship of flow cytometry to clinical and biologic characteristics in women with node negative primary breast cancer. Cancer 64:1894–1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark GM, Owens MA, McGuire WL (1991) A new S phase model predicts for recurrence for aneuploid as well as diploid node-negative breast cancer (Abstr). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 10:44Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winchester DJ, Duda RB, August CZ et al. (1990) The importance of DNA flow cytometry in node negative breast cancer. Arch Surg 125:886–889PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klintenberg C, Stal O, Nordenskjold B et al. (1986) Proliferative index, cytosolic estrogen receptors and axillary node status as prognostic predictors in human mammary carcinoma. Breast Cancer Res Treat 7 Suppl:99–106Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O’Reilly SM, Camplejohn RS, Barnes DM et al. (1990) Node negative breast cancer: prognostic subgroups defined by tumor size and DNA flow cytometry. J Clin Oncol 8:2040–2046PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dressier LG, Eudey L, Gray R et al. (1992) Prognostic potential of DNA flow cytometry measurements in node-negative breast cancer patients: preliminary analysis of an intergroup study (INT0076). J Natl Cancer Inst 11:167–172Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ewers SB, Langstrom E, Baldetorp B et al. (1984) Flow cytometric DNA analysis in primary breast carcinomas and clinicopathological correlations. Cytometry 5:408–419PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beerman H, Klein PM, Hermans J, Van de Velde CTH, Comelissa CJ (1990) Prognostic significance of DNA-ploidy in a series of 690 primary breast cancer patients. Int J Cancer 45:34–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brifford M, Spyratos F, Tubiana-Hulin M et al. (1989) Sequential cytopunctures during pre-operative chemotherapy for breast cancer. Cytomorphologic changes, initial tumor ploidy and tumor regression. Cancer 63:631–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spyratas F, Brifford M, Tubiana-Hulin M et al. (1992) Sequential cytopunctures during pre-operative chemotherapy for primary breast carcinoma. II. DNA flow cytometry changes during chemotherapy, tumor regression and short-term follow-up. Cancer 69:470–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Remvikos Y, Beuzeboc P, Zadjela A et al. (1989) Correlation of pretreatment proliferative activity with response to cytotoxic chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 81:1383–1387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Seymour L, Bezwoda WR, Meyer K (1990) Response to second line hormone treatment for advanced breast cancer. Predictive value of ploidy determination. Cancer 65:2720–2724PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Osborne CK (1989) DNA flow cytometry in early breast cancer. A step in the right direction. J Natl Concer Inst 81:1344–1345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    National Institutes of Health (1990) Consensus Development Conference statement. Treatment of early stage breast cancer. NIM, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dressier LG (1990) Controls, standards and histogram interpretation in DNA flow cytometry. Methods Cell Biol 33:157–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bach BA, Knape WA, Edinger MG et al. (1991) Improved sensitivity and resolution in the flow cytometric DNA analysis of human solid tumor specimens. Use of in-vitro fine needle aspiration and uniform staining reagents. Am J Clin Pathol 96:615–627PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Peterson SE, Friedrich V (1986) A comparison between flow cytometric ploidy investigation and chromosome analysis of 32 human colorectal tumors. Cytometry 7:307–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Remvikos Y, Muleris M, Vielh PH et al. (1988) DNA content and genetic evaluation of human colorectal adenocarcinoma. A study by flow cytometry and cytogenetic analysis. Int J Cancer 42:539–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siegfried TM, Ellison DT, Resau TH (1991) Correlation of modal chromosome number of cultured non-small cell lung carcinomas with DNA index of solid tumor tissue. Cancer Res 51:3257–3273Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Remvikos Y, Gerbault-Seurreau M, Vielh P et al. (1988) Relevance of DNA ploidy as a measure of genetic deviation: a comparison of flow cytometry and cytogenetics in 25 cases of human breast cancer. Cytometry 9:612–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dressier LG, Varsa E, Duncan M et al. (1990) Archival DNA flow cytometry is a sensitive and accurate measurement of DNA content in solid tumors. A comparison with cytogenetic analysis in 88 solid tumors (Abstr). Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 32:159Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Smeets AWBG, Pauwels RPE, Beck TLM et al. (1987) Tissue specific markers in flow cytometry of urological cancers. Comparing chromosomal and flow cytometric DNA analysis of bladder tumors. Int J Cancer 39:304–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tribukait B, Granberg-Ohman I, Wijkstrom H (1986) Flow cytometric DNA and cytogenetic studies in human tumors: a comparison and discussion of the differences in modal values obtained by the two methods. Cytometry 7:194–199PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lewis WE (1990) Prognostic significance of flow cytometric DNA analysis in node negative breast patients. Cancer 65:2315–2320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Keyhani-Rofagha S, O’Toole RV, Farrar WB et al. (1990) Is DNA ploidy an independent prognostic indicator in infiltrative node-negative breast adenocarcinoma? Cancer 65:1577–1582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fisher B, Gunduz N, Costantino J et al. (1991) DNA flow cytometric analysis of primary operable breast cancer. Relation of ploidy and S phase fraction to prognosis of patients in NSABP B-04. Cancer 68:1465–1475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hiddeman W, Schuman J, Andrey G et al. (1984) Convention on nomenclature for DNA flow cytometry. Cytometry 5:445–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Clark GM, Dressier LG, Owens MA et al. (1989) DNA flow cytometry predicts for relapse and survival in node negative breast cancer patients. N Engl J Med 320:627–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Meyer JS, Friedman E, McCrate MM, Bauer WC (1983) Prediction of early course of breast carcinoma by thymidine labelling. Cancer 51:1879–1886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Silvestrini R, Diadone MG, Gasparini G (1985) Cell kinetics as a persistent prognostic marker in node negative breast cancer. Cancer 56:1982–1987PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Silvestrini R, Diadone MG, DiFronzo G et al. (1986) Prognostic implication of labelling index versus estrogen receptors and tumor size in node negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 7:161–169PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Tubiana M, Pejovic MH, Chavaudra N, Contesso G, Malaise EP (1984) The long-term prognostic significance of thymidine labelling index in breast cancer. Int J Cancer 33:441–445PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Courdi A, Henry M, Dahan E et al. (1989) Factors affecting relapse in node negative breast cancer. A multivariate analysis including the labelling index. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 25:351–356PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. G. Dressler
    • 1
  1. 1.UNM Cancer Center, Center for Molecular and Cellular DiagnosticsUniversity of New Mexico School of MedicineAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations