Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

MIB1/Ki-67 labelling index can classify grade 2 breast cancer into two clinically distinct subgroups

  • Preclinical study
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Soerjomataram I, Louwman MW, Ribot JG, Roukema JA, Coebergh JW (2008) An overview of prognostic factors for long-term survivors of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 107:309–330

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 27:219–226

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD (1994) Histologic grading of breast carcinoma. A reproducibility study. Cancer 73:2765–2770

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Frierson HF Jr, Wolber RA, Berean KW, Franquemont DW, Gaffey MJ, Boyd JC, Wilbur DC (1995) Interobserver reproducibility of the Nottingham modification of the Bloom and Richardson histologic grading scheme for infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 103:195–198

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ignatiadis M, Sotiriou C (2008) Understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade. Pathobiology 75:104–111

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Whitfield ML, George LK, Grant GD, Perou CM (2006) Common markers of proliferation. Nat Rev Cancer 6:99–106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) 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 19:403–410

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hall PA, Levison DA (1990) Review: assessment of cell proliferation in histological material. J Clin Pathol 43:184–192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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 18:1067–1078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lynch J, Pattekar R, Barnes DM, Hanby AM, Camplejohn RS, Ryder K, Gillett CE (2002) Mitotic counts provide additional prognostic information in grade II mammary carcinoma. J Pathol 196:275–279

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Piette F, Buyse M, Cardoso F, Van’t Veer L, Piccart M, Bontempi G, Sotiriou C (2008) Comparison of prognostic gene expression signatures for breast cancer. BMC Genomics 9:394

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 65:4059–4066

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bonnefoi H, Underhill C, Iggo R, Cameron D (2009) Predictive signatures for chemotherapy sensitivity in breast cancer: are they ready for use in the clinic? Eur J Cancer 45:1733–1743

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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:R65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J, Watson M, Davies S, Bernard PS, Parker JS, Perou CM, Ellis MJ, Nielsen TO (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:736–750

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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 98:262–272

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Ma XJ, Salunga R, Dahiya S, Wang W, Carney E, Durbecq V, Harris A, Goss P, Sotiriou C, Erlander M, Sgroi D (2008) A five-gene molecular grade index and HOXB13:IL17BR are complementary prognostic factors in early stage breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 14:2601–2608

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO (2008) Expression profiling technology: its contribution to our understanding of breast cancer. Histopathology 52:67–81

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Srinivasan M, Sedmak D, Jewell S (2002) Effect of fixatives and tissue processing on the content and integrity of nucleic acids. Am J Pathol 161:1961–1971

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM (2005) REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2:416–422

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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 Pathologists

  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 116:340–350

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Aleskandarany MA, Green AR, Rakha EA, Mohammed RA, Elsheikh SE, Powe DG, Paish EC, Macmillan RD, Chan S, Ahmed SI, Ellis IO (2010) Growth fraction as a predictor of response to chemotherapy in node negative breast cancer. Int J Cancer 126(7):1761–1769

    PubMed  CAS  Google 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 15:2302–2310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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 10:7252–7259

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Gale T, Lakhani SR (2005) Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol 205:248–254

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Elston CW, Ellis IO, Pinder SE (1999) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 31:209–223

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Pusztai L, Hortobagyi GN (1998) High-dose chemotherapy: how resistant is breast cancer? Drug Resist Updat 1:62–72

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 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 41:154–161

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google 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 64:1914–1921

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 23:5993–6001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew R. Green.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Aleskandarany, M.A., Rakha, E.A., Macmillan, R.D. et al. MIB1/Ki-67 labelling index can classify grade 2 breast cancer into two clinically distinct subgroups. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127, 591–599 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1028-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1028-3

Keywords

Navigation