Ki67 proliferation in core biopsies versus surgical samples - a model for neo-adjuvant breast cancer studies

BMC Cancer

Signe Borgquist⁴  Dorthe Grabau²  Carsten Rose⁴  Lisa Rydén³  Christian Ingvar³  Niklas Loman⁴  Marie Klintman⁴  Pär-Ola Bendahl⁴  Quinci Romero¹ 

[1]Department of Oncology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden

[2]Department of Pathology, Laboratory Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

[3]Department of Surgery, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

[4]Department of Oncology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

关键词: neo-adjuvant;    proliferation;    breast cancer;    Ki67;    core biopsy;   

Others  :  1080794
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2407-11-341

 received in 2011-03-14, accepted in 2011-08-07,  发布年份 2011

【 摘 要 】

Background

An increasing number of neo-adjuvant breast cancer studies are being conducted and a novel model for tumor biological studies, the "window-of-opportunity" model, has revealed several advantages. Change in tumor cell proliferation, estimated by Ki67-expression in pre-therapeutic core biopsies versus post-therapeutic surgical samples is often the primary end-point. The aim of the present study was to investigate potential differences in proliferation scores between core biopsies and surgical samples when patients have not received any intervening anti-cancer treatment. Also, a lack of consensus concerning Ki67 assessment may raise problems in the comparison of neo-adjuvant studies. Thus, the secondary aim was to present a novel model for Ki67 assessment.

Methods

Fifty consecutive breast cancer cases with both a core biopsy and a surgical sample available, without intervening neo-adjuvant therapy, were collected and tumor proliferation (Ki67, MIB1 antibody) was assessed immunohistochemically. A theoretical model for the assessment of Ki67 was constructed based on sequential testing of the null hypothesis 20% Ki67-positive cells versus the two-sided alternative more or less than 20% positive cells..

Results

Assessment of Ki67 in 200 tumor cells showed an absolute average proliferation difference of 3.9% between core biopsies and surgical samples (p = 0.046, paired t-test) with the core biopsies being the more proliferative sample type. A corresponding analysis on the log-scale showed the average relative decrease from the biopsy to the surgical specimen to be 19% (p = 0.063, paired t-test on the log-scale). The difference was significant when using the more robust Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test (p = 0.029). After dichotomization at 20%, 12 of the 50 sample pairs had discrepant proliferation status, 10 showed high Ki67 in the core biopsy compared to two in the surgical specimen (p = 0.039, McNemar's test). None of the corresponding results for 1000 tumor cells were significant - average absolute difference 2.2% and geometric mean of the ratios 0.85 (p = 0.19 and p = 0.18, respectively, paired t-tests, p = 0.057, Wilcoxon's test) and an equal number of discordant cases after dichotomization. Comparing proliferation values for the initial 200 versus the final 800 cancer cells showed significant absolute differences for both core biopsies and surgical samples 5.3% and 3.2%, respectively (p < 0.0001, paired t-test).

Conclusions

A significant difference between core biopsy and surgical sample proliferation values was observed despite no intervening therapy. Future neo-adjuvant breast cancer studies may have to take this into consideration.

【 授权许可】

   
2011 Romero et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Liu SV, Melstrom L, Yao K, Russell CA, Sener SF: Neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 101(4):283-291.
• [2]Specht J, Gralow JR: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Semin Radiat Oncol 2009, 19(4):222-228.
• [3]Mathew J, Asgeirsson KS, Jackson LR, Cheung KL, Robertson JF: Neoadjuvant endocrine treatment in primary breast cancer - review of literature. Breast 2009, 18(6):339-344.
• [4]Wolff AC, Berry D, Carey LA, Colleoni M, Dowsett M, Ellis M, Garber JE, Mankoff D, Paik S, Pusztai L, et al.: Research issues affecting preoperative systemic therapy for operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26(5):806-813.
• [5]Cleator S, Parton M, Dowsett M: The biology of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 2002, 9(3):183-195.
• [6]Miller WR: Clinical, pathological, proliferative and molecular responses associated with neoadjuvant aromatase inhibitor treatment in breast cancer. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 118(4-5):273-276.
• [7]Chen YY, DeVries S, Anderson J, Lessing J, Swain R, Chin K, Shim V, Esserman LJ, Waldman FM, Hwang ES: Pathologic and biologic response to preoperative endocrine therapy in patients with ER-positive ductal carcinoma in situ. BMC Cancer 2009, 9:285. BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]Baselga J, Semiglazov V, van Dam P, Manikhas A, Bellet M, Mayordomo J, Campone M, Kubista E, Greil R, Bianchi G, et al.: Phase II randomized study of neoadjuvant everolimus plus letrozole compared with placebo plus letrozole in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2009, 27(16):2630-2637.
• [9]Miller WR, White S, Dixon JM, Murray J, Renshaw L, Anderson TJ: Proliferation, steroid receptors and clinical/pathological response in breast cancer treated with letrozole. Br J Cancer 2006, 94(7):1051-1056.
• [10]Torrisi R, Bagnardi V, Cardillo A, Bertolini F, Scarano E, Orlando L, Mancuso P, Luini A, Calleri A, Viale G, et al.: Preoperative bevacizumab combined with letrozole and chemotherapy in locally advanced ER- and/or PgR-positive breast cancer: clinical and biological activity. Br J Cancer 2008, 99(10):1564-1571.
• [11]Rakha EA, Ellis IO: An overview of assessment of prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer needle core biopsy specimens. J Clin Pathol 2007, 60(12):1300-1306.
• [12]Dowsett M, Dunbier AK: Emerging biomarkers and new understanding of traditional markers in personalized therapy for breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2008, 14(24):8019-8026.
• [13]Jones RL, Salter J, A'Hern R, Nerurkar A, Parton M, Reis-Filho JS, Smith IE, Dowsett M: The prognostic significance of Ki67 before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009, 116(1):53-68.
• [14]Jones RL, Salter J, A'Hern R, Nerurkar A, Parton M, Reis-Filho JS, Smith IE, Dowsett M: Relationship between oestrogen receptor status and proliferation in predicting response and long-term outcome to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119(2):315-323.
• [15]Freedman OC, Amir E, Hanna W, Kahn H, O'Malley F, Dranitsaris G, Cole DE, Verma S, Folkerd E, Dowsett M, et al.: A randomized trial exploring the biomarker effects of neoadjuvant sequential treatment with exemestane and anastrozole in post-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 119(1):155-161.
• [16]Urruticoechea A, Smith IE, Dowsett M: Proliferation marker Ki-67 in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005, 23(28):7212-7220.
• [17]Gerdes J, Lemke H, Baisch H, Wacker HH, Schwab U, Stein H: Cell cycle analysis of a cell proliferation-associated human nuclear antigen defined by the monoclonal antibody Ki-67. J Immunol 1984, 133(4):1710-1715.
• [18]Connor CS, Tawfik OW, Joyce AJ, Davis MK, Mayo MS, Jewell WR: A comparison of prognostic tumor markers obtained on image-guided breast biopsies and final surgical specimens. Am J Surg 2002, 184(4):322-324.
• [19]Burge CN, Chang HR, Apple SK: Do the histologic features and results of breast cancer biomarker studies differ between core biopsy and surgical excision specimens? Breast 2006, 15(2):167-172.
• [20]Viale G, Giobbie-Hurder A, Regan MM, Coates AS, Mastropasqua MG, Dell'Orto P, Maiorano E, MacGrogan G, Braye SG, Ohlschlegel C, 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(34):5569-5575.
• [21]Beresford MJ, Wilson GD, Makris A: Measuring proliferation in breast cancer: practicalities and applications. Breast Cancer Res 2006, 8(6):216. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Elayat G, Selim AG, Wells CA: Cell cycle alterations and their relationship to proliferation in apocrine adenosis of the breast. Histopathology 2009, 54(3):348-354.
• [23]Balleine RL, Webster LR, Davis S, Salisbury EL, Palazzo JP, Schwartz GF, Cornfield DB, Walker RL, Byth K, Clarke CL, et al.: Molecular grading of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Clin Cancer Res 2008, 14(24):8244-8252.
• [24]Ahlin C, Aaltonen K, Amini RM, Nevanlinna H, Fjallskog ML, Blomqvist C: Ki67 and cyclin A as prognostic factors in early breast cancer. What are the optimal cut-off values? Histopathology 2007, 51(4):491-498.
• [25]Grabau D, Jensen MB, Rank F, Blichert-Toft M: Axillary lymph node micrometastases in invasive breast cancer: national figures on incidence and overall survival. APMIS 2007, 115(7):828-837.
• [26]Dowsett M: Designing the future shape of breast cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004, 87(Suppl 1):S27-29.
• [27]Guix M, Mayer IA, Meszoely IM, Arteaga CL: Evaluation of biological agents targeted at early-stage disease. Breast Cancer Res 2008, 10(Suppl 4):S25. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Ryden L, Boiesen P, Jonsson PE: Assessment of microvessel density in core needle biopsy specimen in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 2004, 24(1):371-375.
• [29]DeFriend DJ, Howell A, Nicholson RI, Anderson E, Dowsett M, Mansel RE, Blamey RW, Bundred NJ, Robertson JF, Saunders C, et al.: Investigation of a new pure antiestrogen (ICI 182780) in women with primary breast cancer. Cancer Res 1994, 54(2):408-414.
• [30]Robertson JF, Nicholson RI, Bundred NJ, Anderson E, Rayter Z, Dowsett M, Fox JN, Gee JM, Webster A, Wakeling AE, et al.: Comparison of the short-term biological effects of 7alpha-[9-(4,4,5,5,5-pentafluoropentylsulfinyl)-nonyl]estra-1,3,5, (10)-triene-3,17beta-diol (Faslodex) versus tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. Cancer Res 2001, 61(18):6739-6746.
• [31]Cassano E, Urban LA, Pizzamiglio M, Abbate F, Maisonneuve P, Renne G, Viale G, Bellomi M: Ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted core breast biopsy: experience with 406 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007, 102(1):103-110.
• [32]Di Nubila B, Cassano E, Urban LA, Fedele P, Abbate F, Maisonneuve P, Veronesi P, Renne G, Bellomi M: Radiological features and pathological-biological correlations in 348 women with breast cancer under 35 years old. Breast 2006, 15(6):744-753.
• [33]Gadzicki D, Schubert A, Fischer C, Milde S, Lehmann U, Steinemann D, Luck HJ, Kreipe H, Schlegelberger B: Histopathological criteria and selection algorithms for BRCA1 genetic testing. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 2009, 189(2):105-111.
• [34]Rody A, Karn T, Ruckhaberle E, Muller V, Gehrmann M, Solbach C, Ahr A, Gatje R, Holtrich U, Kaufmann M: Gene expression of topoisomerase II alpha (TOP2A) by microarray analysis is highly prognostic in estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009, 113(3):457-466.
• [35]Ruckhaberle E, Karn T, Hanker L, Gatje R, Metzler D, Holtrich U, Kaufmann M, Rody A: Prognostic relevance of glucosylceramide synthase (GCS) expression in breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2009, 135(1):81-90.
• [36]Bartlett JM, Munro A, Cameron DA, Thomas J, Prescott R, Twelves CJ: Type 1 receptor tyrosine kinase profiles identify patients with enhanced benefit from anthracyclines in the BR9601 adjuvant breast cancer chemotherapy trial. J Clin Oncol 2008, 26(31):5027-5035.