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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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
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
Dalton LW, Page DL, Dupont WD (1994) Histologic grading of breast carcinoma. A reproducibility study. Cancer 73:2765–2770
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
Ignatiadis M, Sotiriou C (2008) Understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade. Pathobiology 75:104–111
Whitfield ML, George LK, Grant GD, Perou CM (2006) Common markers of proliferation. Nat Rev Cancer 6:99–106
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
Hall PA, Levison DA (1990) Review: assessment of cell proliferation in histological material. J Clin Pathol 43:184–192
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Simpson PT, Reis-Filho JS, Gale T, Lakhani SR (2005) Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol 205:248–254
Elston CW, Ellis IO, Pinder SE (1999) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 31:209–223
Pusztai L, Hortobagyi GN (1998) High-dose chemotherapy: how resistant is breast cancer? Drug Resist Updat 1:62–72
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
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
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
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
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1028-3