Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-07-2017 | Preclinical study

Ki67 expression in invasive breast cancer: the use of tissue microarrays compared with whole tissue sections

Authors: Abir A. Muftah, Mohammed A. Aleskandarany, Methaq M. Al-kaabi, Sultan N. Sonbul, Maria Diez-Rodriguez, Chris C. Nolan, Carlos Caldas, Ian O. Ellis, Emad A. Rakha, Andrew R. Green

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 2/2017

Abstract

Background

Although the prognostic value of Ki67 in breast cancer is well documented, using optimal cut-points for patient stratification, reproducibility of the scoring and interpretation of the results remains a matter of debate particularly when using tissue microarrays (TMAs). This study aims to assess Ki67 expression assessed on TMAs and their matched whole tissue sections (WTS). Moreover, whether the cut-off used for WTS is reproducible on TMA in BC molecular classes and the association between Ki67 expression cut-off, assessed on TMAs and WTS, and clinicopathological parameters and patient outcome were tested.

Method

A large series (n = 707) of primary invasive breast tumours were immunostained for Ki67 using both TMA and WTS and assessed as percentage staining and correlated with each other, clinicopathological parameters and patient outcome. In addition, MKI67 mRNA expression was correlated with Ki67 protein levels on WTS and TMAs in a subset of cases included in the METABRIC study.

Results

There was moderate concordance in Ki67 expression between WTS and TMA when analysed as a continuous variable (Intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.61) and low concordance when dichotomised (kappa value = 0.3). TMA showed low levels of Ki67 with mean percentage of expression of 35 and 22% on WTS and TMA, respectively. MKI67 mRNA expression was significantly correlated with protein expression determined on WTS (Spearman Correlation, r = 0.52) and to a lesser extent on TMA (r = 0.34) (p < 0.001). Regarding prediction of patient outcome, statistically significant differences were detected upon stratification of patients with tumours expressing Ki67 at 10, 15, 20, 25 or 30% in TMA. Using TMA, ≥20% Ki67 provided the best prognostic cut-off particularly in triple-negative and HER2-positive classes.

Conclusion

Ki67 expression in breast cancer can be evaluated using TMA although different cut-points are required to emulate results from WTS. A cut-off of ≥20% for Ki67 expression in BC provides the best prognostic correlations when TMAs are used.

Available only for authorised users

Trihia H, Murray S, Price K, Gelber RD, Golouh R, Goldhirsch A, Coates AS, Collins J, Castiglione-Gertsch M, Gusterson BA (2003) Ki-67 expression in breast carcinoma: its association with grading systems, clinical parameters, and other prognostic factors—a surrogate marker? Cancer 97(5):1321–1331CrossRefPubMed

Domagala W, Markiewski M, Harezga B, Dukowicz A, Osborn M (1996) Prognostic significance of tumor cell proliferation rate as determined by the MIB-1 antibody in breast carcinoma: its relationship with vimentin and p53 protein. Clin Cancer Res 2(1):147–154PubMed

Viale G, Giobbie-Hurder A, Regan MM, Coates AS, Mastropasqua MG, Dell’Orto P, Maiorano E, MacGrogan G, Braye SG, Ohlschlegel C et al (2008) 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 26(34):5569–5575CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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

Brown JR, DiGiovanna MP, Killelea B, Lannin DR, Rimm DL (2014) Quantitative assessment Ki-67 score for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Lab Invest 94(1):98–106CrossRefPubMed

Ingolf JB, Russalina M, Simona M, Julia R, Gilda S, Bohle RM, Andrea H, Erich S, Daniel H (2014) Can ki-67 play a role in prediction of breast cancer patients’ response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Biomed Res Int 2014:628217CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Takei H, Kurosumi M, Yoshida T, Hayashi Y, Higuchi T, Uchida S, Ninomiya J, Oba H, Inoue K, Nagai S et al (2011) Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy of breast cancer: which patients would benefit and what are the advantages? Breast Cancer (Tokyo, Japan) 18(2):85–91CrossRef

de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G Jr., Colozza M, Mano MS, Durbecq V, Sotiriou C, Larsimont D, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Paesmans M (2007) Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer 96(10):1504–1513CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Stuart-Harris R, Caldas C, Pinder SE, Pharoah P (2008) Proliferation markers and survival in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 85 studies in 32,825 patients. Breast 17(4):323–334CrossRefPubMed

10.

Luporsi E, Andre F, Spyratos F, Martin PM, Jacquemier J, Penault-Llorca F, Tubiana-Mathieu N, Sigal-Zafrani B, Arnould L, Gompel A et al (2012) Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132(3):895–915CrossRefPubMed

11.

Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Ravdin PM, Hayes MM, Gelmon KA (2010) Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol 11(2):174–183CrossRefPubMed

12.

Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ, Panel M (2011) 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, England 22:1736–1747CrossRef

13.

Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, Panel members (2013): Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. Ann Oncol 24(9):2206–2223

14.

Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’Hern R, Bartlett J, Coombes RC, Cuzick J, Ellis M, Henry NL, Hugh JC, Lively T et al (2011) Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(22):1656–1664CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Polley MY, Leung SC, McShane LM, Gao D, Hugh JC, Mastropasqua MG, Viale G, Zabaglo LA, Penault-Llorca F, Bartlett JM et al (2013) An international Ki67 reproducibility study. J Natl Cancer Inst 105(24):1897–1906CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Denkert C, Budczies J, von Minckwitz G, Wienert S, Loibl S, Klauschen F (2015) Strategies for developing Ki67 as a useful biomarker in breast cancer. Breast 24(Suppl 2):S67–S72CrossRefPubMed

17.

Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ (2009) Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 20(8):1319–1329CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Jalava P, Kuopio T, Juntti-Patinen L, Kotkansalo T, Kronqvist P, Collan Y (2006) 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 48(6):674–682CrossRefPubMed

19.

Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J, Watson M, Davies S, Bernard PS, Parker JS et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(10):736–750CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Gnant M, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ (2015) Tailoring therapies-improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015. Ann Oncol 26(8):1533–1546CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Urruticoechea A, Smith IE, Dowsett M (2005) Proliferation marker Ki-67 in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(28):7212–7220CrossRefPubMed

22.

Green AR, Powe DG, Rakha EA, Soria D, Lemetre C, Nolan CC, Barros FF, Macmillan RD, Garibaldi JM, Ball GR et al (2013) Identification of key clinical phenotypes of breast cancer using a reduced panel of protein biomarkers. Br J Cancer 109(7):1886–1894CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin SF, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, Dunning MJ, Speed D, Lynch AG, Samarajiwa S, Yuan Y et al (2012) The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature 486(7403):346–352PubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Ahlin C, Aaltonen K, Amini RM, Nevanlinna H, Fjallskog ML, Blomqvist C (2007) Ki67 and cyclin A as prognostic factors in early breast cancer. What are the optimal cut-off values? Histopathology 51(4):491–498CrossRefPubMed

25.

Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174CrossRefPubMed

26.

Mikami Y, Ueno T, Yoshimura K, Tsuda H, Kurosumi M, Masuda S, Horii R, Toi M, Sasano H (2013) Interobserver concordance of Ki67 labeling index in breast cancer: Japan Breast Cancer Research Group Ki67 ring study. Cancer Sci 104:1539–1543CrossRefPubMed

27.

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(8):416–422CrossRefPubMed

28.

Aleskandarany MA, Rakha EA, Macmillan RD, Powe DG, Ellis IO, Green AR (2011) MIB1/Ki-67 labelling index can classify grade 2 breast cancer into two clinically distinct subgroups. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(3):591–599CrossRefPubMed

29.

Tzankov A, Went P, Zimpfer A, Dirnhofer S (2005) Tissue microarray technology: principles, pitfalls and perspectives—lessons learned from hematological malignancies. Exp Gerontol 40(8–9):737–744CrossRefPubMed

30.

Shergill IS, Shergill NK, Arya M, Patel HR (2004) Tissue microarrays: a current medical research tool. Curr Med Res Opin 20(5):707–712CrossRefPubMed

31.

Zhang D, Salto-Tellez M, Putti TC, Do E, Koay ES (2003) Reliability of tissue microarrays in detecting protein expression and gene amplification in breast cancer. Mod Pathol 16(1):79–85CrossRefPubMed

32.

Karlsson C, Bodin L, Piehl-Aulin K, Karlsson MG (2009) Tissue microarray validation: a methodologic study with special reference to lung cancer. Cancer Epidemiol, Biomark Prev 18(7):2014–2021CrossRef

33.

Batistatou A, Televantou D, Bobos M, Eleftheraki AG, Kouvaras E, Chrisafi S, Koukoulis GK, Malamou-Mitsi V, Fountzilas G (2013) Evaluation of current prognostic and predictive markers in breast cancer: a validation study of tissue microarrays. Anticancer Res 33(5):2139–2145PubMed

34.

Colozza M, Sidoni A, Piccart-Gebhart M (2010) Value of Ki67 in breast cancer: the debate is still open. Lancet Oncol 11(5):414–415CrossRefPubMed

35.

Pathmanathan N, Balleine RL, Jayasinghe UW, Bilinski KL, Provan PJ, Byth K, Bilous AM, Salisbury EL, Boyages J (2014) The prognostic value of Ki67 in systemically untreated patients with node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 67(3):222–228CrossRefPubMed

36.

Shui R, Yu B, Bi R, Yang F, Yang W (2015) An interobserver reproducibility analysis of Ki67 visual assessment in breast cancer. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0125131CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Ki67 expression in invasive breast cancer: the use of tissue microarrays compared with whole tissue sections
Authors: Abir A. Muftah
Mohammed A. Aleskandarany
Methaq M. Al-kaabi
Sultan N. Sonbul
Maria Diez-Rodriguez
Chris C. Nolan
Carlos Caldas
Ian O. Ellis
Emad A. Rakha
Andrew R. Green
Publication date: 01-07-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 2/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4270-0

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2017

Effects of metformin versus placebo on vitamin B12 metabolism in non-diabetic breast cancer patients in CCTG MA.32

Development of mammary hyperplasia, dysplasia, and invasive ductal carcinoma in transgenic mice expressing the 8p11 amplicon oncogene NSD3

Tyr23 phosphorylation of Anxa2 enhances STAT3 activation and promotes proliferation and invasion of breast cancer cells

Effects of hepatitis C virus infection on the safety of chemotherapy for breast cancer patients

Metabolic factors, anthropometric measures, diet, and physical activity in long-term breast cancer survivors: change from diagnosis and comparison to non-breast cancer controls

Preoperative prediction of the size of pure ductal carcinoma in situ using three imaging modalities as compared to histopathological size: does magnetic resonance imaging add value?

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer