Expression of cell cycle markers is predictive of the response to primary systemic therapy of locally advanced breast cancer

被引:0
作者
Tímea Tőkés
Anna-Mária Tőkés
Gyöngyvér Szentmártoni
Gergő Kiszner
Lilla Madaras
Janina Kulka
Tibor Krenács
Magdolna Dank
机构
[1] Semmelweis University,1st Department of Internal Medicine, Oncological Division
[2] 2nd Department of Pahtology,MTA
[3] Semmelweis University,SE Tumor Progression Research Group
[4] Semmelweis University,2nd Department of Pathology
[5] Semmelweis University,1st Department of Pathology and Experimental Cancer Research
来源
Virchows Archiv | 2016年 / 468卷
关键词
Breast cancer; Primary systemic therapy; Proliferation; Cell cycle; Digital pathology;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
We aimed to analyze to what extent expression of four cell cycle regulation markers—minichromosome maintenance protein (MCM2), Ki-67, cyclin A, and phosphohistone-H3 (PHH3)—predict response to primary systemic therapy in terms of pathological complete remission (pCR). In search of an accurate and reproducible scoring method, we compared computer-assisted (CA) and routine visual assessment (VA) of immunoreactivity. We included 57 patients with breast cancer in the study. The cell cycle markers were detected using immunohistochemistry on pre-therapy core biopsy samples. Parallel CA (validated by manual labeling) and standard VA were performed and compared for diagnostic agreement and predictive value for pCR. CA and VA results were dichotomized based on receiver operating characteristic analysis defined optimal cut-off values. “High” was defined by staining scores above the optimal cut-off, while “low” had staining scores below the optimal cut-off. The CA method resulted in significantly lower values for Ki-67 and MCM2 compared to VA (mean difference, −3.939 and −4.323). Diagnostic agreement was highest for cyclin A and PHH3 (−0.586 and −0.666, respectively). Regardless of the method (CA/VA) used, all tested markers were predictive of pCR. Optimal cut-off-based dichotomization improved diagnostic agreement between the CA and VA methods for every marker, in particular for MCM2 (κ = 1, p < 0.000). Cyclin A displayed excellent agreement (κ = 0.925; p < 0.000), while Ki-67 and PHH3 showed good agreement (κ = 0.789, p < 0.000 and κ = 0.794, p < 0.000, respectively). We found all cell cycle markers (Ki-67, MCM2, cyclin A, and PHH3) predictive of pCR. Diagnostic agreement between CA and VA was better at lower staining scores but improved after optimal cut-off-based dichotomization.
引用
收藏
页码:675 / 686
页数:11
相关论文
共 482 条
[31]  
Cortazar P(2009)Proliferation is the strongest prognosticator in node-negative breast cancer: significance, error sources, alternatives and comparison with molecular prognostic markers Breast Cancer Res Treat 115 241-78
[32]  
Zhang L(2012)Digital image analysis in pathology: benefits and obligation Anal Cell Pathol 35 75-58
[33]  
Untch M(2009)The potential of digital microscopy in breast pathology Pathol Oncol Res 15 55-254
[34]  
Mehta K(2014)A methodology to ensure and improve accuracy of Ki67 labelling index estimation by automated digital image analysis in breast cancer tissue Breast Cancer Res 16 R35-417
[35]  
Costantino JP(2014)Digital immunohistochemistry wizard: image analysis-assisted stereology tool to produce reference data set for calibration and quality control Diagn Pathol 9 S8-362
[36]  
Wolmark N(2010)Pharmaceutical therapy of breast cancer Magy Onkol 54 237-612
[37]  
Bonnefoi H(2007)Laboratory handling and histology reporting of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy Histopathology 50 409-516
[38]  
Cameron D(2006)Pathological complete response and residual DCIS following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast carcinoma Br J Cancer 94 358-1806
[39]  
Gianni L(2014)Cell cycle analysis can differentiate thin melanomas from dysplastic nevi and reveals accelerated replication in thick melanomas Virchows Arch 464 603-63
[40]  
Valagussa P(2013)Ki67 and proliferation in breast cancer J Clin Pathol 66 512-310