Literature DB >> 10845252

Comparison between different cell kinetic variables in human breast cancer.

F Barzanti1, M Dal Susino, A Volpi, D Amadori, A Riccobon, E Scarpi, L Medri, L Bernardi, S Naldi, M Aldi, M Gaudio, W Zoli.   

Abstract

Cell kinetics holds a prominent role among biological factors in predicting clinical outcome and response to treatment in neoplastic patients. Different cell kinetic variables are often considered as valid alternatives to each other, but the limited size of case series analysed in several studies and the lack of simultaneous determinations of all the variables on the same tumours do not justify this conclusion. In the present study, the correlation between [3H]thymidine labelling index ([3H]dT LI), flow cytometric S phase cell fraction (FCM-S) and Ki-67 immunoreactivity (Ki-67/MIB-1) was verified and the type of correlation with the most important clinical, pathological and biological patient and tumour characteristics was investigated in a very large series of breast cancer patients. Ki-67/MIB-1, FCM-S and [3H]dT LI were determined in 609, 526 and 485 patients, respectively, and all three cell proliferation indices were evaluated in parallel on the same tumour in a series of 330 breast cancer patients. All the cell kinetic determinations were performed within the context of National Quality Control Programmes. Very poor correlation coefficients (ranging from 0.37 to 0.18) were observed between the different cell kinetic variables determined in parallel on the same series of breast cancers. Moreover, Ki-67/MIB-1 and FCM-S showed a significant relationship with histological type, grade and tumour size, whereas statistically significant correlations were not observed for [3H]dT LI. In conclusion, the results show that the different cell kinetic variables provide different biological information and cannot be considered as alternatives to each other.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10845252      PMCID: PMC6496221          DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2184.2000.00165.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cell Prolif        ISSN: 0960-7722            Impact factor:   6.831


  53 in total

1.  Breast cancer prognostic factors: evaluation guidelines.

Authors:  W L McGuire
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1991-02-06       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Revision of the standards for the assessment of hormone receptors in human breast cancer; report of the second E.O.R.T.C. Workshop, held on 16-17 March, 1979, in the Netherlands Cancer Institute.

Authors: 
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1980-11       Impact factor: 9.162

3.  Thymidine labeling index, flow cytometric S-phase measurement, and DNA index in human tumors. Comparisons and correlations.

Authors:  J S Meyer; M D Coplin
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 2.493

4.  3H-thymidine-labeling index as a prognostic indicator in node-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  R Silvestrini; M G Daidone; P Valagussa; G Di Fronzo; G Mezzanotte; L Mariani; G Bonadonna
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Long term prognostic value of growth fraction determination by Ki-67 immunostaining in primary operable breast cancer.

Authors:  J Y Pierga; A Leroyer; P Viehl; V Mosseri; S Chevillard; H Magdelénat
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.872

6.  Lack of prognostic significance of the monoclonal antibody Ki-S1, a novel marker of proliferative activity, in node-negative breast carcinoma.

Authors:  P Bevilacqua; P Verderio; M Barbareschi; E Bonoldi; P Boracchi; P Dalla Palma; G Gasparini
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.872

7.  Cell proliferation of breast cancer evaluated by anti-BrdU and anti-Ki-67 antibodies: its prognostic value on short-term recurrences.

Authors:  P Gaglia; A Bernardi; T Venesio; B Caldarola; D Lauro; A P Cappa; P Calderini; D S Liscia
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1993       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  Comparative assessment of proliferation and DNA content in breast carcinoma by image analysis and flow cytometry.

Authors:  A E Dawson; J A Norton; D S Weinberg
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  1990-05       Impact factor: 4.307

Review 9.  Statistical aspects of prognostic factor studies in oncology.

Authors:  R Simon; D G Altman
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Prognostic impact of proliferation-associated factors MIB1 (Ki-67) and S-phase in node-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  P Dettmar; N Harbeck; C Thomssen; L Pache; P Ziffer; K Fizi; F Jänicke; W Nathrath; M Schmitt; H Graeff; H Höfler
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  3 in total

1.  Semi-quantitative lymph node assessment of (18)F-FDG PET/CT in locally advanced breast cancer: correlation with biological prognostic factors.

Authors:  Ana María García Vicente; Angel Soriano Castrejón; Miguel Angel Cruz Mora; Ana González Ageitos; María del Mar Muñoz Sánchez; Alberto León Martín; Ruth Espinosa Aunión; Fernanda Relea Calatayud; Vicente Muñoz Madero; Ignacio Chacón López-Muñiz; Jose Manuel Cordero García; Germán Andrés Jiménez Londoño
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 9.236

2.  Reduced expression of a gene proliferation signature is associated with enhanced malignancy in colon cancer.

Authors:  A Anjomshoaa; Y-H Lin; M A Black; J L McCall; B Humar; S Song; R Fukuzawa; H-S Yoon; B Holzmann; J Friederichs; A van Rij; M Thompson-Fawcett; A E Reeve
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 7.640

3.  The role of oestrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer - immunohistochemical evaluation of oestrogen and progesterone receptor expression in invasive breast cancer in women.

Authors:  Anna M Badowska-Kozakiewicz; Janusz Patera; Maria Sobol; Jacek Przybylski
Journal:  Contemp Oncol (Pozn)       Date:  2015-05-28
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.