Literature DB >> 23382998

New insight into Ki67 expression at the invasive front in breast cancer.

Peng Gong1, Yingxin Wang, Gavin Liu, Jing Zhang, Zhongyu Wang.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate the distribution of Ki67+ cells in breast cancer in relation to clinical-pathological parameters and prognosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ki67 expression status was detected in 1,086 breast cancer specimens using immunohistochemistry staining and examining the relationship between the Ki67+ cells' location. Subsequently, clinical-pathological parameters and prognosis were determined.
RESULTS: In total, Ki67 protein expression was found in 781 (71.92%) of the 1,086 breast cancer specimens. Among the 781 Ki67+ cases, 461 were defined as diffuse type and 320 were defined as borderline type. After universal correlation analysis, significant differences were observed in age, histological grade, metastatic nodes, postoperative distant metastasis, and molecular subtype between Ki67+ and Ki67- cases (P = 0.01, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively). After subgroup analysis, the borderline cases were found to be characterized by a high distant metastasis rate compared to the diffuse cases as well as the Ki67- cases (P = 0.001). No differences were observed between diffuse type or Ki67- cases (P = 0.105). Multivariate analysis showed that age, tumor size, histological grade, lymph node metastasis, molecular subtype, and the Ki67 distribution pattern were observed to be related to postoperative distant metastasis (all P<0.05). Furthermore, borderline type was shown to attain a significantly more distant bone and liver metastasis and worse disease-specific survival than the other types (P = 0.001). In the Cox regression test, the Ki67 distribution pattern was detected as an independent prognostic factor (P = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The distribution pattern of Ki67 may be a new independent prognostic factor for breast cancer.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23382998      PMCID: PMC3561452          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0054912

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


Introduction

Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers and the leading cause of cancer-related death in women [1], [2]. In 2008, 1,380,000 new occurrences of breast cancer were diagnosed worldwide, with 458,400 persons dying from breast cancer that same year [3], [4]. Death usually results from uncontrolled metastatic disease rather than local recurrence [5]. The most common organ metastases in patients with breast cancer are bone, lung, and liver [6]. Although the 5-year survival rate for patients with breast cancer approaches 80%, in metastatic patients, it decreases to 20% [7]. Thus, detecting distant metastasis early is especially important to improve the breast cancer patient's prognosis. Several studies have investigated the markers that predict distant metastasis in breast cancer. Ki-67 is a protein that in humans is encoded by the MKI67 gene [8]. Antigen Ki-67 is a nucleus protein that is strictly associated with and may be necessary for cellular proliferation [9]. It was recently reported that Ki67 might be suitable for including in the routine clinical practice of breast cancer. In novel multigene tests, however, proliferation has a major impact on calculating the risk of recurrence [10]. For example, Ki67 independently improved the prediction of treatment response and prognosis in a group of breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment [11]. Currently, the expression location status and the clinical implications of Ki67 in breast cancer have never been studied. In preliminary experiments, we investigated that Ki67 expression was distributed in different ways in different cases. Hence, we extend our studies to include the relationship between the distribution type of Ki67 expression and biological behaviors and prognosis in breast cancer. Gaining this knowledge will lay a foundation for managing breast cancer.

Methods

Patients and tissue specimens

A total of 1,086 patients who had histologically confirmed breast cancer and who underwent radical operations in the Tumor Hospital of Liaoning province and China Medical University between January 2001 and January 2006 were enrolled for immunohistochemical and immunofluorescence double staining and prognostic analysis. The mean age of patients was 50.73±10.28 years (range from 27 to 80 years). Of the 1,086 patients, 544 were with Luminal A tumors and 135 with Luminal B tumors, 102 were with HER2-enriched type tumors, and 305 were with basal-like type tumors [12]. The criteria to include a patient in the present study were as follows: (1) curative operations were performed; (2) resected specimens were pathologically examined; (3) more than 10 lymph nodes were pathologically examined after the operation; and (4) a complete medical record including the status of ER, PR, Her2, p53, and Ki67 was available. The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Dalian Medical University and Liaoning Tumor Hospital, and written informed consent was obtained from all participants. The study was also approved by the Ethics Committee of China Medical University.

Immunohistochemistry experimental procedures

We fixed thin slices of tumor tissue from all cases received in our histopathology unit in 4% formaldehyde solution (pH 7.0) for periods not exceeding 24 h. The tissues were processed routinely for paraffin embedding, and 4 μm-thick sections were cut and placed on glass slides coated with 3-aminopropyl triethoxysilane for immunohistochemistry. Tissue samples were stained with hematoxylin and eosin to determine histological type and grade of tumors. Breast tumor tissues were cut at a thickness of 4 μm using a cryostat. The sections were mounted on microscope slides, air dried, and then fixed in a mixture of 50% acetone and 50% methanol. The sections were then de-waxed with xylene, gradually hydrated with gradient alcohol, and washed with PBS. Sections were incubated for 60 min with the Ki67 antibody (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. USA; sc-15402). Following washing with PBS, sections were incubated for 30 min in the secondary biotinylated antibody (rabbit anti-mouse IgA-B, Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc. USA; sc-358961). Following washings, Avidin Biotin Complex (1:1,000 dilution) was then applied to the sections for 30 to 60 min at room temperature. The immunoreactive products were visualized by catalysis of 3, 3-diaminobenzidine (DAB) by horseradish peroxidase in the presence of H2O2 following extensive washings. Sections were then counterstained in Gill's hematoxylin and dehydrated in ascending grades of methanol before clearing in xylene and mounting under a coverslip. Ki67 expression was classified semi-quantitatively according to the following criteria: We considered samples as Ki67 positive if more than 1% of neoplastic cells discretely expressed Ki67 in their nucleus. The invasive front of the tumor was defined as the three- to six layers of tumor cells at the front edge or the scattered tumor groups between the tumor and the host tissue or organ. Firstly, two pathology experts were invited to assess for distribution of positive cells into borderline type and diffuse type. The third pathology expert will be invited to re-evaluate the distribution type if they got different result. The Ki67 positive cases with Ki67+ tumor cells found in the invasive front tumor area were two times more prevalent than the Ki67+ tumor cells in the non-invasive front tumor area were defined as borderline type. In contrast, the Ki67 positive cases with the Ki67+ tumor cells found in the invasive front tumor area were not two times more prevalent than the Ki67+ tumor cells in the non-invasive front tumor area were defined as diffuse type [13].

Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed with SPSS Statistics software (Version 13.0, Chicago, IL, USA). Relationships between Ki67 and other parameters were studied using the chi-square test, Fisher's extract test, or independent t tests. Disease-specific survival was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. The log-rank test was used to analyze survival differences. Multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox proportional hazards model selected in forward stepwise. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Ki67 expression in breast cancer and the relationship between Ki67 and clinicopathological characteristics

The mean age of the 1,086 patients studied was 50.73 years (range: 27–80 years). Within the total sample, 519 (47.79%) patients had lymph node metastasis and 288 (26.52%) exhibited postoperative distant metastasis (Table 1). In total, Ki67 protein expression was found in 781 (71.92%) of the 1,086 breast cancer specimens. Among the 781 Ki67 positive cases, 461 cases were defined as diffuse type and 320 cases were defined as borderline type (Figure 1). After universal correlation analysis, significant differences were observed in age, histological grade, metastatic nodes, postoperative distant metastasis, and molecular subtypes between Ki67+ and Ki67− cases (P = 0.01, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001 and 0.001, respectively), while these differences were not observed in tumor size (P = 0.118) (Table 1). There were significant difference in the Ki67 distribution pattern among age, histological grade, metastatic nodes, postoperative distant metastasis, and molecular subtypes in Ki67+ cases (P = 0.001, 0.001, 0.002, 0.001 and 0.001, respectively).
Table 1

Correlations between distribution pattern of Ki67 expression and clinic-pathological features (n = 1086).

VariablesnKi67−Ki67+ P1 value P2 value P3 value
Diffuse typeBorderline type
Age0.010.3260.001
<40 Y174354297
>40 Y912270419223
Tumor size0.4330.4820.118
T1173567146
T2836229365242
T369192228
T48134
Histological grade0.0010.0010.001
I84382026
II732226374132
III2704167162
Metastatic nodes0.0010.0210.002
negative567188245134
positive519117216186
Distant metastasis0.0010.1050.001
negative798258368172
positive2884793148
Molecular Subtypes0.0010.050.001
Luminal A54417628286
Luminal B135427122
HER2-enriched type102254829
basal-like type3056260183

P , Ki67+ group compared to Ki67− group; P , Diffuse type compared to Ki67− group; P , borderline type compared to diffuse type.

Figure 1

Ki67 protein was located at nucleus of the breast cancers.

A(2+) and B(2+), Ki67 protein distributed as diffuse type; C(2+) and D(2+), Ki67 protein distributed as borderline type; E(2+), Ki67 protein expressed in the lymph node metastasis; F, negative control.

Ki67 protein was located at nucleus of the breast cancers.

A(2+) and B(2+), Ki67 protein distributed as diffuse type; C(2+) and D(2+), Ki67 protein distributed as borderline type; E(2+), Ki67 protein expressed in the lymph node metastasis; F, negative control. P , Ki67+ group compared to Ki67− group; P , Diffuse type compared to Ki67− group; P , borderline type compared to diffuse type.

The relationship between Ki67 expression type and postoperative distant metastasis

Multivariate analysis showed that age, tumor size, histological grade, lymph node metastasis, molecular subtypes, and Ki67 distribution pattern related to postoperative distant metastasis (P = 0.001, 0.035, 0.001, 0.001, 0.001, and 0.001, respectively) (Table 2). After subgroup analysis, borderline type cases showed a high distant metastasis rate compared to diffuse type, as well as Ki67− cases (P = 0.001), while no differences were observed between diffuse type or Ki67− cases (P = 0.105). Multivariate analysis showed that age, tumor size, histological grade, lymph node metastasis, molecular subtypes and Ki67 distribution pattern was observed to be related to postoperative distant metastasis (all P<0.05).
Table 2

Multivariate analysis of the factors related to post-operative distant metastasis.

CharacteristicOR95% CI for OR P value
age0.3350.211–0.5320.001
Tumor size1.4751.029–2.1140.035
Histological grade3.5742.540–5.0280.001
Lymph node metastasis4.8363.239–7.2190.001
Molecular subtypes7.5155.263–11.7800.001
Ki67 distribution pattern4.6622.863–6.9280.001
Constant0.005

OR, odd ratio.

OR, odd ratio. We also investigated the postoperative distant metastasis rates among the different groups identified. Cases with positive Ki67 expression exhibited a significantly higher postoperative distant metastasis rate compared to those without Ki67 expression (36.27% vs 19.86%, P = 0.01). Furthermore, the borderline type was shown to attain a significantly more distant bone metastasis (39.78% vs 52.70% for diffuse type vs. borderline type) and liver metastasis (13.98% vs 17.39% for diffuse type vs. borderline type) (Table 3).
Table 3

Correlations between Ki67 distribution pattern and distant metastasis (n(%)).

Organs metastasisDiffuse type(93/461)Borderline Type(148/320)
Bone37(39.78%)78(52.70%)
Lung29(31.18%)19(12.84)
Liver13(13.98%)32(17.39)
Ovarian4(4.3%)11(7.43)
Others7(7.5%)8(5.41)

Prognostic analysis

The Kaplan-Meier method for survival analysis showed that borderline type attained a significantly worse disease-specific survival than the other types (P = 0.001) (Figure 2). In the Cox regression test, the Ki67 distribution pattern was detected as an independent prognostic factor (P = 0.001) (Table 4).
Figure 2

Brderline type cases attain a significantly worse disease-specific survival than the diffuse type or Ki67-cases (P = 0.001).

Table 4

Cox model regression analysis of the breast cancer prognostic factors.

VariesOR95% CI for OR P value
age1.4101.133–1.7550.002
Histological type1.5451.355–1.7620.001
Lymph node metastasis1.2451.074–1.4430.004
Molecular subtypes2.7201.907–3.2840.001
Ki67 distribution pattern3.1781.652–5.9450.001

Discussion

It has been acknowledged that the Ki67 protein is strictly associated with cell proliferation [14]. During interphase, the antigen can be detected exclusively within the nucleus, whereas in mitosis, most of the protein is relocated to the surface of the chromosomes. The fact that the Ki67 protein is present during all active phases of the cell cycle (G(1), S, G(2), and mitosis), but is absent from resting cells (G(0)), makes it an excellent marker to determine the so-called growth fraction of a given cell population [15]. Moreover, Ki67 is one of the 21 prospectively selected genes of the Oncotype DXTM assay used to predict the risk of recurrence in a node-negative, tamoxifen-treated breast cancer population enrolled in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-14 (NSABP B-14). It is also used to predict the magnitude of chemotherapy benefit in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer enrolled in the NSABP B-20 trial [16]. It has been suggested that tumor cells might show cellular dedifferentiation in the invasive front area, with loss of an epithelial phenotype and a gain of a mesenchymal phenotype, which facilitates invasive and metastatic growth of originally differentiated cancer cells. The malignant progression is epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) [13]. In the present study, we found that Ki67 expression distributed in a different manner in different cases. In most of the cases, the nucleus positive Ki67 was diffusely located in the tumor, whereas in other cases the nucleus positive Ki67 only expressed in the invasive front of the breast cancer (borderline type). Different biological behaviors may exist for the different types of Ki67 positive cases. Finally, 71.92% of the enrolled breast cancer samples positively expressed Ki67 protein in the present study. A subset of 461 cases was defined as diffuse type and 320 cases were defined as borderline type. Interestingly, the borderline type cases were found to have a high distant metastasis rate compared to the diffuse type, as well as Ki67− cases. In contrast, no differences were observed between diffuse type or Ki67− cases. Multivariate analysis showed that age, tumor size, histological grade, lymph node metastasis, triple-negative breast cancer, and Ki67 distribution pattern were observed to be related to postoperative distant metastasis. Furthermore, borderline type was shown to attain significantly more cases of distant bone and liver metastasis and worse disease-specific survival than the other types. In a recent study, Delpech et al. [17] reported that high Ki67 expression in the primary tumor remained an independent, adverse prognostic factor in metastatic disease. Low Ki67 expression in the primary tumor is associated with higher clinical benefit, a longer time to progress to first-line endocrine therapy, and longer survival after metastatic recurrence [17]. After investigating the relationship between nucleus β-catenin expression in the invasive front of colorectal cancers and liver metastatic lesions and other clinicopathological characteristics, Wang et al. [18] observed that over-expression of nucleus β-catenin at the invasive front in colorectal cancer was strongly associated with and may be a promising predictor of liver metastasis. Ki67 is considered to be a protein associated with cell cycle activity and shows a good correlation with the growth fraction and has been proposed as a prognostic or predictive marker in breast cancer. According to our knowledge, however, this is the first study to elucidate the relationship between nucleus Ki67 over-expression distribution type in breast cancer and synchronous liver metastasis based on clinical and pathological data. We demonstrated that over-expression of nucleus Ki67 at the invasive front in breast cancer is associated with bone and liver metastasis. The clinical significance of the present study is that we provide a promising predictor of bone and liver metastasis for those affected by breast cancer.
  19 in total

Review 1.  Opinion: migrating cancer stem cells - an integrated concept of malignant tumour progression.

Authors:  Thomas Brabletz; Andreas Jung; Simone Spaderna; Falk Hlubek; Thomas Kirchner
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 60.716

2.  Prognostic role of a multigene reverse transcriptase-PCR assay in patients with node-negative breast cancer not receiving adjuvant systemic therapy.

Authors:  Francisco J Esteva; Aysegul A Sahin; Massimo Cristofanilli; Kevin Coombes; Sang-Joon Lee; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Michael Walker; Drew Watson; Steven Shak; Gabriel N Hortobagyi
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2005-05-01       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Invasive Breast Cancer: Recognition of Molecular Subtypes.

Authors:  Johanna D Strehl; David L Wachter; Peter A Fasching; Matthias W Beckmann; Arndt Hartmann
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2011-08-26       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Classical markers like ER and ki-67, but also survivin and pERK, could be involved in the pathological response to gemcitabine, adriamycin and paclitaxel (GAT) in locally advanced breast cancer patients: results from the GEICAM/2002-01 phase II study.

Authors:  Pedro Sánchez-Rovira; Antonio Antón; Agustí Barnadas; Amalia Velasco; María Lomas; María Rodríguez-Pinilla; José Luis Ramírez; César Ramírez; María José Ríos; Eva Castellá; Carmen García-Andrade; Belén San Antonio; Eva Carrasco; José Luis Palacios
Journal:  Clin Transl Oncol       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 3.405

5.  Dual effect of metformin on breast cancer proliferation in a randomized presurgical trial.

Authors:  Bernardo Bonanni; Matteo Puntoni; Massimiliano Cazzaniga; Giancarlo Pruneri; Davide Serrano; Aliana Guerrieri-Gonzaga; Alessandra Gennari; Maria Stella Trabacca; Viviana Galimberti; Paolo Veronesi; Harriet Johansson; Valentina Aristarco; Fabio Bassi; Alberto Luini; Matteo Lazzeroni; Clara Varricchio; Giuseppe Viale; Paolo Bruzzi; Andrea Decensi
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-05-07       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Breast manifestations of systemic diseases.

Authors:  Christina A Dilaveri; Maire Brid Mac Bride; Nicole P Sandhu; Lonzetta Neal; Karthik Ghosh; Dietlind L Wahner-Roedler
Journal:  Int J Womens Health       Date:  2012-02-07

7.  Whole transcriptome RNA-Seq analysis of breast cancer recurrence risk using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue.

Authors:  Dominick Sinicropi; Kunbin Qu; Francois Collin; Michael Crager; Mei-Lan Liu; Robert J Pelham; Mylan Pho; Andrew Dei Rossi; Jennie Jeong; Aaron Scott; Ranjana Ambannavar; Christina Zheng; Raul Mena; Jose Esteban; James Stephans; John Morlan; Joffre Baker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-13       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  How reliable is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of Breast- and Gynecopathologists.

Authors:  Zsuzsanna Varga; Joachim Diebold; Corina Dommann-Scherrer; Harald Frick; Daniela Kaup; Aurelia Noske; Ellen Obermann; Christian Ohlschlegel; Barbara Padberg; Christiane Rakozy; Sara Sancho Oliver; Sylviane Schobinger-Clement; Heide Schreiber-Facklam; Gad Singer; Coya Tapia; Urs Wagner; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Giuseppe Viale; Hans-Anton Lehr
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Cancer incidence among adolescents and young adults in urban Shanghai, 1973-2005.

Authors:  Qi-Jun Wu; Emily Vogtmann; Wei Zhang; Li Xie; Wan-Shui Yang; Yu-Ting Tan; Jing Gao; Yong-Bing Xiang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  22 in total

1.  Association of reduced XRCC2 expression with lymph node metastasis in breast cancer tissues.

Authors:  Nabiha Bashir; Syeda Sana; Ishrat Mahjabeen; Mahmood Akhtar Kayani
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.375

2.  Association of genetic polymorphisms in MIF with breast cancer risk in Chinese women.

Authors:  Shuai Lin; Meng Wang; Xinghan Liu; Wenge Zhu; Yan Guo; Zhiming Dai; Pengtao Yang; Tian Tian; Cong Dai; Yi Zheng; Chunyan Hu; Linyan Wei; Zhijun Dai
Journal:  Clin Exp Med       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 3.984

3.  Syntaphilin Is a Novel Biphasic Biomarker of Aggressive Prostate Cancer and a Metastasis Predictor.

Authors:  Michael J Hwang; Kelly G Bryant; Jae H Seo; Qin Liu; Peter A Humphrey; Mary Ann C Melnick; Dario C Altieri; Marie E Robert
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 4.307

4.  Luminal breast cancer classification according to proliferative indices: clinicopathological characteristics and short-term survival analysis.

Authors:  Yan Sun; Gang Nie; Zhimin Wei; Zhidong Lv; Xiaoyi Liu; Haibo Wang
Journal:  Med Oncol       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 3.064

5.  A spatial model predicts that dispersal and cell turnover limit intratumour heterogeneity.

Authors:  Bartlomiej Waclaw; Ivana Bozic; Meredith E Pittman; Ralph H Hruban; Bert Vogelstein; Martin A Nowak
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-08-26       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Early targets of miR-34a in neuroblastoma.

Authors:  Pasqualino De Antonellis; Marianeve Carotenuto; Jonathan Vandenbussche; Gennaro De Vita; Veronica Ferrucci; Chiara Medaglia; Iolanda Boffa; Alessandra Galiero; Sarah Di Somma; Daniela Magliulo; Nadia Aiese; Alessandro Alonzi; Daniela Spano; Lucia Liguori; Cristina Chiarolla; Antonio Verrico; Johannes H Schulte; Pieter Mestdagh; Jo Vandesompele; Kris Gevaert; Massimo Zollo
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 5.911

7.  Digital microscopy assessment of angiogenesis in different breast cancer compartments.

Authors:  Anca Haisan; Radu Rogojanu; Camelia Croitoru; Daniela Jitaru; Cristina Tarniceriu; Mihai Danciu; Eugen Carasevici
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2013-09-01       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  Distinct outcomes in patients with different molecular subtypes of inflammatory breast cancer.

Authors:  Jingyu Zhou; Yi Yan; Lei Guo; Huiying Ou; Jian Hai; Chaojie Zhang; Zhaoyun Wu; Lili Tang
Journal:  Saudi Med J       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 1.484

Review 9.  Integrating genetic and non-genetic determinants of cancer evolution by single-cell multi-omics.

Authors:  Anna S Nam; Ronan Chaligne; Dan A Landau
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2020-08-17       Impact factor: 53.242

10.  PFKFB4 Overexpression Facilitates Proliferation by Promoting the G1/S Transition and Is Associated with a Poor Prognosis in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Yu-Chen Cai; Hang Yang; Hong-Bo Shan; Hui-Fang Su; Wen-Qi Jiang; Yan-Xia Shi
Journal:  Dis Markers       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 3.434

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.