| Literature DB >> 24586570 |
Noorasmaliza Mdpaiman1, Siti Aishah Md Ali2, Reena Mdzin2, Meor Zamari Meor Kamal3, Wan Anna Md Amin3, Mohan Nallusamy4, Pavitratha Puspanathan3, Rohaizak Muhammad5, Sharifa Ezat Wan Puteh6, Srijit Das7.
Abstract
Breast cancer estrogen receptor (ER) status is one of the strong additional factors in predicting response of patients towards hormonal treatment. The main aim of this study was to assess the morphological characteristics and proliferative activity using MIB-1(Ki-67) of estrogen receptor negative invasive breast ductal carcinoma (NOS type) as well as to correlate these features with clinicopathological data. We also aim to study the expression of c-erbB2 in ER negative breast tumors. High proliferative rate (MIB-1 above 20%) was observed in 63 (63.6%) of 99 ER negative tumors and that these tumors were associated with high expression of c-erbB2 (57.6%). We observed that MIB-1 is a reliable independent prognostic indicator for ER negative infiltrating ductal carcinoma in this study.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24586570 PMCID: PMC3938433 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089172
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Distinct nuclear immunoreactivity for MIB-1 positive (>20%) in ER negative breast cancer (×100 magnification).
Figure 2Immunohistochemical stain for ER in invasive breast carcinoma showing strong nuclear positivity (×200 magnification).
Figure 3Immunohistochemical stain showing negative ER immunostaining in invasive breast carcinoma (×200 magnification).
Clinical outcome of ER-negative tumor cases (within 0 to 5 years follow up) in relation with morphological and clinicopathological data.
| Clinical outcome (0 to 5 years follow up) | |||||||
| Survive and healthy | Survive with local recurrence | Survive with metastasis | Died | Defaulted | Kulim/unknown | Referred to other hospital | |
| n (%) | n(%) | n(%) | n(%) | n(%) | n(%) | n(%) | |
|
| 38(38.4) | 2 (2) | 2 (2) | 12 (12.1) | 9 (9.1) | 33 (33.3) | 3 (3) |
|
| |||||||
| 20–30 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 31–40 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 10 | 1 |
| 41–50 | 13 (34.2) | 0 | 1 | 4 (33.3) | 0 | 11 | 1 |
| 51–60 | 12 (31.6) | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 9 | 1 |
| ≥61 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 6 (60) | 5 | 2 | 0 |
|
| |||||||
| Pre | 18 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 24 | 2 |
| Post | 20 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 1 |
|
| |||||||
| ≤2 cm | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| >2 cm | 28 | 1(50) | 2(100) | 12(100) | 8 | 31 | 3 |
|
| |||||||
| Positive | 27 | 1(50) | 2(100) | 11(91.7) | 4 | 28 | 2 |
| Negative | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| Not known | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
|
| |||||||
| 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 11 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 |
| 3 | 25 | 1(50) | 2(100) | 11(91.7) | 7 | 28 | 2 |
|
| |||||||
| I | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| II | 18 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 1 |
| III | 15 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 3 | 21 | 2 |
| IV | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |||||||
| Present | 22 | 2(100) | 1(50) | 8(66.7) | 5 | 16 | 2 |
| Absent | 16 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 17 | 1 |
|
| |||||||
| Present | 26 | 2(100) | 2(100) | 11(91.7) | 7 | 23 | 3 |
| Absent | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 0 |
|
| |||||||
| Pushing | 13 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 1 |
| Infiltrative | 25 | 2(100) | 1(50) | 10(83.3) | 5 | 20 | 2 |
|
| |||||||
| Present | 16 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 2 |
| Absent | 22 | 2(100) | 1(50) | 10(83.3) | 5 | 25 | 1 |
|
| ) | ||||||
| Positive | 9 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| Negative | 29(76.3) | 2(100) | 2(100) | 11(91.7) | 9(100) | 28(84.8) | 3(100) |
|
| |||||||
| Positive | 23(60.5) | 2 | 1(50) | 7(58.3) | 7(77.8) | 18 | 1 |
| Negative | 15 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 15 | 2 |
|
| |||||||
| Positive (≥20%) | 27(71) | 2(100) | 2(100) | 6(100) | 5 | 19 | 2 |
| Negative(<20%) | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 1 |
| Block not available | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
Figure 4C-erbB2 overexpression shows strong positivity (3+) on the cell membrane by immunohistochemistry (×200 magnification).
Significant correlation between tumor staging and tumor size, tumor grade, lymph node metastases in ER-negative tumor.
| Stage I | Stage II | Stage III | Stage IV | p-value | |
| Tumor size | |||||
| ≤2 cm | 6 | 8 | 0 | 0 | <0.000 |
| >2 cm | 1 | 29 | 52 | 3 | |
| Tumor grade | |||||
| 1 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0.014 |
| 2 | 4 | 10 | 6 | 0 | |
| 3 | 3 | 24 | 46 | 3 | |
| Lymph node metastases | |||||
| Positive | 1 | 19 | 52 | 3 | <0.000 |
| Negative | 5 | 13 | 0 | 0 | |
| Unknown | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided).
Significant correlation between axillary lymph node metastases and tumor margin in ER-negative tumor.
| Lymph node metastases | p-value | |||
| Positive | Negative | Unknown | ||
| Tumor margin | 0.016 | |||
| Pushing | 20 | 11 | 3 | |
| Infiltrative | 55 | 7 | 3 | |
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided).
Correlation between MIB-1 status with clinicopathological findings and morphologic features.
| Variables | Number of cases, n(%) | MIB-1 positive, n (%) | MIB-1 negative n(%) | MIB-1 unknown n(%) | p-value |
|
| 99(100) | 63(63.6) | 33(33.3) | 4(4) | |
|
| 3 (3.0%) | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0.58 |
| 31–40 | 18 (18.2%) | 10 | 8 (8.1) | 0 | |
| 41–50 | 30 (30.3%) | 21(21.2%) | 9(9) | 0 | |
| 51–60 | 27 (27.3%) | 16 | 7(7) | 4(4) | |
| ≥61 | 21 (21.2%) | 13 | 8 (8.1) | 0 | |
|
| 53 (53.5%) | 36(36.4%) | 16 (16.1) | 1(1) | 0.45 |
| Post | 46 (46.5%) | 27 | 16 (16.1) | 3(3) | |
|
| |||||
|
| 14 (14.1%) | 9 | 5(5.1) | 0 | 0.89 |
| >2 cm | 85 (85.9%) | 54(54.5%) | 27 (27.3) | 4(4) | |
|
| 75 (75.8%) | 46(46.5%) | 26 (26.3) | 3(3) | 0.29 |
| Negative | 18 (18.2%) | 14 | 3(3) | 1(1) | |
|
| 3 (3.0%) | 2 | 1(1) | 0 | 0.39 |
| 2 | 20 (20.2%) | 11 | 9(9) | 0 | |
| 3 | 76 (76.8%) | 50(50.5%) | 22 (22.2) | 4(4) | |
|
| 15 (15.2%) | 13 | 2(2) | 0 | 0.05* |
| Negative | 84 (84.8%) | 50 | 30(30.3) | 4(4) | |
|
| 57 (57.6%) | 32 | 22(22.2) | 3(3) | 0.11 |
| Negative | 42 (42.4%) | 31 | 10(10.1) | 1(1) | |
|
| 7 (7.1%) | 6 | 1(1) | 0 | 0.63 |
| II | 37 (37.4%) | 22 | 13(13.1) | 2(2) | |
| III | 52 (52.5%) | 34(34.3%) | 16(16.1) | 2(2) | |
| IV | 3 (3.0%) | 1 | 2(2) | 0 | |
|
| |||||
|
| 56 (56.6%) | 36(36.4%) | 17(17.2) | 3(3) | |
| Absent | 43 (43.4%) | 27 | 15(15.2) | 1(1) | |
|
| 74 (74.7%0 | 46(46.5%) | 25(25.3) | 3(3) | |
| Absent | 25 (25.3%) | 17 | 7(7) | 1(1) | |
|
| 65 (65.7%) | 42(42.2%) | 22(22.2) | 3(3) | 0.92 |
| Pushing | 34 (34.3%) | 21 | 10(10.1) | 1(1) | |
|
| 33 (33.3%) | 24 | 6(6) | 3(3) | 0.05* |
| Absent | 66 (66.7%) | 39(39.4%) | 26(26.3) | 0 |
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided).
Frequency table of clinicopathological data and morphologic features of triple negative breast tumor.
| Variables | Number of cases (%) |
| (Total patient – 36) | |
|
| 3 (8.3%) |
| 31–40 | 7 (19.4%) |
| 41–50 | 10 (27%) |
| 51–60 | 8 (22%) |
| ≥61 | 8 (22%) |
|
| |
| Pre | 20 (55%) |
| Post | 16 (44%) |
|
| |
|
| 13 (36.1%) |
| Infiltrative | 23 (63.9%) |
|
| 8 (22%) |
| Absent | 28 (77.8%) |
|
| 23 (63.9%) |
| Absent | 13 (36.1%) |
|
| 30 (83.3%) |
| Absent | 6 (16.7%) |
|
| |
|
| 4 (11.1%) |
| >2 cm | 32 (88.9%) |
|
| 2 (5.6%) |
| 2 | 5 (13.9%) |
| 3 | 29 (80.6%) |
|
| |
| Positive | 26 (72.2%) |
| Negative | 9 (25%) |
| Unknown (wide excision) | 1 (2.8%) |
|
| 25 (69.4%) |
| Negative | 10 (27.8%) |
| Not available | 1 (2.8%) |
|
| 3 (8.3%) |
| II | 8 (22%) |
| III | 25 (69.4%) |
| IV | 0 (0%) |
Correlation between tumor grade and menopausal status, tumor size, lymph node metastases in MIB-1 triple negative breast cancers.
| Tumor grade | p | Tumor Stage | p | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | I | II | III | IV | |||
| Tumor size | |||||||||
| ≤2 cm | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0.001 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | <0.000 |
| >2 cm | 2 | 2 | 28 | 0 | 7 | 25 | 0 | ||
| Lymph node metastases | |||||||||
| Positive | 0 | 2 | 24 | 0.024 | 0 | 2 | 24 | 0 | <0.000 |
| Negative | 2 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Unknown | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-sided).