Zac Gerring1,2, John F Pearson3, Helen R Morrin1, Bridget A Robinson4,5, Gavin C Harris6, Logan C Walker1. 1. Department of Pathology, University of Otago, Christchurch, Christchurch, New Zealand. 2. Neurogenetics Laboratory, Genetics and Computational Biology Division, QIMR Berghofer Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. 3. Biostatistics and Computational Biology Unit, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. 4. Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand. 5. Canterbury Regional Cancer and Haematology Service, Christchurch, New Zealand. 6. Department of Anatomical Pathology, Canterbury District Health Board, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Abstract
AIMS: The proliferation marker Ki67 has been extensively investigated as a prognostic factor in breast cancer, but has not gained widespread clinical acceptance. Phosphohistone H3 is a new immunohistochemical marker for quantifying mitoses; however, there is limited information on its prognostic value in breast cancer. In this study, we performed a head-to-head comparison of Ki67 and phosphohistone H3 to establish the marker with the greatest prognostic value. METHODS AND RESULTS: Tissue microarrays from 108 breast cancer patients were immunohistochemically stained for Ki67 and phosphohistone H3. Our results showed that phosphohistone H3 had a greater prognostic value than Ki67 in a multivariable model that adjusted for traditional prognostic variables in breast cancer. Phosphohistone H3 staining was a stronger predictor of survival at 5 years after diagnosis [hazard ratio (HR) 4.35, P < 10(-5) ] than Ki67 (HR 2.44, P = 0.004), and better separated the risk of death in patients aged >45 years. Importantly, phosphohistone H3 consistently showed strong unequivocal staining, in contrast to the variable staining intensities associated with Ki67. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that phosphohistone H3 staining is a stronger and more robust prognostic indicator than Ki67 staining in breast cancer patients, and has the potential for use in routine diagnostic laboratories.
AIMS: The proliferation marker Ki67 has been extensively investigated as a prognostic factor in breast cancer, but has not gained widespread clinical acceptance. Phosphohistone H3 is a new immunohistochemical marker for quantifying mitoses; however, there is limited information on its prognostic value in breast cancer. In this study, we performed a head-to-head comparison of Ki67 and phosphohistone H3 to establish the marker with the greatest prognostic value. METHODS AND RESULTS: Tissue microarrays from 108 breast cancerpatients were immunohistochemically stained for Ki67 and phosphohistone H3. Our results showed that phosphohistone H3 had a greater prognostic value than Ki67 in a multivariable model that adjusted for traditional prognostic variables in breast cancer. Phosphohistone H3 staining was a stronger predictor of survival at 5 years after diagnosis [hazard ratio (HR) 4.35, P < 10(-5) ] than Ki67 (HR 2.44, P = 0.004), and better separated the risk of death in patients aged >45 years. Importantly, phosphohistone H3 consistently showed strong unequivocal staining, in contrast to the variable staining intensities associated with Ki67. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that phosphohistone H3 staining is a stronger and more robust prognostic indicator than Ki67 staining in breast cancerpatients, and has the potential for use in routine diagnostic laboratories.
Authors: Qianyu Guo; Vivian Z Li; Jessica N Nichol; Fan Huang; William Yang; Samuel E J Preston; Zahra Talat; Hanne Lefrère; Henry Yu; Guihua Zhang; Mark Basik; Christophe Gonçalves; Yao Zhan; Dany Plourde; Jie Su; Jose Torres; Maud Marques; Sara Al Habyan; Krikor Bijian; Frédéric Amant; Michael Witcher; Fariba Behbod; Luke McCaffrey; Moulay Alaoui-Jamali; Nadia V Giannakopoulos; Muriel Brackstone; Lynne-Marie Postovit; Sonia V Del Rincón; Wilson H Miller Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-18 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Andrea D Maier; Jiri Bartek; Frank Eriksson; Heidi Ugleholdt; Marianne Juhler; Helle Broholm; Tiit I Mathiesen Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2019-03-13 Impact factor: 3.042