Melanie Erices-Leclercq1, Sabine Lubig1, Frank Förster2,3, Robert Förster4,5, Stefan Baldus6, Christian Rudlowski7,8, Lars Schröder9. 1. Department of Breast Cancer, Lutherian Hospital, Ferrenbergstr.24, 51465, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany. 2. Department of Economical Sciences, University of Applied Sciences, Zwickau, Germany. 3. Outpatient Department of Gynecological Oncology and Palliative Care, Poliklinik GmbH, Chemnitz, Germany. 4. Institute for Radiation Oncology, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur, Winterthur, Switzerland. 5. Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 6. Institute for Pathology, Cytology and Molecular Pathology, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany. 7. Department of Breast Cancer, Lutherian Hospital, Ferrenbergstr.24, 51465, Bergisch Gladbach, Germany. c.rudlowski@evk.de. 8. Medical Faculty, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany. c.rudlowski@evk.de. 9. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Medical Faculty, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: 1% of all breast cancer cases occur in men. There are significant differences regarding clinical behaviour and genetic profiles between female (FBC) and male breast cancer (MBC). Parameters for decision-making on treatment and prognosis are derived from FBC. Ki67 has a high value as a prognostic and predictive factor in FBC, but accurate Ki67 cut-off points for MBC are missing. In this study, we aimed to evaluate adequate examination methods and reliable cut-off points for Ki67 to assess the highest prognostic value for patient's overall survival (OS). METHODS: In this multicentric retrospective study, histological specimens were obtained from 104 male patients who were diagnosed and treated for primary invasive breast cancer. We applied three methods of Ki67 analysis: Tumor average scoring (TA), tumor border scoring (TB) and hot-spot scoring (HS). Calculated Ki67 cut-off points for each method were assessed as a threshold for patients' overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Ki67 cut-off points were 13.5 for the TA group, 22.5 for the HS group and 17.5 for the TB group. Only Ki67 TA cut-off calculations demonstrated statistical significance (p = 0.04). Ki67 expression analysis of TA showed that more than 90% of patients with low Ki67 levels (< 13.5) were alive after 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that determination of Ki67 expression in TA is the most reliable to define a cut-off point with high prognostic value. A Ki67 cut-off point of 13.5 shows highest statistical power to define luminal A subgroup and OS.
PURPOSE: 1% of all breast cancer cases occur in men. There are significant differences regarding clinical behaviour and genetic profiles between female (FBC) and male breast cancer (MBC). Parameters for decision-making on treatment and prognosis are derived from FBC. Ki67 has a high value as a prognostic and predictive factor in FBC, but accurate Ki67 cut-off points for MBC are missing. In this study, we aimed to evaluate adequate examination methods and reliable cut-off points for Ki67 to assess the highest prognostic value for patient's overall survival (OS). METHODS: In this multicentric retrospective study, histological specimens were obtained from 104 male patients who were diagnosed and treated for primary invasive breast cancer. We applied three methods of Ki67 analysis: Tumor average scoring (TA), tumor border scoring (TB) and hot-spot scoring (HS). Calculated Ki67 cut-off points for each method were assessed as a threshold for patients' overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Ki67 cut-off points were 13.5 for the TA group, 22.5 for the HS group and 17.5 for the TB group. Only Ki67 TA cut-off calculations demonstrated statistical significance (p = 0.04). Ki67 expression analysis of TA showed that more than 90% of patients with low Ki67 levels (< 13.5) were alive after 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that determination of Ki67 expression in TA is the most reliable to define a cut-off point with high prognostic value. A Ki67 cut-off point of 13.5 shows highest statistical power to define luminal A subgroup and OS.
Authors: A S Coates; E P Winer; A Goldhirsch; R D Gelber; M Gnant; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: F Cardoso; J M S Bartlett; L Slaets; C H M van Deurzen; E van Leeuwen-Stok; P Porter; B Linderholm; I Hedenfalk; C Schröder; J Martens; J Bayani; C van Asperen; M Murray; C Hudis; L Middleton; J Vermeij; K Punie; J Fraser; M Nowaczyk; I T Rubio; S Aebi; C Kelly; K J Ruddy; E Winer; C Nilsson; L Dal Lago; L Korde; K Benstead; O Bogler; T Goulioti; A Peric; S Litière; K C Aalders; C Poncet; K Tryfonidis; S H Giordano Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: C Denkert; S Loibl; B M Müller; H Eidtmann; W D Schmitt; W Eiermann; B Gerber; H Tesch; J Hilfrich; J Huober; T Fehm; J Barinoff; C Jackisch; J Prinzler; T Rüdiger; E Erbstösser; J U Blohmer; J Budczies; K M Mehta; G von Minckwitz Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-22 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Torsten O Nielsen; Roger A'Hern; John Bartlett; R Charles Coombes; Jack Cuzick; Matthew Ellis; N Lynn Henry; Judith C Hugh; Tracy Lively; Lisa McShane; Soon Paik; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Ljudmila Prudkin; Meredith Regan; Janine Salter; Christos Sotiriou; Ian E Smith; Giuseppe Viale; Jo Anne Zujewski; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Neelima Denduluri; Mark R Somerfield; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Amy H Comander; Zoneddy Dayao; Andrea Eisen; Rachel A Freedman; Ragisha Gopalakrishnan; Stephanie L Graff; Michael J Hassett; Tari A King; Gary H Lyman; Gillian Rice Maupin; Raquel Nunes; Cheryl L Perkins; Melinda L Telli; Maureen E Trudeau; Antonio C Wolff; Sharon H Giordano Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Sara Bustreo; Simona Osella-Abate; Paola Cassoni; Michela Donadio; Mario Airoldi; Fulvia Pedani; Mauro Papotti; Anna Sapino; Isabella Castellano Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-05-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Anne Marie Bak Jylling; Vibeke Jensen; Giedrius Lelkaitis; Peer Christiansen; Sarah Schulz Nielsen; Marianne Djernes Lautrup Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2020-02-27 Impact factor: 4.239
Authors: Maggie C U Cheang; Stephen K Chia; David Voduc; Dongxia Gao; Samuel Leung; Jacqueline Snider; Mark Watson; Sherri Davies; Philip S Bernard; Joel S Parker; Charles M Perou; Matthew J Ellis; Torsten O Nielsen Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-05-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: A Goldhirsch; E P Winer; A S Coates; R D Gelber; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-04 Impact factor: 32.976