Analysis of Correlation Between Mitotic Index, MIB1 Score and S-phase Fraction as Proliferation Markers in Invasive Breast Carcinoma. Methodological Aspects and Prognostic Value in a Series of 257 Cases

• Published in: Anticancer research Vol. 24; no. 5B; pp. 3283 - 3288
• Main Authors: CALY, M, GENIN, P, ZIDANE, M, SASTRE-GARAU, X, AL GHUZLAN, A, ELIE, C, FRENEAUX, P, KLIJANIENKO, J, ROSTY, C, SIGAL-ZAFRANI, B, VINCENT-SALOMONI, A, DOUGGAZ, A
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Attiki International Institute of Anticancer Research 01.09.2004
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Biological and medical sciences; Breast Neoplasms - pathology; Cell Division - physiology; Disease-Free Survival; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Humans; Ki-67 Antigen - analysis; Mammary gland diseases; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Mitotic Index; Neoplasm Staging; Prognosis; S Phase; Tumors; S-phase fraction; Prognosis; Biological marker; Breast cancer; Malignant tumor; MIB1; Mammary gland diseases; Breast carcinoma; Mitotic index; Score; Cancerology; Correlation analysis; S Phase; Cell cycle
• ISSN: 0250-7005; 1791-7530

Background: The study was designed in order to evaluate the degree of correlation of mitotic index (MI), Ki67 (MIB1) score and S-phase fraction (SPF) as markers of cell proliferation and prognosis in breast cancer. Materials and Methods: The series analysed corresponded to 257 consecutive invasive breast carcinoma, treated at the Institut Curie, France, in 1995. Nottingham histological grade and MIB1 semiquantitative and quantitative score were assessed on histological sections, whereas SPF was calculated using flow cytometry analysis of fine-needle aspiration products. Proliferation indices were compared to pathological data and to overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) (minimum follow-up: 72 months). Results: The median values for the proliferation markers were 9/10 HPF for MI, 32.4% for MIB1 and 3.7% for SPF. A high rate of correlation (r=0.96; p<0.001) was observed between semi-quantitative and quantitative MIB1 evaluation. A positive correlation was found between the three markers (r ranging from 0.54 to 0.61; p<0.001). Univariate analysis of markers associated to disease outcome showed that MIB1, axillary node status (N) and progesterone receptor (PR) status were significantly associated with OS and that MIB1 and SPF were associated with DFS, together with node and hormone receptor status. In multivariate analysis, when proliferation markers were adjusted on the N and PR status, only MIB1 retained a prognostic value for OS (RR= 1.83) [1.00;3.35] and SPF for DFS (RR= 1.58) [1.02-2.44] (p=0.04). Conclusion: A good level of correlation was observed between the values of the three markers of tumour cell proliferation analysed. In this series of invasive breast cancers, MIB1 immunostaining was found to be a prognostic marker of both OS and DFS. The median (32.4%) was a valuable cut-off value for prognostic assessment. Semi-quantitative and quantitative evaluations provided very similar values. MIB1 can thus be considered as a reliable prognostic maker, usable in small size tissue specimens which are inappropriate for MI or SPF analysis. The impact of MIB1 compared to that of the other proliferative markers will be further assessed in a subgroup of T1N0M0 for which the prognostic assessment is of major interest.