Proliferation is the strongest prognosticator in node-negative breast cancer: significance, error sources, alternatives and comparison with molecular prognostic markers

被引:65
作者
Baak, Jan P. A. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Gudlaugsson, Einar [1 ,2 ]
Skaland, Ivar [1 ,2 ]
Guo, Lydia Hui Ru [4 ]
Klos, Jan [1 ]
Lende, Tone Hoel [5 ]
Soiland, Havard [5 ]
Janssen, Emiel A. M. [1 ]
zur Hausen, Axel [6 ]
机构
[1] Stavanger Univ Hosp, Dept Pathol, N-4068 Stavanger, Norway
[2] Univ Bergen, Gade Inst, Bergen, Norway
[3] Free Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[4] Longhua Hosp, Dept Oncol 3, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[5] Stavanger Univ Hosp, Dept Endocrine Surg, N-4068 Stavanger, Norway
[6] Univ Hosp Freiburg, Inst Pathol, Freiburg, Germany
关键词
Breast cancer; Proliferation; Mitotic activity index; Prognosis; Error sources; Molecular markers; MITOTIC-ACTIVITY INDEX; INTERNATIONAL EXPERT CONSENSUS; PREDICT DISTANT METASTASIS; CELL-CYCLE KINETICS; PLASMINOGEN-ACTIVATOR; HIGH-RISK; ADJUVANT CHEMOTHERAPY; CLINICAL-SIGNIFICANCE; HISTOLOGICAL GRADE; VASCULAR INVASION;
D O I
10.1007/s10549-008-0126-y
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Independent studies have shown that in node negative breast cancer patients less than 71 years, the proliferation marker mitotic activity index (MAI) is the strongest, most well reproducible prognosticator and chemotherapy success predictor. The MAI overshadows the prognostic value of tubule formation, nuclear atypia and thereby grade. An often used crude mitotic impression is much less prognostic than the MAI; strict adherence to the MAI protocol is therefore important. The prognostic value of the MAI is age dependent: although patients with a MAI a parts per thousand yen 10 always have a poor prognosis irrespective of age, a low MAI (< 10) loses its favourable prognostic association in women > 70 years. PPH3 counts are prognostically stronger than the MAI, and markers such as Cyclin-B and E2FR are promising, but must be validated. Compared with commercial prognostic gene expression signatures, the MAI is at least as strong prognostically, has far fewer false positive results and as such should be included as an independent feature in any node negative breast cancer pathology report.
引用
收藏
页码:241 / 254
页数:14
相关论文
共 102 条
[21]  
Cady B, 1997, Surg Oncol Clin N Am, V6, P195
[22]  
de Jong JS, 2000, HISTOPATHOLOGY, V36, P306
[23]  
de Jong JS, 2000, BRIT J CANCER, V82, P368
[24]   Proliferation - The most prominent predictor of clinical outcome in breast cancer [J].
Desmedt, Christine ;
Sotiriou, Christos .
CELL CYCLE, 2006, 5 (19) :2198-2202
[25]  
DOGLIONI C, 1994, VIRCHOWS ARCH, V424, P47
[26]   CHANGES IN MITOTIC RATE AND CELL-CYCLE FRACTIONS CAUSED BY DELAYED FIXATION [J].
DONHUIJSEN, K ;
SCHMIDT, U ;
HIRCHE, H ;
VANBEUNINGEN, D ;
BUDACH, V .
HUMAN PATHOLOGY, 1990, 21 (07) :709-714
[27]   Mcm2, Geminin, and Ki67 define proliferative state and are prognostic markers in renal cell carcinoma [J].
Dudderidge, TJ ;
Stoeber, K ;
Loddo, M ;
Atkinson, G ;
Fanshawe, T ;
Griffiths, DF ;
Williams, GH .
CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2005, 11 (07) :2510-2517
[28]  
Ellis IO, 2003, PATHOLOGY GENETICS T, P18
[29]  
Elston C W, 2002, Histopathology, V41, P154
[30]   Age-associated biomarker profiles of human breast cancer [J].
Eppenberger-Castori, S ;
Moore, DH ;
Thor, AD ;
Edgerton, SM ;
Kueng, W ;
Eppenberger, U ;
Benz, CC .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOCHEMISTRY & CELL BIOLOGY, 2002, 34 (11) :1318-1330