Background Ki67 is a potent prognostic marker for determining systemic treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. However, evaluation of Ki67 expression can be difficult, due mostly to its heterogeneity. The Ki67 expression level, which indicates that a cell is undergoing division (cell cycle), rises when proliferation activity increases. Thus, Ki67 expression might be affected by hormonal stimuli. We hypothesised that Ki67 expression level might change during the menstrual cycle. We examined pairs of biopsy and surgical specimens from individual patients to evaluate this hypothesis. Methods First, the effects of estradiol on Ki67 expression in breast cancer cell lines were examined employing immunocytochemistry and Western blotting. Next, differences in Ki67 expression between biopsy and surgical specimens from 131 patients with estrogen receptor-positive tumours were retrospectively examined. Results In vitro experiments showed Ki67 expression in estrogen receptor-positive cancer cells to be dependent on estradiol stimulation. Ki67 expression was higher in biopsy samples collected in the luteal phase than in those from other phases. When biopsy and surgical samples were obtained at different times during the menstrual cycle in the same individual, there were differences in Ki67 expression between these samples. Those collected in the luteal phase showed higher Ki67 expression than samples obtained during other phases (p<0.01). Conclusions Ki67 expression varied in the same patients according to menstrual cycle phase. Our results suggest that Ki67 expression in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer should be carefully assessed bearing in mind the patient's menstrual cycle, since the interpretation of expression could affect treatment decisions.
Aims Basal‐like breast cancer (BLBC) is characterized by aggressive behaviour; its genesis is the perturbation of DNA repair as a consequence of BRCA1 methylation or mutation. We comparatively evaluated alterations of DNA repair proteins and p53 between BLBC and non‐BLBC cases. Methods and results Tumour sections from 104 BLBC and 89 non‐BLBC patients were immunostained for hMLH1, hMSH2, MGMT, BRCA1 and p53. Methylation status of DNA repair genes was analysed by methylation‐specific PCR, and p53 mutation was examined by direct sequencing. Immunoreactive levels of hMLH1 and MGMT were lower in BLBC, whereas the levels of hMSH2 and p53 were higher, compared to non‐BLBC ( P ≤ 0.014). Reduced expression of hMLH1 [hazard ratio (HR) 5.26, P = 0.001] and preserved expression of MGMT (HR 2.58, P = 0.039) proved to be independent predictors of poor survival in BLBC patients. DNA repair genes were methylated in approximately 20–40% of BLBCs without a significant relationship between their methylation and p53 mutation. BRCA1 methylation was associated with the loss of its protein expression ( P = 0.004). MGMT methylation was linked to larger tumour size ( P < 0.001). Conclusions Perturbations of the DNA repair system might be different between BLBC and non‐BLBC. Alterations of hMLH1 and MGMT appear important for tumour progression and survival in BLBC patients.
As data on using MammaPrint®, a 70-gene expression profile for molecular subtyping of breast cancer, are limited in Japanese patients, we aimed to determine the gene profiles of Japanese patients using MammaPrint and to investigate its possible clinical application for selecting adjuvant treatments.50 women treated surgically at our institution were examined. The MammaPrint results were compared with the St Gallen 2007 and intrinsic subtype risk categorizations.Of 38 cases judged to be at intermediate risk based on the St Gallen 2007 Consensus, 11 (29%) were in the high-risk group based on MammaPrint. 1 of the 30 luminal A-like tumors (3%) was judged as high risk based on MammaPrint results, whereas 7 of the 20 tumors (35%) categorized as luminal B-like or triple negative were in the low-risk group. There have been no recurrences to date in the MammaPrint group, and this is possibly attributable to most of the high-risk patients receiving chemotherapy that had been recommended on the basis of their MammaPrint results.Our results indicate that MammaPrint is applicable to Japanese patients and that it is of potential value in current clinical practice for devising individualized treatments.
Heterogeneity of Ki67 expression, often seen in breast cancer, can make evaluation of the expression of this marker difficult and give rise to confusion when considering adjuvant treatments for patients. Herein, we investigated estrogen receptor–positive breast cancers to reveal the tumor characteristics associated with Ki67 heterogeneity. Surgical specimens from 85 invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type and 13 invasive lobular carcinomas were examined. We first calculated the differences between Ki67 expression in a hot spot and those in 4 random fields on the same slide. We then evaluated Ki67 heterogeneity within the tumor, based on these differences. Among clinicopathological factors, solid-tubular carcinoma, an architectural growth pattern subtype of invasive ductal carcinoma, correlated with high Ki67 heterogeneity ( P < .05). Our results indicate that we might need to be aware of histological patterns when selecting appropriate microscopic fields for evaluating Ki67 expression.
The combination of CD44 and CD24, or aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) alone, is a widely used cancer stem cell marker in breast cancer. However, no conclusion has yet been reached as to which marker is the best for characterizing cancer stemness. Immunohistochemical evaluation using cancer stem cell markers is clearly less common clinically than in basic experiments and how the expressions of these markers relate to patient outcomes remains controversial. To investigate whether combining these markers might improve the prediction of patient outcomes, we immunohistochemically examined clinical samples. Primary invasive breast cancer samples from 61 patients who eventually developed distant metastases after curative surgery were immunohistochemically examined. All patients were free of metastatic disease at the time of surgery and received standard adjuvant systemic treatments. CD44+/24- and ALDH1-positive rates in primary tumors differed according to intrinsic subtype. ER-positive patients with CD44+/24- tumors had significantly longer disease-free-survival than all other ER-positive patients (p = 0.0047). On the other hand, CD44+/24- tumors were associated with poor outcomes of ER-negative patients (p = 0.038). Finally, expression patterns of CD44 and ALDH1 in single tumors were strikingly different and there were virtually no individual double-stained cells. Thus, this combination does not allow evaluation of relationships with patient outcomes. Our results raise the possibility of CD44+/24- being a good prognostic marker, one which would allow treatment effects and outcomes to be predicted in patients with recurrent breast cancer.
