A simple index using video image analysis to predict disease outcome in primary breast cancer

Estrogen receptor quantitative measures and breast cancer survival

PURPOSE

While the estrogen receptor (ER) is the single most widely used biomarker to evaluate breast cancer outcomes, aspects of ER marker biology remain poorly understood. We sought to determine whether quantitative measures of ER, such as protein expression and intensity, were associated with survival, or with survival disparities experienced by Hispanic women.

METHODS

A case-cohort study included a 15% random sample of invasive breast cancer cases diagnosed from 1997 to 2009 in six New Mexico counties and all deaths due to breast cancer-related causes. Pathology reports and tissue microarrays served as sources of ER information. Analyses were restricted to women with ≥1% ER immunohistochemical staining. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for breast cancer death were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Included women represented 4336 ER+ breast cancer cases and 448 deaths. Median follow-up was 93 months. ER percent expression was not associated with breast cancer survival after adjustment for standard prognostic factors (p trend = 0.76). ER intensity remained a strong and independent risk factor for breast cancer survival in multivariate analyses: Women whose tumors expressed ER at intensity = 2 (HR 0.6; 95% CI 0.4-1.0) or 3 (HR 0.5; 95% CI 0.2-0.9) had a reduced risk of breast cancer mortality, compared to ER intensity = 1 (p trend = 0.02). Neither ER protein expression nor intensity influenced Hispanic survival disparities.

CONCLUSIONS

Estrogen receptor percent positive staining is not independently related to breast cancer survival after adjustment for other survival-related factors. ER intensity, in contrast, demonstrates promise for prognostic utility.

The combined endocrine receptor in breast cancer, a novel approach to traditional hormone receptor interpretation and a better discriminator of outcome than ER and PR alone

BACKGROUND

The functional role of progesterone receptor (PR) signalling was previously unclear and PR testing in breast cancer is controversial. Recent defining work has highlighted the functional crosstalk that exists between the oestrogen receptor (ER) and PR. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to compare the prognostic value of the combined ER and PR score with either ER or PR alone.

METHODS

Tumour Allred ER and PR scores were reclassified as negative, low and high. The combined endocrine receptor (CER) was calculated as the average of the reclassified ER and PR scores, resulting in three groups: CER negative, impaired and high. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate disease-free survival (DFS) and breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS).

RESULTS

The CER was a more powerful predictor of 5-year DFS and BCSS than either ER or PR alone. In multivariate analysis that included ER, PR and CER, only CER remained an independent prognostic variable for 5-year DFS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.393; CI: 0.283-0.548, P=0.00001) and BCSS (HR 0.553; CI: 0.423-0.722; P=2.506 × 10^-8). In ER-positive (ER+) patients impaired CER was an independent marker of poor outcome for 5-year DFS (HR 2.469; CI: 1.049-5.810; P=0.038) and BCSS (HR 1.946; CI: 1.054-3.596; P=0.033) in multivariate analysis that included grade, lymph node, tumour size, HER2 status and PR status. The results were validated in a separate cohort of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined endocrine receptor is a more powerful discriminator of patient outcome than either ER or PR alone. Economical and simple, it can identify risk in ER+ early breast cancer and potentially be used for adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy decision-making.

Quantitative measures of estrogen receptor expression in relation to breast cancer-specific mortality risk among white women and black women

Introduction

The association of breast cancer patients’ mortality with estrogen receptor (ER) status (ER + versus ER-) has been well studied. However, little attention has been paid to the relationship between the quantitative measures of ER expression and mortality.

Methods

We evaluated the association between semi-quantitative, immunohistochemical staining of ER in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded breast carcinomas and breast cancer-specific mortality risk in an observational cohort of invasive breast cancer in 681 white women and 523 black women ages 35-64 years at first diagnosis of invasive breast cancer, who were followed for a median of 10 years. The quantitative measures of ER examined here included the percentage of tumor cell nuclei positively stained for ER, ER Histo (H)-score, and a score based on an adaptation of an equation presented by Cuzick and colleagues, which combines weighted values of ER H-score, percentage of tumor cell nuclei positively stained for the progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) results. This is referred to as the ER/PR/HER2 score.

Results

After controlling for age at diagnosis, race, study site, tumor stage, and histologic grade in multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models, both percentage of tumor cell nuclei positively stained for ER (P_trend = 0.0003) and the ER H-score (P_trend = 0.0004) were inversely associated with breast cancer-specific mortality risk. The ER/PR/HER2 score was positively associated with breast cancer-specific mortality risk in women with ER + tumor (P_trend = 0.001). Analyses by race revealed that ER positivity was associated with reduced risk of breast cancer-specific mortality in white women and black women. The two quantitative measures for ER alone provided additional discrimination in breast cancer-specific mortality risk only among white women with ER + tumors (both P_trend ≤ 0.01) while the ER/PR/HER2 score provided additional discrimination for both white women (P_trend = 0.01) and black women (P_trend = 0.03) with ER + tumors.

Conclusions

Our data support quantitative immunohistochemical measures of ER, especially the ER/PR/HER2 score, as a more precise predictor for breast cancer-specific mortality risk than a simple determination of ER positivity.

Systematic review on hormone receptor testing in breast cancer

Assessment of hormone receptors (estrogen and progesterone) helps to direct therapy for women with breast cancer. Immunohistochemistry is most commonly used to assess hormone receptor status and it is essential that these tests are performed accurately and reliably within and across laboratories. The overall purpose of this guideline is to improve the quality and accuracy of hormone receptor testing and its utility as a prognostic and predictive marker for invasive and in situ breast cancer. Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and abstracts from the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium were searched. An environmental scan of the internet and of international guideline developers and key organizations was performed. Preanalytic elements such as the collection, fixation, and storage of samples, and analytic elements such as selection of antibodies and scoring methods that seem to offer the best results for immunohistochemical assessment of hormone receptors are presented. Proficiency testing or quality assurance of immunohistochemistry is described.

Semi-quantitative immunohistochemical assay versus oncotype DX(®) qRT-PCR assay for estrogen and progesterone receptors: an independent quality assurance study

Estrogen receptor (ER) status is a strong predictor of response to hormonal therapy in breast cancer patients. Presence of ER and level of expression have been shown to correlate with time to recurrence in patients undergoing therapy with tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors. Risk reduction is also known to occur in ER-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-positive patients treated with hormonal therapy. Since the 1990s, immunohistochemistry has been the primary method for assessing hormone receptor status. Recently, as a component of its oncotype DX(®) assay, Genomic Health began reporting quantitative estrogen and PR results determined by quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). As part of an ongoing quality assurance program at our institution, we reviewed 464 breast cancer cases evaluated by both immunohistochemistry and oncotype DX(®) assay for estrogen and PR. We found good correlation for ER status between both assays (98.9% concordance), with immunohistochemistry being slightly more sensitive. Concordance for PR was 94.2% between immunohistochemistry and qRT-PCR with immunohistochemistry again more sensitive than RT-PCR. The results also showed linear correlation between immunohistochemistry H-scores and qRT-PCR expression values for ER (correlation coefficient of 0.579), and PR (correlation coefficient of 0.685). Due to the higher sensitivity of hormone receptor immunohistochemistry and additional advantages (ie preservation of morphology, less expensive, faster, more convenient), we conclude immunohistochemistry is preferable to qRT-PCR for determination of estrogen and PR expression.

Cancer care Ontario guideline recommendations for hormone receptor testing in breast cancer

Hormone receptor testing (oestrogen and progesterone) in breast cancer at the time of primary diagnosis is used to guide treatment decisions. Accurate and standardised testing methods are critical to ensure the proper classification of the patient's hormone receptor status. Recommendations were developed to improve the quality and accuracy of hormone receptor testing based on a systematic review conducted jointly by the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists and Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-Based Care. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated to set standards for optimising immunohistochemistry in assessing hormone receptor status, as well as assuring quality and proficiency between and within laboratories. A formal external review was conducted to validate the relevance of these recommendations. It is anticipated that widespread adoption of these guidelines will further improve the accuracy of hormone receptor testing in Canada.

Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review

Clinicians can use biomarkers to guide therapeutic decisions in estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancer. One such biomarker is cellular proliferation as evaluated by Ki-67. This biomarker has been extensively studied and is easily assayed by histopathologists but it is not currently accepted as a standard. This review focuses on its prognostic and predictive value, and on methodological considerations for its measurement and the cut-points used for treatment decision. Data describing study design, patients’ characteristics, methods used and results were extracted from papers published between January 1990 and July 2010. In addition, the studies were assessed using the REMARK tool. Ki-67 is an independent prognostic factor for disease-free survival (HR 1.05–1.72) in multivariate analyses studies using samples from randomized clinical trials with secondary central analysis of the biomarker. The level of evidence (LOE) was judged to be I-B with the recently revised definition of Simon. However, standardization of the techniques and scoring methods are needed for the integration of this biomarker in everyday practice. Ki-67 was not found to be predictive for long-term follow-up after chemotherapy. Nevertheless, high KI-67 was found to be associated with immediate pathological complete response in the neoadjuvant setting, with an LOE of II-B. The REMARK score improved over time (with a range of 6–13/20 vs. 10–18/20, before and after 2005, respectively). KI-67 could be considered as a prognostic biomarker for therapeutic decision. It is assessed with a simple assay that could be standardized. However, international guidelines are needed for routine clinical use.

Aromatase inhibitors and xenograft studies

Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have become the front-line choice for treatment of ER+ breast cancer. Nevertheless, although patients are responsive initially, they may acquire resistance and become unresponsive to further treatment. In addition, approximately 25% of breast cancers do not express the estrogen receptor (ERα) and consequently, are innately resistant to endocrine therapy. We have investigated the mechanisms associated with this lack of treatment response using xenograft models. We found that in cells and tumors that acquired resistance to the AI letrozole therapy, expression of the ER was reduced whereas growth factor signally was enhanced, including a marked increase in HER2 expression. Treatment with trastuzumab (HER2 antibody) resulted in a significant down-regulation of HER2 and p-MAPK as well as restoration of ERα expression. Thus, when trastuzumab was added to letrozole treatment at the time of tumor progression, there was significantly prolonged tumor suppression compared to trastuzumab or letrozole alone. This suggests that inhibition of both HER2 and ERα signaling pathways are required for overcoming resistance and restoring treatment sensitivity. ER negative tumors are innately resistant to endocrine therapy. Repression of the ERα has been found to be due to epigenetic modifications such as increased methylation and histone deacetylation. We found that entinostat (ENT), a histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi), activated not only expression of ERα but also aromatase in MDA-MB-231 ER-negative breast cancer cells, resulting in their ability to respond to estrogen and letrozole. Treatment with ENT in combination with letrozole significantly reduced tumor growth rate in xenografts compared to control tumors (p<0.001). ENT plus letrozole treatment also prevented the colonization and growth of MDA-MB-231 cells in the lung with a significant reduction (p<0.03) in both visible and microscopic foci. These results provide a strong indication for possible use of AIs in combination with HDAC inhibitors for the treatment of ER-negative breast cancer.

Aromatase, aromatase inhibitors, and breast cancer

Estrogens are known to be important in the growth of breast cancers in both pre and postmenopausal women. As the number of breast cancer patients increases with age, the majority of breast cancer patients are postmenopausal women. Although estrogens are no longer made in the ovaries after menopause, peripheral tissues produce sufficient concentrations to stimulate tumor growth. As aromatase catalyzes the final and rate-limiting step in the biosynthesis of estrogen, inhibitors of this enzyme are effective targeted therapy for breast cancer. Three aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are now FDA approved and have been shown to be more effective than the antiestrogen tamoxifen and are well tolerated. AIs are now a standard treatment for postmenopausal patients. AIs are effective in adjuvant and first-line metastatic setting. This review describes the development of AIs and their current use in breast cancer. Recent research focuses on elucidating mechanisms of acquired resistance that may develop in some patients with long term AI treatment and also in innate resistance. Preclinical data in resistance models demonstrated that the crosstalk between ER and other signaling pathways particularly MAPK and PI3K/Akt is an important resistant mechanism. Blockade of these other signaling pathways is an attractive strategy to circumvent the resistance to AI therapy in breast cancer. Several clinical trials are ongoing to evaluate the role of these novel targeted therapies to reverse resistance to AIs. Article from the special issue on 'Targeted Inhibitors'.

Comparative biomarker expression and RNA integrity in biospecimens derived from radical retropubic and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies

BACKGROUND

Knowledge of preanalytic conditions that biospecimens are subjected to is critically important because novel surgical procedures, tissue sampling, handling, and storage might affect biomarker expression or invalidate tissue samples as analytes for some technologies.

METHODS

We investigated differences in RNA quality, gene expression by quantitative real-time PCR, and immunoreactive protein expression of selected prostate cancer biomarkers between tissues from retropubic radical prostatectomy (RRP) and robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP). Sections of tissue microarray of 23 RALP and 22 RRP samples were stained with antibodies to androgen receptor (AR) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) as intersite controls, and 14 other candidate biomarkers of research interest to three laboratories within the Australian Prostate Cancer BioResource tissue banking network. Quantitative real-time PCR was done for AR, PSA (KLK3), KLK2, KLK4, and HIF1A on RNA extracted from five RALP and five RRP frozen tissue cores.

RESULTS

No histologic differences were observed between RALP and RRP tissue. Biomarker staining grouped these samples into those with increased (PSA, CK8/18, CKHMW, KLK4), decreased (KLK2, KLK14), or no change in expression (AR, ghrelin, Ki67, PCNA, VEGF-C, PAR2, YB1, p63, versican, and chondroitin 0-sulfate) in RALP compared with RRP tissue. No difference in RNA quality or gene expression was detected between RALP and RRP tissue.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in biomarker expression between RALP and RRP tissue exist at the immunoreactive protein level, but the etiology is unclear.

IMPACT

Future studies should account for changes in biomarker expression when using RALP tissues, and mixed cohorts of RALP and RRP tissue should be avoided.

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version)

PURPOSE

To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers.

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance.

RESULTS

Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in pre-analytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer

PURPOSE

To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers.

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance.

RESULTS

Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in preanalytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer

PURPOSE

To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers.

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance.

RESULTS

Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in preanalytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer

PURPOSE

To develop a guideline to improve the accuracy of immunohistochemical (IHC) estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer and the utility of these receptors as predictive markers.

METHODS

The American Society of Clinical Oncology and the College of American Pathologists convened an international Expert Panel that conducted a systematic review and evaluation of the literature in partnership with Cancer Care Ontario and developed recommendations for optimal IHC ER/PgR testing performance.

RESULTS

Up to 20% of current IHC determinations of ER and PgR testing worldwide may be inaccurate (false negative or false positive). Most of the issues with testing have occurred because of variation in preanalytic variables, thresholds for positivity, and interpretation criteria.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Panel recommends that ER and PgR status be determined on all invasive breast cancers and breast cancer recurrences. A testing algorithm that relies on accurate, reproducible assay performance is proposed. Elements to reliably reduce assay variation are specified. It is recommended that ER and PgR assays be considered positive if there are at least 1% positive tumor nuclei in the sample on testing in the presence of expected reactivity of internal (normal epithelial elements) and external controls. The absence of benefit from endocrine therapy for women with ER-negative invasive breast cancers has been confirmed in large overviews of randomized clinical trials.

Proliferation markers and survival in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 85 studies in 32,825 patients

We have performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of proliferation markers (Ki-67, mitotic index (MI), proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) and thymidine or bromodeoxyuridine labelling index (LI)) with respect to survival in early breast cancer. Eighty-five studies involving 32,825 patients were analysed. Ki-67 (43 studies, 15,790 patients), MI (20 studies, 7021 patients), and LI (11 studies, 7337 patients) were associated with significantly shorter overall and disease free survival, using results from univariate and multivariate analyses from the individual studies. PCNA (11 studies, 2677 patients) was associated with shorter overall survival by multivariate analysis only, because of lack of data. There was some evidence for publication bias, but all markers remained significant after allowing for this. Ki-67, MI, PCNA and LI are associated with worse survival outcomes in early breast cancer. However, whether these proliferation markers provide additional prognostic information to commonly used prognostic indices remains unclear.

Prognostic indexes in breast cancer: comparison of the Nottingham and Adelaide indexes

The search for single independent prognostic factors in breast cancer has often produced conflicting results. Therefore, prognostic indexes have been compiled by combining several parameters. In this study we compare the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI), which is based on traditional prognostic factors (diameter of the neoplasm, lymph node status and histological grade) with the Adelaide Prognostic Index (API), which is based on the tumour diameter and two biological parameters: oestrogen receptors and cell kinetics. We considered 82 cases of breast cancer observed over the period 1987-1990 with a minimum follow-up of 60 months. The NPI gives a better definition of the prognostic profile for each patient. Our results indicate three prognostic groups (good, moderate, unfavourable), which differ with respect to disease-free survival (DFS; P=0.0024) and overall survival (OS; P=0.0033). In contrast, the API scores showed no significant correlation with OS or DFS. The use of prognostic indexes, especially when compiled using traditional parameters, is a useful aid to the clinician, since they can provide a reliable indication of how individual tumours will evolve.

Does lack of tocopherols and tocotrienols put women at increased risk of breast cancer?

Breast cancer is the leading site of new cancers in women and the second leading cause (after lung cancer) of cancer mortality in women. Observational studies that have collected data for dietary exposure to alpha-tocopherol with or without the other related tocopherols and tocotrienols have suggested that vitamin E from dietary sources may provide women with modest protection from breast cancer. However, there is no evidence that vitamin E supplements confer any protection whatever against breast cancer. Observational studies that have assessed exposure to vitamin E by plasma or adipose tissue concentrations of alpha-tocopherol have failed to provide consistent support for the idea that alpha-tocopherol provides any protection against breast cancer. In addition, evidence from studies in experimental animals suggest that alpha-tocopherol supplementation alone has little effect on mammary tumors. In contrast, studies in breast cancer cells indicate that alpha- gamma-, and delta-tocotrienol, and to a lesser extent delta-tocopherol, have potent antiproliferative and proapoptotic effects that would be expected to reduce risk of breast cancer. Many vegetable sources of alpha-tocopherol also contain other tocopherols or tocotrienols. Thus, it seems plausible that the modest protection from breast cancer associated with dietary vitamin E may be due to the effects of the other tocopherols and the tocotrienols in the diet. Additional studies will be required to determine whether this may be the case, and to identify the most active tocopherol/tocotrienol.

Prognostic comparative study of S-phase fraction and Ki-67 index in breast carcinoma

AIMS

To investigate the prognostic value of recently proposed flow cytometric S-phase fraction (SPF) variables (average SPF and SPF tertiles) compared with conventional SPF, and to compare the one with the best predictive value with the immunohistochemical Ki-67 index in breast carcinoma.

METHODS

A short term follow up study (median, 39.6 months) of a large series of patients (n = 306) was conducted. DNA ploidy was analysed on fresh/frozen tumour samples by flow cytometry, and the SPF was calculated from the DNA histogram using an algorithm. The Ki-67 index was assessed on paraffin wax embedded material by immunohistochemistry (cut off point, 10%). The two methods were compared by means of kappa statistics, and the prognostic significance of both in relation to disease free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was determined.

RESULTS

SPF and Ki-67 analysis was performed on 234 (76.5%) and 295 (96.4%) tumours, respectively. The two assessments were simultaneously available in 230 cases. All SPF variables analysed in the whole series significantly correlated with disease evolution, with the conventional median SPF (cut off point, 6.1%) showing the highest predictive value in relation to both DFS (p = 0.0001) and OS (p = 0.0003). SPF tertiles and median SPF evaluated according to DNA ploidy status had no prognostic significance. The Ki-67 index showed a trend in relation to DFS (p = 0.086) that did not reach significance, and no correlation with OS was found (p = 0.264). The comparative analysis of SPF and Ki-67 revealed some agreement between the two methods (agreement, 69.13%; kappa statistic, 0.3844; p < 0.001), especially in the subgroup of diploid tumours.

CONCLUSIONS

Flow cytometric SPF is a better prognosticator than the Ki-67 index, but only SPF variables applied in the whole series show potential clinical usefulness.