Frédérique Spyratos

BACKGROUND: Urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor (PAI-1) play essential roles in tumor invasion and metastasis. High levels of both uPA and PAI-1 are associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer patients. To confirm the prognostic value of uPA and PAI-1 in primary breast cancer, we reanalyzed individual patient data provided by members of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Receptor and Biomarker Group (EORTC-RBG). METHODS: The study included 18 datasets involving 8377 breast cancer patients. During follow-up (median 79 months), 35% of the patients relapsed and 27% died. Levels of uPA and PAI-1 in tumor tissue extracts were determined by different immunoassays; values were ranked within each dataset and divided by the number of patients in that dataset to produce fractional ranks that could be compared directly across datasets. Associations of ranks of uPA and PAI-1 levels with relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by Cox multivariable regression analysis stratified by dataset, including the following traditional prognostic variables: age, menopausal status, lymph node status, tumor size, histologic grade, and steroid hormone-receptor status. All P values were two-sided. RESULTS: Apart from lymph node status, high levels of uPA and PAI-1 were the strongest predictors of both poor RFS and poor OS in the analyses of all patients. Moreover, in both lymph node-positive and lymph node-negative patients, higher uPA and PAI-1 values were independently associated with poor RFS and poor OS. For (untreated) lymph node-negative patients in particular, uPA and PAI-1 included together showed strong prognostic ability (all P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis of the EORTC-RBG datasets confirmed the strong and independent prognostic value of uPA and PAI-1 in primary breast cancer. For patients with lymph node-negative breast cancer, uPA and PAI-1 measurements in primary tumors may be especially useful for designing individualized treatment strategies.

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.

BACKGROUND: Cell proliferation is a major determinant of the biologic behavior of breast carcinoma. MIB-1 monoclonal antibody is a promising tool for determining cell proliferation on routine histologic material. The objectives of this study were to compare MIB-1 evaluation to other methods of measuring cell proliferation, with a view to refining the cutoff used to classify tumors with low and high proliferation rates in therapeutic trials. METHODS: One hundred eighty-five invasive breast carcinomas were evaluated for cell proliferation by determining monoclonal antibody MIB-1 staining, histologic parameters (Scarff-Bloom-Richardson grade and mitotic index) on paraffin sections, S-phase fraction (SPF) by flow cytometry, and thymidine-kinase (TK) content of frozen samples. RESULTS: There was a high correlation (P = 0.0001) between the percentage of MIB-1 positive tumor cells and SPF, TK, histologic grade, and the mitotic index. Multivariate analyses including MIB-1 at 5 different cutoffs (10%, 15%, 17% [median], 20%, 25%) and the other proliferative markers showed that the optimal MIB-1 cutoff was 25% and that the mitotic index was the proliferative variable that best discriminated between low and high MIB-1 samples. A MIB-1 cutoff of 25% adequately identified highly proliferative tumors. Conversely, with a MIB-1 cutoff of 10%, few tumors with low proliferation were misclassified. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of MIB-1 cutoff depends on the following clinical objective: if MIB-1 is used to exclude patients with slowly proliferating tumors from chemotherapeutic protocols, a cutoff of 10% will help to avoid overtreatment. In contrast, if MIB-1 is used to identify patients sensitive to chemotherapy protocols, it is preferable to set the cutoff at 25%. The MIB-1 index should be combined with some other routinely used proliferative markers, such as the mitotic index.

Mouse hybridomas secreting monoclonal antibodies against rabbit uterine progesterone receptor (PR) have been prepared. Several of these immunoglobulins exhibited high affinity towards human progesterone receptor and two (LET 126 and LET 64) were selected as giving the best immunoperoxidase staining of human progesterone target organs. Using the indirect peroxidase-antiperoxidase method of Sternberger, optimal conditions for demonstrating PR involved brief fixation of frozen sections with formaldehyde-containing fixatives, among them picric acid-paraformaldehyde. This method allowed us to detect the receptor in breast carcinoma epithelial cells, T47D cell line, and uterine endometrium and myometrium. No staining was observed in intestine and muscle. Specific staining for PR was confined to the nucleus, irrespective of the concentration of progesterone in the blood of the patient. In a preliminary study of 27 human breast cancers by the immunocytochemical method, the presence or absence of nuclear staining for PR correlated well with the concentration of cytosolic progesterone receptor determined by a steroid-binding assay on tumor extracts. Differences in the intensity and distribution of staining within a section were observed, suggesting heterogeneity of the PR content of breast cancer cells. In 19 tumors, the immunocytochemical method for PR localization was also used in combination with a slightly modified Abbott ER-ICA staining for estrogen receptor to compare the distribution of both receptors within the same biopsy on adjacent frozen sections. Various combinations of estrogen receptor and PR contents that have been determined by steroid-binding assay have also been detected by the double immunocytochemical assay.