Ferrah TUNCEL, Fadime Eda GÖKALP SATICI, Funda BOZKURT, Aslıhan ALPASLAN DUMAN, Ahmet DAĞ

Clinicopathological features of breast cancer cases and their relationship with immunohistochemical findings

Aim: To determine the relationship between established prognostic markers and Ki67 proliferative index in breast cancer patientsand investigate variations of prognostic parameters between material types (tru-cut biopsy or resection).Material and Methods: Breast cancer cases reported in our laboratory between July 2015 and December 2019, as well as estrogenreceptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), CerbB2, Ki-67 staining results, tumor type, histologic grade, tumor size, lymph nodemetastasis status parameters were obtained from the automation system. Tru-cut biopsy and resection materials were evaluatedand the parameters were compared.Results: 726 materials taken from 571 adult patients were included in this study. 297 (40.9%) of the cases were evaluated by tru-cutbiopsy and 430 (59.1%) were resection material. The mean ER staining percentage was 86.5 (± 10.36) and it was 61.65 (± 22.84) forPR. Ki-67 proliferative index had an average value of 26.58 (± 17.67). There was no difference between the material types in terms ofimmunohistochemical markers, whereas there were differences between the two material types in histological grade results.Conclusion: Besides established immunohistochemical prognostic markers, Ki67 proliferative index should be utilized in breastcancer cases and determination of histological grade in tru-cut biopsies is valuable for the clinical management of the tumor.

PDF

___

1. Canda T, Yavuz E, Ozdemir N, et al. Immunohistochemical Her2 status evaluation in breast cancer pathology samples: A multicenter, parallel-design concordance study. Eur J Breast Health 2018;14:160-5.
2. American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts and figures 2009-2010. Atlanta 2010:1-44.
3. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. Lyon: IARC Press 2003.
4. Karaman H, Senel F, Akay E, et al. Breast Carcinoma detected in breast speciemens: A fifteen-year single center experience. Ann Med Res 2019;26:1939-42
5. Ismael NEHS, Khairy RA, Talaat SM, et al. Immunohistochemical expression of androgen receptors in various breast cancer subtypes. Macedonian J Med Sci 2019;7:1259-65.
6. Meme kanseri https://hsgm.saglik.gov.tr/tr/kanserturleri/kanser-turleri/meme-kanseri.html accessed at .
7. Paksoy SE, Tasdelen I, Balaban AS, et al. A comparison of Ki67 proliferative index in primary tumor and axillary metastatic lymph nodes with length of survival in patients with breast cancer. Bratislava Lek Listy 2013; 114:645-9.
8. Colditz G, Chia KS. Invasive breast carcinoma: introduction and general features. 14-17. In: Lakhani SR, Ellıs IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, Van de Vijver MJ (Eds). WHO classifications of tumors of the breast. Lyon: IARC Press 2012.
9. Saha S, Ganguly S, Kumar Sarkar D, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics of patients of certain molecular subtypes and elevated postoperative cancer antigen 15.3 levels and its correlation with menopausal status. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2016; 59:172-6.
10. Prausova J, Eckschlager T, Mrhalova M, et al. Clinical, pathological and molecular characteristics of newly diagnosed breast cancers. Neoplasma 2007;54:407- 12.
11. Kubikova E, Badidova J, Klein M, et al. Sentinel lymph node- historical background and current views on its significance in complex management of breast cancer patients. Bratisl Med J 2019;120:410-6.
12. Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F L, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual 8th ed. Cham: Springer 2018.
13. Dogan L, Atalay C, Yilmaz KB, et al. Prognosis in hormon receptor negative breast cancer patients according to ErbB2 status. Neoplasma 2008;55:544- 8.
14. Sengal AT, Mukhtar NSH, Vetter M, et al. Comparison of receptor- defined breast cancer subtypes between German and Sudanese women: A facility- based cohort study. J Glob Oncol 2017;1-11.
15. Harris GC, Denley HE, Pinder SE, et al. Correlation of histologic prognostic factors in core biopsies and therapeutic exicisions of invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27:11-5.
16. Carmen VD, Paul J, Van D et al. Significant inter- and intra-laboratory variation in grading of invasive breast cancer: A nationwide study of 33,043 patients in the Netherlands. Int. J. Cancer 2020;769-80.
17. Yan J, Liu XL, Han LZ, et al. Relation between Ki-67, ER, PR, Her2/neu, p21, EGFR and TOPII-α expression in invasive ductal breast cancer patients and correlations with prognosis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2015;16: 823-9.
18. Xu R, Perle MA, Inghirami G, et al. Amplification of Her-2/neu Gene in Her-2/neu–overexpressing and –nonexpressing breast carcinomas and their synchronous benign, premalignant, and metastatic lesions detected by FISH in archival material. Mod Pathol 2002;15:116-24.
19. Eric I, Eric AP, Kristek J, et al . Breast cancer in young women: pathologic and immunohistochemical features. Acta Clin Croat 2018;57:497-502.
20. Nisa A, Bhurgri Y, Raza F, et al. Comparison of ER4, PR &Her-2/neu (C-erbB2) reactivity pattern with histologic grade, tumor size and lymph node status in breast cancer. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2008;9:553-6.
21. Yamuchi H, Stearns V, Hayes DF. When is a tumor marker ready for prime time? A case study of c-erbB2 as a predictive factor in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:2334-56.
22. McGuire WL, Clark GM. The prognostic role of progesterone receptors in human breast cancer. Semin Oncol 1983:10;2-6.
23. Ahmed ST, Ahmed AM, Musa D, et al. Proliferative index (Ki67) for prediction in breast duct carcinomas. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2018;19:955-9.
24. Aman NA, Doukoure B, Koffi KD, et al. Her2 overexpression and correlation with other significant clinicopathologic parameters in Ivorian breast cancer women. BMC Clinical Pathology 2019;19:1-6.
25. Ragab HM, Samy N, Afify M, et al. Assesment of Ki67 as a potential biomarker in patients with breast cancer. J Genet Eng Biotechnol 2018;16:479-84.
26. Aman NA, Doukoure B, Koffi KD, et al. Immunohistochemical evaluation of Ki67 and comparison with clinicopathologic factors in breast carcinomas. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2018;20:73-9.
27. Thomson TA, Hayes MM, Spinelli JJ, et al. HER2/neu in breast cancer: interobserver variability and performance of immunohistochemistry with 4 antibodies compared with fluorescent in situ hybridization. Mod Pathol 2001;14:1079-86.
28. Dowsett M, Hanna WM, Kockx M,et al. Standardization of HER2 testing: results of an international proficiencytesting ring study. Modern Pathol¬ogy 2007;20:584- 91.
29. Umemura S, Osamura RY, Akiyama F,et al. What Causes Dis¬crepancies in HER2 Testing for Breast Cancer? A Japanese Ring Study in Conjunction With the Global Standard. Am J Clin Pathol 2008;130:883- 91.