Advertisement

Virchows Archiv

, Volume 473, Issue 2, pp 145–153 | Cite as

Analysis of membranous Ki-67 staining in breast cancer and surrounding breast epithelium

  • Gábor Cserni
Original Article
  • 131 Downloads

Abstract

Membranous Ki-67 staining with the MIB-1 antibody has been described in hyalinising trabecular adenomas of the thyroid and sclerosing haemangiomas of the lung. Its relatively rare occurrence in breast tumours has also been documented. The aim of the present study was to assess the rate of any membranous MIB-1 staining in breast specimens. The staining was performed at room temperature with 1:100 dilution of the antibody. One hundred four core needle biopsies and 41 operative specimens were analysed. Membranous staining was noted in 36/144 invasive carcinomas, 20/42 in situ carcinomas and 46/99 cases of peritumoural benign/normal breast epithelium. Most often, it presented as focal and partial polarised luminal membranous staining although complete circumferential staining also occurred, and membranous labelling was sometimes accompanied by cytoplasmic staining, too. In a few cases tested, greater dilution of the primary antibody did not abolish the membranous staining, which was absent with the SP6 monoclonal Ki-67 antibody. The membranous staining of invasive tumours showed no association with histological grade, lumen formation, oestrogen or progesterone receptor status or the Ki-67 nuclear labelling. In contrast, it was associated with a HER2-positive status, although it occurred in all molecular subtypes approached by immunohistochemistry. The background of this membranous staining remains elusive. It is unlikely to represent an artefact. At least partial sharing of an epitope of the nuclear Ki-67 protein with an unidentified membranous protein and some functional differences between membranous staining producing tumours and tumours lacking this pattern of staining may both contribute to some extent.

Keywords

Breast cancer Ki-67 MIB-1 Membranous staining Immunohistochemistry HER2 

Notes

Author contribution

The author of the manuscript made substantial contributions to the following:

- the conception/design of the work; the acquisition, analysis, interpretation of data for the work;

- drafting the work and/or revising it critically for important intellectual content;

- final approval of the version submitted for publication; and

- agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Other contribution is acknowledged in the Funding section of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was partially funded by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office grant GINOP-2.3.2-15-2016-00020.

Compliance with ethical standards

The author has consulted the journal policy regarding compliance with ethical standards and state that accepted principles of ethical and professional conduct have been followed. The author includes information regarding sources of funding and potential conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial) (next section). Ethical approval and informed consent-related information (waiver for this particular study) are summarised in the final paragraph of the “Materials and methods” section. The study did not include animals; therefore, issues relating to animal welfare do not apply.

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Gerdes J, Li L, Schlueter C, Duchrow M, Wohlenberg C, Gerlach C, Stahmer I, Kloth S, Brandt E, Flad HD (1991) Immunobiochemical and molecular biologic characterization of the cell proliferation-associated nuclear antigen that is defined by monoclonal antibody Ki-67. Am J Pathol 138:867–873PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Diest PJ, der WE V, Baak JP (2004) Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer: a review. J Clin Pathol 57:675–681CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Ravdin PM, Hayes MM, Gelmon KA (2010) Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol 11:174–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ (2009) Panel members (2009) thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 20:1319–1329CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, Panel members (2011) Strategies for subtypes—dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 22:1736–1747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ (2013) Panel members (2013) personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer. Ann Oncol 24:2206–2223CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gándara-Cortes M, Vázquez-Boquete Á, Fernández-Rodríguez B, Viaño P, Ínsua D, Seoane-Seoane A, Gude F, Gallego R, Fraga M, Antúnez JR, Curiel T, Pérez-López E, García-Caballero T (2018) Breast cancer subtype discrimination using standardized 4-IHC and digital image analysis. Virchows Arch 472:195–203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-017-2194-z
  8. 8.
    Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’Hern R, Bartlett J, Coombes RC, Cuzick J, Ellis M, Henry NL, Hugh JC, Lively T, Mcshane L, Paik S, Penault-Llorca F, Prudkin L, Regan M, Salter J, Sotiriou C, Smith IE, Viale G, Zujewski JA, Hayes DF, International Ki-67 in Breast Cancer Working Group (2011) Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst 103:1656–1664CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Laenkholm AV, Grabau D, Møller Talman ML, Balslev E, Bak Jylling AM, Tabor TP, Johansen M, Brügmann A, Lelkaitis G, Di Caterino T, Mygind H, Poulsen T, Mertz H, Søndergaard G, Bruun Rasmussen B (2018) An inter-observer Ki67 reproducibility study applying two different assessment methods: on behalf of the Danish Scientific Committee of Pathology, Danish breast cancer cooperative group (DBCG). Acta Oncol 57:83–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cserni G, Kulka J, Francz M, Járay B, Kálmán E, Kovács I, Krenács T, Udvarhelyi N, Vass L (2016) Pathological diagnosis, work-up and reporting of breast cancer. Recommendations of the 3rd Hungarian Consensus Conference on Breast Cancer. Magy Onkol 60:209–228PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hirokawa M, Carney JA (2000) Cell membrane and cytoplasmic staining for MIB-1 in hyalinizing trabecular adenoma of the thyroid gland. Am J Surg Pathol 24:575–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hattori H (2002) Sclerosing haemangioma of the lung is positive for MIB-1 in cell membrane and cytoplasmic staining pattern. Histopathology 40:291–293CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leonardo E, Volante M, Barbareschi M, Cavazza A, Dei Tos AP, Bussolati G, Papotti M (2007) Cell membrane reactivity of MIB-1 antibody to Ki67 in human tumors: fact or artifact? Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 15:220–223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Faratian D, Munro A, Twelves C, Bartlett JM (2009) Membranous and cytoplasmic staining of Ki67 is associated with HER2 and ER status in invasive breast carcinoma. Histopathology 54:254–257CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Varga Z, Diebold J, Dommann-Scherrer C, Frick H, Kaup D, Noske A, Obermann E, Ohlschlegel C, Padberg B, Rakozy C, Sancho Oliver S, Schobinger-Clement S, Schreiber-Facklam H, Singer G, Tapia C, Wagner U, Mastropasqua MG, Viale G, Lehr HA (2012) How reliable is Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in grade 2 breast carcinomas? A QA study of the Swiss Working Group of Breast- and Gynecopathologists. PLoS One 7:e37379CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cserni G, Vörös A, Liepniece-Karele I, Bianchi S, Vezzosi V, Grabau D, Sapino A, Castellano I, Regitnig P, Foschini MP, Zolota V, Varga Z, Figueiredo P, Decker T, Focke C, Kulka J, Kaya H, Reiner-Concin A, Amendoeira I, Callagy G, Caffrey E, Wesseling J, Wells C (2014) Distribution pattern of the Ki67 labelling index in breast cancer and its implications for choosing cut-off values. Breast 23:259–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, Fitzgibbons PL, Francis G, Goldstein NS, Hayes M, Hicks DG, Lester S, Love R, Mangu PB, McShane L, Miller K, Osborne CK, Paik S, Perlmutter J, Rhodes A, Sasano H, Schwartz JN, Sweep FC, Taube S, Torlakovic EE, Valenstein P, Viale G, Visscher D, Wheeler T, Williams RB, Wittliff JL, Wolff AC (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 134:e48–e72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rakha EA, Pinder SE, Bartlett JM, Ibrahim M, Starczynski J, Carder PJ, Provenzano E, Hanby A, Hales S, Lee AH, Ellis IO, National Coordinating Committee for Breast Pathology (2015) Updated UK recommendations for HER2 assessment in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 68:93–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cserni G, Chmielik E, Cserni B, Tot T (2018) The new TNM-based staging of breast cancer. Virchows Arch.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-018-2301-9
  20. 20.
    Cserni G (2014) Reversed polarity of the glandular epithelial cells in micropapillary carcinoma of the large intestine and the EMA/MUC1 immunostain. Pathology 46:527–532CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Niemiec J, Adamczyk A, Ambicka A, Mucha-Małecka A, Wysocki WM, Majchrzyk K, Ryś J (2015) BGX-Ki-67 index as a supplementary marker to MIB-1 index, enabling more precise distinction between luminal A and B subtypes of breast carcinoma and eliminating the problem of membranous/cytoplasmic MIB-1 staining. Am J Clin Pathol 143:419–429CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kővári B, Báthori Á, Cserni G (2015) CD10 immunohistochemical expression in apocrine lesions of the breast. Pathobiology 82:259–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/protein (Accessed 03 Mar 2018)
  24. 24.
    Ács B, Kulka J, Kovács KA, Teleki I, Tőkés AM, Meczker Á, Győrffy B, Madaras L, Krenács T, Szász AM (2017) Comparison of 5 Ki-67 antibodies regarding reproducibility and capacity to predict prognosis in breast cancer: does the antibody matter? Hum Pathol 65:31–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Niemiec JA, Adamczyk A, Małecki K, Majchrzyk K, Ryś J (2012) Relationships between immunophenotype, Ki-67 index, microvascular density, Ep-CAM/P-cadherin, and MMP-2 expression in early-stage invasive ductal breast cancer. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 20:550–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang D, Pang Z, Clarke GM, Nofech-Mozes S, Liu K, Cheung AM, Filkins RJ, Yaffe MJ (2016) Ki-67 membranous staining: biologically relevant or an artifact of multiplexed immunofluorescent staining. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 24:447–452CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PathologyBács-Kiskun County Teaching HospitalKecskemétHungary
  2. 2.Department of PathologyUniversity of SzegedSzegedHungary

Personalised recommendations