Correlation Between MIB-1 and Other Proliferation Markers: Clinical Implications of the MIB-1 Cutoff Value
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
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.
Meyer A, Mortensen L, Miller K, Miller W, Fader R, Wuertz B In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim. 2024; 61(1):36-45.
PMID: 39472422 DOI: 10.1007/s11626-024-00978-0.
celesnik H, Gorenjak M, Krusic M, Crnobrnja B, Sobocan M, Takac I Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(18).
PMID: 39335143 PMC: 11429621. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16183171.
Sun F, Yang Z, Kong R, Han S Discov Oncol. 2024; 15(1):313.
PMID: 39066950 PMC: 11283444. DOI: 10.1007/s12672-024-01172-0.
dokic S, Gazic B, Grcar Kuzmanov B, Blazina J, Miceska S, cugura T Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(7).
PMID: 38611083 PMC: 11011015. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16071405.
Ki-67 Change in Anthracyline-containing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Breast Cancer.
Yang Z, Ren L, Wang F, Wang P, Wang W, Lin S Curr Med Sci. 2024; 44(1):156-167.
PMID: 38302780 DOI: 10.1007/s11596-023-2824-4.