Prognostic value of Ki-67 for prostate cancer death in a conservatively managed cohort

Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
British Journal of Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.82). 01/2013; 108(2). DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.598
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Background:
Standard clinical parameters cannot accurately differentiate indolent from aggressive prostate cancer. Our previous work showed that immunohistochemical (IHC) Ki-67 improved prediction of prostate cancer death in a cohort of conservatively treated clinically localised prostate cancers diagnosed by transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Here, we present results in a more clinically relevant needle biopsy cohort.

Biopsy specimens were microarrayed. The percentage of Ki-67 positively stained malignant cells per core was measured and the maximum score per individual used in analysis of time to death from prostate cancer using a Cox proportional hazards model.

In univariate analysis (n=293), the hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence intervals) for dichotomous Ki-67 (⩽10%, >10%) was 3.42 (1.76, 6.62) χ2 (1 df)=9.8, P=0.002. In multivariate analysis, Ki-67 added significant predictive information to that provided by Gleason score and prostate-specific antigen (HR=2.78 (1.42, 5.46), χ2 (1 df)=7.0, P=0.008).

The IHC Ki-67 scoring on prostate needle biopsies is practicable and yielded significant prognostic information. It was less informative than in the previous TURP cohort where tumour samples were larger and more comprehensive, but in more contemporary cohorts with larger numbers of biopsies per patient, Ki-67 may prove a more powerful biomarker.

Download full-text


Available from: Sakunthala C Kudahetti, Feb 14, 2014
  • Source
    • "Even when simplifying the multivariate model , excluding margins and patient age , the number of significantly prognostic biomarkers did not increase ( data not shown ) . However , a caveat to the validity of the current study is that Ki - 67 , which is assumedly the best verified prognostic marker in prostate cancer , only showed a univariate significance ( Kristiansen , 2012 ; Fisher et al , 2013 ) . "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:Treatment planning of localised prostate cancer remains challenging. Besides conventional parameters, a wealth of prognostic biomarkers has been proposed so far. None of which, however, have successfully been implemented in a routine setting so far. The aim of our study was to systematically verify a set of published prognostic markers for prostate cancer.Methods:Following an in-depth PubMed search, 28 markers were selected that have been proposed as multivariate prognostic markers for primary prostate cancer. Their prognostic validity was examined in a radical prostatectomy cohort of 238 patients with a median follow-up of 60 months and biochemical progression as endpoint of the analysis. Immunohistochemical evaluation was performed using previously published cut-off values, but allowing for optimisation if necessary. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression were used to determine the prognostic value of biomarkers included in this study.Results:Despite the application of various cut-offs in the analysis, only four (14%) markers were verified as independently prognostic (AKT1, stromal AR, EZH2, and PSMA) for PSA relapse following radical prostatectomy.Conclusions:Apparently, many immunohistochemistry-based studies on prognostic markers seem to be over-optimistic. Codes of best practice, such as the REMARK guidelines, may facilitate the performance of conclusive and transparent future studies.British Journal of Cancer (2014), 1-9. doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.588
    British Journal of Cancer 11/2014; 112(1). DOI:10.1038/bjc.2014.588 · 4.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Mitotic index that regulates the cell-cycle Increased Ki-67 staining index correlates with higher Gleason score. Together with other molecular markers, it helps to determine the risk of PCa progression Tissue Prognosis Steuber et al., 2007; Madani et al., 2011; Josefsson et al., 2012; Fisher et al., 2013 Lactate dehydro-genase (LDH) "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Prostate cancer (PCa) incidence and mortality have decreased in recent years. Nonetheless, it remains one of the most prevalent cancers in men, being a disquieting cause of men's death worldwide. Changes in many cell signaling pathways have a predominant role in the onset, development, and progression of the disease. These include prominent pathways involved in the growth, apoptosis, and angiogenesis of the normal prostate gland, such as androgen and estrogen signaling, and other growth factor signaling pathways. Understanding the foundations of PCa is leading to the discovery of key molecules that could be used to improve patient management. The ideal scenario would be to have a panel of molecules, preferably detectable in body fluids, that are specific and sensitive biomarkers for PCa. In the early stages, androgen deprivation is the gold standard therapy. However, as the cancer progresses, it eventually becomes independent of androgens, and hormonal therapy fails. For this reason, androgen-independent PCa is still a major therapeutic challenge. By disrupting specific protein interactions or manipulating the expression of some key molecules, it might be possible to regulate tumor growth and metastasis formation, avoiding the systemic side effects of current therapies. Clinical trials are already underway to assess the efficacy of molecules specially designed to target key proteins or protein interactions. In this review, we address that recent progress made towards understanding PCa development and the molecular pathways underlying this pathology. We also discuss relevant molecular markers for the management of PCa and new therapeutic challenges.
    Journal of Zhejiang University SCIENCE B 01/2014; 15(1):16-42. DOI:10.1631/jzus.B1300106 · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ability to distinguish indolent from aggressive prostate tumors remains one of the greatest challenges in the management of this disease. Ongoing efforts to establish a panel of molecular signatures, comprising gene expression profiles, proteins, epigenetic patterns, or a combination of these alterations, are being propelled by rapid advancements in 'omics' technologies. The identification of such biomarkers in biological fluids is an especially attractive goal for clinical applications. Here, we summarize recent progress in the identification of candidate prognostic biomarkers of prostate cancer using biological fluid samples.
    Genome Medicine 06/2013; 5(6):56. DOI:10.1186/gm460 · 4.94 Impact Factor
Show more