Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1992 Mar;65(3):461–465. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1992.93

Predicting outcome for patients with node negative breast cancer: a comparative study of the value of flow cytometry and cell image analysis for determination of DNA ploidy.

J Yuan 1, C Hennessy 1, A L Givan 1, I P Corbett 1, J A Henry 1, G V Sherbet 1, T W Lennard 1
PMCID: PMC1977588  PMID: 1348424

Abstract

This study was aimed at determining whether tumour DNA content measured by cell image analysis could provide additional prognostic information when compared to that provided by flow cytometry. Sections cut from paraffin blocks of tumours from 101 patients with node negative breast cancer were analysed by both methods and the results related to other prognostic variables and to patient relapse and overall survival. DNA ploidy measured by flow cytometry classified 46 tumours as diploid and 55 as aneuploid, whereas by cell image analysis 30 were diploid and 71 aneuploid (P less than 0.002). There were 20 tumours with discrepancies between the two methods; 18 of these were tumours with only one peak in flow analysis, but determined to be aneuploid with image analysis. DNA content as measured by both methods was significant for predicting relapse and survival by log-rank test, as were tumour histological grade, c-erbB-2 expression and tumour size. Multivariate analysis showed DNA ploidy measured by flow cytometry to be the only variable of independent significance (P less than 0.02) for both relapse and overall survival. Compared with cell image analysis, flow cytometry demonstrated a significantly higher proportion of diploid tumours, which may be related to differences in the internal standards applied to each method. We suggest that cell image analysis techniques can provide more sensitive information on the DNA content of tumour cells by direct measurement of nuclear DNA density of both normal lymphocytes and tumour cells in the same section. However, although image analysis appears to be more sensitive than flow cytometry in detecting DNA aneuploidy, the image technique appears to lack the specificity of flow cytometry in correlation with clinical outcome.

Full text

PDF
461

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bauer T. W., Tubbs R. R., Edinger M. G., Suit P. F., Gephardt G. N., Levin H. S. A prospective comparison of DNA quantitation by image and flow cytometry. Am J Clin Pathol. 1990 Mar;93(3):322–326. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/93.3.322. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cornelisse C. J., van de Velde C. J., Caspers R. J., Moolenaar A. J., Hermans J. DNA ploidy and survival in breast cancer patients. Cytometry. 1987 Mar;8(2):225–234. doi: 10.1002/cyto.990080217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Del Bino G., Silvestrini R., Zucconi M. R., Marchese G., Valentinis B., Di Fronzo G., Andreola S. DNA ploidy of human breast cancer. Anal Cell Pathol. 1989 Aug;1(4):215–223. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Feichter G. E., Mueller A., Kaufmann M., Haag D., Born I. A., Abel U., Klinga K., Kubli F., Goerttler K. Correlation of DNA flow cytometric results and other prognostic factors in primary breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 1988 Jun 15;41(6):823–828. doi: 10.1002/ijc.2910410608. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Glick J. H. Meeting highlights: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1988 Jun 1;80(7):471–475. doi: 10.1093/jnci/80.7.471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Hedley D. W., Friedlander M. L., Taylor I. W., Rugg C. A., Musgrove E. A. Method for analysis of cellular DNA content of paraffin-embedded pathological material using flow cytometry. J Histochem Cytochem. 1983 Nov;31(11):1333–1335. doi: 10.1177/31.11.6619538. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Kallioniemi O. P., Blanco G., Alavaikko M., Hietanen T., Mattila J., Lauslahti K., Koivula T. Tumour DNA ploidy as an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1987 Nov;56(5):637–642. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1987.258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Kallioniemi O. P., Blanco G., Alavaikko M., Hietanen T., Mattila J., Lauslahti K., Lehtinen M., Koivula T. Improving the prognostic value of DNA flow cytometry in breast cancer by combining DNA index and S-phase fraction. A proposed classification of DNA histograms in breast cancer. Cancer. 1988 Nov 15;62(10):2183–2190. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19881115)62:10<2183::aid-cncr2820621019>3.0.co;2-b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. McFadden P. W., Clowry L. J., Daehnert K., Hause L. L., Koethe S. M. Image analysis confirmation of DNA aneuploidy in flow cytometric DNA distributions having a wide coefficient of variation of the G0/G1 peak. Am J Clin Pathol. 1990 May;93(5):637–642. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/93.5.637. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Muss H. B., Kute T. E., Case L. D., Smith L. R., Booher C., Long R., Kammire L., Gregory B., Brockschmidt J. K. The relation of flow cytometry to clinical and biologic characteristics in women with node negative primary breast cancer. Cancer. 1989 Nov 1;64(9):1894–1900. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19891101)64:9<1894::aid-cncr2820640923>3.0.co;2-k. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. O'Reilly S. M., Camplejohn R. S., Barnes D. M., Millis R. R., Allen D., Rubens R. D., Richards M. A. DNA index, S-phase fraction, histological grade and prognosis in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1990 May;61(5):671–674. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1990.152. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Yuan J., Hennessy C., Corbett I. P., Dykin R., Givan A. L., Shenton B. K., Henry J. A., Wright C., Lennard T. W. Node negative breast cancer: the prognostic value of DNA ploidy for long-term survival. Br J Surg. 1991 Jul;78(7):844–848. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800780724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES