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
1992

Comparing DNA Measurement Methods in Breast Cancer

Sample size: 101 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): J. Yuan, C. Hennessy, A.L. Givan, I.P Corbett, J.A. Henry, G.V. Sherbet, T.W.J. Lennard

Primary Institution: University of Newcastle upon Tyne

Hypothesis

Can tumour DNA content measured by cell image analysis provide additional prognostic information compared to flow cytometry?

Conclusion

Cell image analysis may be more sensitive in detecting DNA aneuploidy, but flow cytometry is more specific in correlating with clinical outcomes.

Supporting Evidence

  • Flow cytometry classified 46 tumours as diploid and 55 as aneuploid.
  • Cell image analysis classified 30 tumours as diploid and 71 as aneuploid.
  • DNA ploidy was significantly associated with histological grade.
  • Patients with aneuploid tumours had significantly earlier relapse and shorter survival.
  • Multivariate analysis showed flow cytometry DNA ploidy as the only independent significant variable for relapse and overall survival.

Takeaway

This study looked at two ways to measure DNA in breast cancer tumours to see which one gives better information about how patients will do. One method was better at finding problems, but the other was better at predicting patient outcomes.

Methodology

DNA ploidy was measured using flow cytometry and cell image analysis on paraffin-embedded tumour tissues from patients with node negative breast cancer.

Limitations

The study may have limitations due to the lack of external standards for DNA measurement in fixed tissues.

Participant Demographics

{"age":{"median":54,"range":"35-85"},"menopausal_status":{"premenopausal":32,"postmenopausal":69},"histological_grade":{"grade_1_and_2":49,"grade_3":45},"c-erbB-2_expression":{"negative":70,"positive":24},"tumour_size":{"T1":53,"T2":43}}

Statistical Information

P-Value

p<0.002

Statistical Significance

p<0.002

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication