Lack of prognostic significance of the monoclonal antibody Ki-S1, a novel marker of proliferative activity, in node-negative breast carcinoma

In a series of 205 node-negative breast cancers (NNBC), we determined staining by the novel antibody Ki-S1, a marker of tumor cell proliferation, in order to test its association with other prognostic variables and its prognostic significance. Ki-S1 was determined in routinely formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples. Ki-S1 gave a nuclear staining in the majority of the carcinomas (188 of 205), with percentages of reacting nuclei ranging from 2% to 90% (median value of 7%). In 107 tumors frozen sections were available to also assess the Ki-67 antibody. Among these, 94 had a nuclear staining of cancer cells ranging from 5% to 80% (median value of 7%). In 46 tumors we also determined the MIB-1 antibody. The percentage of MIB-1 nuclear staining ranged from 1% to 50% (median value of 20%). There was no significant relationship between Ki-S1 and the other two cell kinetic markers. Ki-S1 labeling was significantly associated only with tumor size (p = 0.03). With a median follow-up of 6 years, Ki-S1 had no significant prognostic value for either relapse-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS) (Ki-S1 as continuous logarithmic variable; p = 0.86 and p = 0.23, respectively). For RFS the following variables had a significant prognostic value: Ki-67 (< or = 10% vs > 10%; p = 0.037); progesterone receptor (PgR) expression (- vs+/++; p = 0.041); tumor size (pT1 vs pT2-3; p = 0.042) and grading (GI vs GII-III; p = 0.047). For OS, tumor size (p = 0.0044), age (continuous variable; p = 0.0060), and Ki-67 (p = 0.043) were significantly prognostic. In multivariate analysis (final model), only tumor size retained a significant and independent prognostic value for RFS (p = 0.0042). For OS, both tumor size (p = 0.0029) and age (< or = 55 years vs > 55 years; p = 0.041) retained significance in the multivariate model. In conclusion, Ki-S1 does not seem to have prognostic relevance in this series of NNBC. Possible hypotheses to explain this observation are discussed.