Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The proliferation marker Ki67, but not neuroendocrine expression, is an independent factor in the prediction of prognosis of primary prostate cancer patients Cover

The proliferation marker Ki67, but not neuroendocrine expression, is an independent factor in the prediction of prognosis of primary prostate cancer patients

Free to read
|Jul 2016

Figures & Tables

Figure 1

Determination of Ki67, NSE, CgA, SYP in primary prostate cancer patients. Number of concurrent biomarkers evaluated. The number of patients is reported above each column.

Table 1

Neuroendocrine marker staining in our cohort of primary prostate cancer patients

StainingNeuroendocrine markers
NSECgASyp
Negative28 (31.5)49 (40.5)44 (34.6)
Diffuse50 (56.1)45 (37.2)54 (42.5)
Focal3 (3.4)19 (15.7)17 (13.4)
Spotty8 (9)8 (6.6)12 (9.5)
Total89121127
missing774539

Data reported as N (%)

Table 2

Distribution of Ki67 positively stained cells in our cohort of primary prostate cancer patients

% Ki67-positive cellsNumber of samples
N%
0149.6
≤ 57047.9
> 5 and ≤ 102416.5
> 10 and ≤ 201812.3
> 20 and ≤ 30138.9
> 3074.8
Total146100%
Figure 2

Distribution of Ki67 staining score. Positive Ki67 cells in TURP and prostatectomy specimens from a cohort of 166 primary prostate cancer patients.

Figure 3

Representative immunohistochemical staining for Ki67. (A) prostate adenocarcinoma with Ki67 > 10% 20 x and 40 x (B) magnification; (C) prostate adenocarcinoma with Ki67 ≤ 10% 20 x and 40 x (D) magnification; (E) prostate adenocarcinoma negative for Ki67 20 x and 40 x (F) magnification.

Table 3

Association between Ki67 expression and clinicopathological variables (N = 146)

VariableKi67 expression
≤ 10%> 10%TotP-value
Nuclear grading
122123
27223950.001*
3141428
Gleason Score
< 7568640.001*
≥ 7513081
missing 1
Age at diagnosis (median, years)
≤ 715319720.922
> 71551974
Age at diagnosis (continuous)108381460.973
NSE expression
Negative214250.073
Positivea281644
missing 77
CgA expression
Negative3710470.217
Positivea241236
missing 40
Syp expression
Negative318390.326
Positivea331447
missing 60
Type of intervention
TURP78331110.081
Prostatectomy29534
missing 1
Total10838146

* Significant value

* Significant value

a Only diffuse expression was considered as positive staining;

a Only diffuse expression was considered as positive staining;

a Only diffuse expression was considered as positive staining;

Table 4

Univariate analysis of prognostic factors in patients with primary prostate cancer based on Cox proportional hazards regression model

VariableUNIVARIATE
HR (95% CI)P-value
Nuclear grading
 2 vs 11.45 (0.90-2.34)0.125
 3 vs 13.49 (1.94-6.27)< 0.001*
Gleason score
7 vs < 72.97 (2.07-4.26)< 0.001*
Ki67 expression
 > 10% vs ≤ 10%2.75 (1.85-4.09)< 0.001*
Age at diagnosis (continuous)1.04 (1.02-1.07)< 0.001*
NSE expression
 Positiveavs negative1.99 (1.19-3.34)0.009*
CgA expression
 Positiveavs negative0.96 (0.62-1.47)0.840
Syp expression
 Positiveavs negative1.18 (0.77-1.81)0.447
Type of intervention
 Prostatectomy vs TURP0.45 (0.30-0.67)< 0.001*

CI = confidence interval; HR = hazard ratio

* Significant value

* Significant value

* Significant value

* Significant value

a Only diffuse expression was considered as positive staining;

* Significant value

a Only diffuse expression was considered as positive staining;

a Only diffuse expression was considered as positive staining;

* Significant value

Figure 4

Survival curves by NSE staining in patients with primary prostate cancer. p-value from log-rank test is reported. Numbers of at risk (still alive) patients are indicated below the x-axis.

Figure 5

Survival curves by Ki67 expression in patients with primary prostate cancer. (A) Ki67 staining dichotomized in ≤; 10% and > 10%; (B) Ki67 staining divided into negative, 1–10%, 11%–20%, > 20%. p-value from log-rank test is reported. Numbers of at risk (still alive) patients are indicated below the x-axis.

Table 5

Multivariate analysis of prognostic factors in patients with primary prostate cancer based on Cox proportional hazards regression model stratified by type of intervention (N = 144)

VariableMULTIVARIATE
Adjusted HR (95%CI)Adjusted P-value
Nuclear grading
 2 vs 11.27 (0.75-2.13)0.373
 3 vs 11.93 (1.01-3.68)0.045*
Gleason score
 ≥ 7 vs < 72.41 (1.56-3.74)< 0.001*
Ki67 expression
 > 10% vs ≤ 10%2.14 (1.41-3.25)< 0.001*
Age at diagnosis (continuous)1.04 (1.02-1.07)0.001*

CI = confidence interval; HR = hazard ratio;

* Significant value

* Significant value

* Significant value

* Significant value

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/raon-2016-0033 | Journal eISSN: 1581-3207 | Journal ISSN: 1318-2099
Language: English
Page range: 313 - 320
Submitted on: Feb 8, 2016
Accepted on: Apr 28, 2016
Published on: Jul 19, 2016
Published by: Association of Radiology and Oncology
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2016 Mariarosa Pascale, Cinzia Aversa, Renzo Barbazza, Barbara Marongiu, Salvatore Siracusano, Flavio Stoffel, Sando Sulfaro, Enrico Roggero, Serena Bonin, Giorgio Stanta, published by Association of Radiology and Oncology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons License.