Interlaboratory reproducibility of semiautomated cell cycle analysis of flow cytometry DNA-histograms obtained from fresh material of 1,295 breast cancer cases.

Conflicting prognostic results have been published as to the DNA variables, such as DNA ploidy, DNA index, and % S-phase cells for breast cancer patients. These variables can be obtained by interpreting DNA histograms by cell cycle analysis. Explanations for these conflicting results might be found on the level of the interpretation of the DNA histograms. In a previous study, the semi automated cell cycle analysis computer program MultiCycle (Phoenix Flow Systems, San Diego, CA) showed high intralaboratory reproducibility. However, what types of DNA histograms may cause disagreements was still unclear. The aim of this study was to determine the interlaboratory reproducibility of MultiCycle-based cell cycle analysis of 1,295 flow cytometric DNA histograms derived from fresh frozen breast cancer material and to clarify potential sources of interobserver variation when analyzing DNA histograms. DNA ploidy classification into diploid, hyperdiploid, tetraploid, hypertetraploid, and multiploid showed an interlaboratory agreement of 94% (kappa value = 0.92). The 6% discrepancies (n = 74) were caused by tetraploid peaks, as established in one laboratory, which shifted outside the tetraploid region on reanalysis by the other laboratory (37%), shoulders sometimes interpreted as peaks (24%), small peaks not always recognized as such (24%), fitting failures (10%), and overlooking of tetraploid peaks (5%). Furthermore, the cell cycle analysis variables showed variable reproducibility. The % S-phase cells of the first, second, and third cell cycle showed overall a moderate reproducibility (0.62 < or = R < or = 0.79), but the average % S-phase cells and the average aneuploid % S-phase cells were more reproducible with correlation coefficients of 0.89 and 0.81, respectively. The coefficient of variation of the G0/G1 peak of the first cell cycle, the DNA indices and the % diploid cells were highly reproducible (R > or = 0.94), and the % G2/M-phase cells of the first, second, and third cell cycle were poorly reproducible (0.22 < or = R < or = 0.68). When a cut-point was used at the mean value of 7% for the average % S-phase cells, the number of "threshold discrepancy cases" was 6%. Sources of variation for cell cycle analysis were variations in the debris correction procedures, disagreement about the modes of the aneuploid peaks, disagreement about small peaks, shoulders sometimes interpreted as peaks, and overlooking of tetraploid peaks.

[1]  M. Melamed,et al.  Measurement variability in DNA flow cytometry of replicate samples. , 1989, Cytometry.

[2]  W. Farrar,et al.  Is DNA ploidy an independent prognostic indicator in infiltrative node‐negative breast adenocarcinoma? , 1990, Cancer.

[3]  L. Case,et al.  The relation of flow cytometry to clinical and biologic characteristics in women with node negative primary breast cancer , 1989, Cancer.

[4]  F. Spyratos,et al.  Flow cytometric analysis of DNA content and keratins by using CK7, CK8, CK18, CK19, and KL1 monoclonal antibodies in benign and malignant human breast tumors. , 1990, Cytometry.

[5]  T Koivula,et al.  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 , 1988, Cancer.

[6]  P. V. van Diest,et al.  The Multicenter Morphometric Mammary Carcinoma Project (MMMCP). A nationwide prospective study on reproducibility and prognostic power of routine quantitative assessments in The Netherlands. , 1989, Pathology, research and practice.

[7]  D. Visscher,et al.  Two-color multiparametric method for flow cytometric DNA analysis of carcinomas using staining for cytokeratin and leukocyte-common antigen. , 1989, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[8]  A. Howell,et al.  DNA analysis by flow cytometry, response to endocrine treatment and prognosis in advanced carcinoma of the breast. , 1987, British Journal of Cancer.

[9]  T. Kute,et al.  How reproducible are flow cytometry data from paraffin-embedded blocks? , 1988, Cytometry.

[10]  T. Visakorpi,et al.  Improved prognostic impact of S-phase values from paraffin-embedded breast and prostate carcinomas after correcting for nuclear slicing. , 1991, Cytometry.

[11]  O. Kallioniemi,et al.  Different opinions on classification of DNA histograms produced from paraffin-embedded tissue. , 1989, Cytometry.

[12]  M. Melamed,et al.  Interinstitutional variability in DNA flow cytometric analysis of tumors. The National Cancer Institute's flow cytometry network experience , 1988, Cancer.

[13]  R. Camplejohn,et al.  DNA index, S-phase fraction, histological grade and prognosis in breast cancer. , 1990, British Journal of Cancer.

[14]  J. Baak,et al.  Reproducibility of flow cytometric assessment of follicular tumours of the thyroid. , 1989, Journal of clinical pathology.

[15]  G. Fleuren,et al.  High levels of DNA index heterogeneity in advanced breast carcinomas. Evidence for DNA ploidy differences between lymphatic and hematogenous metastases , 1993, Cancer.

[16]  M. Melamed,et al.  Precision of DNA flow cytometry in inter-institutional analyses. , 1991, Cytometry.

[17]  J. Peterse,et al.  Reproducibility of mitosis counting in 2,469 breast cancer specimens: results from the Multicenter Morphometric Mammary Carcinoma Project. , 1992, Human pathology.

[18]  R. Silvestrini Quality control for evaluation of the S-phase fraction by flow cytometry: a multicentric study. The SICCAB Group for Quality Control of Cell Kinetic Determinations. , 1994, Cytometry.

[19]  A. Smeulders,et al.  Reproducibility and comparison of quantitative DNA histogram features obtained with a scanning microdensitometer and a flow cytometer in breast cancers. , 1989, Analytical and quantitative cytology and histology.

[20]  Brian H. Mayall,et al.  Guidelines for implementation of clinical DNA cytometry , 1993 .

[21]  J. Baak,et al.  Comparison of extent of disease and morphometric and DNA flow cytometric prognostic factors in invasive ductal breast cancer. , 1987, Journal of clinical pathology.

[22]  J. Coon,et al.  Interlaboratory variation in DNA flow cytometry. Results of the College of American Pathologists' Survey. , 1994, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[23]  H. Homburger,et al.  Assessment of interlaboratory variability in analytical cytology. Results of the College of American Pathologists Flow Cytometry Study. , 1989, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[24]  I. Christensen,et al.  A detergent-trypsin method for the preparation of nuclei for flow cytometric DNA analysis. , 1983, Cytometry.

[25]  P. V. van Diest,et al.  Reproducibility of semi-automated cell cycle analysis of flow cytometric DNA-histograms of fresh breast cancer material. , 1995, Analytical cellular pathology : the journal of the European Society for Analytical Cellular Pathology.

[26]  J. Baak,et al.  Limited prognostic value of cellular DNA content to classical and morphometrical parameters in invasive ductal breast cancer. , 1988, American journal of clinical pathology.

[27]  S. Fosså,et al.  DNA ploidy in cell nuclei from paraffin-embedded material--comparison of results from two laboratories. , 1992, Cytometry.

[28]  K. Bauer,et al.  Clinical flow cytometry : principles and application , 1993 .

[29]  P. Altavista,et al.  Quality control study of the Italian group of cytometry on flow cytometry cellular DNA content measurements. , 1993, Cytometry.

[30]  W. McGuire,et al.  DNA flow cytometry and prognostic factors in 1331 frozen breast cancer specimens , 1988, Cancer.