Tissue Microarray Sampling Strategy for Prostate Cancer Biomarker Analysis

High-density tissue microarrays (TMA) are useful for profiling protein expression in a large number of samples but their use for clinical biomarker studies may be limited in heterogeneous tumors like prostate cancer. In this study, the optimization and validation of a tumor sampling strategy for a prostate cancer outcomes TMA is performed. Prostate cancer proliferation determined by Ki-67 immunohistochemistry was tested. Ten replicate measurements of proliferation using digital image analysis (CAS200, Bacus Labs, Lombard, IL, USA) were made on 10 regions of prostate cancer from a standard glass slide. Five matching tissue microarray sample cores (0.6 mm diameter) were sampled from each of the 10 regions in the parallel study. A bootstrap resampling analysis was used to statistically simulate all possible permutations of TMA sample number per region or sample. Statistical analysis compared TMA samples with Ki-67 expression in standard pathology immunohistochemistry slides. The optimal sampling for TMA cores was reached at 3 as fewer TMA samples significantly increased Ki-67 variability and a larger number did not significantly improve accuracy. To validate these results, a prostate cancer outcomes tissue microarray containing 10 replicate tumor samples from 88 cases was constructed. Similar to the initial study, 1 to 10 randomly selected cores were used to evaluate the Ki-67 expression for each case, computing the 90th percentile of the expression from all samples used in each model. Using this value, a Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to determine predictors of time until prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer. Examination of multiple models demonstrated that 4 cores was optimal. Using a model with 4 cores, a Cox regression model demonstrated that Ki-67 expression, preoperative PSA, and surgical margin status predicted time to PSA recurrence with hazard ratios of 1.49 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–2.20, p = 0.047), 2.36 (95% CI 1.15–4.85, p = 0.020), and 9.04 (95% CI 2.42–33.81, p = 0.001), respectively. Models with 3 cores to determine Ki-67 expression were also found to predict outcome. In summary, 3 cores were required to optimally represent Ki-67 expression with respect to the standard tumor slide. Three to 4 cores gave the optimal predictive value in a prostate cancer outcomes array. Sampling strategies with fewer than 3 cores may not accurately represent tumor protein expression. Conversely, more than 4 cores will not add significant information. This prostate cancer outcomes array should be useful in evaluating other putative prostate cancer biomarkers.

[1]  Gleason Df Classification of prostatic carcinomas. , 1966 .

[2]  H Stein,et al.  Cell cycle analysis of a cell proliferation-associated human nuclear antigen defined by the monoclonal antibody Ki-67. , 1984, Journal of immunology.

[3]  K. Griffiths,et al.  Relationship of proliferating cell nuclear antigen (PCNA) in prostatic carcinomas to various clinical parameters , 1992, The Prostate.

[4]  H. Moch,et al.  Ki67 LABELLING INDEX: AN INDEPENDENT PREDICTOR OF PROGRESSION IN PROSTATE CANCER TREATED BY RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY , 1996, The Journal of pathology.

[5]  J W Moul,et al.  Ki-67 expression is a prognostic marker of prostate cancer recurrence after radical prostatectomy. , 1996, The Journal of urology.

[6]  P. Steeg,et al.  Cancer prognostics: Past, present and p27 , 1997, Nature Medicine.

[7]  H. Moch,et al.  Ki67 labeling index in core needle biopsies independently predicts tumor-specific survival in prostate cancer. , 1998, Human pathology.

[8]  A. Cnaan,et al.  Bcl-2 oncoprotein positivity and high MIB-1 (Ki-67) proliferative rate are independent predictive markers for recurrence in prostate carcinoma. , 1998, American journal of clinical pathology.

[9]  M. Kattan,et al.  Assessment of the biologic markers p53, Ki-67, and apoptotic index as predictive indicators of prostate carcinoma recurrence after surgery. , 1998, Cancer.

[10]  J. Kononen,et al.  Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens , 1998, Nature Medicine.

[11]  M. Rifkin,et al.  The prognostic significance of proliferation‐associated nucleolar protein p120 expression in prostate adenocarcinoma , 1999, Cancer.

[12]  M. Rubin,et al.  Neuroendocrine expression in metastatic prostate cancer: evaluation of high throughput tissue microarrays to detect heterogeneous protein expression. , 2000, Human pathology.

[13]  M. Rubin,et al.  Tissue microarray assessment of prostate cancer tumor proliferation in African- American and white men. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[14]  K. Pienta,et al.  Expression of nuclear antigen Ki-67 in prostate cancer needle biopsy and radical prostatectomy specimens. , 2000, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[15]  Daniel S. Miller,et al.  Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. , 2000, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[16]  S. Dhanasekaran,et al.  Delineation of prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer , 2001, Nature.

[17]  Holger Moch,et al.  Microarrays of bladder cancer tissue are highly representative of proliferation index and histological grade , 2001, The Journal of pathology.

[18]  C. Cordon-Cardo,et al.  Validation of tissue microarrays for immunohistochemical profiling of cancer specimens using the example of human fibroblastic tumors. , 2001, The American journal of pathology.

[19]  C. Sheehan,et al.  Prognostic factors in prostate cancer. , 2003, American journal of clinical pathology.