REPRODUCIBILITY OF SEMIAUTOMATED CELL-CYCLE ANALYSIS OF FLOW CYTOMETRIC DNA HISTOGRAMS OF FRESH BREAST-CANCER MATERIAL

Citation
E. Bergers et al., REPRODUCIBILITY OF SEMIAUTOMATED CELL-CYCLE ANALYSIS OF FLOW CYTOMETRIC DNA HISTOGRAMS OF FRESH BREAST-CANCER MATERIAL, Analytical cellular pathology, 8(1), 1995, pp. 1-13
Citations number
17
Categorie Soggetti
Cell Biology",Pathology
ISSN journal
09218912
Volume
8
Issue
1
Year of publication
1995
Pages
1 - 13
Database
ISI
SICI code
0921-8912(1995)8:1<1:ROSCAO>2.0.ZU;2-6
Abstract
DNA-variables such as DNA-ploidy, DNA-index and %S-phase cells have be en proven to have prognostic value for breast cancer patients. These v ariables can be obtained by interpreting DNA-histograms by cell cycle analysis. Since there are a number of potential error sources, the aim of this study was to determine the intra- and inter-observer reproduc ibility of semi-automated cell cycle analysis with the emphasis on DNA ploidy and %S-phase assessments. The 149 DNA-histograms we used were randomly selected from the Multicentre Morphometric Mammary Carcinoma Project, a nationwide prospective study in The Netherlands on the repr oducibility and prognostic power of quantitative assessments. These DN A-histograms were obtained by flow cytometry of fresh frozen breast ca ncer material. Cell cycle analysis was performed according to a strict protocol with the semi-automated computer program 'MultiCycle', using the background correction option; 68 histograms were analyzed in dupl icate by the same observer, and 81 histograms were analyzed by two obs ervers. Assessment of DNA-ploidy showed an intra-observer concordance of 99% (kappa-value 0.98) and an inter-observer concordance of 94% (ka ppa-value 0.91). The disagreement could be attributed to overlooking a DNA-tetraploid cell cycle in one case, some difficult histograms and varying opinions about small peaks between the observers in a few case s. Intra-observer %S-phase correlation coefficients varied between 0.7 2 for the %S-phase of the second aneuploid cell cycle and 0.99 for the %S-phase of the diploid cell cycle. Inter-observer correlation coeffi cients varied between 0.81 for the %S-phase of the second cell cycle a nd 0.95 for the %S-phase of the diploid cell cycle and the average %S- phase cells. As for DNA-index, intra- and interobserver correlation co efficients were 0.97 and 0.94, respectively. In conclusion, intra- and inter-observer reproducibility of semi-automated cell cycle analysis of flow cytometric DNA-histograms from fresh breast cancer material us ing the MultiCycle program, following a strict protocol, is in princip le high. The results of this study may help us to decide which of the different %S-phases provided by cell cycle analysis software should be used in daily practice.