MCM6 versus Ki-67 in diagnosis of luminal molecular subtypes of breast cancers
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 4, 2025
Building Up a High-throughput Screening Platform to Assess the Heterogeneity of HER2 Gene Amplification in Breast Cancers
Published on: December 5, 2017
Dorsay Sadeghian1,2, Hana Saffar1, Pouya Mahdavi Sharif3,4
1Cancer Institute, Pathology Department, Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Background:
Currently, breast cancers are divided into four major molecular subtypes. The distinction between the luminal A and luminal B subtypes is mainly based on the cellular proliferation indices and is assessed by the Ki-67 scoring. Due to the limitations in the assessment and expression of Ki-67, we hypothesized that minichromosome maintenance protein 6 (MCM6) might be taken as a surrogate marker to differentiate molecular subtypes and aid in more precise grading of tumors.
Methods:
We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional study on 124 samples of breast cancer and 40 samples of normal breast tissue. Relevant clinical information was retrieved from the Cancer Institute database.
Results:
MCM6 could discriminate between various categories of histologic grades, tubule formation, mitotic indices, and nuclear pleomorphism (P = 0.002 for tubule formation and P < 0.001 for other). Moreover, the MCM6 score exhibited a significant correlation with the mitotic count (P < 0.001). However, the Ki-67 score could not discriminate subgroups of the mitotic index and nuclear pleomorphism. Compared to the luminal A subtype, luminal B exhibited a higher MCM6 score (P = 0.01). Besides, MCM6 scores were higher for certain subtypes with more aggressive behaviors, such as hormone receptor (HR)-negative disease, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-enriched and triple-negative breast cancers, as there was a significantly higher MCM6 mean score in the HR-negative in comparison to the luminal breast cancers (P < 0.001). Similarly, higher MCM6 scores were observed among samples with more advanced nuclear grades, tubule formation, and overall grades.
Conclusion:
MCM6 can differentiate luminal A and luminal B subtypes and is correlated with mitotic counts. However, this study was unable to prove the superiority of MCM6 in differentiating between molecular subtypes compared to the Ki-67 score. Nevertheless, in our study, MCM6 was superior to Ki-67 in exhibiting correlations with the mitotic grade, tubule formation, and nuclear grades. More studies are needed to standardize its assessment methods, determine more robust cut-off values, and evaluate its associations with prognostic features of breast cancer.
