BACKGROUND: A more accurate means of prognostication in breast cancer will improve the selection of patients for adjuvant systemic therapy. METHODS: Using microarray analysis to evaluate our previously established 70-gene prognosis profile, we classified a series of 295 consecutive patients with primary breast carcinomas as having a gene-expression signature associated with either a poor prognosis or a good prognosis. All patients had stage I or II breast cancer and were younger than 53 years old; 151 had lymph-node-negative disease, and 144 had lymph-node-positive disease. We evaluated the predictive power of the prognosis profile using univariable and multivariable statistical analyses. RESULTS: Among the 295 patients, 180 had a poor-prognosis signature and 115 had a good-prognosis signature, and the mean (+/-SE) overall 10-year survival rates were 54.6+/-4.4 percent and 94.5+/-2.6 percent, respectively. At 10 years, the probability of remaining free of distant metastases was 50.6+/-4.5 percent in the group with a poor-prognosis signature and 85.2+/-4.3 percent in the group with a good-prognosis signature. The estimated hazard ratio for distant metastases in the group with a poor-prognosis signature, as compared with the group with the good-prognosis signature, was 5.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.9 to 9.0; P<0.001). This ratio remained significant when the groups were analyzed according to lymph-node status. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the prognosis profile was a strong independent factor in predicting disease outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The gene-expression profile we studied is a more powerful predictor of the outcome of disease in young patients with breast cancer than standard systems based on clinical and histologic criteria. Copyright 2002 Massachusetts Medical Society
BACKGROUND: A more accurate means of prognostication in breast cancer will improve the selection of patients for adjuvant systemic therapy. METHODS: Using microarray analysis to evaluate our previously established 70-gene prognosis profile, we classified a series of 295 consecutive patients with primary breast carcinomas as having a gene-expression signature associated with either a poor prognosis or a good prognosis. All patients had stage I or II breast cancer and were younger than 53 years old; 151 had lymph-node-negative disease, and 144 had lymph-node-positive disease. We evaluated the predictive power of the prognosis profile using univariable and multivariable statistical analyses. RESULTS: Among the 295 patients, 180 had a poor-prognosis signature and 115 had a good-prognosis signature, and the mean (+/-SE) overall 10-year survival rates were 54.6+/-4.4 percent and 94.5+/-2.6 percent, respectively. At 10 years, the probability of remaining free of distant metastases was 50.6+/-4.5 percent in the group with a poor-prognosis signature and 85.2+/-4.3 percent in the group with a good-prognosis signature. The estimated hazard ratio for distant metastases in the group with a poor-prognosis signature, as compared with the group with the good-prognosis signature, was 5.1 (95 percent confidence interval, 2.9 to 9.0; P<0.001). This ratio remained significant when the groups were analyzed according to lymph-node status. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that the prognosis profile was a strong independent factor in predicting disease outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The gene-expression profile we studied is a more powerful predictor of the outcome of disease in young patients with breast cancer than standard systems based on clinical and histologic criteria. Copyright 2002 Massachusetts Medical Society
Authors: John J Tentler; Sujatha Nallapareddy; Aik Choon Tan; Anna Spreafico; Todd M Pitts; M Pia Morelli; Heather M Selby; Maria I Kachaeva; Sara A Flanigan; Gillian N Kulikowski; Stephen Leong; John J Arcaroli; Wells A Messersmith; S Gail Eckhardt Journal: Mol Cancer Ther Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 6.261
Authors: Lauren L C Marotta; Vanessa Almendro; Andriy Marusyk; Michail Shipitsin; Janina Schemme; Sarah R Walker; Noga Bloushtain-Qimron; Jessica J Kim; Sibgat A Choudhury; Reo Maruyama; Zhenhua Wu; Mithat Gönen; Laura A Mulvey; Marina O Bessarabova; Sung Jin Huh; Serena J Silver; So Young Kim; So Yeon Park; Hee Eun Lee; Karen S Anderson; Andrea L Richardson; Tatiana Nikolskaya; Yuri Nikolsky; X Shirley Liu; David E Root; William C Hahn; David A Frank; Kornelia Polyak Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Patrick T Reilly; Samia Afzal; Chiara Gorrini; Koren Lui; Yury V Bukhman; Andrew Wakeham; Jillian Haight; Teo Wei Ling; Carol C Cheung; Andrew J Elia; Patricia V Turner; Tak Wah Mak Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2011-06-02 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: P Sinn; S Aulmann; R Wirtz; S Schott; F Marmé; Z Varga; A Lebeau; H Kreipe; A Schneeweiss Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.915