BACKGROUND: Japanese and German breast cancer cases differ substantially in the frequency of egfr amplification. AIMS: To unravel further the cytogenetic differences between Japanese and German breast cancer cases. METHODS: Forty one Japanese breast cancer cases were evaluated by means of comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH). The results were compared with the CGH results from 161 German breast cancer cases. RESULTS: The mean number of genetic alterations/case was significantly higher in German premenopausal patients with breast cancer than in their Japanese counterparts. Japanese breast cancer cases revealed a higher number of chromosome 17p losses. Losses of 8p were associated with oestrogen receptor (ER) negativity in Japanese patients with breast cancer, whereas in the German patients gains of 3q and 6q were associated with the lack of ER expression. CONCLUSIONS: The interethnic differences of invasive breast cancer are reflected by cytogenetic aberrations, which are also associated with the differential expression of the ER.
BACKGROUND: Japanese and German breast cancer cases differ substantially in the frequency of egfr amplification. AIMS: To unravel further the cytogenetic differences between Japanese and German breast cancer cases. METHODS: Forty one Japanese breast cancer cases were evaluated by means of comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH). The results were compared with the CGH results from 161 German breast cancer cases. RESULTS: The mean number of genetic alterations/case was significantly higher in German premenopausal patients with breast cancer than in their Japanese counterparts. Japanese breast cancer cases revealed a higher number of chromosome 17p losses. Losses of 8p were associated with oestrogen receptor (ER) negativity in Japanese patients with breast cancer, whereas in the German patients gains of 3q and 6q were associated with the lack of ER expression. CONCLUSIONS: The interethnic differences of invasive breast cancer are reflected by cytogenetic aberrations, which are also associated with the differential expression of the ER.
Authors: H Buerger; E C Mommers; R Littmann; R Simon; R Diallo; C Poremba; B Dockhorn-Dworniczak; P J van Diest; W Boecker Journal: J Pathol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: H Buerger; R Simon; K L Schäfer; R Diallo; R Littmann; C Poremba; P J van Diest; B Dockhorn-Dworniczak; W Böcker Journal: Mol Pathol Date: 2000-06
Authors: F Richard; M Pacyna-Gengelbach; K Schlüns; B Fleige; K J Winzer; J Szymas; M Dietel; I Petersen; A Schwendel Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2000-05-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: J Guillermo Paez; Pasi A Jänne; Jeffrey C Lee; Sean Tracy; Heidi Greulich; Stacey Gabriel; Paula Herman; Frederic J Kaye; Neal Lindeman; Titus J Boggon; Katsuhiko Naoki; Hidefumi Sasaki; Yoshitaka Fujii; Michael J Eck; William R Sellers; Bruce E Johnson; Matthew Meyerson Journal: Science Date: 2004-04-29 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: K Agelopoulos; N Tidow; E Korsching; R Voss; B Hinrichs; B Brandt; W Boecker; H Buerger Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Karin Rennstam; Minna Ahlstedt-Soini; Bo Baldetorp; Pär-Ola Bendahl; Ake Borg; Ritva Karhu; Minna Tanner; Mika Tirkkonen; Jorma Isola Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-12-15 Impact factor: 12.701