Literature DB >> 18387932

Gene expression signatures, clinicopathological features, and individualized therapy in breast cancer.

Chaitanya R Acharya1, David S Hsu, Carey K Anders, Ariel Anguiano, Kelly H Salter, Kelli S Walters, Richard C Redman, Sascha A Tuchman, Cynthia A Moylan, Sayan Mukherjee, William T Barry, Holly K Dressman, Geoffrey S Ginsburg, Kelly P Marcom, Katherine S Garman, Gary H Lyman, Joseph R Nevins, Anil Potti.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Gene expression profiling may be useful for prognostic and therapeutic strategies in breast carcinoma.
OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the value in integrating genomic information with clinical and pathological risk factors, to refine prognosis, and to improve therapeutic strategies for early stage breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective study of patients with early stage breast carcinoma who were candidates for adjuvant chemotherapy; 964 clinically annotated breast tumor samples (573 in the initial discovery set and 391 in the validation cohort) with corresponding microarray data were used. All patients were assigned relapse risk scores based on their respective clinicopathological features. Signatures representing oncogenic pathway activation and tumor biology/microenvironment status were applied to these samples to obtain patterns of deregulation that correspond with relapse risk scores to refine prognosis with the clinicopathological prognostic model alone. Predictors of chemotherapeutic response were also applied to further characterize clinically relevant heterogeneity in early stage breast cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Gene expression signatures and clinicopathological variables in early stage breast cancer to determine a refined estimation of relapse-free survival and sensitivity to chemotherapy.
RESULTS: In the initial data set of 573 patients, prognostically significant clusters representing patterns of oncogenic pathway activation and tumor biology/microenvironment states were identified within the low-risk (log-rank P = .004), intermediate-risk (log-rank P = .01), and high-risk (log-rank P = .003) model cohorts, representing clinically important genomic subphenotypes of breast cancer. As an example, in the low-risk cohort, of 6 prognostically significant clusters, patients in cluster 4 had an inferior relapse-free survival vs patients in cluster 1 (log-rank P = .004) and cluster 5 (log-rank P = .03). Median relapse-free survival for patients in cluster 4 was 16 months less than for patients in cluster 1 (95% CI, 7.5-24.5 months) and 19 months less than for patients in cluster 5 (95% CI, 10.5-27.5 months). Multivariate analyses confirmed the independent prognostic value of the genomic clusters (low risk, P = .05; high risk, P = .02). The reproducibility and validity of these patterns of pathway deregulation in predicting relapse risk was established using related but not identical clusters in the independent validation cohort. The prognostic clinicogenomic clusters also have unique sensitivity patterns to commonly used cytotoxic therapies.
CONCLUSIONS: These results provide preliminary evidence that incorporation of gene expression signatures into clinical risk stratification can refine prognosis. Prospective studies are needed to determine the value of this approach for individualizing therapeutic strategies.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18387932     DOI: 10.1001/jama.299.13.1574

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  43 in total

Review 1.  Triple-negative breast cancer: present challenges and new perspectives.

Authors:  Franca Podo; Lutgarde M C Buydens; Hadassa Degani; Riet Hilhorst; Edda Klipp; Ingrid S Gribbestad; Sabine Van Huffel; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Jan Luts; Daniel Monleon; Geert J Postma; Nicole Schneiderhan-Marra; Filippo Santoro; Hans Wouters; Hege G Russnes; Therese Sørlie; Elda Tagliabue; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2010-04-24       Impact factor: 6.603

Review 2.  Assessment of kidney organ quality and prediction of outcome at time of transplantation.

Authors:  Thomas F Mueller; Kim Solez; Valeria Mas
Journal:  Semin Immunopathol       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 9.623

3.  Enhancing diagnosis, prognosis, and therapeutic outcome prediction of gliomas using genomics.

Authors:  Mahfoud Assem; Zita Sibenaller; Supreet Agarwal; Maha S Al-Keilani; Mohammad A Y Alqudah; Timothy C Ryken
Journal:  OMICS       Date:  2012-03

4.  A policy approach to the development of molecular diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Kevin A Schulman; Sean R Tunis
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 54.908

5.  Role for transcription factor TFII-I in the suppression of SSeCKS/Gravin/Akap12 transcription by Src.

Authors:  Yahao Bu; Lingqiu Gao; Irwin H Gelman
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2011-04-15       Impact factor: 7.396

Review 6.  Biological determinants of endocrine resistance in breast cancer.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Musgrove; Robert L Sutherland
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 60.716

7.  Advances in translational bioinformatics: computational approaches for the hunting of disease genes.

Authors:  Maricel G Kann
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2009-12-10       Impact factor: 11.622

8.  Can survival prediction be improved by merging gene expression data sets?

Authors:  Haleh Yasrebi; Peter Sperisen; Viviane Praz; Philipp Bucher
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-10-23       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Knowledge driven decomposition of tumor expression profiles.

Authors:  Martin H van Vliet; Lodewyk F A Wessels; Marcel J T Reinders
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-01-30       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  Approaches towards expression profiling the response to treatment.

Authors:  Andrew H Sims; John M S Bartlett
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2008-12-08       Impact factor: 6.466

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.