| Literature DB >> 20487521 |
Mercedes Zurita1, Pedro C Lara, Rosario del Moral, Blanca Torres, José Luis Linares-Fernández, Sandra Ríos Arrabal, Joaquina Martínez-Galán, Francisco Javier Oliver, José Mariano Ruiz de Almodóvar.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous hypermethylated genes have been reported in breast cancer, and the silencing of these genes plays an important role in carcinogenesis, tumor progression and diagnosis. These hypermethylated promoters are very rarely found in normal breast. It has been suggested that aberrant hypermethylation may be useful as a biomarker, with implications for breast cancer etiology, diagnosis, and management. The relationship between primary neoplasm and metastasis remains largely unknown. There has been no comprehensive comparative study on the clinical usefulness of tumor-associated methylated DNA biomarkers in primary breast carcinoma and metastatic breast carcinoma. The objective of the present study was to investigate the association between clinical extension of breast cancer and methylation status of estrogen receptor1 (ESR1) and stratifin (14-3-3-sigma) gene promoters in disease-free and metastatic breast cancer patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20487521 PMCID: PMC2889892 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-10-217
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Clinical and pathological characteristic of the breast cancer patients
| Characteristics | Disease-Free Breast Cancer Group | Metastatic Breast Cancer Group |
|---|---|---|
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 63 (81.8%) | 22 (64.7%) |
| Invasive lobular carcinoma | 8 (10.4%) | 6 (17.6%) |
| Other invasive carcinoma | 6 (7.8%) | 4 (11.4%) |
| Unknown | 0 | 2 (5.8%) |
| Grade I | 17 (22.1%) | 1 (2.9%) |
| Grade II | 25 (32.5%) | 8 (23.5%) |
| Grade III | 26 (33.8%) | 20 (58.8%) |
| Unknown | 9 (11.7%) | 5 (14.7%) |
| Tis | 2 (2.6%) | 1 (2.9%) |
| T1 | 40 (52.0%) | 10 (29.4%) |
| T2 | 24 (31.2%) | 13 (38.2%) |
| T3 | 7 (9.1%) | 5 (14.7%) |
| T4 | 4 (5.2%) | 2 (5.8%) |
| Tx | 0 | 1 (2.9%) |
| Unknown | 2 (5.8%) | |
| N0 | 41 (53.3%) | 13 (38.2%) |
| N1 | 26 (33.8%) | 8 (23.5%) |
| N2 | 6 (7.8%) | 9 (26.4%) |
| N3 | 3 (3.9%) | 2 (5.8%) |
| Nx | 1 (1.3%) | 2 (5.8%) |
| Negative | 20 (25.1%) | 10 (27.7%) |
| Positive | 53 (68.8%) | 21 (61.7%) |
| Unknown | 4 (5.2%) | 3 (8.8%) |
| Negative | 23 (30.0%) | 10 (29.4%) |
| Positive | 50 (64.9%) | 22 (64.7%) |
| Unknown | 4 (5.1%) | 2 (5.8%) |
| Yes | 46 (62.3%) | 31 (91.1%) |
| No | 26 (33.8%) | |
| Unknown | 3 (3.9%) | 3 (8.8%) |
Figure 1The box and whisker plot shows the median value and 10-90 percentiles of biomarkers, . 14-3-3-σ values significantly differed between the DFBC and MBC groups (Dunn test, P > 0.0001) and between each of these and the HC group (P < 0.001).
Figure 2. Wilcoxon signed rank test, P = 0.0045.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Patients' summary score distribution (treatment response distribution) according to the biomarker pattern observed during the treatment time-course.
| Pattern | MR | SD | P | MDT |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Continuously decline | 11 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Rise and fall | 2 | 6 | 6 | 3 |
MR: Measurable Response; SD: Stable Disease; P: Progression; MDT: Mortality during treatment
Figure 5Discriminatory power of the biomarker response ratio [. A: Comparison between treatment outcomes; B: ROC curve.