Literature DB >> 20711652

Defining breast cancer prognosis based on molecular phenotypes: results from a large cohort study.

Shaheenah Dawood1, Rong Hu, Michelle D Homes, Laura C Collins, Stuart J Schnitt, James Connolly, Graham A Colditz, Rulla M Tamimi.   

Abstract

The objective of this study is to define the survival outcomes associated with distinct molecular phenotypes defined by immunohistochemical staining of paraffin-embedded tissues among invasive breast cancer cases identified from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS). Tissue microarrays were constructed from archived tissue blocks of women diagnosed with breast cancer in the NHS (1976-1997). Invasive non-metastatic breast cancer tumors (n = 1,945) were classified into 1 of 5 molecular phenotypes based on immunohistochemistry assays for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), HER2, cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and grade. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method. Cox-proportional hazards models were fitted to determine the association of molecular phenotype with survival outcomes after adjusting for covariates. 1,279 (65.8%) tumors were classified as luminal A, 279 (14.3%) as luminal B, 95 (4.9%) as HER2 type, 203 (10.4%) as basal-like and 89 (4.6%) tumors were unclassified. The 5-year breast cancer-specific survival estimates for women with luminal A, luminal B, HER2-type, basal-like and unclassified tumors were 96, 88, 81, 89 and 85%, respectively. In the multivariable model, compared to cases with luminal A tumors, cases with luminal B (HR 1.90, 95% CI 1.33-2.71), HER2-type (HR 1.36, 95% CI 0.87-2.12), basal-like (HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.05-2.39) and unclassified (HR 1.38, 95% CI 0.87-2.20) tumors had higher hazard of breast cancer death. Similar trends were observed for both overall and recurrence-free survival. In conclusion, compared to women who have luminal A tumors those with luminal B, HER2-type, basal-like and unclassified tumors had a worse prognosis, when tumor subtype was defined by immunohistochemistry. This method may provide a cost-effective means of determining prognosis in the clinical setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20711652      PMCID: PMC3026074          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-010-1113-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat        ISSN: 0167-6806            Impact factor:   4.872


  24 in total

1.  Expression of cytokeratins 17 and 5 identifies a group of breast carcinomas with poor clinical outcome.

Authors:  Matt van de Rijn; Charles M Perou; Rob Tibshirani; Phillippe Haas; Olli Kallioniemi; Juha Kononen; Joachim Torhorst; Guido Sauter; Markus Zuber; Ossi R Köchli; Frank Mross; Holger Dieterich; Rob Seitz; Doug Ross; David Botstein; Pat Brown
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.307

2.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-01-31       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications.

Authors:  T Sørlie; C M Perou; R Tibshirani; T Aas; S Geisler; H Johnsen; T Hastie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; T Thorsen; H Quist; J C Matese; P O Brown; D Botstein; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2001-09-11       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Test of the National Death Index.

Authors:  M J Stampfer; W C Willett; F E Speizer; D C Dysert; R Lipnick; B Rosner; C H Hennekens
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1984-05       Impact factor: 4.897

5.  Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Torsten O Nielsen; Forrest D Hsu; Kristin Jensen; Maggie Cheang; Gamze Karaca; Zhiyuan Hu; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Chad Livasy; Dave Cowan; Lynn Dressler; Lars A Akslen; Joseph Ragaz; Allen M Gown; C Blake Gilks; Matt van de Rijn; Charles M Perou
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2004-08-15       Impact factor: 12.531

6.  Prognosis of women with metastatic breast cancer by HER2 status and trastuzumab treatment: an institutional-based review.

Authors:  Shaheenah Dawood; Kristine Broglio; Aman U Buzdar; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Sharon H Giordano
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-23       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study.

Authors:  Christos Sotiriou; Soek-Ying Neo; Lisa M McShane; Edward L Korn; Philip M Long; Amir Jazaeri; Philippe Martiat; Steve B Fox; Adrian L Harris; Edison T Liu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-08-13       Impact factor: 11.205

8.  Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Dalia M Abd El-Rehim; Sarah E Pinder; Claire E Paish; J Bell; R W Blamey; John F R Robertson; Robert I Nicholson; Ian O Ellis
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 7.996

9.  Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets.

Authors:  Therese Sorlie; Robert Tibshirani; Joel Parker; Trevor Hastie; J S Marron; Andrew Nobel; Shibing Deng; Hilde Johnsen; Robert Pesich; Stephanie Geisler; Janos Demeter; Charles M Perou; Per E Lønning; Patrick O Brown; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; David Botstein
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2003-06-26       Impact factor: 12.779

10.  Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Rulla M Tamimi; Heather J Baer; Jonathan Marotti; Mark Galan; Laurie Galaburda; Yineng Fu; Anne C Deitz; James L Connolly; Stuart J Schnitt; Graham A Colditz; Laura C Collins
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2008-08-05       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  48 in total

1.  In stage II/III lymph node-positive breast cancer patients less than 55 years of age, keratin 8 expression in lymph node metastases but not in the primary tumour is an indicator of better survival.

Authors:  Serena Bonin; Danae Pracella; Renzo Barbazza; Sandro Sulfaro; Giorgio Stanta
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-02-28       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Alcohol, smoking, and risk of Her2-overexpressing and triple-negative breast cancer relative to estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.

Authors:  Michelle L Baglia; Linda S Cook; C Mei-Tzu; Charles Wiggins; Deirdre Hill; Peggy Porter; Christopher I Li
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2018-07-26       Impact factor: 7.396

3.  Distinct molecular phenotypes of direct vs indirect ARDS in single-center and multicenter studies.

Authors:  Carolyn S Calfee; David R Janz; Gordon R Bernard; Addison K May; Kirsten N Kangelaris; Michael A Matthay; Lorraine B Ware
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 9.410

4.  Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes benefit prediction of axillary pathologic response and prognostication of event-free survival in HER2-positive and biopsy-proven node-positive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant therapy.

Authors:  Shiwei Liu; Shiyan Zeng; Li Xia; Miao Yu; Xin Zhang; Hong Yang; Juan Ji; Hao Dong; Jianhui Zhang; Purong Zhang
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 5.  Links between alcohol consumption and breast cancer: a look at the evidence.

Authors:  Ying Liu; Nhi Nguyen; Graham A Colditz
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2015-01

6.  Intrinsic subtypes from PAM50 gene expression assay in a population-based breast cancer cohort: differences by age, race, and tumor characteristics.

Authors:  Carol Sweeney; Philip S Bernard; Rachel E Factor; Marilyn L Kwan; Laurel A Habel; Charles P Quesenberry; Kaylynn Shakespear; Erin K Weltzien; Inge J Stijleman; Carole A Davis; Mark T W Ebbert; Adrienne Castillo; Lawrence H Kushi; Bette J Caan
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-02-12       Impact factor: 4.254

7.  Evaluation of the stage IB designation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system in breast cancer.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Karla V Ballman; Linda M McCall; Min Yi; Aysegul A Sahin; Isabelle Bedrosian; Nora Hansen; Sheryl Gabram; Thelma Hurd; Armando E Giuliano; Kelly K Hunt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-12-08       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Organized screening detects breast cancer at earlier stage regardless of molecular phenotype.

Authors:  Claire M B Holloway; Li Jiang; Marlo Whitehead; Jennifer M Racz; Patti A Groome
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-06-16       Impact factor: 4.553

9.  Molecular phenotypes of unifocal, multifocal, and diffuse invasive breast carcinomas.

Authors:  Tibor Tot; Gyula Pekár; Syster Hofmeyer; Maria Gere; Miklós Tarján; Dan Hellberg; David Lindquist
Journal:  Patholog Res Int       Date:  2010-11-03

10.  NKX3.1 is expressed in ER-positive and AR-positive primary breast carcinomas.

Authors:  Rebecca J Asch-Kendrick; Mark A Samols; Mohammed T Lilo; Andrea P Subhawong; Rajni Sharma; Peter B Illei; Pedram Argani; Ashley Cimino-Mathews
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.