Literature DB >> 20713855

Qualitative assessment of the progesterone receptor and HER2 improves the Nottingham Prognostic Index up to 5 years after breast cancer diagnosis.

Vanya Van Belle1, Ben Van Calster, Olivier Brouckaert, Isabelle Vanden Bempt, Saskia Pintens, Vernon Harvey, Paula Murray, Björn Naume, Gro Wiedswang, Robert Paridaens, Philippe Moerman, Frederic Amant, Karin Leunen, Ann Smeets, Maria Drijkoningen, Hans Wildiers, Marie-Rose Christiaens, Ignace Vergote, Sabine Van Huffel, Patrick Neven.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To investigate whether the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) can improve the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) in the classification of patients with primary operable breast cancer for disease-free survival (DFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The analysis is based on 1,927 patients with breast cancer treated between 2000 and 2005 at the University Hospitals, Leuven. We compared performances of NPI with and without ER, PR and/or HER2. Validation was done on two external data sets containing 862 and 2,805 patients from Oslo (Norway) and Auckland (New Zealand), respectively.
RESULTS: In the Leuven cohort, median follow-up was 66 months, and 13.7% of patients experienced a breast cancer-related event. Positive staining for ER, PR, and HER2 was detected, respectively, in 86.9%, 75.5%, and 11.9% of patients. Based on multivariate Cox regression modeling, the improved NPI (iNPI) was derived as NPI - PR positivity + HER2 positivity. Validation results showed a risk group reclassification of 20% to 30% of patients when using iNPI with its optimal risk boundaries versus NPI, in a majority of patients to more appropriate risk groups. An additional 10% of patients were classified into the extreme risk groups, where clinical actions are less ambiguous. Survival curves of reclassified patients resembled more closely those for patients in the same iNPI group than those for patients in the same NPI group.
CONCLUSION: The addition of PR and HER2 to NPI increases its 5-year prognostic accuracy. The iNPI can be considered as a clinically useful tool for stratification of patients with breast cancer receiving standard of care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20713855     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.4200

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  19 in total

1.  Expression of antigen processing and presenting molecules in brain metastasis of breast cancer.

Authors:  Yan Liu; Yoshihiro Komohara; Natalie Domenick; Masasuke Ohno; Maki Ikeura; Ronald L Hamilton; Craig Horbinski; Xinhui Wang; Soldano Ferrone; Hideho Okada
Journal:  Cancer Immunol Immunother       Date:  2011-11-08       Impact factor: 6.968

2.  Metabolic syndrome and pre-diabetes contribute to racial disparities in breast cancer outcomes: hypothesis and proposed pathways.

Authors:  Emily J Gallagher; Derek LeRoith; Rebeca Franco; Irini Markella Antoniou; Anupma Nayak; Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Nina A Bickell
Journal:  Diabetes Metab Res Rev       Date:  2016-04-21       Impact factor: 4.876

3.  Prognostic Value of the Progesterone Receptor by Subtype in Patients with Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER-2 Negative Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Kathleen Van Asten; Laurence Slembrouck; Siel Olbrecht; Lynn Jongen; Olivier Brouckaert; Hans Wildiers; Giuseppe Floris; Erik Van Limbergen; Caroline Weltens; Ann Smeets; Robert Paridaens; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Meredith M Regan; Giuseppe Viale; Beat Thürlimann; Ignace Vergote; Evangelia Christodoulou; Ben Van Calster; Patrick Neven
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2018-08-31

Review 4.  Advancement of prognostic models in breast cancer: a narrative review.

Authors:  Ningning Min; Yufan Wei; Yiqiong Zheng; Xiru Li
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-09

5.  The prognostic importance of cathepsin D and E-cadherin in early breast cancer: A single-institution experience.

Authors:  Galia Jacobson-Raber; Irena Lazarev; Victor Novack; Willmosh Mermershtein; Yael Baumfeld; David B Geffen; Netta Sion-Vardy; Samuel Ariad
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2011-08-24       Impact factor: 2.967

6.  Assessment of performance of survival prediction models for cancer prognosis.

Authors:  Hung-Chia Chen; Ralph L Kodell; Kuang Fu Cheng; James J Chen
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2012-07-23       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  A new gene expression signature, the ClinicoMolecular Triad Classification, may improve prediction and prognostication of breast cancer at the time of diagnosis.

Authors:  Dong-Yu Wang; Susan J Done; David R McCready; Scott Boerner; Supriya Kulkarni; Wey Liang Leong
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  Exemestane in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in postmenopausal women.

Authors:  Muaiad Kittaneh; Stefan Glück
Journal:  Breast Cancer (Auckl)       Date:  2011-10-09

9.  In silico analysis of differentially expressed genesets in metastatic breast cancer identifies potential prognostic biomarkers.

Authors:  Jongchan Kim
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 2.754

10.  An array CGH based genomic instability index (G2I) is predictive of clinical outcome in breast cancer and reveals a subset of tumors without lymph node involvement but with poor prognosis.

Authors:  Françoise Bonnet; Mickael Guedj; Natalie Jones; Sana Sfar; Véronique Brouste; Nabila Elarouci; Guillaume Banneau; Béatrice Orsetti; Charlotte Primois; Christine Tunon de Lara; Marc Debled; Isabelle de Mascarel; Charles Theillet; Nicolas Sévenet; Aurélien de Reynies; Gaëtan MacGrogan; Michel Longy
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2012-11-27       Impact factor: 3.063

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.