Literature DB >> 21431872

Differential expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval and screen-detected breast cancers: does age or family history matter?

Jan T Lowery1, Tim Byers, John Kittelson, John E Hokanson, Judy Mouchawar, John Lewin, Dan Merrick, Lisa Hines, Meenakshi Singh.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare tumor expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval breast cancers and screen-detected breast cancers overall, and according to age at diagnosis and familial risk. Tissue micro-arrays were constructed from 98 breast cancers (47 interval and 51 screen-detected) diagnosed in women in the Cancer Genetics Network. Arrays were immuno-stained to compare protein expression of six biomarkers including estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR), Her2/neu, EGFR, cytokeratin 5/6, and Ki67. Fisher's Exact test was used to compare expression between interval and screen-detected cancers. Interval cancers were larger (P = 0.04), higher stage (P < 0.001), and more likely to have lobular histology (P = 0.01) than screen-detected cancers. Overall, interval cancers more often overexpressed EGFR (P = 0.01) and were somewhat more likely to be ER- (55% vs. 43%, P = 0.3), and triple negative (ER-/PR-/Her2-) (21 vs. 12%, P = 0.26). A greater difference in the proportion of interval versus screen-detected tumors that were ER- (53 vs. 35%; P = 0.29), PR- (35 vs. 21%; P = 0.25) and EGFR+ (17 vs. 0%; P = 0.02) was evident among women over 50. There was a trend toward differential expression among women with familial risk for PR- (P = 0.005) and triple negative status (P = 0.02). This study provides new data indicating that EGFR may be important in the etiology of interval cancer and be a possible therapeutic target. Our data also suggest that biological differences between interval and screen-detected cancers are more defined in older women. Future studies to confirm this finding and to elucidate novel markers for characterizing interval cancers may be more beneficial to this subgroup.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21431872      PMCID: PMC4675131          DOI: 10.1007/s10549-011-1448-8

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


  41 in total

1.  Case-control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography.

Authors:  L Ma; E Fishell; B Wright; W Hanna; S Allan; N F Boyd
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1992-05-20       Impact factor: 13.506

2.  Differences in Ki67 and c-erbB2 expression between screen-detected and true interval breast cancers.

Authors:  M Crosier; D Scott; R G Wilson; C D Griffiths; F E May; B R Westley
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected breast cancers.

Authors:  F D Gilliland; N Joste; P M Stauber; W C Hunt; R Rosenberg; G Redlich; C R Key
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-05-03       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Reviewing interval cancers: time well spent?

Authors:  Kate Gower-Thomas; Hilary M P Fielder; Lucy Branston; Sarah Greening; Helen Beer; Cerilan Rogers
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2002-05       Impact factor: 2.350

5.  Histopathology and growth rate of interval breast carcinoma. Characterization of different subgroups.

Authors:  C T Brekelmans; J M van Gorp; P H Peeters; H J Collette
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  1996-09-15       Impact factor: 6.860

6.  Breast cancer subtypes as defined by the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) among women with invasive breast cancer in California, 1999-2004.

Authors:  Carol A Parise; Katrina R Bauer; Monica M Brown; Vincent Caggiano
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2009-09-17       Impact factor: 2.431

7.  Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium.

Authors:  D F Easton; D T Bishop; D Ford; G P Crockford
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 11.025

8.  The Cancer Genetics Network: recruitment results and pilot studies.

Authors:  Hoda Anton-Culver; Argyrios Ziogas; Deborah Bowen; Dianne Finkelstein; Constance Griffin; James Hanson; Claudine Isaacs; Carol Kasten-Sportes; Geraldine Mineau; Prakash Nadkarni; Barbara Rimer; Joellen Schildkraut; Louise Strong; Barbara Weber; Deborah Winn; Robert Hiatt; Susan Nayfield
Journal:  Community Genet       Date:  2003

9.  Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors.

Authors:  H C Burrell; D M Sibbering; A R Wilson; S E Pinder; A J Evans; L J Yeoman; C W Elston; I O Ellis; R W Blamey; J F Robertson
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Mammography screening interval and the frequency of interval cancers in a population-based screening.

Authors:  P J Klemi; S Toikkanen; O Räsänen; I Parvinen; H Joensuu
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  6 in total

1.  Is clinical breast examination important for breast cancer detection?

Authors:  L Provencher; J C Hogue; C Desbiens; B Poirier; E Poirier; D Boudreau; M Joyal; C Diorio; N Duchesne; J Chiquette
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2016-08-12       Impact factor: 3.677

2.  Biological characteristics of interval cancers: a role for biomarkers in the breast cancer screening.

Authors:  A Caldarella; D Puliti; E Crocetti; S Bianchi; V Vezzosi; P Apicella; M Biancalani; A Giannini; C Urso; F Zolfanelli; E Paci
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-09-09       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 3.  Prognostic factors in elderly patients with breast cancer.

Authors:  Alessandro Cappellani; Maria Di Vita; Antonio Zanghì; Andrea Cavallaro; Gaetano Piccolo; Marcello Majorana; Giuseppina Barbera; Massimiliano Berretta
Journal:  BMC Surg       Date:  2013-10-08       Impact factor: 2.102

Review 4.  Mathematical models of breast and ovarian cancers.

Authors:  Dana-Adriana Botesteanu; Stanley Lipkowitz; Jung-Min Lee; Doron Levy
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med       Date:  2016-06-03

Review 5.  Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone

Authors:  Ernest Usang Ekpo; Maram Alakhras; Patrick Brennan
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2018-02-26

6.  Poor Biological Factors and Prognosis of Interval Breast Cancers: Long-Term Results of Bahçeşehir (Istanbul) Breast Cancer Screening Project in Turkey.

Authors:  Neslihan Cabioğlu; Sibel Özkan Gürdal; Arda Kayhan; Nilüfer Özaydın; Cennet Şahin; Ömür Can; Beyza Özçınar; Gönül Aykuter; Gülçin Vatandaş; Erkin Aribal; Vahit Özmen
Journal:  JCO Glob Oncol       Date:  2020-07
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.