Literature DB >> 21645166

Fine tuning of the Van Nuys prognostic index (VNPI) 2003 by integrating the genomic grade index (GGI): new tools for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).

Sevilay Altintas1, Jerome Toussaint, Virginie Durbecq, Kathleen Lambein, Manon T Huizing, Denis Larsimont, Eric Van Marck, Jan B Vermorken, Wiebrem A Tjalma, Christos Sotiriou.   

Abstract

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is considered a heterogeneous premalignant condition of the breast with a certain probability for progressing to malignancy. There is no standard of care. The updated Van Nuys Prognostic Index (VNPI) 2003 is a clinical tool in treatment decision making. This study assessed the prognostic value of the VNPI after integration of proliferative biomarkers (GGI and Ki-67). DCIS samples were divided into three VNPI subgroups (low risk [score 4-6], intermediate risk [score 7-9], high risk [score 10-12]) based on nuclear grade ± necrosis, tumor size, margin width, and age. Nuclear grade was substituted by the genomic grade index (GGI) to generate the VNPI-GGI and combined with the Ki-67 to generate the VNPI-Ki67. Disease-free survival was calculated by Kaplan-Meier survival plots with log-rank significance. Multiple regression analysis was carried out using Cox proportional hazard regression analysis. A total of 88 cases (median age 54 years) with representative tissue were identified out of 168 DCIS patients. Median follow-up was more than 5 years. Ten patients developed an ipsilateral recurrence of whom nine were invasive: six patients were classified in the VNPI subgroup 2 and three patients in the VNPI subgroup 3. One non-invasive recurrence (DCIS) was classified in the VNPI subgroup III. A statistical association was observed between a high VNPI score and a higher risk of recurrence (HR = 7.72 [95% CI 1.01-58.91], p = 0.049). Ki-67 did not improve the prognostic value of VNPI (HR = 6.5, [95% CI 0.80-53.33], p = 0.08). In contrast, the VNPI-GGI could identify more accurately high-risk DCIS patients with early relapses within 5 years (HR = 18.14 [95% CI 1.75-188], p = 0.015). GGI incorporated into the VNPI improved its prognostic value for DCIS, especially for identifying early relapses. This method should be validated and incorporated in future prospective clinical DCIS trials.
© 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21645166     DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2011.01091.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast J        ISSN: 1075-122X            Impact factor:   2.431


  5 in total

Review 1.  Ductal carcinoma in situ of breast: update 2019.

Authors:  Sunil S Badve; Yesim Gökmen-Polar
Journal:  Pathology       Date:  2019-08-28       Impact factor: 5.306

Review 2.  Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: Evaluating the Role of Radiation Therapy in the Management and Attempts to Identify Low-risk Patients.

Authors:  Chirag Shah; Frank A Vicini; Sameer Berry; Thomas B Julian; John Ben Wilkinson; Simona F Shaitelman; Atif Khan; Steven E Finkelstein; Neal Goldstein
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 2.339

Review 3.  Radiotherapy of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ.

Authors:  David Krug; Rainer Souchon
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Is radiotherapy necessary for intermediate risk ductal carcinoma in situ after breast conserving surgery?

Authors:  Taeryung Kim; Heung Kyu Park; Kyung Hee Lee; Kwan Il Kim; Kyu Chan Lee; Jeong Suk Ahn; Kwang-Pil Ko
Journal:  Springerplus       Date:  2014-08-05

5.  Clinicopathological predictive factors for ipsilateral and contralateral events following initial surgery to treat ductal carcinoma in situ.

Authors:  Nobuko Tamura; Hitoshi Tsuda; Masayuki Yoshida; Takashi Hojo; Sadako Akashi-Tanaka; Takayuki Kinoshita; Kenichi Sugihara
Journal:  Breast Cancer       Date:  2015-02-11       Impact factor: 4.239

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.