BACKGROUND: Microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) endogenously regulate microtubule stability. Here, the prognostic value of stathmin, a destabilizing protein, was assessed in combination with MAP-tau, a stabilizing protein, in order to evaluate microtubule stabilization as a potential biomarker. METHODS: Stathmin and MAP-tau expression levels were measured in a breast cancer cohort (n = 651) using the tissue microarray format and quantitative immunofluorescence (AQUA) technology, then correlated with clinical and pathological characteristics and disease-free survival. RESULTS: Univariate Cox proportional hazard models indicated that high stathmin expression predicts worse overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.119-1.966; P = .0061). Survival analysis showed 10-year survival of 53.1% for patients with high stathmin expression versus 67% for low expressers (log-rank, P < .003). Cox multivariate analysis showed high stathmin expression was independent of age, menopausal status, nodal status, nuclear grade, tumor size, and estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression (HR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.03-1.37; P = .01). The ratio of MAP-tau to stathmin expression showed a positive correlation to disease-free survival (HR = 0.679; 95% CI = 0.517-0.891; P = .0053) with a 10-year survival of 65.4% for patients who had a high ratio of MAP-tau to stathmin versus 52.5% 10-year survival rate for those with a low ratio (log-rank, P = .0009). Cox multivariate analysis showed the ratio of MAP-tau to stathmin was an independent predictor of overall survival (HR = 0.609; 95% CI = 0.422-0.879; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Low stathmin and high MAP-tau are associated with increased microtubule stability and better prognosis in breast cancer.
BACKGROUND: Microtubule-associated proteins (MAPs) endogenously regulate microtubule stability. Here, the prognostic value of stathmin, a destabilizing protein, was assessed in combination with MAP-tau, a stabilizing protein, in order to evaluate microtubule stabilization as a potential biomarker. METHODS:Stathmin and MAP-tau expression levels were measured in a breast cancer cohort (n = 651) using the tissue microarray format and quantitative immunofluorescence (AQUA) technology, then correlated with clinical and pathological characteristics and disease-free survival. RESULTS: Univariate Cox proportional hazard models indicated that high stathmin expression predicts worse overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.119-1.966; P = .0061). Survival analysis showed 10-year survival of 53.1% for patients with high stathmin expression versus 67% for low expressers (log-rank, P < .003). Cox multivariate analysis showed high stathmin expression was independent of age, menopausal status, nodal status, nuclear grade, tumor size, and estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression (HR = 1.19; 95% CI = 1.03-1.37; P = .01). The ratio of MAP-tau to stathmin expression showed a positive correlation to disease-free survival (HR = 0.679; 95% CI = 0.517-0.891; P = .0053) with a 10-year survival of 65.4% for patients who had a high ratio of MAP-tau to stathmin versus 52.5% 10-year survival rate for those with a low ratio (log-rank, P = .0009). Cox multivariate analysis showed the ratio of MAP-tau to stathmin was an independent predictor of overall survival (HR = 0.609; 95% CI = 0.422-0.879; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Low stathmin and high MAP-tau are associated with increased microtubule stability and better prognosis in breast cancer.
Authors: Olga C Rodriguez; Andrew W Schaefer; Craig A Mandato; Paul Forscher; William M Bement; Clare M Waterman-Storer Journal: Nat Cell Biol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 28.824
Authors: Laura A Martello; Pascal Verdier-Pinard; Heng-Jia Shen; Lifeng He; Keila Torres; George A Orr; Susan Band Horwitz Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: T Reiman; R Lai; A S Veillard; E Paris; J C Soria; R Rosell; M Taron; S Graziano; R Kratzke; L Seymour; F A Shepherd; J P Pignon; P Sève Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-04-06 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Catherine B Barden; Katherine W Shister; Baixin Zhu; Gerardo Guiter; David Y Greenblatt; Martha A Zeiger; Thomas J Fahey Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Chantal Bernard-Marty; Isabelle Treilleux; Charles Dumontet; Fatima Cardoso; Arlette Fellous; David Gancberg; Marie Christine Bissery; Marianne Paesmans; Denis Larsimont; Martine J Piccart; Angelo Di Leo Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: P A Curmi; C Noguès; S Lachkar; N Carelle; M P Gonthier; A Sobel; R Lidereau; I Bièche Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Simon Schimmack; Andrew Taylor; Ben Lawrence; Hubertus Schmitz-Winnenthal; Lars Fischer; Markus W Büchler; Irvin M Modlin; Mark Kidd; Laura H Tang Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2014-09-30
Authors: Henrica M J Werner; Jone Trovik; Mari K Halle; Elisabeth Wik; Lars A Akslen; Even Birkeland; Therese Bredholt; Ingvild L Tangen; Camilla Krakstad; Helga B Salvesen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 3.240