BACKGROUND: Prior study suggests that p53 status behaves as an independent marker of prognosis in African American (AA) women with breast cancer. We investigate whether the influence of p53 is unique to AAs or is present in other race/ethnic groups, and how this compares with known prognostic factors. METHODS: Cox regression models [hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were used to select and evaluate factors prognostic for all-cause mortality in 331 AA and 203 non-AA consecutively treated women. RESULTS: Statistically significant baseline prognostic factors were as follows. For AAs: stage [(III/I) HR 5.57; 95% CI 3.08-10.09], grade [(higher/low) HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.14-2.11], estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) status [(-/+) HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.38-2.93], triple negative (ER-, PR-, HER2-) subtype [(+/-) HR 1.95; 95% CI 1.33-2.85], and p53 status [(+/-) HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.10-2.58]. For non-AAs: stage [HR 11.93; 95% CI 2.80-50.84], grade [HR 1.61; 95% CI 0.96-2.71], and ER/PR status [HR 2.13; 95% CI 1.19-3.81]. There was a differential effect of race within p53 groups (P=0.05) and in multivariate modeling p53-positive status remained an adverse prognostic factor in AAs only [HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.04-3.17]. Compared to non-AAs, 5-year unadjusted survival was worse for AAs overall (73.4% vs. 63.6%; P=0.032), and also for AAs with p53-positive status (80.3% vs. 54.2%; P=0.016), but not for AAs with p53-negative disease (68.4% vs. 67.9%; P=0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with breast cancer of different race/ethnicity, an adverse prognostic effect as a result of p53 positivity was only observed in AA women.
BACKGROUND: Prior study suggests that p53 status behaves as an independent marker of prognosis in African American (AA) women with breast cancer. We investigate whether the influence of p53 is unique to AAs or is present in other race/ethnic groups, and how this compares with known prognostic factors. METHODS:Cox regression models [hazard ratios (HRs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs)] were used to select and evaluate factors prognostic for all-cause mortality in 331 AA and 203 non-AA consecutively treated women. RESULTS: Statistically significant baseline prognostic factors were as follows. For AAs: stage [(III/I) HR 5.57; 95% CI 3.08-10.09], grade [(higher/low) HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.14-2.11], estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) status [(-/+) HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.38-2.93], triple negative (ER-, PR-, HER2-) subtype [(+/-) HR 1.95; 95% CI 1.33-2.85], and p53 status [(+/-) HR 1.69; 95% CI 1.10-2.58]. For non-AAs: stage [HR 11.93; 95% CI 2.80-50.84], grade [HR 1.61; 95% CI 0.96-2.71], and ER/PR status [HR 2.13; 95% CI 1.19-3.81]. There was a differential effect of race within p53 groups (P=0.05) and in multivariate modeling p53-positive status remained an adverse prognostic factor in AAs only [HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.04-3.17]. Compared to non-AAs, 5-year unadjusted survival was worse for AAs overall (73.4% vs. 63.6%; P=0.032), and also for AAs with p53-positive status (80.3% vs. 54.2%; P=0.016), but not for AAs with p53-negative disease (68.4% vs. 67.9%; P=0.81). CONCLUSIONS: Among women with breast cancer of different race/ethnicity, an adverse prognostic effect as a result of p53 positivity was only observed in AA women.
Authors: Barbara K Dunn; Tanya Agurs-Collins; Doris Browne; Ronald Lubet; Karen A Johnson Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-05-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: K David Voduc; Maggie C U Cheang; Scott Tyldesley; Karen Gelmon; Torsten O Nielsen; Hagen Kennecke Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Parisa Tehranifar; Alfred I Neugut; Jo C Phelan; Bruce G Link; Yuyan Liao; Manisha Desai; Mary Beth Terry Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Maggie C U Cheang; David Voduc; Chris Bajdik; Samuel Leung; Steven McKinney; Stephen K Chia; Charles M Perou; Torsten O Nielsen Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-03-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Keith A Dookeran; James J Dignam; Karen Ferrer; Marin Sekosan; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Sarah Gehlert Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2010-01-05 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Ewan K A Millar; Peter H Graham; Sandra A O'Toole; Catriona M McNeil; Lois Browne; Adrienne L Morey; Sarah Eggleton; Julia Beretov; Constantine Theocharous; Anne Capp; Elias Nasser; John H Kearsley; Geoff Delaney; George Papadatos; Christopher Fox; Robert L Sutherland Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Lyndsay N Harris; Gloria Broadwater; Nancy U Lin; Alexander Miron; Stuart J Schnitt; David Cowan; Jonathan Lara; Ira Bleiweiss; Donald Berry; Matthew Ellis; Daniel F Hayes; Eric P Winer; Lynn Dressler Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2006 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: L Baker; P R Quinlan; N Patten; A Ashfield; L-J Birse-Stewart-Bell; C McCowan; J-C Bourdon; C A Purdie; L B Jordan; J A Dewar; L Wu; A M Thompson Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-01-26 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Adana A M Llanos; Sheenu Chandwani; Elisa V Bandera; Kim M Hirshfield; Yong Lin; Christine B Ambrosone; Kitaw Demissie Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Jill K Schinkel; Shelia Hoar Zahm; Ismail Jatoi; Katherine A McGlynn; Christopher Gallagher; Catherine Schairer; Craig D Shriver; Kangmin Zhu Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2014-05-17 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Huiyan Ma; Yani Lu; Kathleen E Malone; Polly A Marchbanks; Dennis M Deapen; Robert Spirtas; Ronald T Burkman; Brian L Strom; Jill A McDonald; Suzanne G Folger; Michael S Simon; Jane Sullivan-Halley; Michael F Press; Leslie Bernstein Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2013-05-04 Impact factor: 4.430