PURPOSE: Our aim was to examine the prognostic significance of ERbeta1 and ERbeta2 expression in ERalpha-negative breast carcinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated nuclear and cytoplasmic expression of ERbeta1 and ERbeta2 by immunohistochemistry in a group of 95 patients with long follow-up. ERbeta1 and ERbeta2 status was correlated with clinicopathological parameters and disease outcome. Univariate and multivariate analyses of ERbeta1 and ERbeta2 as independent markers of disease-free survival (DFS) were carried out using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Nuclear ERbeta1 (nERbeta1) and nERbeta2 status was positively correlated (p = 0.01). nERbeta1 positivity was associated with low histological grade (p = 0.01) in all patients and in the nERbeta2-positive subgroup (p = 0.03) but not in the nERbeta2-negative (p = 0.27). nERbeta2 positivity was associated with lymph node involvement and tumor relapse in all cases (p < 0.00 and p < 0.00, respectively) and in the nERbeta1-negative subgroup (p < 0.00 and p < 0.00, respectively) but not in the nERbeta1-positive (p = 0.09 and p = 0.20, respectively). nERbeta2 positivity was associated with poor DFS in all patients (log-rank p <0.00), in the post-menopausal patient subgroup (log-rank p = 0.02) and in the HER2-negative (triple-negative) subgroup (log-rank p = 0.04). Cox multivariate analysis including ERbeta1, ERbeta2 and established clinicopathological variables highlighted ERbeta2 as an independent marker of early disease recurrence (hazard ratio 4.87; 95 % confidence interval 1.07-22.3; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: High nERbeta2 is an independent marker of early relapse in ERalpha-negative breast carcinoma, and in particular, in the nERbeta1-negative, the post-menopausal patient and the triple-negative subgroups. These findings suggest that inhibition of expression and/or function of ERbeta2 could improve disease outcome.
PURPOSE: Our aim was to examine the prognostic significance of ERbeta1 and ERbeta2 expression in ERalpha-negative breast carcinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated nuclear and cytoplasmic expression of ERbeta1 and ERbeta2 by immunohistochemistry in a group of 95 patients with long follow-up. ERbeta1 and ERbeta2 status was correlated with clinicopathological parameters and disease outcome. Univariate and multivariate analyses of ERbeta1 and ERbeta2 as independent markers of disease-free survival (DFS) were carried out using the Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Nuclear ERbeta1 (nERbeta1) and nERbeta2 status was positively correlated (p = 0.01). nERbeta1 positivity was associated with low histological grade (p = 0.01) in all patients and in the nERbeta2-positive subgroup (p = 0.03) but not in the nERbeta2-negative (p = 0.27). nERbeta2 positivity was associated with lymph node involvement and tumor relapse in all cases (p < 0.00 and p < 0.00, respectively) and in the nERbeta1-negative subgroup (p < 0.00 and p < 0.00, respectively) but not in the nERbeta1-positive (p = 0.09 and p = 0.20, respectively). nERbeta2 positivity was associated with poor DFS in all patients (log-rank p <0.00), in the post-menopausal patient subgroup (log-rank p = 0.02) and in the HER2-negative (triple-negative) subgroup (log-rank p = 0.04). Cox multivariate analysis including ERbeta1, ERbeta2 and established clinicopathological variables highlighted ERbeta2 as an independent marker of early disease recurrence (hazard ratio 4.87; 95 % confidence interval 1.07-22.3; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: High nERbeta2 is an independent marker of early relapse in ERalpha-negative breast carcinoma, and in particular, in the nERbeta1-negative, the post-menopausal patient and the triple-negative subgroups. These findings suggest that inhibition of expression and/or function of ERbeta2 could improve disease outcome.
Authors: Niki I Chantzi; Aggeliki K Meligova; Eugen Dhimolea; Christos C Petrou; Dimitra J Mitsiou; Vassiliki Magafa; Anastasia Pechtelidou; Ida Florentin; Efthimia Kitraki; Paul Cordopatis; Dina G Tiniakos; Michael N Alexis Journal: Steroids Date: 2011-06-29 Impact factor: 2.668
Authors: T Fujimura; S Takahashi; T Urano; S Ogawa; Y Ouchi; T Kitamura; M Muramatsu; S Inoue Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 2001-12-07 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: L Nakopoulou; A C Lazaris; E G Panayotopoulou; I Giannopoulou; N Givalos; S Markaki; A Keramopoulos Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Frank J Secreto; David G Monroe; Shamit Dutta; James N Ingle; Thomas C Spelsberg Journal: J Cell Biochem Date: 2007-08-01 Impact factor: 4.429
Authors: Abeer M Shaaban; Andrew R Green; Suchita Karthik; Yalda Alizadeh; Thomas A Hughes; Lynn Harkins; Ian O Ellis; John F Robertson; Emma C Paish; Philippa T K Saunders; Nigel P Groome; Valerie Speirs Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nalo Hamilton; Diana Marquez-Garban; Vei H Mah; Yahya Elshimali; David Elashoff; Edward B Garon; Jaydutt Vadgama; Richard Pietras Journal: Crit Rev Oncog Date: 2015
Authors: Nuiki Iota Chantzi; Marina Palaiologou; Artemis Stylianidou; Nikos Goutas; Stamatis Vassilaros; Helen P Kourea; Eugen Dhimolea; Dimitra J Mitsiou; Dina G Tiniakos; Muichael N Alexis Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2014-03-27 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Renée T Fortner; Helena Schock; Rudolf Kaaks; Matti Lehtinen; Eero Pukkala; Hans-Åke Lakso; Minna Tanner; Raija Kallio; Heikki Joensuu; Kjell Grankvist; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Paolo Toniolo; Eva Lundin; Helja-Marja Surcel Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Prasenjit Dey; Laura A Velazquez-Villegas; Michelle Faria; Anthony Turner; Philp Jonsson; Paul Webb; Cecilia Williams; Jan-Åke Gustafsson; Anders M Ström Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 3.240