| Literature DB >> 24945253 |
Songjie Shen1, Qiang Sun1, Zhiyong Liang2, Xiaojiang Cui3, Xinyu Ren2, Huan Chen4, Xiao Zhang5, Yidong Zhou1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive but heterogeneous subtype of breast cancer. This study aimed to identify and validate a prognostic signature for TNBC patients to improve prognostic capability and to guide individualized treatment.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24945253 PMCID: PMC4063964 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100664
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Clinicopathological characteristics and association with distant metastasis of TNBC in the training set.
| No. of patients (n = 58) | No. of events (n = 31) | HR (95% CI) |
| |
| Age at diagnosis (y) | 0.875 | |||
| ≤50 | 32 | 17 | 1 | |
| >50 | 26 | 14 | 0.945 (0.466–1.918) | |
| Tumor size (cm) | 0.300 | |||
| ≤2 | 26 | 12 | 1 | |
| >2 | 32 | 19 | 1.466 (0.711–3.022) | |
| Histological grade | 0.275 | |||
| G1 | 5 | 2 | 1 | |
| G2 | 14 | 6 | 1.252 (0.252–6.210) | |
| G3 | 28 | 17 | 2.340 (0.538–10.166) | |
| Undefined | 11 | 6 | N/A | |
| LVI | 0.907 | |||
| No | 54 | 29 | 1 | |
| Yes | 4 | 2 | 0.918 (0.219–3.851) | |
| P53 | 0.970 | |||
| Negative | 24 | 14 | 1 | |
| Positive | 26 | 14 | 1.014 (0.483–2.130) | |
| Undefined | 8 | 3 | N/A | |
| Ki-67 index | 0.349 | |||
| <14% | 6 | 2 | 1 | |
| ≥14% | 32 | 18 | 2.013 (0.466–8.695) | |
| Undefined | 20 | 11 | N/A | |
| Lymph node status | 0.054 | |||
| Negative | 22 | 8 | 1 | |
| Positive | 36 | 23 | 2.206 (0.985–4.942) | |
| Type of surgery | 0.231 | |||
| MRM | 52 | 27 | 1 | |
| BCS | 6 | 4 | 1.901 (0.664–5.444) |
HR: hazard ratio; y: years; CI: confidence interval; LVI: lymphovascular invasion; MRM: modified radical mastectomy; BCS: breast conserving surgery; N/A: not applicable.
*Ki-67 index threshold of 14% was chosen according to the St. Gallen Consensus 2013 [29].
Expression profile comparisons of the five selected miRNAs between 31 distant metastases patients and 27 disease-free patients in the training set by the Mann–Whitney U test.
| miRNA Name | Good prognosis group | Poor prognosis group | ΔΔCT | Fold change | Up/Down | p-value | ||
| ΔCT AVERAGE | ΔCT StDev | ΔCT AVERAGE | ΔCT StDev | |||||
| miR-21–5p | 0.11 | 1.65 | −0.33 | 0.93 | −0.44 | 1.36 | Up | 0.591 |
| miR-27b-3p | 3.25 | 1.25 | 2.38 | 1.02 | −0.87 | 1.83 | Up | 0.008 |
| miR-103a-3p | 4.81 | 1.29 | 4.23 | 1.04 | −0.58 | 1.49 | Up | 0.050 |
| miR-107 | 10.76 | 1.20 | 9.89 | 0.91 | −0.87 | 1.83 | Up | 0.005 |
| miR-210 | 5.59 | 1.65 | 5.21 | 1.32 | −0.38 | 1.30 | UP | 0.538 |
CT: the threshold cycle to detect fluorescence; ΔCT = CTmiRNA−CTU6, ΔΔCT = ΔCTpoor prognosis−ΔCTgood prognosis.
Patients who developed distant metastasis as first event within 5 years after removal of the primary tumor were considered to have poor prognosis, whereas patients who remained disease free for a minimum of 5 years were defined as having good prognosis. Fold change represented the miRNA expression level of poor prognosis group versus good prognosis group, and was calculated using the equation RQ = 2−ΔΔCT [28].
Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis to evaluate the independent prognostic value of clinicopathological parameters and miRNAs in relation to distant metastasis.
| No. of patients(n = 58) | No. of events(n = 31) | Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysis | |||
| HR (95% CI) |
| HR (95% CI) |
| |||
| LN status | 0.054 | 0.012 | ||||
| Negative | 22 | 8 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Positive | 36 | 23 | 2.206 (0.985–4.942) | 2.915 (1.262–6.736) | ||
| miR-27b-3p | 0.004 | 0.027 | ||||
| Low | 16 | 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| High | 42 | 29 | 8.212 (1.953–34.529) | 6.651 (1.239–35.691) | ||
| miR-107 | 0.007 | 0.180 | ||||
| Low | 16 | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
| High | 42 | 28 | 5.214 (1.580–17.207) | 2.773 (0.624–12.323) | ||
| miR-103a-3p | 0.030 | 0.518 | ||||
| Low | 18 | 5 | 1 | 1 | ||
| High | 40 | 26 | 2.894 (1.108–7.557) | 0.672 (0.202–2.242) | ||
HR: hazard ratio; LN: lymph node.
Figure 1Kaplan-Meier analysis to evaluate the statistical power of the predictive model, based on miR-27b-3p and node status, in predicting the distant metastasis-free survival and overall survival of 58 TNBC patients in the training set.
According to the prediction model, each patient was assigned to a low-risk or high-risk group. Significant differences in survival between groups were determined by log-rank analysis. (A) Application of the model to predict the distant metastasis outcomes of TNBC patients. (B) Application of the model to predict the overall survival of TNBC patients.
Univariate analysis of clinicopathological characteristics and miR-27b-3p expression with distant metastasis of TNBC in a validation set.
| No. of patients (n = 41) | No. of events (n = 14) | HR (95% CI) |
| |
| Age at diagnosis (y) | 0.908 | |||
| ≤50 | 18 | 6 | 1 | |
| >50 | 23 | 8 | 1.065 (0.369–3.069) | |
| Tumor size (cm) | 0.708 | |||
| ≤2 | 22 | 7 | 1 | |
| >2 | 19 | 7 | 1.222 (0.428–3.485) | |
| Histological grade | 0.882 | |||
| G1 | 5 | 2 | 1 | |
| G2 | 13 | 4 | 0.675 (0.124–3.688) | |
| G3 | 20 | 7 | 0.867 (0.180–4.180) | |
| Undefined | 3 | 1 | N/A | |
| LVI | 0.330 | |||
| No | 38 | 12 | 1 | |
| Yes | 3 | 2 | 2.112 (0.470–9.500) | |
| P53 | 0.135 | |||
| Negative | 25 | 11 | 1 | |
| Positive | 16 | 3 | 0.377 (0.105–1.354) | |
| Ki-67 index | 0.559 | |||
| <14% | 9 | 4 | 1 | |
| ≥14% | 32 | 10 | 0.708 (0.222–2.258) | |
| Lymph node status | 0.077 | |||
| Negative | 25 | 6 | 1 | |
| Positive | 16 | 8 | 2.606 (0.903–7.522) | |
| miR-27b-3p | 0.039 | |||
| Low | 14 | 1 | 1 | |
| High | 27 | 13 | 8.487 (1.109–64.982) |
HR: hazard ratio; y: years; CI: confidence interval; LVI: lymphovascular invasion; N/A: not applicable.
Figure 2Prognostic performance of the prediction model in a validation cohort of 41 TNBC patients.
A risk score was assigned to each patient as calculated by the prediction model. Based on the risk score, the patients were stratified into either the low-risk group or the high-risk group. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used to determine the significant differences in survival between groups. (A) Differences in distant metastasis-free survival between low-risk and high-risk groups. (B) Differences in overall survival between low-risk and high-risk groups.