Cheng-Hui Wang1, Jun-Zhi Li1, Wei Zhang1. 1. Department of Pathology, First Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University Xinjiang Uyger Automatic Region, Urumqi 830054, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the difference between Uygur and Han patients with breast cancer in molecular subtype. METHODS: 4 immunohistochemical (IHC) markers (ER, PR, HER-2 and KI-67) were used to divide Uygur and Han breast cancer patients into 4 subtypes (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER-2 over expression and Basal-like), respectively. statistical analysis were used to evaluate difference in molecular subtype characteristics by race, tumor size, age of onset, menstruation and birth status, histological grade and lymph node metastasis. RESULTS: There is no statistical difference on the molecular subtypes between Han and Uygur. But some characteristics about four subtypes between Han and Uygur have statistical difference like age onset of the Her-2 overexpression cases, subtypes of age less than 35 years, menarche age of the Basal-like cases and tumor size of the Luminal A cases. Between Han and Uygur there is statistical difference on the menarche age, number of childbirths, and tumor size. The HER-2 overexpression and Basal-like subtypes were more likely to be grade III tumors both of Han and Uygur. Between 4 molecular subtypes of Han there have statistical difference in number of metastasis lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: Our result shows that there are some significant differences between Uygur and Han in the pathological features as well as molecular subtypes. Correct understanding the difference of breast cancer between Uygur and Han can provide guidance for clinical practice.
PURPOSE: To compare the difference between Uygur and Han patients with breast cancer in molecular subtype. METHODS: 4 immunohistochemical (IHC) markers (ER, PR, HER-2 and KI-67) were used to divide Uygur and Han breast cancerpatients into 4 subtypes (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER-2 over expression and Basal-like), respectively. statistical analysis were used to evaluate difference in molecular subtype characteristics by race, tumor size, age of onset, menstruation and birth status, histological grade and lymph node metastasis. RESULTS: There is no statistical difference on the molecular subtypes between Han and Uygur. But some characteristics about four subtypes between Han and Uygur have statistical difference like age onset of the Her-2 overexpression cases, subtypes of age less than 35 years, menarche age of the Basal-like cases and tumor size of the Luminal A cases. Between Han and Uygur there is statistical difference on the menarche age, number of childbirths, and tumor size. The HER-2 overexpression and Basal-like subtypes were more likely to be grade III tumors both of Han and Uygur. Between 4 molecular subtypes of Han there have statistical difference in number of metastasis lymph nodes. CONCLUSIONS: Our result shows that there are some significant differences between Uygur and Han in the pathological features as well as molecular subtypes. Correct understanding the difference of breast cancer between Uygur and Han can provide guidance for clinical practice.
Authors: Christopher I Li; Kathleen E Malone; Janet R Daling; John D Potter; Leslie Bernstein; Polly A Marchbanks; Brian L Strom; Michael S Simon; Michael F Press; Giske Ursin; Ronald T Burkman; Suzanne G Folger; Sandra Norman; Jill A McDonald; Robert Spirtas Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2007-10-26 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Wendy A Woodward; Eugene H Huang; Marsha D McNeese; George H Perkins; Susan L Tucker; Eric A Strom; Lavinia Middleton; Karin Hahn; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Katie M O'Brien; Stephen R Cole; Chiu-Kit Tse; Charles M Perou; Lisa A Carey; William D Foulkes; Lynn G Dressler; Joseph Geradts; Robert C Millikan Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Carey K Anders; David S Hsu; Gloria Broadwater; Chaitanya R Acharya; John A Foekens; Yi Zhang; Yixin Wang; P Kelly Marcom; Jeffrey R Marks; Phillip G Febbo; Joseph R Nevins; Anil Potti; Kimberly L Blackwell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-07-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Russell McBride; Dawn Hershman; Wei-Yann Tsai; Judith S Jacobson; Victor Grann; Alfred I Neugut Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-09-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: William F Anderson; Philip S Rosenberg; Idan Menashe; Aya Mitani; Ruth M Pfeiffer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-12-09 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Stanley P L Leong; Zhen-Zhou Shen; Tse-Jia Liu; Gaurav Agarwal; Tomoo Tajima; Nam-Sun Paik; Kerstin Sandelin; Anna Derossis; Hiram Cody; William D Foulkes Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.352