| Literature DB >> 24968015 |
Maria Vassilakopoulou1, Taiwo Togun2, Urania Dafni3, Huan Cheng1, Jennifer Bordeaux1, Veronique M Neumeister1, Mattheos Bobos4, George Pentheroudakis5, Dimosthenis V Skarlos6, Dimitrios Pectasides7, Vassiliki Kotoula8, George Fountzilas9, David L Rimm1, Amanda Psyrri10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the predictive value of in situ mRNA measurement compared to traditional methods on a cohort of trastuzumab-treated metastatic breast cancer patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24968015 PMCID: PMC4072595 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0099131
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Cohort Description.
| Variables | Number | % | |
|
| |||
| <50 | 39 | 26% | |
| >50 | 110 | 74% | |
|
| |||
| 1 | 3 | 2% | |
| 2 | 53 | 36% | |
| 3 | 83 | 56% | |
| Unknown | 10 | 6% | |
|
| |||
| Yes | 132 | 89% | |
| No | 11 | 7% | |
| Unknown | 6 | 4% | |
|
| |||
| Positive | 104 | 70% | |
| Negative | 45 | 30% | |
|
| |||
| Positive | 76 | 51% | |
| Negative | 73 | 49% | |
|
| |||
| Positive | 90 | 60% | |
| Negative | 59 | 40% | |
|
| |||
| 1st Line | 130 | ||
| Monotherapy | 4 | 3% | |
| with Anthracycline | 24 | 19% | |
| with Taxane | 102 | 78% | |
| 2nd Line + | 19 | ||
| Monotherapy | 3 | 16% | |
| with Anthracycline | 4 | 21% | |
| with Taxane | 12 | 63% | |
Figure 1Pearson’s Correlation of CB11, SP3, Her2mRNA and FISH.
Figure 2Comparison of CB11 (A), SP3 (B), Her2mRNA (C) to Her2 IHC.
Figure 3Time to progression (TTP) by HER2 patient populations, as defined by each biomarker and HER2 gene status (Kaplan-Meier plots).
(A) ICD HER2 as measured by CB11 (high vs. low); (B) ECD HER2 as measured by SP3 (high vs. low); (C) HER2 mRNA (high vs. low); (D) FISH HER2 (amplified vs. non-amplified).
TTP analysis: Predictive evaluation of HER2 biomarkers and FISH for given prognostic factors (Cox Proportional Hazards Model).
| Hazard ratio (HR; 95% CI) | P-value | |
| SP3 (High vs. Low) | 0.54 (0.31, 0.93) | 0.027 |
| HER2 gene status (amplified vs. non-amplified) | 0.62 (0.35, 1.10) | 0.101 |
| Age group (<50 vs. > = 50) | 0.79 (0.46, 1.38) | 0.417 |
| Disease grade (I & II vs. III) | 0.84 (0.51, 1.37) | 0.483 |
| Distant metastasis (no vs. yes) | 0.24 (0.07, 0.80) | 0.020 |
| ER status (negative vs. positive) | 1.96 (1.09, 3.51) | 0.024 |
Figure 4Overall Survival (OS) by HER2 patient populations, as defined by each biomarker and HER2 gene status (Kaplan-Meier plots).
(A) ICD HER2 as measured by CB11 (high vs. low); (B) ECD HER2 as measured by SP3 (high vs. low); (C) HER2 mRNA (high vs. low); (D) FISH HER2 (amplified vs. non-amplified).
OS analysis: Predictive evaluation of HER2 biomarkers and FISH for given prognostic factors (Cox Proportional Hazards Model).
| Hazard ratio (HR; 95% CI) | P-value | |
| SP3 (High vs. Low) | 0.39 (0.22, 0.70) | 0.002 |
| Age group (<50 vs. > = 50) | 0.91 (0.49, 1.68) | 0.755 |
| Disease grade (I & II vs. III) | 0.56 (0.32, 1.00) | 0.051 |
| Distant metastasis (no vs. yes) | 0.25 (0.06, 1.08) | 0.063 |
| ER status (negative vs. positive) | 1.50 (0.81, 2.77) | 0.196 |