Xin Zhou1, Xiaping Wang2, Zebo Huang3, Lei Xu4, Wei Zhu5, Ping Liu6,7. 1. Department of Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, China. ivorchou@yeah.net. 2. Key Laboratory of Human Functional Genomics of Jiangsu Province, Clinical Diabetes Centre of Jiangsu Province, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, China. cxiac@126.com. 3. Department of Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, China. ballacktt@126.com. 4. Department of Thoracic Surgery, The Affiliated Jiangning Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, China. xulei_7891@126.com. 5. Department of Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, China. zhuwei1983213@163.com. 6. Department of Oncology, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, 300 Guangzhou Road, Nanjing, 210029, China. liu-ping@csco.org.cn. 7. Cancer Center of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, 210029, China. liu-ping@csco.org.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer patients with positive estrogen receptor (ER) have a better prognosis. However, no prognostic miRNA signature was reported in the ER-positive breast cancer. The aim of the study was to identify and assess the prognostic significance of a miRNA signature in ER-positive breast cancer. METHODS: Two cohorts from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset were used as training (n =596) and testing set (n =319). Differential expression profiling was identified in the training set. And the prognostic value of the miRNA signature was then assessed in the two cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 14 miRNAs were observed to be associated with the status of ER by significance analysis of microarrays (SAM) in the training set. Patients were characterized as high score or low score group according to the calculated risk scores from each miRNA. And patients in high score group had worse overall survival compared with those in low score group both in the training and testing set. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed a miRNA signature including 14 miRNAs associated with ER status which could act as a prognostic marker in ER-positive breast cancer.
BACKGROUND:Breast cancerpatients with positive estrogen receptor (ER) have a better prognosis. However, no prognostic miRNA signature was reported in the ER-positive breast cancer. The aim of the study was to identify and assess the prognostic significance of a miRNA signature in ER-positive breast cancer. METHODS: Two cohorts from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) dataset were used as training (n =596) and testing set (n =319). Differential expression profiling was identified in the training set. And the prognostic value of the miRNA signature was then assessed in the two cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 14 miRNAs were observed to be associated with the status of ER by significance analysis of microarrays (SAM) in the training set. Patients were characterized as high score or low score group according to the calculated risk scores from each miRNA. And patients in high score group had worse overall survival compared with those in low score group both in the training and testing set. CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed a miRNA signature including 14 miRNAs associated with ER status which could act as a prognostic marker in ER-positive breast cancer.
Authors: Na Liu; Nian-Yong Chen; Rui-Xue Cui; Wen-Fei Li; Yan Li; Rong-Rong Wei; Mei-Yin Zhang; Ying Sun; Bi-Jun Huang; Mo Chen; Qing-Mei He; Ning Jiang; Lei Chen; William C S Cho; Jing-Ping Yun; Jing Zeng; Li-Zhi Liu; Li Li; Ying Guo; Hui-Yun Wang; Jun Ma Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Laoighse Mulrane; Stephen F Madden; Donal J Brennan; Gabriela Gremel; Sharon F McGee; Sara McNally; Finian Martin; John P Crown; Karin Jirström; Desmond G Higgins; William M Gallagher; Darran P O'Connor Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-10-11 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Donald A Berry; Constance Cirrincione; I Craig Henderson; Marc L Citron; Daniel R Budman; Lori J Goldstein; Silvana Martino; Edith A Perez; Hyman B Muss; Larry Norton; Clifford Hudis; Eric P Winer Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-04-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Joel S Parker; Michael Mullins; Maggie C U Cheang; Samuel Leung; David Voduc; Tammi Vickery; Sherri Davies; Christiane Fauron; Xiaping He; Zhiyuan Hu; John F Quackenbush; Inge J Stijleman; Juan Palazzo; J S Marron; Andrew B Nobel; Elaine Mardis; Torsten O Nielsen; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou; Philip S Bernard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aoife J Lowery; Nicola Miller; Amanda Devaney; Roisin E McNeill; Pamela A Davoren; Christophe Lemetre; Vladimir Benes; Sabine Schmidt; Jonathon Blake; Graham Ball; Michael J Kerin Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2009-05-11 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Tstutomu Kawaguchi; Li Yan; Qianya Qi; Xuan Peng; Stephen B Edge; Jessica Young; Song Yao; Song Liu; Eigo Otsuji; Kazuaki Takabe Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Laura Paladini; Linda Fabris; Giulia Bottai; Carlotta Raschioni; George A Calin; Libero Santarpia Journal: J Exp Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-06-27