| Literature DB >> 26603532 |
K Burke1, M Smid2, R P Dawes3, M A Timmermans4, P Salzman5, C H M van Deurzen6, David G Beer7, J A Foekens8, E Brown9,10.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over-treatment of estrogen receptor positive (ER+), lymph node-negative (LNN) breast cancer patients with chemotherapy is a pressing clinical problem that can be addressed by improving techniques to predict tumor metastatic potential. Here we demonstrate that analysis of second harmonic generation (SHG) emission direction in primary tumor biopsies can provide prognostic information about the metastatic outcome of ER+, LNN breast cancer, as well as stage 1 colorectal adenocarcinoma.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26603532 PMCID: PMC4659155 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1911-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Fig. 1Methodology diagrams. a A depiction of the forward- and backward-propagating SHG signal. Red excitation light is focused into the sample by objective lens 1, then SHG is emitted in the backwards direction (towards lens 1) or the forward direction (towards lens 2). b A flowchart of the methodology used to analyze SHG images and calculate the F/B ratio. c An F/B image of one patient sample. Scale bar is 50 μm
Ln F/B and its association with breast cancer patient and tumor characteristics
| Characteristics | No. patients (%) | Median levels (interquartile range) |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| All patients | 221 (100 %) | 2.228 (0.416) | |
| Age (years) | 0.773a | ||
| ≤ 40 | 33 (14.9 %) | 2.160 (0.566) | |
| 41–55 | 94 (42.5 %) | 2.215 (0.410) | |
| 56–70 | 70 (31.7 %) | 2.291 (0.456) | |
| > 70 | 24 (10.9 %) | 2.198 (0.327) | |
| Menopausal status | 0.497b | ||
| Premenopausal | 113 (51.1 %) | 2.200 (0.447) | |
| Postmenopausal | 108 (48.9 %) | 2.250 (0.379) | |
| Tumor size | 0.188a | ||
| pT1 (≤2 cm) | 109 (49.3 %) | 2.239 (0.356) | |
| pT2 (2–5 cm) | 105 (47.5 %) | 2.237 (0.505) | |
| pT3/pT4 (>5 cm) | 7 (3.2 %) | 1.830 (0.614) | |
| Tumor gradec | 0.700a | ||
| I | 37 (16.7 %) | 2.207 (0.288) | |
| II | 77 (34.8 %) | 2.233 (0.366) | |
| III | 101 (45.7 %) | 2.264 (0.491) | |
| ER status | <0.001b | ||
| Positive | 125 (56.6 %) | 2.168 (0.407) | |
| Negative | 96 (43.4 %) | 2.311 (0.452) | |
| PgR status | 0.003b | ||
| Positive | 104 (47.1 %) | 2.159 (0.392) | |
| Negative | 117 (52.9 %) | 2.302 (0.425) | |
| HER2 status | 0.121b | ||
| Positive | 26 (11.8 %) | 2.299 (0.399) | |
| Negative | 195 (88.2 %) | 2.215 (0.432) |
aKruskal-Wallis test
bTwo-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum (Mann-Whitney) test
cScarff-Bloom-Richardson grade (6 missing values)
Cox univariate and multivariate regression analysis for MFS in 125 ER+ patients
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysisa | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | HR | 95 % CI |
| HR | 95 % CI |
|
| Age | ||||||
| 41–55 vs 40 years | 0.59 | 0.27–1.32 | 0.203 | 0.80 | 0.35–1.84 | 0.599 |
| 56–70 vs 40 years | 0.56 | 0.25–1.26 | 0.159 | 0.41 | 0.13–1.34 | 0.140 |
| > 70 vs 40 years | 0.46 | 0.15–1.36 | 0.159 | 0.32 | 0.08–1.27 | 0.105 |
| Menopausal status | ||||||
| Post-vs premenopausal | 0.98 | 0.55–1.73 | 0.938 | 2.46 | 0.89–6.84 | 0.083 |
| Tumor size | ||||||
| 2–5 vs ≤2 cm | 1.76 | 0.98–3.14 | 0.056 | 0.85 | 0.43–1.70 | 0.650 |
| > 5 vs <2 cm | 1.51 | 0.36–6.38 | 0.579 | 0.50 | 0.10–2.42 | 0.386 |
| Tumor grade | ||||||
| II vs I | 3.15 | 1.30–7.61 | 0.011 | 2.76 | 1.10–6.92 | 0.030 |
| III vs I | 4.38 | 1.68–11.45 | 0.003 | 3.38 | 1.15–9.93 | 0.027 |
| PgR status | ||||||
| Positive vs negative | 0.71 | 0.38–1.35 | 0.297 | 0.61 | 0.30–1.24 | 0.170 |
| HER2 status | ||||||
| Positive vs negative | 4.06 | 1.71–9.65 | 0.002 | 3.67 | 1.10–6.92 | 0.009 |
| Log of F/B ratio | 0.23 | 0.08–0.65 | 0.005 | 0.16 | 0.05–0.55 | 0.004 |
aThe multivariate model included 123 patients due to 2 missing values for tumor grade
Fig. 2Metastasis-free (a) and overall survival (b) as a function of F/B in ER+, LNN breast cancer. The patients are divided in four equal quarters (Q1-Q4) based on their F/B tumor level. Patients at risk at various time points are indicated
Cox univariate and multivariate regression analysis for OS in 125 ER+ patients
| Univariate analysis | Multivariate analysisa | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | HR | 95 % CI |
| HR | 95 % CI |
|
| Age | ||||||
| 41–55 vs 40 years | 0.49 | 0.21–1.17 | 0.108 | 0.61 | 0.25–1.52 | 0.289 |
| 56–70 vs 40 years | 0.57 | 0.24–1.35 | 0.204 | 0.29 | 0.09–0.95 | 0.041 |
| > 70 vs 40 years | 0.33 | 0.09–1.26 | 0.105 | 0.20 | 0.04–0.95 | 0.043 |
| Menopausal status | ||||||
| Post- vs premenopausal | 1.14 | 0.61–2.11 | 0.686 | 2.90 | 0.99–8.49 | 0.052 |
| Tumor size | ||||||
| 2–5 vs ≤2 cm | 1.25 | 0.66–2.37 | 0.494 | 0.56 | 0.26–1.20 | 0.137 |
| > 5 vs ≤2 cm | 1.66 | 0.39–7.11 | 0.492 | 0.75 | 0.15–3.72 | 0.720 |
| Tumor grade | ||||||
| II vs I | 2.53 | 1.02–6.24 | 0.044 | 2.16 | 0.84–5.55 | 0.111 |
| III vs I | 5.02 | 1.89–13.36 | 0.001 | 4.88 | 1.64–14.56 | 0.004 |
| PgR status | ||||||
| Positive vs negative | 0.51 | 0.26–1.01 | 0.055 | 0.48 | 0.23–1.01 | 0.054 |
| HER2 status | ||||||
| Positive vs negative | 3.15 | 1.11–8.96 | 0.031 | 3.80 | 1.18–12.20 | 0.025 |
| Log of F/B ratio | 0.34 | 0.11–1.03 | 0.005 | 0.29 | 0.07–1.10 | 0.068 |
aThe multivariate model included 123 patients due to 2 missing values for tumor grade
Fig. 3Progression-free survival as a function of F/B in ER+ recurrent breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. The patients are divided in four equal quarters (Q1-Q4) based on their F/B tumor level. Patients at risk at various time points are indicated
Fig. 4Overall survival of additional solid tumors as a function of F/B ratio. Overall survival in stage I colorectal adenocarcinoma (a) is significantly related to F/B of the primary tumor (p = 0.03). F/B of Stage I lung adenocarcinoma (b) is not significantly related to OS (p = 0.53). The blue line is Group 1 has the lowest F/B and the brown line is Group 4 has the highest F/B ratio. Patients at risk at various time points are indicated