Literature DB >> 28972043

Gene Expression Signatures and Immunohistochemical Subtypes Add Prognostic Value to Each Other in Breast Cancer Cohorts.

Arian Lundberg1, Linda S Lindström2, J Chuck Harrell3, Claudette Falato4, Joseph W Carlson5, Paul K Wright6, Theodoros Foukakis4, Charles M Perou7, Kamila Czene8, Jonas Bergh4,9, Nicholas P Tobin10.   

Abstract

Purpose: Gene signatures and Ki67 stratify the same breast tumor into opposing good/poor prognosis groups in approximately 20% of patients. Given this discrepancy, we hypothesized that the combination of a clinically relevant signature and IHC markers may provide more prognostic information than either classifier alone.Experimental Design: We assessed Ki67 alone or combined with ER, PR and HER2 (forming IHC subtypes), and the research versions of the Genomic Grade Index, 70-gene, cell-cycle score, recurrence score (RS), and PAM50 signatures on matching TMA/whole tumor sections and microarray data in two Swedish breast cancer cohorts of 379 and 209 patients, with median follow-up of 12.4 and 12.5 years, respectively. First, we fit Cox proportional hazards models and used the change in likelihood ratio (Δ LR) to determine the additional prognostic information provided by signatures beyond that of (i) Ki67 and (ii) IHC subtypes. Second and uniquely, we then assessed whether signatures could compete well with pathology-based IHC classifiers by calculating the additional prognostic information of Ki67/IHC subtypes beyond signatures.
Results: In cohort 1, only RS and PAM50 provided additional prognostic information beyond Ki67 and IHC subtypes (Δ LR-χ2 Ki67: RS = 12.8, PAM50 = 20.7, IHC subtypes: RS = 12.9, PAM50 = 11.7). Conversely, IHC subtypes added prognostic information beyond all signatures except PAM50. Similar results were observed in cohort 2.Conclusions: RS and PAM50 provided more prognostic information than the IHC subtypes in all breast cancer patients; however, the IHC subtypes did not add any prognostic information to PAM50. Clin Cancer Res; 23(24); 7512-20. ©2017 AACR. ©2017 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28972043      PMCID: PMC5822691          DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-17-1535

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  36 in total

1.  Tailoring therapies--improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015.

Authors:  A S Coates; E P Winer; A Goldhirsch; R D Gelber; M Gnant; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 32.976

Review 2.  The importance of molecular markers for diagnosis and selection of targeted treatments in patients with cancer.

Authors:  N P Tobin; T Foukakis; L De Petris; J Bergh
Journal:  J Intern Med       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 8.989

3.  A new molecular predictor of distant recurrence in ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer adds independent information to conventional clinical risk factors.

Authors:  Martin Filipits; Margaretha Rudas; Raimund Jakesz; Peter Dubsky; Florian Fitzal; Christian F Singer; Otto Dietze; Richard Greil; Andrea Jelen; Paul Sevelda; Christa Freibauer; Volkmar Müller; Fritz Jänicke; Marcus Schmidt; Heinz Kölbl; Achim Rody; Manfred Kaufmann; Werner Schroth; Hiltrud Brauch; Matthias Schwab; Peter Fritz; Karsten E Weber; Inke S Feder; Guido Hennig; Ralf Kronenwett; Mathias Gehrmann; Michael Gnant
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2011-08-01       Impact factor: 12.531

Review 4.  Cancer gene expression signatures - the rise and fall?

Authors:  Frederic Chibon
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 9.162

5.  Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer.

Authors:  Jack Cuzick; Mitch Dowsett; Silvia Pineda; Christopher Wale; Janine Salter; Emma Quinn; Lila Zabaglo; Elizabeth Mallon; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis; Anthony Howell; Aman U Buzdar; John F Forbes
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-10-11       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Respective prognostic value of genomic grade and histological proliferation markers in early stage (pN0) breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Fabien Reyal; Marc A Bollet; Martial Caly; David Gentien; Sabrina Carpentier; Hélène Peyro-Saint-Paul; Jean-Yves Pierga; Paul Cottu; Véronique Dieras; Brigitte Sigal-Zafrani; Anne Vincent-Salomon; Xavier Sastre-Garau
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-18       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Gene expression profiling spares early breast cancer patients from adjuvant therapy: derived and validated in two population-based cohorts.

Authors:  Yudi Pawitan; Judith Bjöhle; Lukas Amler; Anna-Lena Borg; Suzanne Egyhazi; Per Hall; Xia Han; Lars Holmberg; Fei Huang; Sigrid Klaar; Edison T Liu; Lance Miller; Hans Nordgren; Alexander Ploner; Kerstin Sandelin; Peter M Shaw; Johanna Smeds; Lambert Skoog; Sara Wedrén; Jonas Bergh
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-10-03       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  Cyclebase 3.0: a multi-organism database on cell-cycle regulation and phenotypes.

Authors:  Alberto Santos; Rasmus Wernersson; Lars Juhl Jensen
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2014-11-05       Impact factor: 19.160

9.  Comparing Breast Cancer Multiparameter Tests in the OPTIMA Prelim Trial: No Test Is More Equal Than the Others.

Authors:  John M S Bartlett; Jane Bayani; Andrea Marshall; Janet A Dunn; Amy Campbell; Carrie Cunningham; Monika S Sobol; Peter S Hall; Christopher J Poole; David A Cameron; Helena M Earl; Daniel W Rea; Iain R Macpherson; Peter Canney; Adele Francis; Christopher McCabe; Sarah E Pinder; Luke Hughes-Davies; Andreas Makris; Robert C Stein
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2016-04-29       Impact factor: 13.506

10.  Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy.

Authors:  Mitch Dowsett; Ivana Sestak; Elena Lopez-Knowles; Kalvinder Sidhu; Anita K Dunbier; J Wayne Cowens; Sean Ferree; James Storhoff; Carl Schaper; Jack Cuzick
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-07-01       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  15 in total

1.  Low expression of cytosolic NOTCH1 predicts poor prognosis of breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Yi-Ling Chen; Kuo-Ting Lee; Chih-Yang Wang; Che-Hung Shen; Sheau-Chiann Chen; Wei-Pang Chung; Ya-Ting Hsu; Yao-Lung Kuo; Pai-Sheng Chen; Chun Hei Antonio Cheung; Chih-Peng Chang; Meng-Ru Shen; Hui-Ping Hsu
Journal:  Am J Cancer Res       Date:  2022-05-15       Impact factor: 5.942

2.  PAM50 Provides Prognostic Information When Applied to the Lymph Node Metastases of Advanced Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Nicholas P Tobin; Arian Lundberg; Linda S Lindström; J Chuck Harrell; Theodoros Foukakis; Lena Carlsson; Zakaria Einbeigi; Barbro K Linderholm; Niklas Loman; Martin Malmberg; Mårten Fernö; Kamila Czene; Charles M Perou; Jonas Bergh; Thomas Hatschek
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 12.531

3.  The long-term prognostic and predictive capacity of cyclin D1 gene amplification in 2305 breast tumours.

Authors:  Arian Lundberg; Linda S Lindström; Jingmei Li; J Chuck Harrell; Eva Darai-Ramqvist; Emmanouil G Sifakis; Theodoros Foukakis; Charles M Perou; Kamila Czene; Jonas Bergh; Nicholas P Tobin
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2019-02-28       Impact factor: 6.466

Review 4.  Avoiding over- and undertreatment in patients with resected node-positive breast cancer with the use of gene expression signatures: are we there yet?

Authors:  A Matikas; T Foukakis; S Swain; J Bergh
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 32.976

5.  PD-1 protein and gene expression as prognostic factors in early breast cancer.

Authors:  Alexios Matikas; Ioannis Zerdes; John Lövrot; Emmanouil Sifakis; Francois Richard; Christos Sotiriou; Georgios Rassidakis; Jonas Bergh; Antonis Valachis; Theodoros Foukakis
Journal:  ESMO Open       Date:  2020-11

6.  Finding associations in a heterogeneous setting: statistical test for aberration enrichment.

Authors:  Aziz M Mezlini; Sudeshna Das; Anna Goldenberg
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2021-04-23       Impact factor: 11.117

7.  miRGTF-net: Integrative miRNA-gene-TF network analysis reveals key drivers of breast cancer recurrence.

Authors:  Stepan Nersisyan; Alexei Galatenko; Vladimir Galatenko; Maxim Shkurnikov; Alexander Tonevitsky
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  STAT3 Activity Promotes Programmed-Death Ligand 1 Expression and Suppresses Immune Responses in Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Ioannis Zerdes; Majken Wallerius; Emmanouil G Sifakis; Tatjana Wallmann; Stina Betts; Margarita Bartish; Nikolaos Tsesmetzis; Nicholas P Tobin; Christos Coucoravas; Jonas Bergh; George Z Rassidakis; Charlotte Rolny; Theodoros Foukakis
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 6.639

9.  Programmed death-ligand 1 gene expression is a prognostic marker in early breast cancer and provides additional prognostic value to 21-gene and 70-gene signatures in estrogen receptor-positive disease.

Authors:  Ioannis Zerdes; Emmanouil G Sifakis; Alexios Matikas; Sebastian Chrétien; Nicholas P Tobin; Johan Hartman; George Z Rassidakis; Jonas Bergh; Theodoros Foukakis
Journal:  Mol Oncol       Date:  2020-03-20       Impact factor: 6.603

10.  Exploring the Limits of Combined Image/'omics Analysis for Non-cancer Histological Phenotypes.

Authors:  Paul Gallins; Ehsan Saghapour; Yi-Hui Zhou
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2020-10-23       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.