V Zenzola1, M A Cabezas-Quintario2, M Arguelles3, E Pérez-Fernández4, Y Izarzugaza1, A Correa1, J García-Foncillas1. 1. Oncology Department, Hospital Fundación Jiménez Díaz, Madrid, Spain. 2. Pathology Department, Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. mariancabezas@hotmail.com. 3. Pathology Department, Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain. 4. Research Department, Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The prognostic value of Ki-67 in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is yet unclear because the cut-off points employed differ widely and its predictive effect may vary according to age. The purpose of this study was to analyze the role of Ki-67 among patients with TNBC, and determine the optimal Ki-67 cut-off point to demonstrate its prognostic relevance associated with patient age and treatment strategy. METHODS/PATIENTS: 201 consecutive patients treated for primary TNBC from 1999 to 2014 were analyzed. Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients treated with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. We used time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and time-dependent area under the ROC curve (AUC) to evaluate the discriminative ability of Ki-67 at 3 and 5 years of follow-up. A Ki-67 cut-off point that maximized sensibility and specificity was established. Interaction effect between age and Ki-67 on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated by stratified analysis. RESULTS: According to the coordinates of the ROC curves, the best cut-off point for Ki-67 was 60% (high/low). In the whole group, there was not a statistically significant association between Ki-67 and OS and DFS, using a cut-off point of 60%. In multivariate analysis (COX proportional hazards regression), for DFS high Ki-67 (> 60%) was a poor prognostic factor in patients > 40 years old and a better prognostic factor among the patients < 40 years old. CONCLUSION: Prognostic value of Ki-67 in TNBC, using a cut-off point of 60%, may vary depending on age.
PURPOSE: The prognostic value of Ki-67 in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is yet unclear because the cut-off points employed differ widely and its predictive effect may vary according to age. The purpose of this study was to analyze the role of Ki-67 among patients with TNBC, and determine the optimal Ki-67 cut-off point to demonstrate its prognostic relevance associated with patient age and treatment strategy. METHODS/PATIENTS: 201 consecutive patients treated for primary TNBC from 1999 to 2014 were analyzed. Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients treated with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. We used time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and time-dependent area under the ROC curve (AUC) to evaluate the discriminative ability of Ki-67 at 3 and 5 years of follow-up. A Ki-67 cut-off point that maximized sensibility and specificity was established. Interaction effect between age and Ki-67 on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated by stratified analysis. RESULTS: According to the coordinates of the ROC curves, the best cut-off point for Ki-67 was 60% (high/low). In the whole group, there was not a statistically significant association between Ki-67 and OS and DFS, using a cut-off point of 60%. In multivariate analysis (COX proportional hazards regression), for DFS high Ki-67 (> 60%) was a poor prognostic factor in patients > 40 years old and a better prognostic factor among the patients < 40 years old. CONCLUSION: Prognostic value of Ki-67 in TNBC, using a cut-off point of 60%, may vary depending on age.
Entities:
Keywords:
Age; Ki-67; Prognosis; Triple-negative breast cancer
Authors: Elisabetta Munzone; E Botteri; A Sciandivasci; G Curigliano; F Nolè; M Mastropasqua; N Rotmensz; M Colleoni; A Esposito; L Adamoli; A Luini; A Goldhirsch; G Viale Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2012-04-01 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Cornelia Liedtke; K R Hess; T Karn; A Rody; L Kiesel; G N Hortobagyi; L Pusztai; A M Gonzalez-Angulo Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-03-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Julia C Radosa; Anne Eaton; Michelle Stempel; Amrin Khander; Cornelia Liedtke; Erich-Franz Solomayer; Maria Karsten; Melissa Pilewskie; Monica Morrow; Tari A King Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Cornelia Liedtke; Chafika Mazouni; Kenneth R Hess; Fabrice André; Attila Tordai; Jaime A Mejia; W Fraser Symmans; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Bryan Hennessy; Marjorie Green; Massimo Cristofanilli; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Torsten O Nielsen; Roger A'Hern; John Bartlett; R Charles Coombes; Jack Cuzick; Matthew Ellis; N Lynn Henry; Judith C Hugh; Tracy Lively; Lisa McShane; Soon Paik; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Ljudmila Prudkin; Meredith Regan; Janine Salter; Christos Sotiriou; Ian E Smith; Giuseppe Viale; Jo Anne Zujewski; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 13.506