Literature DB >> 31114020

A key genomic subtype associated with lymphovascular invasion in invasive breast cancer.

Sasagu Kurozumi1,2, Chitra Joseph1, Sultan Sonbul1, Sami Alsaeed1, Yousif Kariri1, Abrar Aljohani1, Sara Raafat1, Mansour Alsaleem1, Angela Ogden1, Simon J Johnston1, Mohammed A Aleskandarany1,3, Takaaki Fujii2, Ken Shirabe2, Carlos Caldas4, Ibraheem Ashankyty5, Leslie Dalton6, Ian O Ellis1, Christine Desmedt7, Andrew R Green1, Nigel P Mongan8,9, Emad A Rakha10,11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is associated with the development of metastasis in invasive breast cancer (BC). However, the complex molecular mechanisms of LVI, which overlap with other oncogenic pathways, remain unclear. This study, using available large transcriptomic datasets, aims to identify genes associated with LVI in early-stage BC patients.
METHODS: Gene expression data from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) cohort (n = 1565) was used as a discovery dataset, and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA; n = 854) cohort was used as a validation dataset. Key genes were identified on the basis of differential mRNA expression with respect to LVI status as characterised by histological review. The relationships among LVI-associated genomic subtype, clinicopathological features and patient outcomes were explored.
RESULTS: A 99-gene set was identified that demonstrated significantly different expression between LVI-positive and LVI-negative cases. Clustering analysis with this gene set further divided cases into two molecular subtypes (subtypes 1 and 2), which were significantly associated with pathology-determined LVI status in both cohorts. The 10-year overall survival of subtype 2 was significantly worse than that of subtype 1.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that LVI in BC is associated with a specific transcriptomic profile with potential prognostic value.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31114020      PMCID: PMC6738092          DOI: 10.1038/s41416-019-0486-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


Background

Outcomes for early-stage breast cancer (BC) patients have improved over recent decades as a result of better diagnostic accuracy, targeted drug therapies, in addition to improvements in early diagnosis.[1] However, the ten-year mortality rates of BC patients remain ~20% which is attributable to the development of metastasis.[2] Several histopathological features have been studied as prognostic factors in BC, including tumour size, lymph node status and histological grade,[3-5] which are strongly associated with outcome. Lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is an early event in the development of metastasis and is a potent prognostic factor.[6] Although the molecular profiles associated with tumour differentiation in terms of histological type and grade and development of lymph node metastasis have been well characterised,[7-9] the molecular mechanisms of LVI and associated genes that may represent therapeutic targets or biomarkers remain to be identified. The main challenge in determining the molecular profiles associated with LVI status in BC stems from the lack of LVI status in the available large-scale molecular studies in addition to the inherent subjectivity of morphological assessment of LVI status. The Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC)[10] and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA)[11] cohorts are currently the largest genomic and transcriptomic datasets of early-stage BC patients with clinical follow-up. In this study, using these large transcriptomic datasets combined with thorough histological assessment of LVI, we applied bioinformatic analysis to evaluate the genes associated with LVI and assessed the prognostic value of genomic subtype based on LVI status.

Methods

The METABRIC cohort

In the METABRIC study,[10] mRNA was extracted from primary tumours of female patients, and mRNA expression was evaluated using the Illumina TotalPrep RNA Amplification Kit and Illumina Human HT-12 v3 Expression BeadChips (Ambion, Warrington, UK). LVI status of 1565 patients within the METABRIC cohort, which were histologically assessed using haematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained slides. For the Nottingham subset included in METABRIC (n = 285/1565), LVI status was additionally assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) utilising CD31, CD34 and D2-40,[12] and the final LVI status was confirmed using a combination of multiple H&E tumour sections and IHC. Considering the different methods of LVI assessment, cases were divided into two groups: (1) the Nottingham cases and (2) the remaining METABRIC cases (n = 1280). Gene transcript expression levels between LVI-positive and LVI-negative cases were compared for each group, as described in the ‘Bioinformatics analysis’ section.

The TCGA cohort

The data from the TCGA[11] cohort of female BC patients (n = 854) was extracted from the Genomic Data Commons Data Portal and cBioPortal website.[13,14] Briefly, the datasets of mRNA expression from RNASeqV2 were accessed along with de-identified clinical information for several clinicopathological factors and outcomes. Digital H&E-stained slides from the TCGA_BRCA cohort were accessed via the cBioPortal website, and LVI status was quantified by an expert breast pathologist (LD).

Bioinformatics analysis

Analysis of mRNA expression data from METABRIC has been previously described.[10] Differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between LVI-positive and LVI-negative cases were identified using the weighted average difference (WAD) method, and the DEGs were selected according to the WAD ranking.[15,16] Lists of the top 350 genes associated with LVI for the WAD assay in both (1) the Nottingham cases in the METABRIC cohort (n = 285) and (2) other METABRIC cases (n = 1280) are shown in Supplementary Tables 1 and 2. Overlapping DEGs between the two groups were included in the gene set associated with LVI. The Cluster 3.0 package was used for clustering and heat map construction.[17] Clustering analysis was performed using METABRIC data as the discovery set and validated using TCGA data as the validation set. TCGA mRNA data were log2-transformed prior to clustering analysis. For pathway analysis, the WEB-based GEne SeT AnaLysis Toolkit (WebGestalt) was used to calculate significantly enriched gene ontologies and pathways associated with these genes.[18,19] The false discovery rate was controlled using the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure in WebGestalt, with an adjusted-p < 0.01 considered statistically significant.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The chi-squared test was used to assess differences among several clinicopathological factors, including LVI status, tumour size, lymph node status, histological grade, oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) and molecular subtypes, as stratified by the LVI-associated genomic subtype. Kaplan–Meier survival curves of 10-year overall survival (OS) were plotted for the METABRIC and TCGA cohorts. The 10-year OS in this study was defined as the day of death within 10 years or the day of completing follow-up from the day of surgery. In univariate and multivariate analyses, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were assessed using the Cox proportional hazards regression model to determine the associations between clinicopathological factors (LVI status, tumour size, lymph node status, histological grade, ER, PR and HER2), including the LVI-associated genomic subtype and prognosis.

Results

Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of LVI status

In the METABRIC cohort, 635/1,565 (41%) were LVI-positive and 930 (59%) were LVI-negative. The LVI-positivity rate was 41.1% (117/285) in the Nottingham cases and 40.5% (518/1,280) in the remaining METABRIC cases. In the TCGA cohort, 295/854 (35%) patients were LVI-positive and 559 (65%) were LVI-negative. In both cohorts, LVI positivity was significantly associated with large tumour size (METABRIC: p < 0.0001; TCGA: p = 0.00055), positive nodal status (METABRIC and TCGA: both p < 0.0001) and high histological grade (METABRIC and TCGA: both p < 0.0001; Supplementary Table 3). The survival of LVI-positive BC patients was significantly worse compared with LVI-negative patients in the METABRIC (hazard ratio [HR] 1.70, 95% CI 1.45–2.01, p < 0.0001; Fig. 1a) and TCGA cohorts (HR 2.2, 95% CI 1.46–3.38, p = 0.00019; Fig. 1b). Univariate and multivariate analyses of both METABRIC and TCGA datasets are summarised in Supplementary Table 4. Univariate analysis using the Cox proportional hazards regression model identified LVI-positive status, large tumour size (METABRIC: HR 1.82, 95% CI 1.49–2.21, p < 0.0001; TCGA: HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.08–3.04, p = 0.025), positive nodal status (METABRIC: HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.74–2.44, p < 0.0001; TCGA: HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.20–2.85, p = 0.0056), negative ER status (METABRIC: HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.38–1.99, p < 0.0001; TCGA: HR 1.89, 95% CI 1.19–2.98, p = 0.0065) and negative PR status (METABRIC: HR 1.67, 95% CI 1.42–1.98, p < 0.0001; TCGA: HR 1.68, 95% CI 1.08–2.61, p = 0.020) as poor prognostic factors in both cohorts. In addition, significant prognostic factors included high histological grade (HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.37–1.93, p < 0.0001) and positive HER2 status (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.54–2.38, p < 0.0001) in the METABRIC cohort. LVI positivity was an independent poor prognostic factor in multivariate analysis (METABRIC: HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07–1.56, p = 0.0073; TCGA: HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.32–3.62, p = 0.0023; Supplementary Table 4).
Fig. 1

Cumulative survival of BC patients stratified by LVI status. a Ten-year overall survival in the METABRIC cases was significantly worse in the LVI-positive group than in the LVI-negative group. b In TCGA cases, significant differences were noted in patient overall survival in the LVI-positive and LVI-negative groups. Cumulative survival of breast cancer patients stratified by LVI-related genomic subtypes. c Ten-year overall survival in breast cancer patients with LVI-related genomic subtypes. Subtype 2 was significantly worse compared with subtype 1 in the METABRIC cohort. d Classification of LVI-related genomic subtype was a significant prognostic factor in the TCGA cohort

Cumulative survival of BC patients stratified by LVI status. a Ten-year overall survival in the METABRIC cases was significantly worse in the LVI-positive group than in the LVI-negative group. b In TCGA cases, significant differences were noted in patient overall survival in the LVI-positive and LVI-negative groups. Cumulative survival of breast cancer patients stratified by LVI-related genomic subtypes. c Ten-year overall survival in breast cancer patients with LVI-related genomic subtypes. Subtype 2 was significantly worse compared with subtype 1 in the METABRIC cohort. d Classification of LVI-related genomic subtype was a significant prognostic factor in the TCGA cohort

Genes associated with LVI

The overlapping DEGs between (1) the Nottingham cases in the METABRIC cohort (n = 285) and (2) remaining METABRIC cases (n = 1280) included 42 significantly overexpressed and 57 downregulated genes (Table 1, Supplementary Tables 5 and 6).
Table 1

List of 99 genes significantly associated with lymphovascular invasion

Upregulated genesDownregulated genes
APOC1 KRT7 UCP2 ACTG2 FCGBP S100A4
APOE KRT8 YWHAZ ANG FGD3 SELENOM
CALML5 LAPTM4B ANXA1 FOS SERPINA3
CCNB2 LRRC26 C1S FST SERPINE2
CDCA5 LY6E CDC42EP4 GAS1 SGCE
COX6C MMP11 CEBPD GSTP1 SLC40A1
DNAJA4 MX1 CFB HBA2 SLC44A1
EEF1A2 NME1 CFD HBB SRPX
ELF3 NOP56 CLIC6 HLA-DQA1 STC2
ERBB2 PGAP3 CXCL12 IL17RB SUSD3
GNAS PITX1 CXCL14 MAOA TNS3
HMGA1 PTTG1 CYBRD1 MFAP4 TPM2
HMGB3 S100P CYP4X1 MGP TXNIP
HSPB1 SCD DCN MT1E UBD
IDH2 SLC52A2 DKK3 NDP VIM
IFI27 SLC9A3R1 DPYSL2 NINJ1 VTCN1
ISG15 SPDEF DUSP1 PDGFRL ZBTB20
KRT18 TM7SF2 EEF1B2 PLGRKT
KRT18P55 UBE2C FBLN1 PYCARD
KRT19 UBE2S FCER1A RPL3
List of 99 genes significantly associated with lymphovascular invasion The 99 genes in the LVI-related set were significantly associated with gene ontologies, including ‘GO: 0005615 Extracellular space’, ‘GO: 0072562 Blood microparticle’ and ‘GO: 0031012 Extracellular matrix’ (Table 2). All significant pathways existed in the category ‘Cellular component’ of gene ontology (Supplementary Fig. 1).
Table 2

Gene ontology pathways significantly associated with 99 genes related to lymphovascular invasion

OntologyNameGenes in OntologyObservedExpectedEnrichmentp-valueGenes
GO:0005615Extracellular space1385236.523.53<0.0001 SERPINA3, DCN, CFD, FBLN1, DKK3, ANG, GSTP1, ANXA1, HBB, HSPB1, APOC1, APOE, MFAP4, NDP, SERPINE2, S100A4, CFB, CXCL12, C1S, ACTG2, YWHAZ, STC2, CXCL14
GO:0072562Blood microparticle11070.5213.510.00043 SERPINA3, HBB, APOE, CFB, C1S, ACTG2, YWHAZ
GO:0031012Extracellular matrix503112.374.640.0079 DCN, FBLN1, ANG, HSPB1, APOE, MFAP4, MGP, MMP11, NDP, SERPINE2, VIM
Gene ontology pathways significantly associated with 99 genes related to lymphovascular invasion Hierarchical clustering was used to further analyse these 99 genes based on similarity in expression (Fig. 2a). Clustering in the discovery (METABRIC) cohort classified cases into two subtypes, namely, subtypes 1 (n = 738 cases; 45%) and 2 (n = 827; 55%) (Fig. 2b). The dendrogram of METABRIC cases, in which the pattern of the branches indicates the relationship for each case, is shown in Supplementary Fig. 2.
Fig. 2

Cluster analysis of the gene set associated with LVI. a The dendrogram of 99 LVI-related genes using METABRIC cohort, in which the pattern of the branches indicates the relationship for each gene. Heat maps in accordance with the LVI-related gene set for the b METEBRIC and c TCGA cohorts showed that all cases were clearly divided between subtypes 1 and 2 using cluster analysis

Cluster analysis of the gene set associated with LVI. a The dendrogram of 99 LVI-related genes using METABRIC cohort, in which the pattern of the branches indicates the relationship for each gene. Heat maps in accordance with the LVI-related gene set for the b METEBRIC and c TCGA cohorts showed that all cases were clearly divided between subtypes 1 and 2 using cluster analysis To validate these results, hierarchical clustering was conducted on the TCGA cohort using the same 99 genes. The dendrogram classifying these 854 cases is shown in Supplementary Fig. 3, again showing the cases split into two groups: subtypes 1 and 2, with 263 (31%) and 591 (69%) cases, respectively (Fig. 2c). In both cohorts, LVI positivity was significantly more prevalent in subtype 2 tumours than those of subtype 1 (METABRIC and TCGA: p < 0.0001; Table 3).
Table 3

Clinicopathological significance of genomic subtypes related to lymphovascular invasion

METABRIC cohortTCGA cohort
FactorsLVI-associated genomic subtypesp-valueFactorsLVI-associated genomic subtypesp-value
Subtype 1Subtype 2TotalSubtype 1Subtype 2Total
LVIPositive262 (35.5%)373 (45.1%)635<0.0001LVIPositive61 (23.2%)234 (39.6%)295<0.0001
Negative476 (64.5%)454 (54.9%)930Negative202 (76.8%)357 (60.4%)559
Tumour size≥2 cm454 (61.9%)613 (75.2%)1067<0.0001Tumour sizeT 2–4164 (62.4%)451 (76.3%)615<0.0001
<2 cm279 (38.1%)202 (24.8%)481T 199 (37.6%)140 (23.7%)239
Nodal statusPositive307 (41.7%)428 (51.9%)735<0.0001Nodal statusPositive128 (48.9%)295 (50.3%)4230.71
Negative429 (58.3%)396 (48.1%)825Negative134 (51.1%)292 (49.7%)426
Histological gradeGrade 3187 (26.5%)586 (72.8%)773<0.0001Histological gradeGrade 328 (11.3%)324 (56.9%)352<0.0001
Grade 1, 2519 (73.5%)219 (27.2%)738Grade 1, 2219 (88.7%)245 (43.1%)464
ERPositive707 (95.8%)497 (60.1%)1204<0.0001ERPositive246 (97.6%)393 (68.7%)185<0.0001
Negative31 (4.2%)330 (39.9%)361Negative6 (2.4%)179 (31.3%)639
PRPositive533 (72.2%)295 (35.7%)828<0.0001PRPositive235 (94.0%)311 (54.8%)546<0.0001
Negative205 (27.8%)532 (64.3%)737Negative15 (6.0%)257 (45.2%)272
HER2Positive20 (2.7%)168 (20.3%)188<0.0001HER2Positive20 (9.6%)113 (23.0%)133<0.0001
Negative718 (97.3%)659 (79.7%)1377Negative189 (90.4%)378 (77.0%)567
Molecular subtypesLuminal A467 (63.5%)126 (15.3%)593<0.0001
Luminal B121 (16.5%)272 (32.9%)393
HER2-enriched10 (1.4%)171 (20.7%)181
Basal-like24 (3.3%)222 (26.9%)246
Normal-like113 (15.4%)35 (4.2%)148

ER oestrogen receptor, PR progesterone receptor, LVI Lymphovascular invasion

Clinicopathological significance of genomic subtypes related to lymphovascular invasion ER oestrogen receptor, PR progesterone receptor, LVI Lymphovascular invasion

Clinicopathological and prognostic significance of the LVI-related gene sets

In the METABRIC and TCGA cohorts, subtype 2 was significantly associated with large tumour size (both p < 0.0001), high histological grade (both p < 0.0001), ER negativity (both p < 0.0001), PR negativity (both p < 0.0001) and HER2 positivity (both p < 0.0001; Table 3). Interestingly, 69% of luminal B, 95% HER2-enriched and 90% basal-like BC were classified as subtype 2 in the METABRIC cohort. Patients with LVI-related subtype 2 had a significantly worse prognosis compared with those presenting with subtype 1 tumours in both cohorts (METABRIC: HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.50–2.12, p < 0.0001; TCGA: HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.35–3.99, p = 0.0023; Fig. 1c, d). In multivariate survival analysis, the LVI-related genomic subtype was an independent poor prognostic factor in both cohorts (METABRIC: HR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07–1.63, p = 0.0098; TCGA: HR 2.76, 95% CI 1.19–6.38, p = 0.018; Fig. 3 and Supplementary Table 7).
Fig. 3

Survival analysis based on clinicopathological characteristics including LVI-related genomic subtype. Forest plots showing the hazard ratios and 95% CI of the multivariate survival analyses in a the METABRIC cohort and b the TCGA cohort. The LVI-related genomic subtype was an independent prognostic factor in both cohorts

Survival analysis based on clinicopathological characteristics including LVI-related genomic subtype. Forest plots showing the hazard ratios and 95% CI of the multivariate survival analyses in a the METABRIC cohort and b the TCGA cohort. The LVI-related genomic subtype was an independent prognostic factor in both cohorts

Discussion

In this study, we identified a 99-gene set significantly associated with LVI status in the METABRIC dataset. We validated this finding using the TCGA dataset. LVI is a biomarker for aggressive BC and is considered predictive for metastasis.[20] In other cancer types, gene sets associated with vascular invasion have been previously described, for example in hepatocellular carcinoma[21] and endometrial cancer.[22] Mannelqvist et al.[23] suggested that an 18-gene set associated with vascular invasion in endometrial cancer[22] was consistently associated with hormone receptor negativity, HER2 positivity, basal-like phenotype, reduced patient survival in BC patients. In line with these findings, the present study found that 69% of luminal B, 95% HER2-enriched and 90% basal-like BCs were subtype 2 in the METABRIC cohort. Subtype 2 was significantly associated with LVI positivity. However, of the 18 genes identified in Mannelqvist et al., only different isoforms of matrix metallopeptidase (MMP) and serpin family E member (SERPINE) were present in our 99-gene set. The underlying molecular mechanisms driving LVI in BC, which are potential therapeutic targets, have yet to be identified. The 99 genes in the LVI-related gene signature from this study are significantly associated with extracellular pathways. In previous work, Klahan et al.[24] suggested their gene set associated with LVI was related to extracellular matrix components using microarray data from 108 BC patients. Epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT)-implicated genes in prostate cancer have also been associated with pathways relating to the extracellular space.[25] The extracellular matrix comprises a network of structural proteins, and reorganisation of this matrix is required for cancer to progress.[26] The EMT is thought to play an important role in the process of metastasis to distant sites, and certain EMT markers are related to LVI status in BC.[12] In the 99 gene LVI signature set, there are several genes associated with extracellular pathways that are implicated in BC prognosis. For example, heat shock protein 27 (HSPB1), is associated with BC aggressiveness and metastasis.[27] HSPB1 expression is upregulated in the early phase of cell differentiation, which implies that HSPB1 may play an important role in controlling the growth and migration of cancer stem-like cells.[28] Another example is apolipoprotein C1 (APOC1), which is considered as a prognostic biomarker for triple-negative BC.[29] APOC1 is thought to regulate the inflammatory response in cancer tissues,[30] which may be closely related to the elimination of proliferating cancer cells.[31] Upregulation of MMPs is also related to cancer cell proliferation, invasion and epithelial-to-mesenchymal transformation and is indicative of a poor prognosis for BC patients.[32] As an example, MMP-11, which belongs to the MMP family, promotes BC development by inhibiting apoptosis as well as enhancing the migration and invasion of BC cells.[33] Additional functional studies of these genes are necessary to explore the association of aberrant gene function and proteins related to LVI in BC. Comparison of the METABRIC and TCGA cohorts was a limiting factor in this study, in terms of the different methods used to quantify and statistically analyse gene expression and in the approaches to LVI evaluation. We previously developed a method for the accurate detection of LVI using immunostaining for CD34 or D2-40.[12] In the Nottingham cases, we evaluated LVI status using strict criteria based on both morphology and immunohistochemistry. However, for the TCGA BRCA cohort, we evaluated LVI status using H&E-stained slides alone from the cBioPortal database. Although LVI evaluation using only one H&E slide is feasible, it may be difficult to clearly identify LVI negativity.[34] In present study, the LVI-positivity rates were closely similar between the Nottingham cases, the remaining METABRIC cases and TCGA_BRCA cases using the different LVI-evaluations. Although our results might suggest the adequacy of LVI evaluation with only one H&E-stained slide, further analysis with the larger cohorts to assess the LVI status using both H&E and IHC slides is necessary to report accurately on LVI status. Microarrays were used to evaluate mRNA expression in the METABRIC analysis. In contrast, RNA-seq using NGS was used in the TCGA analysis. Microarray platforms have been used and validated for nearly two decades, and this approach has been widely used for evaluating multi-gene expression. Conversely, the unbiased genome-wide RNA-seq method allows for the analysis of all annotated transcripts in addition to the identification of novel transcripts, splice junctions and noncoding RNAs. These technological and methodological differences may underpin the known challenges of relating microarray and RNA sequencing data between studies.[35,36] For example, the different approaches can have different lower limits of detection or may encompass different genomic regions. Thus, we cannot assume that the methods are interchangeable, and doing so would require rigorous cross-assay comparisons.[37] Although there is statistical agreement across the different cohorts in the present study, further analysis using identical technologies (microarray and/or NGS assays) may provide clearer validation of the LVI gene signature. In conclusion, we have confirmed the suitability and prognostic significance of our LVI-evaluation approach using the METABRIC and TCGA cohorts. We have determined genomic subtype associated with LVI status and patient outcome in BC, therefore, providing an experimental tool which may serve to unravel the complex gene networks associated with LVI with potential clinical relevance. Consistency between clinical cohorts stratified by LVI-gene signature may be further improved by using the same definitions and evaluation methods for LVI status. List of top 350 genes significantly associated with lymphovascular invasion in the Nottingham cohort List of top 350 genes significantly associated with lymphovascular invasion in the remaining METABRIC cases Correlation between lymphovascular invasion and clinicopathological characteristics Survival analysis based on clinicopathological characteristics including lymphovascular invasion Full gene name list of the 99 genes significantly associated with lymphovascular invasion Mean value, standard error of the mean (SEM), subtraction and weighted average difference (WAD) ranking in the 99 genes significantly associated with lymphovascular invasion Survival analysis based on clinicopathological characteristics including LVI-related genomic subtype Significant pathways associated with LVI-related gene set The dendrogram of METABRIC cases for hierarchical clustering analysis The dendrogram of TCGA cases for hierarchical clustering analysis
  37 in total

1.  Open source clustering software.

Authors:  M J L de Hoon; S Imoto; J Nolan; S Miyano
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2004-02-10       Impact factor: 6.937

2.  Gene-expression signature of vascular invasion in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Beatriz Mínguez; Yujin Hoshida; Augusto Villanueva; Sara Toffanin; Laia Cabellos; Swan Thung; John Mandeli; Daniela Sia; Craig April; Jian-Bing Fan; Anja Lachenmayer; Radoslav Savic; Sasan Roayaie; Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Jordi Bruix; Myron Schwartz; Scott L Friedman; Josep M Llovet
Journal:  J Hepatol       Date:  2011-04-13       Impact factor: 25.083

Review 3.  Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis in Patients With Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology and College of American Pathologists Joint Review.

Authors:  Jason D Merker; Geoffrey R Oxnard; Carolyn Compton; Maximilian Diehn; Patricia Hurley; Alexander J Lazar; Neal Lindeman; Christina M Lockwood; Alex J Rai; Richard L Schilsky; Apostolia M Tsimberidou; Patricia Vasalos; Brooke L Billman; Thomas K Oliver; Suanna S Bruinooge; Daniel F Hayes; Nicholas C Turner
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 44.544

4.  Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis.

Authors:  Christos Sotiriou; Pratyaksha Wirapati; Sherene Loi; Adrian Harris; Steve Fox; Johanna Smeds; Hans Nordgren; Pierre Farmer; Viviane Praz; Benjamin Haibe-Kains; Christine Desmedt; Denis Larsimont; Fatima Cardoso; Hans Peterse; Dimitry Nuyten; Marc Buyse; Marc J Van de Vijver; Jonas Bergh; Martine Piccart; Mauro Delorenzi
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2006-02-15       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  The cBio cancer genomics portal: an open platform for exploring multidimensional cancer genomics data.

Authors:  Ethan Cerami; Jianjiong Gao; Ugur Dogrusoz; Benjamin E Gross; Selcuk Onur Sumer; Bülent Arman Aksoy; Anders Jacobsen; Caitlin J Byrne; Michael L Heuer; Erik Larsson; Yevgeniy Antipin; Boris Reva; Arthur P Goldberg; Chris Sander; Nikolaus Schultz
Journal:  Cancer Discov       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 39.397

Review 6.  Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade.

Authors:  Emad A Rakha; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Frederick Baehner; David J Dabbs; Thomas Decker; Vincenzo Eusebi; Stephen B Fox; Shu Ichihara; Jocelyne Jacquemier; Sunil R Lakhani; José Palacios; Andrea L Richardson; Stuart J Schnitt; Fernando C Schmitt; Puay-Hoon Tan; Gary M Tse; Sunil Badve; Ian O Ellis
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  An 18-gene signature for vascular invasion is associated with aggressive features and reduced survival in breast cancer.

Authors:  Monica Mannelqvist; Elisabeth Wik; Ingunn M Stefansson; Lars A Akslen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-06       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  WebGestalt 2017: a more comprehensive, powerful, flexible and interactive gene set enrichment analysis toolkit.

Authors:  Jing Wang; Suhas Vasaikar; Zhiao Shi; Michael Greer; Bing Zhang
Journal:  Nucleic Acids Res       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 16.971

Review 9.  Role of extracellular matrix in breast cancer development: a brief update.

Authors:  Manoj Kumar Jena; Jagadeesh Janjanam
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2018-03-05

10.  Trends in UK regional cancer mortality 1991-2007.

Authors:  Dominic C Marshall; Thomas E Webb; Richard A Hall; Justin D Salciccioli; Raghib Ali; Mahiben Maruthappu
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-01-14       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  9 in total

1.  An evaluation of lymphovascular invasion in relation to biology and prognosis according to subtypes in invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Reiki Nishimura; Tomofumi Osako; Yasuhiro Okumura; Masahiro Nakano; Hiroko Ohtsuka; Mamiko Fujisue; Nobuyuki Arima
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2022-06-07       Impact factor: 3.111

2.  Prognosis value of lymphovascular invasion in patients with invasive ductal breast carcinoma according to lymph node metastasis status.

Authors:  Felipe Andrés Cordero da Luz; Eduarda da Costa Marinho; Camila Piqui Nascimento; Lara de Andrade Marques; Patrícia Ferreira Ribeiro Delfino; Rafael Mathias Antonioli; Rogério Agenor de Araújo; Marcelo José Barbosa Silva
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2022-03-03

3.  Lymphovascular invasion in breast cancer is associated with gene expression signatures of cell proliferation but not lymphangiogenesis or immune response.

Authors:  Mariko Asaoka; Santosh K Patnaik; Frank Zhang; Takashi Ishikawa; Kazuaki Takabe
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-04-13       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Interstitial Hypertension Suppresses Escape of Human Breast Tumor Cells Via Convection of Interstitial Fluid.

Authors:  Joe Tien; Yoseph W Dance; Usman Ghani; Alex J Seibel; Celeste M Nelson
Journal:  Cell Mol Bioeng       Date:  2020-11-09       Impact factor: 2.321

5.  The Mammalian Ecdysoneless Protein Interacts with RNA Helicase DDX39A To Regulate Nuclear mRNA Export.

Authors:  Irfana Saleem; Sameer Mirza; Aniruddha Sarkar; Mohsin Raza; Bhopal Mohapatra; Insha Mushtaq; Jun Hyun Kim; Nitish K Mishra; Mansour A Alsaleem; Emad A Rakha; Fang Qiu; Chittibabu Guda; Hamid Band; Vimla Band
Journal:  Mol Cell Biol       Date:  2021-06-23       Impact factor: 4.272

6.  The prognostic significance of wild-type isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) in breast cancer.

Authors:  Abrar I Aljohani; Michael S Toss; Sasagu Kurozumi; Chitra Joseph; Mohammed A Aleskandarany; Islam M Miligy; Rokaya El Ansari; Nigel P Mongan; Ian O Ellis; Andrew R Green; Emad A Rakha
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 4.624

7.  A Novel Synthetic Compound (E)-5-((4-oxo-4H-chromen-3-yl)methyleneamino)-1-phenyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carbonitrile Inhibits TNFα-Induced MMP9 Expression via EGR-1 Downregulation in MDA-MB-231 Human Breast Cancer Cells.

Authors:  Munki Jeong; Euitaek Jung; Young Han Lee; Jeong Kon Seo; Seunghyun Ahn; Dongsoo Koh; Yoongho Lim; Soon Young Shin
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2020-07-18       Impact factor: 5.923

8.  The prognostic significance of interferon-stimulated gene 15 (ISG15) in invasive breast cancer.

Authors:  Yousif A Kariri; Mansour Alsaleem; Chitra Joseph; Sami Alsaeed; Abrar Aljohani; Sho Shiino; Omar J Mohammed; Michael S Toss; Andrew R Green; Emad A Rakha
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-10-19       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  The Prognostic Significance of the Fibrinogen-to-Albumin Ratio in Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Study.

Authors:  Qinheng Yang; Dong Liang; Yang Yu; Feng Lv
Journal:  Front Surg       Date:  2022-06-14
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.