| Literature DB >> 32377197 |
Qian Xu1,2, Jing-Ping Yuan3, Yuan-Yuan Chen1,4, Hong-Yan Zhang1,4, Lin-Wei Wang1,4, Bin Xiong1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that the tumor-stromal ratio (TSR) was an independent prognostic factor in several types of carcinomas. This study aimed at exploring the prognostic significance of the TSR in invasive breast cancer using immunohistochemistry (IHC)-stained tissue microarrays (TMAs) and integrating the TSR into the traditional tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32377197 PMCID: PMC7191412 DOI: 10.1155/2020/9050631
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Oncol ISSN: 1687-8450 Impact factor: 4.375
Figure 1IHC staining and HE staining results in TMAs. IHC staining of CK could specifically label tumor areas with clear contrast (a, b). The differentiation of tumor and stroma in HE staining was not as clear (c, d). Examples of low TSR (high stroma) (a, c); examples of high TSR (low stroma) (b, d). HE,hematoxylin-eosin; IHC, immunohistochemistry; CK, cytokeratin; TSR, tumor-stromal ratio.
Relationship between TSR and major clinicopathological characteristics.
| Characteristics | Total, | Low TSR, | High TSR, |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.636 | |||
| ≤50 | 149 (62.1) | 69 (60.5) | 80 (63.5) | |
| >50 | 91 (37.9) | 45 (39.5) | 46 (36.5) | |
| Menopausal status | 0.927 | |||
| Premenopausal | 134 (55.8) | 64 (56.1) | 70 (55.6) | |
| Postmenopausal | 106 (44.2) | 50 (43.9) | 56 (44.4) | |
| Histological type | 0.044 | |||
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 191 (79.6) | 97 (85.1) | 94 (74.6) | |
| Others | 49 (20.4) | 17 (14.9) | 32 (25.4) | |
|
| 0.966 | |||
| | 35 (15.0) | 17 (14.9) | 18 (14.3) | |
| | 162 (67.5) | 76 (66.7) | 86 (68.2) | |
| | 43 (17.5) | 21 (18.4) | 22 (17.5) | |
|
| 0.327 | |||
| | 109 (45.4) | 48 (42.1) | 61 (48.4) | |
| | 131 (54.6) | 66 (57.9) | 65 (51.6) | |
| Histological grade | 0.302 | |||
| I | 40 (16.7) | 15 (13.2) | 25 (19.8) | |
| II | 141 (58.8) | 72 (63.2) | 69 (54.8) | |
| III | 59 (24.6) | 27 (23.6) | 32 (25.4) | |
| ER statusa | 0.164 | |||
| Positive | 106 (44.2) | 45 (39.5) | 61 (48.4) | |
| Negative | 134 (55.8) | 69 (60.5) | 65 (51.6) | |
| HER2 geneb | 0.943 | |||
| Amplification | 51 (21.3) | 24 (21.0) | 27 (21.4) | |
| Nonamplification | 189 (78.7) | 90 (79.0) | 99 (78.6) |
aER was determined by immunohistochemistry staining according to the guideline [29]; bHER2 gene was determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) according to the guideline [30]. BC, breast cancer; T, tumor; N, node; TSR, tumor-stromal ratio; ER, estrogen receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2.
Figure 2Differences between Kaplan–Meier plots for disease-free survival in each group calculated by the log-rank test. Low TSR (high stroma) was associated with worse 5-year disease-free survival (χ2 = 5.212, P=0.022). BC = breast cancer; TS = tumor-stromal ratio.
Figure 3Forest plots of the TSR for association with 5-DFS in each subgroup. The dashed line showed the hazard ratio of 0.62 in all patients. CI = confidence interval.
Univariable and multivariable analysis of parameters associated with 5-DFS.
| Parameters | Univariable analysis | Multivariable analysis | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) |
| HR (95% CI) |
| |
|
| 2.542 (1.753–3.686) | <0.001 | 1.583 (1.100–2.280) | 0.014 |
|
| 5.035 (2.966–8.545) | <0.001 | 3.948 (2.302–6.772) | <0.001 |
| Histological grade | 4.439 (3.063–6.433) | <0.001 | 2.825 (1.883–4.236) | <0.001 |
| ER status | 0.363 (0.237–0.555) | <0.001 | 0.567 (0.358–0.897) | 0.015 |
| HER2 gene | 2.398 (1.541–3.733) | <0.001 | 1.614 (0.995–2.618) | 0.053 |
| TSR | 1.610 (1.062–2.440) | 0.025 | 1.742 (1.137–2.669) | 0.011 |
T, tumor; N, node; TSR, tumor-stromal ratio; ER, estrogen receptor; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2.
Definition of the TNM and Ts-TNM staging system.
| TNM stage |
|
|
| TNM stage | Ts | Ts-TNM stage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I |
|
|
| I | Ts0 | I |
| II |
|
|
| Ts1 | II | |
|
|
|
| II | Ts0 | II | |
|
|
|
| Ts1 | III | ||
|
|
|
| III | Ts0 | III | |
|
|
|
| Ts1 | IV | ||
| III |
|
|
| |||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| ||||
|
|
|
| ||||
| Any |
|
|
TNM, tumor node metastasis; Ts-TNM, tumor-stroma tumor node metastasis; T, tumor; N, node; Ts, tumor-stroma; Ts1, low TSR (high stroma); Ts0, high TSR (low stroma).
Figure 4Patient distribution and prognostic analysis of the TNM and Ts-TNM staging system. Patients of low TSR (Ts1) in the TNM staging system were assigned to the next higher stage in the Ts-TNM staging system (red arrow), and patients of high TSR (Ts0) in the TNM staging system remained at the same stage in the Ts-TNM staging system (blue arrow) (Table 3). (a) Both TNM and Ts-TNM staging system can well distinguish BC patients into subgroups with different prognosis (b and c). TNM = tumor node metastasis; Ts-TNM = tumor-stroma tumor node metastasis; T = tumor; N = node.