Literature DB >> 32522886

Genome Instability Profiles Predict Disease Outcome in a Cohort of 4,003 Patients with Breast Cancer.

Annette Lischka1, Natalie Doberstein1, Sandra Freitag-Wolf2, Ayla Koçak1, Timo Gemoll1, Kerstin Heselmeyer-Haddad3, Thomas Ried4, Gert Auer5, Jens K Habermann1,5.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The choice of therapy for patients with breast cancer is often based on clinicopathologic parameters, hormone receptor status, and HER2 amplification. To improve individual prognostication and tailored treatment decisions, we combined clinicopathologic prognostic data with genome instabilty profiles established by quantitative measurements of the DNA content. EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN: We retrospectively assessed clinical data of 4,003 patients with breast cancer with a minimum postoperative follow-up period of 10 years. For the entire cohort, we established genome instability profiles. We applied statistical methods, including correlation matrices, Kaplan-Meier curves, and multivariable Cox proportional hazard models, to ascertain the potential of standard clinicopathologic data and genome instability profiles as independent predictors of disease-specific survival in distinct subgroups, defined clinically or with respect to treatment.
RESULTS: In Cox regression analyses, two parameters of the genome instability profiles, the S-phase fraction and the stemline scatter index, emerged as independent predictors in premenopausal women, outperforming all clinicopathologic parameters. In postmenopausal women, age and hormone receptor status were the predominant prognostic factors. However, by including S-phase fraction and 2.5c exceeding rate, we could improve disease outcome prediction in pT1 tumors irrespective of the lymph node status. In pT3-pT4 tumors, a higher S-phase fraction led to poorer prognosis. In patients who received adjuvant endocrine therapy, chemotherapy or radiotherapy, or a combination, the ploidy profiles improved prognostication.
CONCLUSIONS: Genome instability profiles predict disease outcome in patients with breast cancer independent of clinicopathologic parameters. This applies especially to premenopausal patients. In patients receiving adjuvant therapy, the profiles improve identification of high-risk patients. ©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32522886      PMCID: PMC7483822          DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-0566

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


  36 in total

1.  Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up.

Authors:  E Senkus; S Kyriakides; S Ohno; F Penault-Llorca; P Poortmans; E Rutgers; S Zackrisson; F Cardoso
Journal:  Ann Oncol       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 32.976

2.  A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2004-12-10       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer.

Authors:  Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2002-01-31       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 4.  Correlation between MIB-1 and other proliferation markers: clinical implications of the MIB-1 cutoff value.

Authors:  Frédérique Spyratos; Magali Ferrero-Poüs; Martine Trassard; Kamel Hacène; Edelmira Phillips; Michèle Tubiana-Hulin; Viviane Le Doussal
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-04-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Flow cytometry vs. Ki67 labelling index in breast cancer: a prospective evaluation of 181 cases.

Authors:  F Martínez-Arribas; M J Núñez; V Piqueras; A R Lucas; J Sánchez; A Tejerina; J Schneider
Journal:  Anticancer Res       Date:  2002 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.480

6.  Adjuvant hormonal therapy for premenopausal women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Leisha A Emens; Nancy E Davidson
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 12.531

7.  Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in early breast cancer: patient-level meta-analysis of the randomised trials.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  An international Ki67 reproducibility study.

Authors:  Mei-Yin C Polley; Samuel C Y Leung; Lisa M McShane; Dongxia Gao; Judith C Hugh; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Giuseppe Viale; Lila A Zabaglo; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; John M S Bartlett; Allen M Gown; W Fraser Symmans; Tammy Piper; Erika Mehl; Rebecca A Enos; Daniel F Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; Torsten O Nielsen
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Predicting outcome for patients with node negative breast cancer: a comparative study of the value of flow cytometry and cell image analysis for determination of DNA ploidy.

Authors:  J Yuan; C Hennessy; A L Givan; I P Corbett; J A Henry; G V Sherbet; T W Lennard
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  Pan-cancer analysis of intratumor heterogeneity as a prognostic determinant of survival.

Authors:  Luc G T Morris; Nadeem Riaz; Alexis Desrichard; Yasin Şenbabaoğlu; A Ari Hakimi; Vladimir Makarov; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Timothy A Chan
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-03-01
View more
  5 in total

1.  Identification of Mutator-Derived lncRNA Signatures of Genomic Instability for Promoting the Clinical Outcome in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Xiaolong Tang; Yandong Miao; Jiangtao Wang; Teng Cai; Lixia Yang; Denghai Mi
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2021-11-11       Impact factor: 2.238

2.  S-phase fraction, lymph node status and disease staging as the main prognostic factors to differentiate between young and older patients with invasive breast carcinoma.

Authors:  António E Pinto; João Matos; Teresa Pereira; Giovani L Silva; Saudade André
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2022-08-04       Impact factor: 3.111

3.  CLEC10A can serve as a potential therapeutic target and its level correlates with immune infiltration in breast cancer.

Authors:  Shasha Tang; Yi Zhang; Xiaoyan Lin; Hui Wang; Liyun Yong; Hongyi Zhang; Fengfeng Cai
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2022-06-28       Impact factor: 3.111

4.  High Levels of Chromosomal Copy Number Alterations and TP53 Mutations Correlate with Poor Outcome in Younger Breast Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Ayla Koçak; Kerstin Heselmeyer-Haddad; Annette Lischka; Daniela Hirsch; David Fiedler; Yue Hu; Natalie Doberstein; Irianna Torres; Wei-Dong Chen; E Michael Gertz; Alejandro A Schäffer; Sandra Freitag-Wolf; Jutta Kirfel; Gert Auer; Jens K Habermann; Thomas Ried
Journal:  Am J Pathol       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 4.307

5.  Unique ER PR expression pattern in breast cancers with CHEK2 mutation: a hormone receptor and HER2 analysis based on germline cancer predisposition genes.

Authors:  Grace Wei; Mingxiang Teng; Marilin Rosa; Xia Wang
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 6.466

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.