Literature DB >> 8426213

DNA ploidy and percent S-phase as prognostic factors in node-positive breast cancer: results from patients enrolled in two prospective randomized trials.

T E Witzig1, J N Ingle, D J Schaid, L E Wold, J F Barlow, N J Gonchoroff, J B Gerstner, J E Krook, C S Grant, J A Katzmann.   

Abstract

PURPOSE AND METHODS: To help clarify the clinical utility of flow-cytometric parameters, we performed flow cytometry on archival paraffin-embedded primary breast cancers from 502 patients treated on two adjuvant chemotherapy protocols performed by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) and Mayo Clinic. DNA ploidy and percent S-phase (%S) were examined in univariate and Cox model multivariate analyses along with tumor size, menopausal and estrogen receptor status, Quetelet's index (QI), number of positive nodes and nodes examined, and Fisher and nuclear grades.
RESULTS: Ploidy analysis showed that 40% of tumors were DNA diploid and 60% were DNA nondiploid (12% tetraploid and 48% aneuploid). There was no difference in relapse-free survival (RFS) (P = .82) or overall survival (OS) (P = .78) between the ploidy groups. Tetraploid patients had the longest RFS and OS of any group, but this did not achieve statistical significance. The %S was computed in 98% of cases and the medians were 9.0% for all patients, 6.4% for diploid patients, and 11.7% for nondiploid patients (P < .0001). By use of a %S greater than 12.3 as a prognostic variable in a univariate analysis, there was a significant difference in the RFS (P = .02) and OS (P = .007) of patients with low- versus high-proliferative tumors. However, when the %S was adjusted for clinical characteristics in the multivariate analysis, it was not a significant factor for RFS (P = .23) or OS (P = .36).
CONCLUSION: These results indicate that DNA content and %S measurements by flow cytometry are not clinically useful independent prognostic factors in women with resected node-positive breast cancer administered adjuvant chemotherapy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8426213     DOI: 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.2.351

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  5 in total

Review 1.  Prognosis and prediction of response in breast cancer: the current role of the main biological markers.

Authors:  A Ravaioli; L Bagli; A Zucchini; F Monti
Journal:  Cell Prolif       Date:  1998 Jun-Aug       Impact factor: 6.831

Review 2.  North Central Cancer Treatment Group--achievements and perspectives.

Authors:  Axel Grothey; Alex A Adjei; Steve R Alberts; Edith A Perez; Kurt A Jaeckle; Charles L Loprinzi; Daniel J Sargent; Jeff A Sloan; Jan C Buckner
Journal:  Semin Oncol       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.929

3.  Multiparameter DNA content analysis identifies distinct groups in primary breast cancer.

Authors:  J H S Dayal; M J Sales; W E Corver; C A Purdie; L B Jordan; P R Quinlan; L Baker; N T ter Haar; N R Pratt; A M Thompson
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2013-02-14       Impact factor: 7.640

4.  S-phase fraction and survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy of breast cancer.

Authors:  O Stål; L Skoog; L E Rutqvist; J M Carstensen; S Wingren; S Sullivan; A C Andersson; M Dufmats; B Nordenskjöld
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1994-12       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  Is the thymidine labeling index a good prognostic marker in breast cancer?

Authors:  Ebru Sen-Oran; Vahit Ozmen; Ayhan Bilir; Neslihan Cabioglu; Mahmut Muslumanoglu; Abdullah Igci; Nese Guney; Mustafa Kecer
Journal:  World J Surg Oncol       Date:  2007-08-19       Impact factor: 2.754

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.