Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (23)
Language
- English (23) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (23)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (23)
Keywords
- breast cancer (10)
- Mammakarzinom (6)
- Behandlung (4)
- Breast cancer (4)
- Metastasen (4)
- CDK4/6 (3)
- PD1/PDL1 (3)
- Prävention (3)
- Studien (3)
- brain metastases (3)
- prevention (3)
- treatment (3)
- Risiko (2)
- lapatinib (2)
- metastases (2)
- metastatic (2)
- neoadjuvant therapy (2)
- risk (2)
- trastuzumab (2)
- trials (2)
- Advanced breast cancer (1)
- Alpelisib (1)
- Antihormone therapy (1)
- Atezolizumab (1)
- Bone metastases (1)
- C3M (1)
- C4M (1)
- Central nervous system metastases (1)
- Dataset bias (1)
- Diagnostik (1)
- Exosomes (1)
- First site of metastatic disease (1)
- Früherkennung (1)
- Gene expression (1)
- HER2 (1)
- HER2 c-erbB2 (1)
- HER2-positive (1)
- HER2/neu (1)
- Heregulin (1)
- Katherine (1)
- Lokalrezidiv (1)
- MM-121 (1)
- Metastatic (1)
- Metastatic breast cancer (1)
- MicroRNAs (1)
- Microarray (1)
- Nachsorge (1)
- Neoadjuvant therapy (1)
- PARP (1)
- PD1/ PDL1 (1)
- PD‑L1 (1)
- PI3K (1)
- Pathological complete response (1)
- Pooling (1)
- Prognosefaktoren (1)
- Prädiktivfaktoren (1)
- Richtlinie (1)
- Seribantumab (1)
- Supportivtherapie (1)
- T-DM1 (1)
- TGFB-induced factor homeobox 1 (1)
- TGIF (1)
- Trastuzumab (1)
- Triple negative (1)
- T‑DM1 (1)
- adjuvant therapy (1)
- adjuvante Therapie (1)
- advanced (1)
- advanced breast cancer (1)
- alpelisib (1)
- antihormone therapy (1)
- asymptomatic (1)
- atezolizumab (1)
- chemotherapy (1)
- collagen degradation marker (1)
- diagnosis (1)
- early breast cancer (1)
- follow‑up (1)
- fortgeschritten (1)
- frühes Mammakarzinom (1)
- guideline (1)
- local recurrence (1)
- metastasis (1)
- neoadjuvante Therapie (1)
- pattern (1)
- pertuzumab (1)
- predictive factors (1)
- prognostic factors (1)
- prognostic scores (1)
- radiological (1)
- screening (1)
- studies (1)
- supportive therapy (1)
- treatment/therapy (1)
Institute
- Medizin (23)
Background: Current prognostic gene signatures for breast cancer mainly reflect proliferation status and have limited value in triple-negative (TNBC) cancers. The identification of prognostic signatures from TNBC cohorts was limited in the past due to small sample sizes.
Methodology/Principal Findings: We assembled all currently publically available TNBC gene expression datasets generated on Affymetrix gene chips. Inter-laboratory variation was minimized by filtering methods for both samples and genes. Supervised analysis was performed to identify prognostic signatures from 394 cases which were subsequently tested on an independent validation cohort (n = 261 cases).
Conclusions/Significance: Using two distinct false discovery rate thresholds, 25% and <3.5%, a larger (n = 264 probesets) and a smaller (n = 26 probesets) prognostic gene sets were identified and used as prognostic predictors. Most of these genes were positively associated with poor prognosis and correlated to metagenes for inflammation and angiogenesis. No correlation to other previously published prognostic signatures (recurrence score, genomic grade index, 70-gene signature, wound response signature, 7-gene immune response module, stroma derived prognostic predictor, and a medullary like signature) was observed. In multivariate analyses in the validation cohort the two signatures showed hazard ratios of 4.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.71–9.48; P = 0.001) and 4.08 (95% CI 1.79–9.28; P = 0.001), respectively. The 10-year event-free survival was 70% for the good risk and 20% for the high risk group. The 26-gene signatures had modest predictive value (AUC = 0.588) to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, however, the combination of a B-cell metagene with the prognostic signatures increased its response predictive value. We identified a 264-gene prognostic signature for TNBC which is unrelated to previously known prognostic signatures.
Background: Breast cancer (BC) is the most frequent female cancer and preferentially metastasizes to bone. The transcription factor TGFB-induced factor homeobox 1 (TGIF) is involved in bone metabolism. However, it is not yet known whether TGIF is associated with BC bone metastasis or patient outcome and thus of potential interest. Methods: TGIF expression was analyzed by immunohistochemistry in 1197 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples from BC patients treated in the GAIN (German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-Positive) study with two adjuvant dose-dense schedules of chemotherapy with or without bisphosphonate ibandronate. TGIF expression was categorized into negative/low and moderate/strong staining. Endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS) and time to primary bone metastasis as first site of relapse (TTPBM). Results: We found associations of higher TGIF protein expression with smaller tumor size (p= 0.015), well differentiated phenotype (p< 0.001) and estrogen receptor (ER)-positive BC (p< 0.001). Patients with higher TGIF expression levels showed a significantly longer disease-free (DFS: HR 0.75 [95%CI 0.59–0.95], log-rank p=0.019) and overall survival (OS: HR 0.69 [95%CI 0.50–0.94], log-rank p= 0.019), but no association with TTPBM (HR 0.77 [95%CI 0.51–1.16]; p= 0.213). Univariate analysis in molecular subgroups emphasized that elevated TGIF expression was prognostic for both DFS and OS in ER-positive BC patients (DFS: HR 0.68 [95%CI 0.51–0.91]; log-rank p= 0.009, interaction p= 0.130; OS: HR 0.60 [95%CI 0.41–0.88], log-rank p= 0.008, interaction p= 0.107) and in the HER2-negative subgroup (DFS:HR 0.67 [95%CI 0.50–0.88], log-rank p= 0.004, interaction p= 0.034; OS: HR 0.57 [95%CI 0.40–0.81], log-rank p= 0.002, interaction p= 0.015). Conclusions: Our results suggest that moderate to high TGIF expression is a common feature of breast cancer cells and that this is not associated with bone metastases as first site of relapse. However, a reduced expression is linked to tumor progression, especially in HER2-negative breast cancer.
Following publication of the original article, the authors noticed an incorrect affiliation for Christine Stürken and Udo Schumacher. The correct affiliations are as follows: Christine Stürken: Institute of Anatomy and Experimental Morphology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. Udo Schumacher: Institute of Anatomy and Experimental Morphology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany. The affiliations have been correctly published in this correction and the original article has been updated.