4.2 Article

p53 Status Identifies Two Subgroups of Triple-negative Breast Cancers with Distinct Biological Features

Journal

JAPANESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 41, Issue 2, Pages 172-179

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jjco/hyq227

Keywords

breast cancer; triple-negative; prognosis; biological marker

Categories

Funding

  1. Breast Cancer Campaign
  2. E.U. [FP6-IST-508803, FP6-007597]
  3. Fondazione of the Cassa di Risparmio della Provincia di Chieti, ABO [VE01D0019, CH01D0081]
  4. Italian Ministry of Health [RicOnc RF-EMR-2006-361866]
  5. Compagnia di San Paolo [2489IT]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite the clinical similarities triple-negative and basal-like breast cancer are not synonymous. Indeed, not all basal-like cancers are negative for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and HER2 expression while triple-negative also encompasses other cancer types. P53 protein appears heterogeneously expressed in triple-negative breast cancers, suggesting that it may be associated with specific biological subgroups with a different outcome. We comparatively analyzed p53 expression in triple-negative tumors from two independent breast cancer case series (633 cases from the University of Ferrara and 1076 cases from the University of Nottingham). In both case series, p53 protein expression was able to subdivide the triple-negative cases into two distinct subsets consistent with a different outcome. In fact, triple-negative patients with a p53 expressing tumor showed worse overall and event-free survival. The immunohistochemical evaluation of p53 expression may help in taming the currently stormy relationship between pathological (triple-negative tumors) and biological (basal breast cancers) classifications and in selecting patient subgroups with different biological features providing a potentially powerful prognostic contribution in triple-negative breast cancers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available