4.4 Article

Prognostic value of Ki-67 according to age in patients with triple-negative breast cancer

Journal

CLINICAL & TRANSLATIONAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 11, Pages 1448-1454

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/s12094-018-1877-5

Keywords

Triple-negative breast cancer; Prognosis; Ki-67; Age

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeThe prognostic value of Ki-67 in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is yet unclear because the cut-off points employed differ widely and its predictive effect may vary according to age. The purpose of this study was to analyze the role of Ki-67 among patients with TNBC, and determine the optimal Ki-67 cut-off point to demonstrate its prognostic relevance associated with patient age and treatment strategy.Methods/patients201 consecutive patients treated for primary TNBC from 1999 to 2014 were analyzed. Clinicopathological characteristics and outcomes were compared between patients treated with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy. We used time-dependent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and time-dependent area under the ROC curve (AUC) to evaluate the discriminative ability of Ki-67 at 3 and 5years of follow-up. A Ki-67 cut-off point that maximized sensibility and specificity was established. Interaction effect between age and Ki-67 on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated by stratified analysis.ResultsAccording to the coordinates of the ROC curves, the best cut-off point for Ki-67 was 60% (high/low). In the whole group, there was not a statistically significant association between Ki-67 and OS and DFS, using a cut-off point of 60%. In multivariate analysis (COX proportional hazards regression), for DFS high Ki-67 (>60%) was a poor prognostic factor in patients>40years old and a better prognostic factor among the patients<40years old.ConclusionPrognostic value of Ki-67 in TNBC, using a cut-off point of 60%, may vary depending on age.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available