4.7 Article

Securin promotes the identification of favourable outcome in invasive breast cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 101, Issue 6, Pages 1005-1010

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605237

Keywords

securin; breast cancer; prognosis; proliferation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Securin is a recently recognised oncogene with multiple known functions in initiation, progression and cell cycle regulation in several malignant diseases, including breast carcinoma. METHODS: In this paper, the prognostic value of securin is evaluated by immunohistochemistry in 310 patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer during a mammographic screening programme in Central Finland. All patients were directed to modern surgical and oncological treatments and were followed up for a maximum of 20 years. RESULTS: Our results suggest that securin immunopositivity is an independent prognosticator of invasive breast cancer. In our study, securin predicted breast cancer-specific survival among all cases of invasive breast cancer and subgroups divided according to histological type, Ki-67 proliferation status and tumour size. Especially in a multivariate analysis standardised for axillary lymph node status, patient's age and tumour size at the time of diagnosis, securin immunopositivity indicated a 13.1-fold risk of breast cancer death (P = 0.024) among invasive ductal breast carcinomas with low Ki-67 positivity. CONCLUSION: Our present and previous results suggest that securin could be useful in clinical pathology to intensify the power of the established prognosticators of invasive breast cancer and, especially, to assist in identifying patients with a more favourable outcome than that indicated by Ki-67 alone. British Journal of Cancer (2009) 101, 1005-1010. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc. 6605237 www.bjcancer.com Published online 18 August 2009 (C) 2009 Cancer Research UK

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available