4.7 Article

Metastatic Behavior of Breast Cancer Subtypes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
卷 28, 期 20, 页码 3271-3277

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.9820

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation, British Colubia-Yukon Division
  2. Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
  3. sanofi-aventis, Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Prognostic and predictive factors are well established in early-stage breast cancer, but less is known about which metastatic sites will be affected. Methods Patients with early-stage breast cancer diagnosed between 1986 and 1992 with archival tissue were included. Subtypes were defined as luminal A, luminal B, luminal/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), HER2 enriched, basal-like, and triple negative (TN) nonbasal. Distant sites were classified as brain, liver, lung, bone, distant nodal, pleural/peritoneal, and other. Cumulative incidence curves were estimated for each site according to competing risks methods. Association between the site of relapse and subtype was assessed in multivariate models using logistic regression. Results Median follow-up time among 3,726 eligible patients was 14.8 years. Median durations of survival with distant metastasis were 2.2 (luminal A), 1.6 (luminal B), 1.3 (luminal/HER2), 0.7 (HER2 enriched), and 0.5 years (basal-like; P < .001). Bone was the most common metastatic site in all subtypes except basal-like tumors. In multivariate analysis, compared with luminal A tumors, luminal/HER2 and HER2-enriched tumors were associated with a significantly higher rate of brain, liver, and lung metastases. Basal-like tumors had a higher rate of brain, lung, and distant nodal metastases but a significantly lower rate of liver and bone metastases. TN nonbasal tumors demonstrated a similar pattern but were not associated with fewer liver metastases. Conclusion Breast cancer subtypes are associated with distinct patterns of metastatic spread with notable differences in survival after relapse.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据