4.4 Article

Nuclear NF-κB/p65 expression and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PATHOLOGY
卷 64, 期 2, 页码 130-135

出版社

B M J PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/jcp.2010.082966

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cridlan Ross Smith Breast Cancer Research Fund
  2. NIHR as a Biomedical Research Centre
  3. Instituto de Salud Carlos III (Intensificacion)
  4. Spanish Health Ministry [PI061513, PI09/1296, PI09/01285]
  5. RTICC [06/0020/109]
  6. DIUE Generalitat de Catalunya, Fundacio Privada Cellex (Barcelona) [2009SGR321]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To evaluate the clinicopathological associations and predictive value of the transcription factor NF-kappa B in a large series of breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Methods A retrospective search of a prospectively maintained database was performed to identify patients. Immunohistochemistry was used to assess the p65 subunit of NF-kappa B, using nuclear staining as a surrogate of activation. Results Nuclear NF-kappa B expression was found in 26.3% (35/133) of cases. Nuclear NF-kappa B staining was associated with high histological grade (p=0.05), oestrogen receptor (ER) negativity (p=0.01) and higher Ki67 index (p=0.002). Patients with nuclear NF-kappa B staining had a higher pathological complete response (pCR) rate than those without (26.5% vs 6.0% respectively, p=0.004); there was no significant association with clinical response or outcome. In an exploratory hypothesis-generating analysis, in the ER+/HER2- subgroup (n=43) a significantly lower clinical response rate was observed in those with nuclear NF-kappa B staining compared with those who had no nuclear NF-kappa B staining (14.3% vs 61.0%, p=0.038). There were no pCRs in ER+/HER2- tumours. Conclusions Nuclear NF-kappa B expression is associated with ER negativity, higher Ki67 index and tumour grade. It was also found to be significantly associated with increased pCR but not clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

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

4.4
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