4.6 Article

Association between sleep-disordered breathing and breast cancer aggressiveness

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207591

关键词

-

资金

  1. Asociacion de Neumologia y Cirugia Toracica del Sur (NEUMOSUR) [1/2015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) has been associated with cancer aggressiveness, but studies focused on specific tumors are lacking. In this pilot study we investigated whether SDB is associated with breast cancer (BC) aggressiveness. Methods 83 consecutive women <65 years diagnosed with primary BC underwent a home respiratory polygraphy. Markers of SDB severity included the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) and the 4% oxygen desaturation index (ODI4). The Ki67 proliferation index, lack of hormone receptors (HR-), Nottingham Histological Grade (NHG), and tumor stage were used as markers of BC aggressiveness. The association between SDB and molecular subtypes of BC was also assessed. Results The mean (SD) age was 48.8 (8.8) years and body mass index was 27.4 (5.4) Kg/m2. 42 women (50.6%) were post-menopausal. The median (IQR) AHI was 5.1 (2-9.4), and ODI4 was 1.5 (0.5-5.8). The median (IQR) AHI did not differ between the groups with Ki67>28% and Ki67<29% [5.1 (2.6-8.3) vs 5.0 (1.5-10), p = 0.89)], HR- and HR+ [5.7 (1.6-12.4) vs 4.9 (2-9.4), p = 0.68], NHG (Grade3, Grade2, and Gradel; p = 0.86), tumor stage (stage III-IV, stage II, and stage I; p = 0.62), or molecular subtypes (Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2, and triple negative; p = 0.90). The prevalence of an AHI >= 5 did not differ between the groups with Ki67>28% and Ki67<29% (51.2% vs 52.3%, p = 0.90), HR- and HR+ (58.3% vs 49.1%, p = 0.47), NHG categories (p = 0.89), different tumor stages (p = 0.71), or molecular subtypes (p = 0.73). These results did not change when the ODI4 was used instead of the AHI. Conclusion Our results do not support an association between the presence or severity of SDB and BC aggressiveness.

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

4.6
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