4.6 Article

Prognostic impact of PIK3CA protein expression in triple negative breast cancer and its subtypes

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-019-02968-2

关键词

Triple negative breast cancer; PIK3CA protein expression; PI3K pathway; Imaging features; Breast cancer subtypes

类别

资金

  1. Breast Center Zurich
  2. Institute of Pathology and Molecular Pathology, University Hospital of Zurich

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundTriple negative breast cancer (TNBC) harbors a heterogeneous group of carcinomas with poor prognosis and high genetic variability. As a potential aim for targeted therapy, genetic mutations leading to an activation of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase pathway in a catalytic subunit (PIK3CA) in breast cancer have been analyzed currently. Little is known about the clinical impact and prognostic or predictive value of this marker in TNBC subtypes.MethodsSamples from 119 TNBC cases were submitted to immunohistochemical PIK3CA protein expression analysis and scored semi-quantitatively as negative, weak (1+), or strongly expressed (2+). Expression scores were correlated to patient's characteristics, imaging features, and TNBC subtypes. TNBC subtypes were categorized into four subtypes: basal like, mesenchymal like, luminal androgen receptor (LAR), and immunomodulatory.ResultsWe did not observe differences in clinical aspects and imaging features between TNBC with and without PIK3CA expression. PIK3CA expression was in general higher in the LAR subtype. The disease-free survival and overall survival were significantly better in TNBC with PIK3CA protein expression, independent of TNBC subtypes.ConclusionDespite conflicting results in the literature, our study clearly shows a better outcome of PIK3CA-expressing TNBC, independent of TNBC subtypes. PIK3CA expression in TNBC is not associated with specific clinical or diagnostic features. Further molecular studies and meta-analysis are warranted to clarify the prognostic and predictive role of PIK3CA protein expression.

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