4.7 Article

Exploring Collagen Parameters in Pure Special Types of Invasive Breast Cancer

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-44156-9

关键词

-

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [08/57906-3]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [573913/2008-0]
  3. FAPESP [11/51959-0]
  4. CNPq [312049/2014-5]
  5. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [11/51959-0] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the promising tools to evaluate collagen in the extracellular matrix is the second-harmonic generation microscopy (SHG). This approach may shed light on the biological behavior of cancers and their taxonomy, but has not yet been applied to characterize collagen fibers in cases diagnosed as invasive breast carcinoma (BC) of histological special types (IBC-ST). Tissue sections from 99 patients with IBC-ST and 21 of invasive breast carcinoma of no special type (IBC-NST) were submitted to evaluation of collagen parameters by SHG. Tissue microarray was performed to evaluate immunohistochemical-based molecular subtype. In intratumoral areas, fSHG and bSHG (forward-SHG and backward-SHG) collagen parameters achieved their lowest values in mucinous, papillary and medullary carcinomas, whereas the highest values were found in classic invasive lobular and tubular carcinomas. Unsupervised hierarchical cluster analysis and minimal spanning tree using intratumoral collagen parameters allowed the identification of three main groups of breast cancer: group A (classic invasive lobular and tubular carcinomas); group B (IBC-NST, metaplastic, invasive apocrine and micropapillary carcinomas); and group C (medullary, mucinous and papillary carcinomas). Our findings provide further characterization of the tumor microenvironment of IBC-ST. This understanding may add information to build more consistent tumor categorization and to refine prognostication.

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