4.5 Article

Lymphovascular invasion is an independent predictor of survival in breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 157, 期 3, 页码 555-564

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-016-3837-5

关键词

Lymphovascular invasion; Neoadjuvant chemotherapy; Breast cancer; Survival

类别

资金

  1. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health [KL2 TR000081]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Various prognostic indicators have been investigated in neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC)-treated invasive breast cancer (BC). Our study examines if lymphovascular invasion (LVI) is an independent predictor of survival in women receiving NAC. We performed a retrospective analysis in 166 women with operable invasive BC who underwent adriamycin-and taxane-based NAC between 2000 and 2013. The presence of LVI was noted in breast excisions following NAC. Associations between progression-free and overall survival and LVI and other clinicopathologic variables were assessed. Median follow-up was 31 months (range 1.4-153 months) with a total of 56 events and 24 deaths from any cause. LVI was found in 74 of 166 patients (45 %). In univariate analysis, the presence of LVI was associated with worse progression-free survival (HR 3.37, 95 % CI 1.87-6.06, p < 0.01) and overall survival (HR 4.35, 95 % CI 1.61-11.79, p < 0.01). In multivariate models adjusting for breast cancer subtype, LVI was significantly associated with a decrease in progression-free survival (HR 3.76, 95 % CI 2.07-6.83, p < 0.01) and overall survival (HR 5.70, 95 % CI 2.08-15.64, p < 0.01). When stratified by subtype, those with hormone receptor or HER2-positive BCs with no LVI had the most favorable progression-free and overall survival. Those with both LVI and triple-negative BC had the worst progression-free and overall survival. LVI is an important prognostic marker and is associated with worse clinical outcome in breast cancer patients receiving NAC.

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

4.5
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