4.7 Article

Cytoplasmic Cyclin E Predicts Recurrence in Patients with Breast Cancer

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 23, 期 12, 页码 2991-3002

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2217

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. NIH through Cancer Center [CA016672]
  2. Susan G. Komen for the Cure grant [KG100521]
  3. [CA87548]
  4. [CA1522218]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Low molecular weight cyclin E (LMW-E) detected by Western blot analysis predicts for reduced breast cancer survival; however, it is impractical for clinical use. LMW-E lacks a nuclear localization signal that leads to accumulation in the cytoplasm that can be detected by IHC. We tested the hypothesis that cytoplasmic staining of cyclin E can be used as a predictor of poor outcome in different subtypes of breast cancer using patient cohorts with distinct clinical and pathologic features. Experimental Design: We evaluated the subcellular localization of cyclin E in breast cancer specimens from 2,494 patients from 4 different cohorts: 303 from a prospective study and 2,191 from retrospective cohorts [NCI, MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDA), and the United Kingdom (UK)]. Median follow-up times were 8.0, 10.1, 13.5, and 5.7 years, respectively. Results: Subcellular localization of cyclin E on IHC was associated with full-length (nuclear) and low molecular weight isoforms (cytoplasmic) of cyclin E on Western blot analysis. In multivariable analysis, cytoplasmic cyclin E staining was associated with the greatest risk of recurrence compared with other prognostic factors across all subtypes in three (NCI, MDA, and UK) of the cohorts. In the MDA cohort, cytoplasmic cyclin E staining outperformed Ki67 and all other variables as prognostic factors. Conclusions: Cytoplasmic cyclin E identifies patients with the highest likelihood of recurrence consistently across different patient cohorts and subtypes. These patients may benefit from alternative therapies targeting the oncogenic isoforms of cyclin E. (C) 2016 AACR.

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