4.0 Article

Worse prognosis in breast cancer patients can be predicted by immunohistochemical analysis of positive MMP-2 and negative estrogen and progesterone receptors

期刊

REVISTA DA ASSOCIACAO MEDICA BRASILEIRA
卷 62, 期 8, 页码 774-781

出版社

ASSOC MEDICA BRASILEIRA
DOI: 10.1590/1806-9282.62.08.774

关键词

breast neoplasms; MMP-2; immunohistochemical; molecular marker

资金

  1. Brazilian agency CAPES
  2. Brazilian agency CNPq [480738/2010-6, 479211/2012-4]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Breast cancer is the most cause of death, and approximately 90% of these deaths are due to metastases. Matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) gelatinase activity is able to degrade a major constituent of the tumor microenvironment, type IV collagen. Two well-established proteins used as markers in clinical practice for breast cancer are the receptors for estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR). Although the presence of these receptors has been associated with a better prognosis, loss of these proteins can occur during tumor progression, with subsequent resistance to hormone therapy. Objective: To study the correlation among MMP-2, ER, and PR, as well as the establishment of the metastatic process in primary breast tumors. Method: Breast cancer samples (n=44) were analyzed by immunohistochemistry for MMP-2, ER, and PR. Results: We observed that 90% of patients who had metastases and died showed positive staining for MMP-2 (p=0.0082 for both). Using Kaplan-Meier analysis, we found that negative ER patients who were also positive for MMP-2 had even worse disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) (p=0.012 and p=0.005, respectively). Similar results were found in PR-negative patients for DFS (a trend p=0.077) and OS (p=0.038). Conclusion: Regardless of our small sample size (n=44), the data obtained strongly suggest that MMP-2 in combination with already well-established markers could help to predict the emergence of metastases and death in patients with breast cancer.

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

4.0
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