4.5 Article

Clinicopathological factors associated with novel prognostic markers for patients with triple negative breast cancer

期刊

ARCHIVES OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 15, 期 6, 页码 1433-1442

出版社

TERMEDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE LTD
DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2018.79568

关键词

triple negative breast cancer; erythropoietin receptor; erythropoietin; immunohistochemical examination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by a worse prognosis than other breast cancer subtypes. TNBC is defined by lack of expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the relationship between immunohistochemical expression of novel prognostic markers (erythropoietin (EPO) and erythropoietin receptor (EPO-R)) and clinicopathological features of TNBC and non-TNBC patients. Material and methods: Our analysis was conducted on a group of 162 patients with breast carcinoma with lymph node metastasis (111 TNBC and 51 non-TNBC). All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS software v 12.0. Results: Histopathologic subtyping of the 111 triple negative breast cancers identified 89.1% invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type and 10.9% other special types of cancers. TNBC more often presented EPO-R and EPO expression (36%; 37.8%) than non-TNBC (23.5%; 29.4%). Non-TNBC sub-group showed statistically significant correlation only between Ki-67 expression and histological grade (G1-G3) (p < 0.001), while TNBC subgroup demonstrated significant correlation between Ki-67 expression and histological grade (G1-G3) and tumor size (pT1-pT4) as well (p = 0.002; p = 0.042), between the EPO-R expression and histological grade (G1-G3) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The relationship between the expression of EPO-R and histological malignancy grade in triple negative breast cancer, suggests that the present EPO-R expression in TNBC may constitute an additional prognostic factor.

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