4.3 Article

Immunohistochemical Ki67 after short-term hormone therapy identifies low-risk breast cancers as reliably as genomic markers

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 8, 期 16, 页码 26122-26128

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.15385

关键词

short-term hormone therapy; IHC Ki67; genomic marker; breast cancer

资金

  1. JSPS KAKENHI Grant [25830101]
  2. Takeda Science Foundation
  3. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [25830101] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of this study was to test whether immunohistochemical (IHC) Ki67 levels after short-term preoperative hormone therapy (post-Ki67) predict similar numbers of patients with favorable prognoses as genomic markers. Results: Thirty paired cases (60 samples) were enrolled in this study. Post-Ki67 levels were significantly lower than pre-treatment Ki67 levels (P < 0.001). PostKi67 predicted more low-risk cases (83.3%, 25/30) than pre-genomic surrogate signature(GSS) (66.7%: 20/30), but the difference in predictive power was not significant (P = 0.233). Proliferation (MKI67, STK15, Survivin, CCNB1, and MYBL2) and estrogen (ER, PGR, BCL2, and SCUBE2) related signatures were significantly downregulated after therapy (P < 0.001 and 0.041, respectively). Materials and Methods: Core needle biopsy specimens of primary breast cancer were collected at Okayama University Hospital from hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor 2-negative patients that subsequently received two weeks of neoadjuvant hormone therapy. Paired post-treatment specimens from surgical samples were also collected. IHC Ki67 levels and GSS were compared between pre-and post-hormone treatment samples. Changes of gene expression pattern in short-term hormone therapy were also assessed. Conclusions: IHC based post-Ki67 levels may have distinct predictive power compared with the naive IHC Ki67. Future studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods may be needed to validate our results.

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

4.3
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