4.2 Article

Decreased serum HDL at initial diagnosis correlates with worse outcomes for triple-negative breast cancer but not non-TNBCs

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL MARKERS
卷 30, 期 2, 页码 E200-E207

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.5301/jbm.5000143

关键词

HDL; Prognosis; non-TNBCs; TG; Triple-negative breast cancer

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81202108]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the associations between metabolic syndrome (MS) and its components at initial diagnosis and outcomes of breast cancer including triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC. Methods: A cohort of 1,391 patients was reviewed between January 2004 and July 2008 (including 394 TNBC and 855 non-TNBC cases). MS and its components including body mass index (BMI), serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and triglycerides (TG) and their relationships with clinical outcomes were analyzed and then compared between groups. Results: The incidences of MS and its components including BMI, the levels of HDL and TG were not differently distributed between the 2 groups (all p's >0.05). However, more TNBC than non-TNBC patients presented with hypertension and elevated serum glucose (20.3% vs. 14.9% and 16.0% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.018 and p = 0.012, respectively). TNBC patients had poorer 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) than non-TNBC patients (72.8% vs. 84.2%, p<0.0001). Only in the TNBC group, patients with low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) demonstrated worse RFS and overall survival (OS; p<0.0001). Multivariate analysis identified that low HDL was an independent worse prognostic factor for both RFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.266, 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 2.087-5.112, p<0.0001) and OS (HR = 3.071, 95%CI, 1.732-5.445, p<0.0001) in TNBC patients. Conclusions: Decreased level of HDL may predict worse outcomes both in terms of RFS and OS for TNBC patients but not for non-TNBC patients. Further investigations are warranted to detect the underlying mechanisms.

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

4.2
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