4.6 Article

Stromal Expression of miR-21 Identifies High-Risk Group in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PATHOLOGY
卷 184, 期 12, 页码 3217-3225

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajpath.2014.08.020

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R03 CA141564, R21 CA141017]
  2. National Center for Research Resources [R21 RR024411]
  3. Van Andel Research Institute research funds
  4. Hitchcock Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype defined by the lack of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 expression. Expression of miR-21, an oncomiR, is frequently altered and may be distinctly expressed in the tumor stroma. Because tumor lesions are a complex mixture of cell types, we hypothesized that analysis of miR-21 expression at single-cell resolution could provide more accurate information to assess disease recurrence risk and BC-related death. We implemented a fully automated, tissue slide based assay to detect miR-21 expression in 988 patients with BC. The miR-21(High) group exhibited shorter recurrence-free survival [hazard ratio (HR), 1.71; P < 0.001] and BC-specific survival (HR, 1.96; P < 0.001) in multivariate regression analyses. When tumor compartment and levels of miR-21 expression were considered, significant associations with poor clinical outcome were detected exclusively in tumor epithelia from estrogen receptor- and/or progesterone receptor-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative cases [recurrence-free survival: HR, 3.67 (P = 0.006); BC-specific survival: HR, 5.13 (P = 0.002)] and in tumor stroma from TNBC cases [recurrence-free survival: HR, 2.59 (P = 0.013); BC-specific survival: HR, 3.37 (P = 0.003)]. These findings suggest that the context of altered miR-21 expression provides clinically relevant information. Importantly, miR-21 expression was predominantly up-regulated and potentially prognostic in the tumor stroma of TNBC.

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

4.6
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