4.7 Article

Promoter methylation of BRCA1 in triple-negative breast cancer predicts sensitivity to adjuvant chemotherapy

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 1498-1505

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdt011

关键词

BRCA1 methylation; chemotherapy; triple-negative breast cancer

类别

资金

  1. Program for Breast Cancer Tissue Bank of Beijing
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30973436, 81071629]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: BRCA1 function is inactivated through BRCA1 promoter methylation in a substantial number of triple-negative breast cancers. We investigated the impact of BRCA1-methylation status on the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer or with non-triple-negative breast cancer. Methods: BRCA1 promoter methylation was assessed in 1 163 unselected breast cancer patients. Methylation was evaluated using a methylation-specific PCR (MSP) assay. Results: In the subgroup of 167 triple-negative breast cancer patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, patients with BRCA1-methylated tumors had a superior 10-year disease-free survival (DFS)(78% versus 55%, P = 0.009) and 10-year disease-specific survival (DSS) (85% versus 69%, P = 0.024) than those with BRCA1-unmethylated tumors, and BRCA1 methylation was an independent favorable predictor of DES and DSS in a multivariate analysis in this subgroup [DFS: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.45; 95% confidence interval (Cl) 0.24-0.84; P = 0.019; DSS: HR = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.19-0.95; P = 0.044]. In contrast, in 675 non-triple-negative breast cancer patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy, BRCA1 methylation was an unfavorable predictor of DFS and DSS in univariate analysis (DFS: HR = 1.56; 95% 01 1.16-2.12; P = 0.003; DSS: HR = 1.53; 95% CI = 1.05-2.21; P=0.026). Conclusions: Triple-negative breast cancer patients with BRCA1-methylated tumors are sensitive to adjuvant chemotherapy and have a favorable survival compared with patients with BRCA1-unmethylated triple-negative tumors.

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

4.7
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