4.7 Article

Expression of KLF5 is a prognostic factor for disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with breast cancer

期刊

CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH
卷 12, 期 8, 页码 2442-2448

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0964

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Kruppel-like factor (KLF5) is a cell growth mediator in various epithelial cells. Higher KLF5 increases cell growth rate and leads to transformed phenotypes. Because tumor cell proliferation is tightly associated with tumor progression, and consequently, with survival of cancer patients, we wanted to examine the prognostic value of KLF5 gene expression for patients with breast cancer. Experimental Design: The gene expression levels of KLF5, ER, PR, HER2, and MK167 were quantified in the tumor tissues of 90 patients with breast cancer and correlated with disease-free survival and overall survival of the patients. The correlations of gene expression between KLF5 and ER, PR, HER2, and MK167 were analyzed. In addition, KLF5 expression was also compared with clinical data and age of patients. Results: Statistically significant correlations were found between gene expression of KLF5 and both disease-free survival (univariate analysis) and overall survival (univariate and multivariate analysis). Patients with higher KLF5 expression had shorter disease-free survival and overall survival time, whereas patients with lower KLF5 expression had better survival. Moreover, KLF5 was also found to be positively correlated with HER2 and MK167, and negatively correlated with age of the patients at diagnosis. Conclusion:The gene expression of KLF5 is directly correlated with cell proliferation in vivo and is a prognostic factor for patients with breast cancer. Patients with higher KLF5 expression have shorter disease-free survival and overall survival than patients with lower KLF5 expression. In addition, KLF5 has higher expression in patients ages <= 50 years old than in patients >50 years old.

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