4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Epidermal growth factor receptor expression in 780 breast cancer patients: A reappraisal of the prognostic value based on an eight-year median follow-up

期刊

ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY
卷 12, 期 6, 页码 841-846

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1023/A:1011183421477

关键词

breast cancer; epidermal growth factor receptor; prognostic markers

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Because new therapeutic approaches target tumors expressing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), the aim was to undertake a thorough analysis of the expression profile of EGFR in breast cancer and to reassess its prognostic value. Patients and methods: Tumor EGFR levels were determined by a specific ligand binding assay in 780 consecutive breast cancer patients followed in our institute between 1980 and 1993. Mean age was 61 years (25-85 years). All patients had undergone tumor resection with axillary lymph node dissection: 373 patients (47.8%) underwent mastectomy, 37 (5%) subcutaneous mastectomy and 370 (47.2%) tumorectomy. Results: EGFR levels ranged between non-detectable up to 789 fmol/mg protein. EGFR median value was 9 fmol/mg protein and only a small proportion of patients exhibited a relatively marked EGFR expression. There was no link between tumor size, grade, node status and EGFR tumoral levels. There was a constant and significant decrease in EGFR tumoral levels according to patient age. A significant inverse relationship was found between estradiol receptors (ER) and EGFR. Median follow-up was 97 months with a minimum at 4 months and a maximum at 228 months. From univariate analysis it was found that histological grade, tumor size, node status and ER status were all significant predictors of survival, considering metastasis-free as well as overall survival. Using multivariable analysis, only histological grade, tumor size and node status remained independent predictors of survival. Conclusion: EGFR determination is of limited value as a prognostic indicator in breast cancer.

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