4.5 Article

Prognostic evaluation of the B cell/IL-8 metagene in different intrinsic breast cancer subtypes

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 137, 期 2, 页码 407-416

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-012-2356-2

关键词

Triple negative breast cancer; Subtypes of breast cancer; Prognostic gene signature

类别

资金

  1. H.W. & J. Hector-Stiftung, Mannheim
  2. Margarete Bonifer-Stiftung, Bad Soden
  3. BANSS-Stiftung, Biedenkopf

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We recently reported that a ratio of high B cell and low IL-8 metagene expression identified 32 % of triple negative breast cancers (TNBC) with good prognosis and was the only significant predictor in multivariate analysis including routine clinicopathological variables. However, the clinical relevance of this signature in other breast cancer subtypes remains unclear. We compiled Affymetrix gene expression datasets from 4,467 primary breast cancer samples and excluded 329 triple negative samples which were used as discovery cohort in our previous study. Molecular classification of the remaining 4,138 samples was performed by two methods, including single genes (ER, PgR, HER2, and Ki67) and a centroid-based method using the intrinsic gene list. The prognostic value within the respective subtypes was assessed by analyzing the event-free survival of patients as a function of the B cell/IL-8 metagene ratio using previously published cutoff. ER-negative subtypes had the highest expression of the B cell and the IL-8 metagenes. The IL-8/B cell signature assigned a considerable fraction of samples (range 20.7-42.0 %) into the good prognosis group. However, a significant prognostic value was only observed in the subgroup of triple negative breast cancer (P = 0.035). The prognostic value of the B cell/IL-8 ratio is mainly confined to the basal-like and TNBC subtypes of breast cancer. This result underlines the importance of subtype-specific analyses and suggests a sequential multistep approach to developing and applying outcome predictors in the clinic.

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

4.5
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