4.5 Article

The detection of ESR1/PGR/ERBB2 mRNA levels by RT-QPCR: a better approach for subtyping breast cancer and predicting prognosis

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 138, 期 1, 页码 59-67

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2432-2

关键词

RT-QPCR; Molecular subtype; Breast cancer; Prognosis

类别

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30872518, 81272357]
  2. Applied Basic Research Projects of Tianjin [06YFJMJC12900, 09JCZDJC19800]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The molecular classification of breast cancer mainly focuses on ER, PR, and HER2 status detected by immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis. To explore the clinical value of breast cancer classification based on gene-based diagnosis of the triple markers, we measured ESR1, PGR, and ERBB2 mRNA levels in 294 breast cancer patients by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-QPCR), and examined their correlation with ER, PR, and HER2 status detected by IHC. We observed a significant positive correlation between the mRNA levels of the triple markers and their protein status (ESR1 vs. ER, Spearman's rho = 0.527, P = 2.3 x 10(-22); PGR vs. PR, Spearman's rho = 0.631, P = 5.1 x 10(-34); ERBB2 vs. HER2, Spearman's rho = 0.439, P = 3.0 x 10(-15)). Furthermore, the subtypes determined by mRNA levels of the triple markers were significantly correlated to the subtypes determined based on their protein status (Spearman's rho = 0.342, P = 2.0 x 10(-8)). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that the subtypes determined by mRNA levels of the triple-marker could predict the disease-free survival (DFS) in breast cancer patients. Multivariate analysis showed that the predictive value of DFS could be confirmed for the subtypes determined by mRNA levels of the triple markers (HR = 2.285, P = 0.008) but not for those determined by their protein status. Taken together, our results suggest that the detection of ESR1/PGR/ERBB2 mRNA levels by RT-QPCR is a better approach for subtyping breast cancer and predicting the prognosis.

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