4.7 Article

HER2/neu and Ki-67 expression predict non-invasive recurrence following breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
卷 106, 期 6, 页码 1160-1165

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2012.41

关键词

DCIS; biomarkers; recurrence; breast-conserving surgery

类别

资金

  1. Canadian Breast Cancer Research Alliance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a non-invasive form of breast cancer that may progress to invasive cancer. Identification of factors that predict recurrence and distinguish DCIS from invasive recurrence would facilitate treatment recommendations. We examined the prognostic value of nine molecular markers on the risks of local recurrence (DCIS and invasive) among women treated with breast-conserving therapy. METHODS: A total of 213 women who were treated with breast-conserving therapy between 1982 and 2000 were included; 141 received breast-conserving surgery alone and 72 cases received radiotherapy. We performed immunohistochemical staining on the DCIS specimen for nine markers: oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, p53, p21, cyclinD1, HER2/neu, calgranulin and psoriasin. We performed univariable and multivariable survival analyses to identify markers associated with the recurrence. RESULTS: The rate of recurrence at 10 years was 36% for patients treated with breast-conserving surgery alone and 18% for women who received breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy. HER2/neu+/Ki-67+ expression was associated with an increased risk of DCIS recurrence, independent of grade and age (HR = 3.22; 95% CI: 1.47-7.03; P = 0.003). None of the nine markers were predictive of invasive recurrence. CONCLUSION: Women with a HER2/neu/neu+/Ki67+ DCIS have a higher risk of developing DCIS local recurrence after breast-conserving surgery. British Journal of Cancer (2012) 106, 1160-1165. doi:10.1038/bjc.2012.41 www.bjcancer.com Published online 23 February 2012 (C) 2012 Cancer Research UK

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