4.6 Article

Association of GSTP1 expression with resistance to docetaxel and paclitaxel in human breast cancers

期刊

EJSO
卷 34, 期 7, 页码 734-738

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2007.07.008

关键词

GSTP1; docetaxel; paclitaxel; primary systemic treatment; breast cancer

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: It has been reported that glutathione S-transferase PI (GSTP1) expression is implicated in resistance to taxanes (docetaxel and paclitaxel) in human breast cancer cells in vitro. In the study presented here, we examine whether GSTP1 expression is associated with resistance to docetaxel or paclitaxel in human breast cancers. We also investigated the relationship between GSTP1 methylation status and response to these taxanes. Material and methods: Sixty two primary breast cancer patients were treated with docetaxel or paclitaxel as primary systemic treatment (PST). GSTP1 expression was detected immunohistochemically and the hypermethylation status GSTP1 gene was identified with a methylation specific primer assay. Results: The mean tumor reduction rate for all patients (n = 62) was significantly (p < 0.001) higher in GSTP1 negative (0.73 +/- 0.04; mean standard error) than GSTP1 positive (0.31 +/- 0.09) tumors. The subset analysis showed that the mean reduction rate was significantly (p = 0.005) higher in GSTP1 negative (0.59 +/- 0.06) than GSTP1 positive (0.11 +/- 0. 13) tumors in the docetaxel group as well as in the paclitaxel group (p = 0.006; GSTP1 negative tumors: 0.84 +/- 0.05; GSTP1 positive tumors: 0.56 +/- 0.08). On the other hand, GSTP1 methylation showed no significant association with the reduction rate. Conclusion: Our present study has suggested that GSTP1 protein expression, but not GSTP1 methylation status, might be associated with response to docetaxel and paclitaxel. This suggests that GSTP1 immunohistochemical expression might be a potentially clinically useful predictive factor for response to docetaxel and paclitaxel. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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