4.1 Article

The 21-gene recurrence score complements IBTR! Estimates in early-stage, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-normal, lymph node-negative breast cancer

期刊

SPRINGERPLUS
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1186/s40064-015-0840-y

关键词

Oncotype Dx; 21-gene recurrence score; Molecular profiling; Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence; IBTR; Local recurrence

资金

  1. NIH/NC [P30CA016672]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Clinicians have traditionally used clinicopathological (CP) factors to determine locoregional recurrence (LR) risk of breast cancer and have generated the IBTR! nomogram to predict the risk of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence (IBTR). The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay was recently correlated with LR in retrospective studies. The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between the RS and IBTR!. CP characteristics of 308 consecutive patients who underwent RS testing at our institution were examined. IBTR! was used to estimate the risk of 10-year IBTR. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the RS with the estimated IBTR!. Given a low event rate in this cohort, actual IBTR rates were not reported. Most patients had stage I/II (98%) and grade I/II (77%) disease. Median age was 54 years (range, 30-78). Median IBTR! without radiation therapy was 10% (mean, 12% [range, 4-43%]). RS was low (<18), intermediate (18-30), and high (>30) in 52% (n = 160), 40% (n = 123), and 8% (n = 25) patients. Overall, IBTR! did not correlate with RS (P = .77). We saw no correlation between RS and IBTR! in patients with less than (P = .32) or greater than (P = .48) a 10% risk of IBTR. Interestingly, Ki-67 expression correlated with both IBTR! (P = .019) and the RS (P = .002). Further study is warranted to determine if the RS can provide complementary biological information to CP factors in estimating the risk of LR. Prospective studies evaluating this association may potentially allow for individualized treatment decisions.

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

4.1
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