Cargando…

Lymph node status as a guide to selection of available prognostic markers in breast cancer: the clinical practice of the future?

Prognosticators evaluating survival in breast cancer vary in significance in respect to lymph node status. Studies have shown e.g. that HER2/neu immunohistochemistry or HER2/neu gene amplification analysis do perform well as prognosticators in lymph node positive (LN +) patients but are less valuabl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Elzagheid, A, Kuopio, T, Pyrhönen, S, Collan, Y
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2006
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1654187/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17092354
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-1-41
_version_ 1782131014274908160
author Elzagheid, A
Kuopio, T
Pyrhönen, S
Collan, Y
author_facet Elzagheid, A
Kuopio, T
Pyrhönen, S
Collan, Y
author_sort Elzagheid, A
collection PubMed
description Prognosticators evaluating survival in breast cancer vary in significance in respect to lymph node status. Studies have shown e.g. that HER2/neu immunohistochemistry or HER2/neu gene amplification analysis do perform well as prognosticators in lymph node positive (LN +) patients but are less valuable in lymph node negative (LN -) patients. We collected data from different studies and tried to evaluate the relative significance of different prognosticators in LN+/LN- patient groups. In LN+ patients HER2/neu and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry were the statistically most significant prognosticators followed by proliferation associated features (mitotic counts by SMI (standardised mitotic index) or MAI (mitotic activity index), or S-phase fraction). Bcl-2 immunohistochemistry was also significant but p53 and cystatin A had no significance as prognosticators. In LN- patients proliferation associated prognosticators (SMI, MAI, Ki-67 index, PCNA immunohistochemistry, S-phase fraction) are especially valuable and also Cathepsin D, cystatin A, and p53 are significant, but HER2/neu or bcl-2, or E-cadherin less significant or without significance. We find that in studies evaluating single prognosticators one should distinguish between prognosticators suitable for LN+ and LN- patients. This will allow the choice of best prognosticators in evaluating the prospects of the patient. The distinction between LN+ and LN- patients in this respect may also be of special value in therapeutic decisions.
format Text
id pubmed-1654187
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2006
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-16541872006-11-21 Lymph node status as a guide to selection of available prognostic markers in breast cancer: the clinical practice of the future? Elzagheid, A Kuopio, T Pyrhönen, S Collan, Y Diagn Pathol Review Prognosticators evaluating survival in breast cancer vary in significance in respect to lymph node status. Studies have shown e.g. that HER2/neu immunohistochemistry or HER2/neu gene amplification analysis do perform well as prognosticators in lymph node positive (LN +) patients but are less valuable in lymph node negative (LN -) patients. We collected data from different studies and tried to evaluate the relative significance of different prognosticators in LN+/LN- patient groups. In LN+ patients HER2/neu and E-cadherin immunohistochemistry were the statistically most significant prognosticators followed by proliferation associated features (mitotic counts by SMI (standardised mitotic index) or MAI (mitotic activity index), or S-phase fraction). Bcl-2 immunohistochemistry was also significant but p53 and cystatin A had no significance as prognosticators. In LN- patients proliferation associated prognosticators (SMI, MAI, Ki-67 index, PCNA immunohistochemistry, S-phase fraction) are especially valuable and also Cathepsin D, cystatin A, and p53 are significant, but HER2/neu or bcl-2, or E-cadherin less significant or without significance. We find that in studies evaluating single prognosticators one should distinguish between prognosticators suitable for LN+ and LN- patients. This will allow the choice of best prognosticators in evaluating the prospects of the patient. The distinction between LN+ and LN- patients in this respect may also be of special value in therapeutic decisions. BioMed Central 2006-11-08 /pmc/articles/PMC1654187/ /pubmed/17092354 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-1-41 Text en Copyright © 2006 Elzagheid et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Elzagheid, A
Kuopio, T
Pyrhönen, S
Collan, Y
Lymph node status as a guide to selection of available prognostic markers in breast cancer: the clinical practice of the future?
title Lymph node status as a guide to selection of available prognostic markers in breast cancer: the clinical practice of the future?
title_full Lymph node status as a guide to selection of available prognostic markers in breast cancer: the clinical practice of the future?
title_fullStr Lymph node status as a guide to selection of available prognostic markers in breast cancer: the clinical practice of the future?
title_full_unstemmed Lymph node status as a guide to selection of available prognostic markers in breast cancer: the clinical practice of the future?
title_short Lymph node status as a guide to selection of available prognostic markers in breast cancer: the clinical practice of the future?
title_sort lymph node status as a guide to selection of available prognostic markers in breast cancer: the clinical practice of the future?
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1654187/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17092354
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-1-41
work_keys_str_mv AT elzagheida lymphnodestatusasaguidetoselectionofavailableprognosticmarkersinbreastcancertheclinicalpracticeofthefuture
AT kuopiot lymphnodestatusasaguidetoselectionofavailableprognosticmarkersinbreastcancertheclinicalpracticeofthefuture
AT pyrhonens lymphnodestatusasaguidetoselectionofavailableprognosticmarkersinbreastcancertheclinicalpracticeofthefuture
AT collany lymphnodestatusasaguidetoselectionofavailableprognosticmarkersinbreastcancertheclinicalpracticeofthefuture