Stratifying triple-negative breast cancer: which definition(s) to use?

Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) have increased rates of pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, yet have poorer prognosis compared with non-TNBC. Known as the triple-negative paradox, this highlights the need to dissect the biologic and clinical heterogeneity within TN...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Adamo, Barbara, Anders, Carey K
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Editorial
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3219193/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457488
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr2852
_version_ 1782216793705676800
author Adamo, Barbara
Anders, Carey K
author_facet Adamo, Barbara
Anders, Carey K
author_sort Adamo, Barbara
collection PubMed
description Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) have increased rates of pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, yet have poorer prognosis compared with non-TNBC. Known as the triple-negative paradox, this highlights the need to dissect the biologic and clinical heterogeneity within TNBC. In the present issue, Keam and colleagues suggest two subgroups of TNBC exist based on the proliferation-related marker Ki-67, each with differential response and prognosis following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. To place results into context, we review several definitions available under the TNBC umbrella that may stratify TNBC into clinically relevant subgroups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3219193
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32191932011-11-18 Stratifying triple-negative breast cancer: which definition(s) to use? Adamo, Barbara Anders, Carey K Breast Cancer Res Editorial Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) have increased rates of pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, yet have poorer prognosis compared with non-TNBC. Known as the triple-negative paradox, this highlights the need to dissect the biologic and clinical heterogeneity within TNBC. In the present issue, Keam and colleagues suggest two subgroups of TNBC exist based on the proliferation-related marker Ki-67, each with differential response and prognosis following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. To place results into context, we review several definitions available under the TNBC umbrella that may stratify TNBC into clinically relevant subgroups. BioMed Central 2011 2011-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC3219193/ /pubmed/21457488 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr2852 Text en Copyright ©2011 BioMed Central Ltd
spellingShingle Editorial
Adamo, Barbara
Anders, Carey K
Stratifying triple-negative breast cancer: which definition(s) to use?
title Stratifying triple-negative breast cancer: which definition(s) to use?
title_full Stratifying triple-negative breast cancer: which definition(s) to use?
title_fullStr Stratifying triple-negative breast cancer: which definition(s) to use?
title_full_unstemmed Stratifying triple-negative breast cancer: which definition(s) to use?
title_short Stratifying triple-negative breast cancer: which definition(s) to use?
title_sort stratifying triple-negative breast cancer: which definition(s) to use?
topic Editorial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3219193/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457488
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/bcr2852
work_keys_str_mv AT adamobarbara stratifyingtriplenegativebreastcancerwhichdefinitionstouse
AT anderscareyk stratifyingtriplenegativebreastcancerwhichdefinitionstouse

Ejemplares similares