| 1. |
- Li, Jingmei, et al.
(författare)
-
Breast cancer genetic risk profile is differentially associated with interval and screen-detected breast cancers
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - Stockholm : Karolinska Institutet, Dept of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. - 0923-7534. ; 26:3, s. 517-522
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Polygenic risk profiles computed from multiple common susceptibility alleles for breast cancer have been shown to identify women at different levels of breast cancer risk. We evaluated whether this genetic risk stratification can also be applied to discriminate between screen-detected and interval cancers, which are usually associated with clinicopathological and survival differences. Patients and methods: A 77-SNP polygenic risk score (PRS) was constructed for breast cancer overall and by estrogen-receptor (ER) status. PRS was inspected as a continuous (per standard deviation increment) variable in a case-only design. Modification of the PRS by mammographic density was evaluated by fitting an additional interaction term. Results: PRS weighted by breast cancer overall estimates was found to be differentially associated with 1,865 screen-detected and 782 interval cancers in the LIBRO-1 study (age-adjusted ORperSD [95% confidence interval]=0.91 [0.83-0.99], p=0.023). The association was found to be more significant for PRS weighted by ER-positive breast cancer estimates (ORperSD=0.90 [0.82-0.98], p=0.011). This result was corroborated by two independent studies (combined ORperSD=0.87 [0.76-1.00], p=0.058) with no evidence of heterogeneity. When enriched for “true” interval cancers among nondense breasts, the difference in the association with PRS in screen-detected and interval cancers became more pronounced (ORperSD=0.74 [0.62-0.89], p=0.001), with a significant interaction effect between PRS and mammographic density (pinteraction=0.017). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the first report looking into the genetic differences between screendetected and interval cancers. It is an affirmation that the two types of breast cancer may have unique underlying biology.
|
|
| 2. |
- Aapro, M, et al.
(författare)
-
Guidance on the use of bisphosphonates in solid tumours: recommendations of an international expert panel
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1569-8041 .- 0923-7534. ; 19:3, s. 420-432
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Bisphosphonates (BP) prevent, reduce, and delay cancer-related skeletal complications in patients, and have substantially decreased the prevalence of such events since their introduction. Today, a broad range of BP with differences in potency, efficacy, dosing, and administration as well as approved indications is available. In addition, results of clinical trials investigating the efficacy of BP in cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL) have been recently published. The purpose of this paper is to review the current evidence on the use of BP in solid tumours and provide clinical recommendations. An interdisciplinary expert panel of clinical oncologists and of specialists in metabolic bone diseases assessed the widespread evidence and information on the efficacy of BP in the metastatic and nonmetastatic setting, as well as ongoing research on the adjuvant use of BP. Based on available evidence, the panel recommends amino-bisphosphonates for patients with metastatic bone disease from breast cancer and zoledronic acid for patients with other solid tumours as primary disease. Dosing of BP should follow approved indications with adjustments if necessary. While i.v. administration is most often preferable, oral administration (clodronate, IBA) may be considered for breast cancer patients who cannot or do not need to attend regular hospital care. Early-stage cancer patients at risk of developing CTIBL should be considered for preventative BP treatment. The strongest evidence in this setting is now available for ZOL. Overall, BP are well-tolerated, and most common adverse events are influenza-like syndrome, arthralgia, and when used orally, gastrointestinal symptoms. The dose of BP may need to be adapted to renal function and initial creatinine clearance calculation is mandatory according to the panel for use of any BP. Subsequent monitoring is recommended for ZOL and PAM, as described by the regulatory authority guidelines. Patients scheduled to receive BP (mainly every 3-4 weeks i.v.) should have a dental examination and be advised on appropriate measures for reducing the risk of jaw osteonecrosis. BP are well established as supportive therapy to reduce the frequency and severity of skeletal complications in patients with bone metastases from different cancers.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Alkner, Sara, et al.
(författare)
-
AIB1 is a predictive factor for tamoxifen response in premenopausal women
- 2010
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534 .- 1569-8041. ; 21:2, s. 238-244
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Clinical trials implicate the estrogen receptor ( ER) coactivator amplified in breast cancer 1 (AIB1) to be a prognostic and a treatment-predictive factor, although results are not unanimous. We have further investigated this using a controlled randomised trial of tamoxifen versus control. Materials and methods: A total of 564 premenopausal women were entered into a randomised study independent of ER status. Using a tissue microarray, AIB1 and ER were analysed by immunohistochemistry. Results: AIB1 scores were obtained from 349 women. High AIB1 correlated to factors of worse prognosis (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, Nottingham histological grade 3, and lymph node metastases) and to ER negativity. In the control arm, high AIB1 was a negative prognostic factor for recurrence- free survival (RFS) (P = 0.02). However, ER-positive patients with high AIB1 responded significantly to tamoxifen treatment (P = 0.002), increasing RFS to the same level as for systemically untreated patients with low AIB1. Although ER-positive patients with low AIB1 had a better RFS from the beginning, this was not further improved by tamoxifen (P = 0.8). Conclusions: In the control group, high AIB1 was a negative prognostic factor. However, ER-positive patients with high AIB1 responded significantly to tamoxifen. This implicates high AIB1 to be an independent predictive factor of improved response to tamoxifen and not, as has previously been discussed, a factor predicting tamoxifen resistance.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Alkner, Sara, et al.
(författare)
-
The role of AIB1 and PAX2 in primary breast cancer: validation of AIB1 as a negative prognostic factor.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1569-8041 .- 0923-7534. ; 24:5, s. 1244-1252
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThe steroid-receptor coactivator amplified in breast cancer one (AIB1) is implicated to be a prognostic factor, although the results are not unanimous. Recently its effect was suggested to be modified by paired box 2 gene product (PAX2).Patients and methodsUsing immunohistochemistry (IHC) AIB1 and PAX2 were investigated in two cohorts of early breast cancer, including systemically untreated premenopausal lymph-node-negative women and pre- and postmenopausal women receiving tamoxifen.ResultsAIB1 scores were available for 490 patients and PAX2 scores were available for 463 patients. High AIB1 was a negative prognostic factor for distant disease-free survival (DDFS, P = 0.02) and overall survival (OS, P < 0.001) in systemically untreated women, while no prognostic effect was seen in the tamoxifen-treated cohort, indicating AIB1 to be a predictor of tamoxifen response. In systemically untreated patients, PAX2 was not a prognostic factor, nor did it modify the effect of AIB1. However, in ER-positive patients receiving tamoxifen, PAX2 appeared to be a positive prognostic factor in premenopausal patients, while a negative factor in postmenopausal. The interaction between the menopausal status and PAX2 was significant (P = 0.01).ConclusionsIn an independent cohort of low-risk premenopausal patients, we validate AIB1 as a negative prognostic factor, indicating AIB1 to be an interesting target for new anti-cancer therapies. The effect of PAX2 warrants further studies.
|
|
