| 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. |
- Aaltonen, K. E., et al.
(författare)
-
Gene expression of breast cancer related genes in circulating tumour cells (CTCs) from patients with metastatic breast cancer
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0923-7534. ; 26:Suppl. 3, s. 15-15
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: Detection of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) in peripheral blood has an established prognostic significance in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Change in the number of detected CTCs is also an indication of response to therapy. Characterisation of CTCs could provide easily accessible treatment predictive information of present cancer cells within the patient and could reveal important knowledge about the metastatic process. The aim of this pilot study was to characterize CTCs with regard to both treatment predictive and more experimental markers by analysing the expression of genes associated with breast cancer.Methods: Blood samples from twelve patients with metastatic breast cancer included in the ongoing CTC-MBC study at Lund University, Sweden (Clinical Trials Id. NCT01322893) were analysed in this pilot study. Systemic treatment included endocrine, targeted and chemotherapy regimen. Blood samples were collected before start of 1st line therapy and at four time points. If progression occurred, a new round of samples was taken. CTCs were isolated from whole blood using the commercial kits AdnaTest EMT1/stem cell and AdnaTest EMT2/stem cell (AdnaGen AG, Langenhagen, Germany). With this method, CTCs are captured using antibodies directed against EpCAM and MUC-1 (EMT1-kit) or EpCAM, HER2 and EGFR (EMT2-kit). Gene expression analyses from CTCs at each time point was performed by TATAA Biocenter (Gothenburg, Sweden) using qPCR. 38 breast cancer related genes were analysed including the oestrogen receptor (ESR), HER2, VEGFR2, ALDH1, PI3K, PTEN and TWIST1.Results: Using positive expression of pseudo-markers EpCAM, MUC1 and HER2 as definition of CTCs, 6 of 12 patients were positive for CTCs. However, gene expression of additional markers in potential CTCs suggests complex patterns such as an increase in TWIST1, ALDH1 and SATB1 at time of progression.Conclusions: We present gene expression data from CTCs isolated before and during therapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. This type of characterisation could provide information of importance for treatment response and clinical outcome.Clinical trial identification: NCT01322893, March 24 2011
|
|
| 3. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Aebi, S, et al.
(författare)
-
Differential efficacy of three cycles of CMF followed by tamoxifen in patients with ER-positive and ER-negative tumors: Long-term follow up on IBCSG Trial IX
- 2011
-
Ingår i: ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY. - 0923-7534. ; 22:9, s. 1981-1987
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Abstract: Background: The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in postmenopausal patients with estrogen receptor (ER)positive lymph node-negative breast cancer is being reassessed. Patients and methods: After stratification by ER status, 1669 postmenopausal patients with operable lymph nodenegative breast cancer were randomly assigned to three 28-day courses of 'classical' CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy followed by tamoxifen for 57 months (CMF/tamoxifen) or to tamoxifen alone for 5 years. Results: ERs were positive in 81% of tumors. At a median follow-up of 13.1 years, patients with ER-positive breast cancers did not benefit from CMF [13-year disease-free survival (DFS) 64% CMF/tamoxifen, 66% tamoxifen; P = 0.99], whereas CMF substantially improved the prognosis of patients with ER-negative breast cancer (13-year DFS 73% versus 57%, P = 0.001). Similarly, breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) was identical in the ER-positive cohort but significantly improved by chemotherapy in the ER-negative cohort (13-year BCFI 80% versus 63%, P = 0.001). CMF had no influence on second nonbreast malignancies or deaths from other causes. Conclusion: CMF is not beneficial in postmenopausal patients with node-negative ER-positive breast cancer but is highly effective within the ER-negative cohort. In the future, other markers of chemotherapy response may define a subset of patients with ER-positive tumors who may benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy.
|
|
