| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- 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.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Bagnardi, V, et al.
(författare)
-
Light alcohol drinking and cancer: a meta-analysis
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1569-8041. ; 24:2, s. 301-308
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Beyer, J., et al.
(författare)
-
Maintaining success, reducing treatment burden, focusing on survivorship: highlights from the third European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Annals of Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1569-8041 .- 0923-7534. ; 24:4, s. 878-888
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- In November 2011, the Third European Consensus Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment of Germ-Cell Cancer (GCC) was held in Berlin, Germany. This third conference followed similar meetings in 2003 (Essen, Germany) and 2006 (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) [Schmoll H-J, Souchon R, Krege S et al. European consensus on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus Group (EGCCCG). Ann Oncol 2004; 15: 1377-1399; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part I. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 478-496; Krege S, Beyer J, Souchon R et al. European consensus conference on diagnosis and treatment of germ-cell cancer: a report of the second meeting of the European Germ-Cell Cancer Consensus group (EGCCCG): part II. Eur Urol 2008; 53: 497-513]. A panel of 56 of 60 invited GCC experts from all across Europe discussed all aspects on diagnosis and treatment of GCC, with a particular focus on acute and late toxic effects as well as on survivorship issues. The panel consisted of oncologists, urologic surgeons, radiooncologists, pathologists and basic scientists, who are all actively involved in care of GCC patients. Panelists were chosen based on the publication activity in recent years. Before the meeting, panelists were asked to review the literature published since 2006 in 20 major areas concerning all aspects of diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of GCC patients, and to prepare an updated version of the previous recommendations to be discussed at the conference. In addition, similar to 50 E-vote questions were drafted and presented at the conference to address the most controversial areas for a poll of expert opinions. Here, we present the main recommendations and controversies of this meeting. The votes of the panelists are added as online supplements.
|
|
