A signature predictive of disease outcome in breast carcinomas, identified by quantitative immunocytochemical assays

International Journal of Cancer - Tập 124 Số 9 - Trang 2124-2134 - 2009
Colette Charpin1, Véronique Secq1, Sophie Giusiano1, Séverine Carpentier1, L Andrac1, Marie‐Noëlle Lavaut1, Claude Allasia1, Pascal Bonnier2, Stéphane Garcia1
1Department of Pathology, Hôpital Nord and Université de la Méditerranée (Aix Marseille II), Marseille, France.
2Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Hôpital de La Conception, Marseille, France

Tóm tắt

AbstractQuantitative immunocytochemical assays of 1,200 breast carcinomas were assessed after construction of tissue microarrays. A total of 42 markers were evaluated for prognostic significance by univariate log rank test (mean follow‐up, 79 months), using quantitative scoring by an image analysis device and specific software. Complete data were obtained for 924 patients, for whom 27 of the 42 markers proved to be significant prognostic indicators. Analysis of these 27 markers by logistic regression showed that 18 (cMet, CD44v6, FAK, moesin, caveolin, c‐Kit, CK14, CD10, P21, P27, pMAPK, pSTAT3, STAT1, SHARP2, FYN, ER, PgR and c‐erb B2), and 15 when ER, PgR and c‐erb B2 were excluded, were 80.52% and 78.9% predictive of disease outcome, respectively. The immunocytochemical assays on 4 micron thick sections of fixed tissue are easy to handle in current practice and are cost‐effective. Quantitative densitometric measurement of immunoprecipitates by computer‐assisted devices from digitized microscopic images allows standardized high‐throughput “in situ” molecular profiling within tumors. It is concluded that this 15 marker immunohistochemical signature is suitable for current practice, since performed on paraffin sections of fixed tumor samples, and can be used to select patients needing more aggressive therapy, since this signature is about 80% predictive of poor clinical outcome. Also, the markers included in the signature may be indicative of tumor responsiveness to current chemotherapy or suggest new targets for specific therapies. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1038/35021093

10.1056/NEJMoa021967

10.1038/415530a

10.1073/pnas.0932692100

10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-2696

10.1073/pnas.0401736101

10.1056/NEJMoa041588

10.1073/pnas.0409462102

10.1093/jnci/djj329

10.1097/01.LAB.0000038508.86221.B3

10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0429

10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0220

10.1016/S0002-9440(10)64399-4

10.1158/0008-5472.767.65.3

10.1038/sj.onc.1209254

10.1038/modpathol.3800528

10.1002/ijc.22923

10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0353

10.1136/jcp.2006.041731

10.1111/j.1365-2559.2007.02889.x

10.1111/j.1365-2559.2007.02638.x

10.1016/j.humpath.2006.11.015

10.1002/path.1845

10.1093/ajcp/107.5.534

10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0021

10.1093/ajcp/109.4.431

10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199804)184:4<401::AID-PATH1220>3.0.CO;2-U

10.1200/JCO.1998.16.6.2025

10.1093/jnci/86.20.1539

10.1016/S0046-8177(97)90126-X

Garcia S, 2007, Overexpression of cMet and of the transducers PI3K, FAK and. JAK in breast carcinomas correlates with shorter survival and neoangiogenesis, Int J Oncol, 31, 49

10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17866-0

10.1093/jnci/86.11.829

10.1091/mbc.E06-08-0674

10.1016/j.biocel.2007.02.012

10.1016/j.febslet.2007.02.013

10.1128/MCB.02186-05

10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1371

10.1186/1477-7819-5-110

10.1038/sj.bjc.6603569

10.1038/sj.bjc.6601452

10.1016/j.humpath.2003.10.008

10.1002/ijc.20984

Meunier‐Carpentier S, 2005, Comparison of the prognosis indication of VEGFR‐1 and VEGFR‐2 and Tie2 receptor expression in breast carcinoma, Int J Oncol, 26, 977

10.1200/JCO.2005.04.937

10.1016/j.breast.2007.01.005

10.1007/s10549-006-9463-x

10.1182/blood-2006-07-035493

Christensen JG, 2003, A selective small molecule inhibitor of cMet kinase inhibits cMet‐dependent phenotypes in vitro and exhibits cytoreductive antitumor activity in vivo, Cancer Res, 63, 7345

10.1074/jbc.M007065200

10.1182/blood-2002-04-1004