Evaluation of prognostic factors in stage IIA breast tumors and their correlation with mortality risk

Breast tumors exhibit extensive molecular and clinical heterogeneity. One of the most utilized breast carcinoma classifications is based on its molecular aspects and subdivides breast cancer into five major groups based on the expression of certain genes. In this study, we evaluated which factors are important in determining a prognosis after 5 years of follow-up for patients with clinical stage IIA breast tumors. We took into consideration the different phenotypes (luminal A luminal B HER-2 overexpression, basal and triple-negative), various epithelial-mesenchymal (EMT) molecular markers and adhesion molecules (E-cadherin, P-cadherin, N-cadherin, vimentin, twist snail and slug) and NOS-2, in addition to clinical and demographic data, tumor characteristics and treatment types. METHODS: The study population consisted of 82 patients with breast cancer. We analyzed eight molecular markers by immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays containing breast tumor specimens from patients with ten years of follow-up, and we classified each tumor according to its estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and HER-2 expression. We then placed the tumor into one of the above categories. RESULTS: The presence of several clinical and demographic factors, various histopathologies, treatment forms and several immunohistochemical markers were not associated with a worse prognosis for group IIA patients. The factors that were associated with a mortality risk were the triple-negative (odds ratio (OR) = 11.8, 95% confident interval (CI) = 2.0-70.3, P = 0.007) and basal (OR =18.4, 95% CI = 1.8-184.7, P= 0.013) phenotypic patterns. CONCLUSIONS: The EMT markers and NOS-2 were not mortality risk factors. Basal and triple-negative phenotypic patterns were related to a higher mortality risk in patients with stage IIA tumors

Dietary intake of folate, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12, genetic polymorphism of related enzymes, and risk of breast cancer: a case-control study in Brazilian women

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Several studies have determined that dietary intake of B vitamins may be associated with breast cancer risk as a result of interactions between <it>5,10-methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) </it>and <it>methionine synthase </it>(<it>MTR</it>) in the one-carbon metabolism pathway. However, the association between B vitamin intake and breast cancer risk in Brazilian women in particular has not yet been investigated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A case-control study was conducted in São Paulo, Brazil, with 458 age-matched pairs of Brazilian women. Energy-adjusted intakes of folate, vitamin B₆, and vitamin B₁₂were derived from a validated Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ). Genotyping was completed for <it>MTHFR </it>A1298C and C677T, and <it>MTR </it>A2756G polymorphisms. A logistical regression model was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Neither dietary intake of folate, vitamin B₆, or vitamin B₁₂nor <it>MTHFR </it>polymorphisms were independently associated with breast cancer risk. Analysis stratified by menopausal status showed a significant association between placement in the highest tertile of folate intake and risk of breast cancer in premenopausal women (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.23–3.83; <it>P</it>_{<it>trend </it>}= 0.010). The <it>MTR </it>2756GG genotype was associated with a higher risk of breast cancer than the 2756AA genotype (OR = 1.99, 95% CI = 1.01–3.92; <it>P</it>_{<it>trend </it>}= 0.801), and statistically significant interactions with regard to risk were observed between the <it>MTHFR </it>A1298C polymorphism and folate (P = 0.024) or vitamin B₆(P = 0.043), and between the <it>MTHFR </it>C677T polymorphism and folate (P = 0.043) or vitamin B₁₂(P = 0.022).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p><it>MTHFR </it>polymorphisms and dietary intake of folate, vitamin B₆, and vitamin B₁₂had no overall association with breast cancer risk. However, increased risk was observed in total women with the <it>MTR </it>2756GG genotype and in premenopausal women with high folate intake. These findings, as well as significant interactions between <it>MTHFR </it>polymorphisms and B vitamins, warrant further investigation.</p

Prognostic evaluation of clinical stage IIA and IIIB breast cancers and the relationship with survive

Introdução: Os tumores de mama apresentam uma grande heterogeneidade molecular e clínica. Uma das classificações mais utilizadas no carcinoma de mama, baseia-se em seus aspectos moleculares e subdivide o câncer de mama em cinco grandes grupos baseados na expressão de alguns genes: luminais (A e B), super-expressor de HER-2, tipo basal e aqueles semelhantes à mama normal. Para melhor definirmos estes subgrupos de carcinomas mamários, analisamos diferentes marcadores imunoistoquímicos em dois estádios de pacientes: IIA e IIIB. Objetivo: O objetivo de nosso estudo foi avaliar quais fatores seriam importantes na determinação do prognóstico, tanto nas pacientes estadiadas como IIA quanto nas IIIB, com um período de seguimento de 120 meses, levando em conta dados clínicos e demográficos, características tumorais, tipos de tratamento, diferentes marcadores moleculares da transição epitélio-mesênquima (e-caderina, pcaderina, n-caderina, vimentina, twist, snai l, slug), o EGFR, a NOS-2 e os diferentes fenótipos (Luminal A, Luminal B, super-expressor de HER-2, basal e triplo-negativo) em câncer de mama. Pacientes e Métodos: A casuística deste estudo é constituída por 268 pacientes portadoras de tumor de mama operadas no Hospital A C Camargo, no período de 1980 a 1999. Foi realizado estudo imunoistoquímico para análise de nove marcadores moleculares e cada tumor foi classificado de acordo com a expressão do receptor de estrogênio, progesterona e expressão do HER-2 em uma das categorias luminais, basal, triplo-negativo e super-expressor de HER-2. Resultados: Observamos que a maioria dos tumores media de 2,1 a 5,0 cm (57,8%), pertenciam ao grau histológico 2 (57,1%), eram grau nuclear 3 (61,6%), possuíam de 0 a 9 mitoses por campo de grande aumento (CGA) e 59% apresentavam metástase linfonodal. As pacientes analisadas pertenciam a dois subgrupos de estadiamento, sendo que 86 casos pertenciam ao EC IIA (32,1%) e 182 ao EC IIIB (67,9%). Na análise multivariada, observamos em nosso estudo que a presença de diversos fatores clínicos e demográficos, de variáveis histopatológicas, formas de tratamento, os diversos marcadores moleculares não parecem conferir um pior prognóstico às pacientes do grupo IIA. Neste grupo, os fatores que mostraram estar associados a um pior prognóstico foram o fato destas pacientes pertencerem ao padrão fenotípico triplo negativo ou ao padrão basal. Quando realizamos a análise multivariada para avaliação do risco de óbito em 120 meses, observamos que no estádio IIIB, o padrão fenotípico luminal A, luminal B, super-expressor de HER-2 e triplo-negativo, não esteve relacionado com óbito. O risco de óbito esteve associado com a presença de metástase linfonodal e a não realização de quimioterapia adjuvante. Conclusão: Com estes achados podemos concluir que os padrões fenotípicos basal e triplo-negativo estão relacionados com uma pior sobrevida nas pacientes IIA. Entretanto, os subtipos de câncer de mama não estão relacionados com o prognóstico no grupo de mulheres do estádio IIIB. A presença de metástase nos linfonodos e a não realização de quimioterapia adjuvante são fatores de risco para estas mulheres.Introduction: The breast cancer is a great molecular and clinical heterogeneous disease. One of the most used breast cancer classification involves molecular events and classify breast cancer into distinct groups based on gene expression patterns: luminal (A and B), overexpression of HER-2, basal and and normal breast like. Once the breast subgroups have been identified, we used a large panel of different tumour markers, to differenciated to groups of patients: IIA and IIIB. Objectives: The aim of our study was to identify which factors could be necessary to determine the prognosis, in both patients group (IIA and IIIB), until 10 years of follow-up, when we consider clinical and demographics aspects, histopathologic characteristics of the tumour, treatment, molecular markers of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition (e-cadherin, p-cadherin, n-cadherin, vimentin, twist, snai l, slug), EGFR and NOS 2 and molecular subgroups (luminal A, luminal B, basal, triplenegative and overexpressor of HER-2), in breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Cases for this study were selected from Hospital A C Camargo, and included 268 patients with diagnosis of breast cancer submitted to surgery between 1980 and 1999. We applied immunohistochemical to analyse nine different molecular markers and each tumour was classified according to estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and HER-2 expression in one of the molecular cathegories. Results: We observed that the size of most tumours varied 2.1 to 5.0 cm (57.8%), that they had histologic grade 2 (57.1%), nuclear grade 3 (61.6%), they showed 0 to 9 m mitoses and 59% had dissemination to lymph nodes. Eighty six patients were staged as IIA (32.1%) and 182 were staged as IIIB (67.9%). The multivarieted analysis showed that different clinical and demographics factors, histopathologic characteristics of the tumour, different treatment and some molecular markers didnt confer a worse prognostic to patients staged as IIA. The factors that showed an association with a worse prognosis were: tumor belongs to triple-negative or basal phenotype. When we realize the multivarieted analysis in stage IIIB, to look for the death risk in ten years, we observed that luminal A or B, over expression of HER-2 and triplenegative phenotype, didnt had any relation with death. The death risk was associated with dissemination to lymph nodes and with no adjuvant chemotherapy. Conclusion: We concluded that in stage IIA, the factors that showed an association with a worse prognosis were triple-negative or basal phenotype. And that the phenotype subgroups were not related to prognoses in stage IIIB and that the presence of lymph node dissemination and no adjuvant chemotherapy were risk factors for these patients

Is the Expression of Inducible (iNOS) and Endothelial (eNOS) Nitric Oxide Synthases an Early Event in Breast Carcinogenesis?

Hosp Canc, Med & Res Ctr, Dept Breast Surg, São Paulo, BrazilHosp Canc, Med & Res Ctr, Dept Anat Pathol, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Gynaecol, São Paulo, BrazilUniversidade Federal de São Paulo, Dept Gynaecol, São Paulo, BrazilWeb of Scienc