
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Molecular Oncology, Markers, Clinical Correlates |
Centre Paul Papin, Angers, France [A. C.]; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire, Tours, France [M-L. J.]; AP-HM, Marseille, France [S. R., P-M. M.]; CHU-Lyon Sud, France [F. D.]; CHU, Grenoble, France [M. C., M. B.]; and Centre René Huguenin, St-Cloud, France [F. S.]
The lack of a standardized methodology for quantifying DNA ploidy and S-phase fraction (SPF) by flow cytometry is hindering routine use of these markers in breast cancer management. In a retrospective clinical multicenter study, we validated a standardized flow cytometry protocol. We tested 633 frozen T1T2, N0N1, M0 breast tumors obtained in four institutions. Cell preparation was standardized, and precise rules for data interpretation were followed. Three SPF classes were defined on the basis of tertiles after adjustment for ploidy. DNA aneuploidy was observed in 61.0% of cases. No significant difference was observed among centers. Aneuploidy and high SPF were associated with large tumor size, node involvement, high histological grade, and hormone receptor negativity. In the overall population (median follow-up, 69 months), patients with medium and high SPF values had shorter disease-free survival (DFS) than those with low SPF values (P < 0.0001). Ploidy had no significant influence. By Cox analysis, SPF, pN, and estrogen receptor status were independent predictors of DFS (P = 0.0002, P = 0.001, and P = 0.05). In node-negative patients, SPF was the only predictor of DFS (P = 0.01), whereas in node-positive patients, the risk of relapse increased with both high SPF (P = 0.003) and estrogen receptor negativity (P = 0.004). Low SPF values distinguished grade II tumors with a particularly good outcome. Our results strongly support the use of SPF in multicenter studies and clinical trials and suggest that node-negative patients with slowly proliferating tumors do not require systemic adjuvant therapy.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
B. G. Molenkamp, B. J.R. Sluijter, P. A.M. van Leeuwen, S. J.A.M. Santegoets, S. Meijer, P. G.J.T.B. Wijnands, J. B.A.G. Haanen, A. J.M. van den Eertwegh, R. J. Scheper, and T. D. de Gruijl Local Administration of PF-3512676 CpG-B Instigates Tumor-Specific CD8+ T-Cell Reactivity in Melanoma Patients Clin. Cancer Res., July 15, 2008; 14(14): 4532 - 4542. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
L. Harris, H. Fritsche, R. Mennel, L. Norton, P. Ravdin, S. Taube, M. R. Somerfield, D. F. Hayes, and R. C. Bast Jr American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 Update of Recommendations for the Use of Tumor Markers in Breast Cancer J. Clin. Oncol., November 20, 2007; 25(33): 5287 - 5312. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
R. J.C.L.M. Vuylsteke, B. G. Molenkamp, P. A.M. van Leeuwen, S. Meijer, P. G.J.T.B. Wijnands, J. B.A.G. Haanen, R. J. Scheper, and T. D. de Gruijl Tumor-Specific CD8+ T Cell Reactivity in the Sentinel Lymph Node of GM-CSF-Treated Stage I Melanoma Patients is Associated with High Myeloid Dendritic Cell Content. Clin. Cancer Res., May 1, 2006; 12(9): 2826 - 2833. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. Colozza, E. Azambuja, F. Cardoso, C. Sotiriou, D. Larsimont, and M. J. Piccart Proliferative markers as prognostic and predictive tools in early breast cancer: where are we now? Ann. Onc., November 1, 2005; 16(11): 1723 - 1739. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
C. L. Slingluff Jr In Reply: J. Clin. Oncol., September 15, 2004; 22(18): 3835 - 3835. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Cancer Research | Clinical Cancer Research |
| Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention | Molecular Cancer Therapeutics |
| Molecular Cancer Research | Cancer Prevention Research |
| Cancer Prevention Journals Portal | Cancer Reviews Online |
| Annual Meeting Education Book | Meeting Abstracts Online |