Cáncer de mama: valor pronóstico del estado «TN» versus perfil de expresión génica tumoral

IF 0.2 Q4 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Juan Antonio Mieza Arana , Ignacio Zabalza Estévez , José Antonio López Ruiz , María del Mar Vivanco Ruiz , Andoni López Maseda
{"title":"Cáncer de mama: valor pronóstico del estado «TN» versus perfil de expresión génica tumoral","authors":"Juan Antonio Mieza Arana ,&nbsp;Ignacio Zabalza Estévez ,&nbsp;José Antonio López Ruiz ,&nbsp;María del Mar Vivanco Ruiz ,&nbsp;Andoni López Maseda","doi":"10.1016/j.senol.2024.100592","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>To analyze the prognostic value of the “TNM” system, and specifically the “TN” status, compared to the tumor gene expression profile, when evaluating the risk of metastatic disease.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Retrospective review of 224 cases of infiltrating breast cancer. Genomic risk was established using the 70-gene gene expression platform (MammaPrint®). The result obtained with the genomic risk assessment has been considered “gold standard”.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>126 cases (56.25%) showed a “low” risk genomic profile and 98 cases (43.75%) showed a “high” risk. Among those with low genomic risk, 26.19% of tumors classified “T2”, “T3” and “T4” were observed. On the contrary, among those with “high” risk, 67.35% of tumors classified as “T1” were observed. Regarding the “N” status, among the “low” risk tumors, 26.98% of cases classified as “N1”, “N2” and “N3” were observed. On the other hand, among those with “high” genomic risk, 77.14% of cases classified as “N0” were observed. Among a total of 131 “T1N0” tumors, 57 (43.51%) showed “high” genomic risk. No significant differences have been observed in terms of risk assessment of metastatic disease (high vs. low) between the various “TN” categories studied.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The evaluation of the risk of metastatic disease using the “TN” system is not accurate. The detection of early tumors does not necessarily mean a good prognosis. On the contrary, the detection of “T2” or “N1” tumors does not imply a poor prognosis in all cases.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":38058,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Senologia y Patologia Mamaria","volume":"37 2","pages":"Article 100592"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Senologia y Patologia Mamaria","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0214158224000203","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

To analyze the prognostic value of the “TNM” system, and specifically the “TN” status, compared to the tumor gene expression profile, when evaluating the risk of metastatic disease.

Materials and methods

Retrospective review of 224 cases of infiltrating breast cancer. Genomic risk was established using the 70-gene gene expression platform (MammaPrint®). The result obtained with the genomic risk assessment has been considered “gold standard”.

Results

126 cases (56.25%) showed a “low” risk genomic profile and 98 cases (43.75%) showed a “high” risk. Among those with low genomic risk, 26.19% of tumors classified “T2”, “T3” and “T4” were observed. On the contrary, among those with “high” risk, 67.35% of tumors classified as “T1” were observed. Regarding the “N” status, among the “low” risk tumors, 26.98% of cases classified as “N1”, “N2” and “N3” were observed. On the other hand, among those with “high” genomic risk, 77.14% of cases classified as “N0” were observed. Among a total of 131 “T1N0” tumors, 57 (43.51%) showed “high” genomic risk. No significant differences have been observed in terms of risk assessment of metastatic disease (high vs. low) between the various “TN” categories studied.

Conclusions

The evaluation of the risk of metastatic disease using the “TN” system is not accurate. The detection of early tumors does not necessarily mean a good prognosis. On the contrary, the detection of “T2” or “N1” tumors does not imply a poor prognosis in all cases.

乳腺癌:TN 状态与肿瘤基因表达谱的预后价值
材料和方法对 224 例浸润性乳腺癌病例进行回顾性研究。使用 70 个基因的基因表达平台(MammaPrint®)确定基因组风险。结果126例(56.25%)显示基因组风险为 "低",98例(43.75%)显示为 "高"。在基因组风险较低的病例中,26.19%的肿瘤被归类为 "T2"、"T3 "和 "T4"。相反,在 "高 "风险人群中,67.35%的肿瘤被归类为 "T1"。关于 "N "状态,在 "低 "风险肿瘤中,26.98%的病例被归类为 "N1"、"N2 "和 "N3"。另一方面,在基因组风险 "高 "的肿瘤中,77.14%的病例被归类为 "N0"。在总共 131 例 "T1N0 "肿瘤中,有 57 例(43.51%)表现出 "高 "基因组风险。在转移性疾病风险评估(高与低)方面,所研究的不同 "TN "类别之间没有发现明显差异。发现早期肿瘤并不一定意味着预后良好。相反,发现 "T2 "或 "N1 "肿瘤并不意味着所有病例的预后都很差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Revista de Senologia y Patologia Mamaria
Revista de Senologia y Patologia Mamaria Medicine-Obstetrics and Gynecology
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
74
审稿时长
63 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信