The prognostic value of oncogenic antigen 519 (OA‐519) expression and proliferative activity detected by antibody MIB‐I in node‐negative breast cancer

Jensen, Viggo A.; Ladekarl, Morten; Holm-Nielsen, P; Melsen, F.; Soerensen, Flemming Brandt

doi:10.1002/path.1711760405

Cited by 100 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A difference in the prognostic value of MIB-1 for nodenegative and node-positive patients could be explained by more susceptibility for adjuvant (chemo)therapy in node-positive patients with high MIB-1 labelling index, whereas node-negative patients were not treated by adjuvant systemic therapy. The median percentage of MIB-1-positive cells in our patients (7%) tended to be lower than the median value of 16-20% reported from several other studies (Jensen et al, 1995;Domagala et al, 1996;Veronese et al, 1996), but is comparable with the median value of two other reports (Keshgegian et al, 1995;Ellis et al, 1996). For Ki-67 as measured in frozen sections quite different median values varying from 2% (Brown et al, 1996) to 12% (Bouzubar et al, 1989) are also reported.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

“…In this study with long follow-up, MIB-1 expression was a significant prognostic factor for disease-free survival both in univariate British Journal of Cancer (1998) (Jensen et al, 1995;Pinder et al, 1995;Domagala et al, 1996). The largest study on MIB-1 has shown a significant influence of MIB-I on both disease-free and overall survival in multivariate analysis (Seshadri et al, 1996) after a follow-up of 66 months.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

“…In general, the MIB-1 index also seems to be a prognostic factor sometimes even in multivariate analyses, but follow-up is generally rather short and/or the number of patients is low (Jensen et al, 1995;Domagala et al, 1996;Seshadri et al, 1996;Pietilainen et al, 1996;Veronese et al, 1996). Not many studies have been performed comparing the different methods of assessing the proliferative activity of a tumour.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

MIB-1 labelling index is an independent prognostic marker in primary breast cancer

Jansen

Hupperets²,

Arends³

et al. 1998

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary The proliferative activity of a tumour is considered to be an important prognostic factor in primary breast cancer. We have investigated the prognostic value of the MIB-1 labelling index in 341 patients with primary breast cancer and compared the results with the S-phase fraction in 220 patients of the same cohort. All patients were treated in one hospital and had a median follow-up of 128 months. No correlation between MIB-1 labelling and S-phase fraction could be demonstrated. MIB-1 had prognostic value for disease-free survival in the whole group of patients (P < 0.001) and in the node-negative subgroup (P < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, MIB-1 was an independent prognostic factor (P = 0.004) besides axillary lymph node status (P = 0.001). In univariate analysis high S-phase fraction was associated with decreased overall survival (P = 0.04); however, not in multivariate analysis. Moreover, S-phase fraction had a borderline prognostic significance for post-relapse survival in multivariate analysis (P= 0.08). Thus, in conclusion, the growth fraction of a tumour as determined by the MIB-1 labelling index is an important prognostic factor in patients with primary breast cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 50%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

MIB-1 labelling index is an independent prognostic marker in primary breast cancer

Jansen

Hupperets²,

Arends³

et al. 1998

Br J Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding OS (9472 patients), of all 35 studies, subgroup analysis was possible in nine studies with nodenegative patients (1996 patients) (Jensen et al, 1995;Weikel et al, 1995;Bevilacqua et al, 1996;Brown et al, 1996;Domagala et al, 1996;Fresno et al, 1997;Rudolph et al, 1999a;Trihia et al, 2003;Erdem et al, 2005), in four with node-positive patients (857 patients) Domagala et al, 1996;Gonzalez et al, 2003;Trihia et al, 2003) and in two that included only untreated patients (node-negative and node-positive) (284 patients) (Pinder et al, 1995;Bevilacqua et al, 1996).…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12 155 patients

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Ki-67 antigen is used to evaluate the proliferative activity of breast cancer (BC); however, Ki-67's role as a prognostic marker in BC is still undefined. In order to better define the prognostic value of Ki-67/MIB-1, we performed a meta-analysis of studies that evaluated the impact of Ki-67/MIB-1 on disease-free survival (DFS) and/or on overall survival (OS) in early BC. Sixty-eight studies were identified and 46 studies including 12 155 patients were evaluable for our meta-analysis; 38 studies were evaluable for the aggregation of results for DFS, and 35 studies for OS. Patients were considered to present positive tumours for the expression of Ki-67/MIB-1 according to the cut-off points defined by the authors. Ki-67/MIB-1 positivity is associated with higher probability of relapse in all patients (HR ¼ 1.93 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.74 -2.14); Po0.001), in node-negative patients (HR ¼ 2.31 (95% CI: 1.83 -2.92); Po0.001) and in node-positive patients (HR ¼ 1.59 (95% CI: 1.35 -1.87); Po0.001). Furthermore, Ki-67/MIB-1 positivity is associated with worse survival in all patients (HR ¼ 1.95 (95% CI: 1.70 -2.24; Po0.001)), node-negative patients (HR ¼ 2.54 (95% CI: 1.65 -3.91); Po0.001) and node-positive patients (HR ¼ 2.33 (95% CI: 1.83 -2.95); Po0.001). Our meta-analysis suggests that Ki-67/ MIB-1 positivity confers a higher risk of relapse and a worse survival in patients with early BC.

show abstract

“…76,77 It is minimally expressed in normal tissues, but frequently upregulated in cancers, notably the hormone-sensitive breast, uterine and prostate carcinomas, with frequent correlation with poor prognosis. 78,79 SREBF1 (sterol regulatory element binding transcription factor 1), which regulates the transcription of FASN 80 is encoded by a gene also overexpressed in luminal A tumours.…”

Section: Extensive Transcriptional Differences Between Basal and Lumimentioning

confidence: 99%

How different are luminal A and basal breast cancers?

Bertucci

Finetti

Cervera

et al. 2008

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Heterogeneity of breast cancer makes its evolution difficult to predict, and its treatment far from being optimal. At least 5 main molecular subtypes exist. Two major subtypes are luminal A and basal subtypes, which have opposite features, notably survival. To characterize these 2 subtypes better, with the hope of better understanding their different biology and clinical outcome, we have profiled a series of 138 tumours (80 luminal A and 58 basal) using Affymetrix whole-genome DNA microarrays. We have identified 5,621 probe sets as differentially expressed between the 2 subtypes in our series. These differences were validated in 6 independent public series (more than 600 tumours) profiled using different DNA microarrays platforms. Analysis of functions and pathways related to these probe sets, and the extent of the observed differences, confirmed that the 2 subtypes represent very distinct entities. Genes associated with proliferation, cell cycle, cell motility, angiogenesis, and NFkB signalling were overexpressed in basal tumours. Genes involved in fatty acid metabolism, TGFB signalling, and oestrogen receptor (ER) signalling were overexpressed in luminal A samples. Half of the genes overexpressed in luminal tumours contained ER-binding sites. The number of differentially expressed genes was as high as the set of genes discriminating 2 cancers of different anatomical origin (breast and colon) or discriminating acute myeloid and lymphoid leukaemia. We provide a comprehensive list of genes/pathways that define potential diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic targets for these 2 subtypes, which should be treated differently given the profound differences observed at the molecular level.

show abstract

The prognostic value of oncogenic antigen 519 (OA‐519) expression and proliferative activity detected by antibody MIB‐I in node‐negative breast cancer

Cited by 100 publications

References 33 publications

MIB-1 labelling index is an independent prognostic marker in primary breast cancer

MIB-1 labelling index is an independent prognostic marker in primary breast cancer

Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12 155 patients

How different are luminal A and basal breast cancers?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About