Eak/ moderate expression and from 0.65 to 0.66 for cases with strong protein

Eak/ moderate expression and from 0.65 to 0.66 for cases with strong protein expression. Similarly, the HR for risk of death was 0.66?0.75 for cases with weak/moderate ER protein expression and 0.57?.62 for tumors with strong IHC staining. A significant interaction between menopausal status and ER protein expression in terms of DFS was found (Wald’s p = 0.012). More specifically, in premenopausal patients positive ER tumors (Allred score 3?) were associated with lower risk for relapse (HR = 0.523, 95 CI: 0.377?.724, Wald’s p,0.001) compared to negative ER tumors (Allred score 0?). In postmenopausal patients no significant difference was found (HR = 0.933, 95 CI: 0.683?.275, Wald’sp = 0.663). In terms of OS the interaction between the two parameters was not significant (Wald’s p = 0.277). No significant interaction was found of ER IHC expression markers with paclitaxel AKT inhibitor 2 site treatment for either DFS or OS ( p-value.0.05 in 16574785 all cases). The number of ESR1 gene copies was not prognostic for DFS, although it did predict for adverse OS. Patients with tumors harboring .5 ESR1 gene copies had a risk of death increased by 89 compared to patients with up to 2 gene copies (p = 0.036). The number of CEP6 gene copies had no prognostic significance for either DFS or OS. Similarly, the tumoral ESR1/CEP6 gene ratio showed no evidence for prognostic impact on DFS or OS. Moreover, the presence or absence of ESR1 clusters did not have prognostic utility. However, a significant interaction between ESR1/CEP6 gene ratio and paclitaxel treatment was observed for DFS (Wald’s p = 0.017) and marginally for OS (Wald’s p = 0.062). More specifically, in the subgroup of patients with tumoral ESR1/ CEP6 gene ratio #1, paclitaxel treatment was non-significantly associated with increased risk of relapse (HR = 1.42, 95 CI = 0.82?.48) and death (HR = 1.21, 95 CI = 0.66?.23). In the subgroup of patients with gene gain or amplification (ESR1/ CEP6.1), paclitaxel treatment was associated with decreased riskTable 3. Prognostic significance of study biomarkers in univariate analysis.DFS HR ER status Negative (0) Positive ( 1 ) ER Allred score 0? 3? 7? ER H score ,50 50?00 200 ESR1 (gene copies) #2 2? 5 ESR1 gene status Deletion Normal Gain Amplified ESR1 mRNA expression Low (,25th percentile) High ( 25th percentile) Gene buy 50-14-6 Functional profile (N = 864) Ratio gain, no function Ratio normal, no function Ratio normal, functional Ratio gain, functional doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070634.t003 1 0.78 0.54 0.64 0.52?.15 0.38?.78 0.46?.88 0.006 0.21 0.001 0.006 1 0.90 0.70?.16 0.43 1 0.80 0.96 0.73 0.57?.12 0.72?.29 0.39?.35 0.39 0.20 0.80 0.31 1 1.03 1.22 0.83?.27 0.68?.20 0.79 0.80 0.50 1 0.82 0.65 0.65?.02 0.46?.92 0.030 0.072 0.013 1 0.72 0.66 0.58?.91 0.45?.98 0.013 0.006 0.036 1 0.72 0.58?.91 0.005 95 CI Wald’s pOS HR 95 CI Wald’s p1 0.67 0.51?.87 0.1 0.66 0.62 0.51?.86 0.40?.0.006 0.002 0.1 0.75 0.57 0.58?.97 0.38?.0.011 0.028 0.1 1.15 1.89 0.89?.47 1.04?.0.089 0.28 0.1 0.72 0.89 0.76 0.49?.06 0.64?.24 0.38?.0.37 0.099 0.50 0.1 0.74 0.56?.99 0.1 0.86 0.49 0.61 0.55?.35 0.32?.75 0.42?.0.003 0.52 0.001 0.ESR1 Gene Amplification in Early Breast CancerFigure 23977191 4. Overall Survival of patients by Gene Functional profile. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070634.gof relapse (HR = 0.66, 95 CI = 0.49?.90) and death (HR = 0.63, 95 CI = 0.44?.89). Digital FISH images can be seen at http://hecog-images.gr/ESR1/FISH_HE10/97_HE10/ 00 High tumor ESR1 mRNA expression significantly correlated with impro.Eak/ moderate expression and from 0.65 to 0.66 for cases with strong protein expression. Similarly, the HR for risk of death was 0.66?0.75 for cases with weak/moderate ER protein expression and 0.57?.62 for tumors with strong IHC staining. A significant interaction between menopausal status and ER protein expression in terms of DFS was found (Wald’s p = 0.012). More specifically, in premenopausal patients positive ER tumors (Allred score 3?) were associated with lower risk for relapse (HR = 0.523, 95 CI: 0.377?.724, Wald’s p,0.001) compared to negative ER tumors (Allred score 0?). In postmenopausal patients no significant difference was found (HR = 0.933, 95 CI: 0.683?.275, Wald’sp = 0.663). In terms of OS the interaction between the two parameters was not significant (Wald’s p = 0.277). No significant interaction was found of ER IHC expression markers with paclitaxel treatment for either DFS or OS ( p-value.0.05 in 16574785 all cases). The number of ESR1 gene copies was not prognostic for DFS, although it did predict for adverse OS. Patients with tumors harboring .5 ESR1 gene copies had a risk of death increased by 89 compared to patients with up to 2 gene copies (p = 0.036). The number of CEP6 gene copies had no prognostic significance for either DFS or OS. Similarly, the tumoral ESR1/CEP6 gene ratio showed no evidence for prognostic impact on DFS or OS. Moreover, the presence or absence of ESR1 clusters did not have prognostic utility. However, a significant interaction between ESR1/CEP6 gene ratio and paclitaxel treatment was observed for DFS (Wald’s p = 0.017) and marginally for OS (Wald’s p = 0.062). More specifically, in the subgroup of patients with tumoral ESR1/ CEP6 gene ratio #1, paclitaxel treatment was non-significantly associated with increased risk of relapse (HR = 1.42, 95 CI = 0.82?.48) and death (HR = 1.21, 95 CI = 0.66?.23). In the subgroup of patients with gene gain or amplification (ESR1/ CEP6.1), paclitaxel treatment was associated with decreased riskTable 3. Prognostic significance of study biomarkers in univariate analysis.DFS HR ER status Negative (0) Positive ( 1 ) ER Allred score 0? 3? 7? ER H score ,50 50?00 200 ESR1 (gene copies) #2 2? 5 ESR1 gene status Deletion Normal Gain Amplified ESR1 mRNA expression Low (,25th percentile) High ( 25th percentile) Gene Functional profile (N = 864) Ratio gain, no function Ratio normal, no function Ratio normal, functional Ratio gain, functional doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070634.t003 1 0.78 0.54 0.64 0.52?.15 0.38?.78 0.46?.88 0.006 0.21 0.001 0.006 1 0.90 0.70?.16 0.43 1 0.80 0.96 0.73 0.57?.12 0.72?.29 0.39?.35 0.39 0.20 0.80 0.31 1 1.03 1.22 0.83?.27 0.68?.20 0.79 0.80 0.50 1 0.82 0.65 0.65?.02 0.46?.92 0.030 0.072 0.013 1 0.72 0.66 0.58?.91 0.45?.98 0.013 0.006 0.036 1 0.72 0.58?.91 0.005 95 CI Wald’s pOS HR 95 CI Wald’s p1 0.67 0.51?.87 0.1 0.66 0.62 0.51?.86 0.40?.0.006 0.002 0.1 0.75 0.57 0.58?.97 0.38?.0.011 0.028 0.1 1.15 1.89 0.89?.47 1.04?.0.089 0.28 0.1 0.72 0.89 0.76 0.49?.06 0.64?.24 0.38?.0.37 0.099 0.50 0.1 0.74 0.56?.99 0.1 0.86 0.49 0.61 0.55?.35 0.32?.75 0.42?.0.003 0.52 0.001 0.ESR1 Gene Amplification in Early Breast CancerFigure 23977191 4. Overall Survival of patients by Gene Functional profile. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0070634.gof relapse (HR = 0.66, 95 CI = 0.49?.90) and death (HR = 0.63, 95 CI = 0.44?.89). Digital FISH images can be seen at http://hecog-images.gr/ESR1/FISH_HE10/97_HE10/ 00 High tumor ESR1 mRNA expression significantly correlated with impro.

Leave a Reply