BackgroundThe debate continues as to whether younger women who present with breast cancer have a more aggressive form of disease and a worse prognosis. The objectives of this study were to determine the incidence of breast cancer in women under 40 years old and to analyse the clinicopathological characteristics and outcome compared to an older patient cohort.MethodsData was acquired from a review of charts and the prospectively reviewed GUH Department of Surgery database. Included in the study were 276 women diagnosed with breast cancer under the age of forty and 2869 women over forty. For survival analysis each women less than 40 was matched with two women over forty for both disease stage and grade.ResultsThe proportion of women diagnosed with breast cancer under the age of forty in our cohort was 8.8%. In comparison to their older counterparts, those under forty had a higher tumour grade (p = 0.044) and stage (p = 0.046), a lower incidence of lobular tumours (p < 0.001), higher estrogen receptor negativity (p < 0.001) and higher HER2 over-expression (p = 0.002); there was no statistical difference as regards tumour size (p = 0.477). There was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) for both groups; and factors like tumour size (p = 0.026), invasion (p = 0.026) and histological type (p = 0.027), PR (p = 0.031) and HER2 (p = 0.002) status and treatment received were independent predictors of OSConclusionBreast cancer in younger women has distinct histopathological characteristics; however, this does not result in a reduced survival in this population.
Association of specific miRNAs with clinicopathological features indicates their biological relevance and highlights the power of ANN to reliably predict clinically relevant miRNA biomarkers, which it is hoped will better stratify patients to guide adjuvant therapy.
BackgroundGene expression analysis has many applications in cancer diagnosis, prognosis and therapeutic care. Relative quantification is the most widely adopted approach whereby quantification of gene expression is normalised relative to an endogenously expressed control (EC) gene. Central to the reliable determination of gene expression is the choice of control gene. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a panel of candidate EC genes from which to identify the most stably expressed gene(s) to normalise RQ-PCR data derived from primary colorectal cancer tissue.ResultsThe expression of thirteen candidate EC genes: B2M, HPRT, GAPDH, ACTB, PPIA, HCRT, SLC25A23, DTX3, APOC4, RTDR1, KRTAP12-3, CHRNB4 and MRPL19 were analysed in a cohort of 64 colorectal tumours and tumour associated normal specimens. CXCL12, FABP1, MUC2 and PDCD4 genes were chosen as target genes against which a comparison of the effect of each EC gene on gene expression could be determined. Data analysis using descriptive statistics, geNorm, NormFinder and qBasePlus indicated significant difference in variances between candidate EC genes. We determined that two genes were required for optimal normalisation and identified B2M and PPIA as the most stably expressed and reliable EC genes.ConclusionThis study identified that the combination of two EC genes (B2M and PPIA) more accurately normalised RQ-PCR data in colorectal tissue. Although these control genes might not be optimal for use in other cancer studies, the approach described herein could serve as a template for the identification of valid ECs in other cancer types.
Using microarray analysis of pretreatment FFPE rectal cancer tissues, we identified for the first time a group of miRNA predictors of response to neoadjuvant CRT. This, indeed, can lead to a significant improvement in patient selection criteria and personalized rectal cancer management.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.