• Home
  • Search Results
  • Do clinical features and survival of single hormone receptor positive breast cancers differ from double hormone receptor positive breast cancers?

Do clinical features and survival of single hormone receptor positive breast cancers differ from double hormone receptor positive breast cancers?

Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP (2014-10-09)
Char-Hong Ng, Nirmala Bhoo Pathy, Nur Aishah Taib, Gwo-Fuang Ho, Kein-Seong Mun, Anthony Rhodes, Lai-Meng Looi, Cheng-Har Yip
ABSTRACT

The significance of the single hormone receptor positive phenotype of breast cancer is still poorly understood. The use of hormone therapy has been found to be less effective for this type, which has a survival outcome midway between double positive and double negative phenotypes. The aim of this study was to investigate differences in patient and tumor characteristics and survival between double-receptor positive (ER+PR+), double receptor negative (ER-PR-) and single receptor positive (ER+PR- and ER-PR+) breast cancer in an Asian setting. A total of 1,992 patients with newly diagnosed stage I to IV breast cancer between 2003 and 2008, and where information on ER and PR were available, were included in this study. The majority of patients had ER+PR+ tumors (n=903: 45.3%), followed by 741 (37.2%) ER-PR-, 247 (12.4%) ER+PR-, and 101 (5.1%) ER-PR+ tumors. Using multivariate analysis, ER+PR- tumors were 2.4 times more likely to be grade 3 compared to ER+PR+ tumors. ER+PR- and ER-PR+ tumors were 82% and 86% respectively less likely to be grade 3 compared with ER-PR- tumors. ER-PR+ tumours were associated with younger age. There were no survival differences between patients with ER+PR+ and ER-PR+ tumors. However, ER+PR- tumors have poorer survival compared with ER+PR+ tumours. ER-PR- tumours had the worst survival. Adjuvant hormonal therapy with tamoxifen was found to have identical survival advantage in patients with ER+PR+ and ER-PR+ tumors whereas impact was slightly lower in patients with ER+PR- tumors. In conclusion, we found ER+PR- tumors to be more aggressive and have poorer survival when compared to ER+PR+ tumors, while patients with ER-PR+ tumours were younger, but had a similar survival to their counterparts with ER+PR+ tumours.

MATERIALS
Product Number
Brand
Product Description

Sigma-Aldrich
Hydrogen peroxide solution, purum p.a., ≥35% (RT)
Sigma-Aldrich
Hydrogen peroxide solution, contains ~200 ppm acetanilide as stabilizer, 3 wt. % in H2O
Sigma-Aldrich
Hydrogen peroxide solution, 50 wt. % in H2O, stabilized
Sigma-Aldrich
Hydrogen peroxide solution, contains inhibitor, 35 wt. % in H2O
Sigma-Aldrich
Hydrogen peroxide solution, contains inhibitor, 30 wt. % in H2O, meets USP testing specifications
Sigma-Aldrich
Hydrogen peroxide solution, contains inhibitor, 30 wt. % in H2O, ACS reagent
Sigma-Aldrich
Hydrogen Peroxide Solution, 30% (w/w), puriss. p.a., reag. ISO, reag. Ph. Eur.
Sigma-Aldrich
Hydrogen peroxide solution, tested according to Ph. Eur.
Millipore
Hydrogen peroxide solution, 3%, suitable for microbiology
Supelco
Hydrogen peroxide solution, ≥30%, for trace analysis
Sigma-Aldrich
Hydrogen peroxide solution, 34.5-36.5%
Sigma-Aldrich
Hydrogen peroxide solution, 30 % (w/w) in H2O, contains stabilizer
Supelco
Hydrogen peroxide solution, 30 % (w/w), for ultratrace analysis
Sigma-Aldrich
Hydrogen peroxide solution, contains potassium stannate as inhibitor, 30-32 wt. % in water, semiconductor grade, 99.999% trace metals basis