"Good Old" clinical markers have similar power in breast cancer prognosis as microarray gene expression profilers
"Good Old" clinical markers have similar power in breast cancer prognosis as microarray gene expression profilers
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ejca.2004.02.025
复制
发表时间：
2004-08-01
影响因子：
8.4
通讯作者：
Peterson, C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Edén, P;Ritz, C;Peterson, C
我们比较了基因表达测量与传统预后标志物的功效，即，临床、组织病理学和细胞生物学参数，用于使用已建立的预后指标（例如，诺丁汉预后指数（NPI））和常规标记物的新组合。我们使用了97例患者的公开数据，转移预测的性能由受试者工作特征（ROC）面积和Kaplan-Meier图表示。基因表达分析器的表现并没有明显优于从临床变量构建的指数，例如，完善的NPI。当分别分析亚组时，根据雌激素受体（ER）状态，两种方法都可以更容易地预测ER阳性队列的临床结局。考虑到微阵列处理在世界范围内使用之前可能需要时间，特别是由于成本和缺乏标准，使用常规标记进行研究是很重要的。我们的分析表明，它可能是可能的，以改善不同的传统预后指标的组合成一个预后指数。(C)2004 Elsevier Ltd.保留所有权利。
We compared the power of gene expression measurements with that of conventional prognostic markers, i.e., clinical, histopathological, and cell biological parameters, for predicting distant metastases in breast cancer patients using both established prognostic indices (e.g., the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI)) and novel combinations of conventional markers. We used publicly available data on 97 patients, and the performance of metastasis prediction was represented by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) areas and Kaplan-Meier plots. The gene expression profiler did not perform noticeably better than indices constructed from the clinical variables, e.g., the well established NPI. When analysing separately subgroups, according to the oestrogen receptor (ER) status both approaches could predict clinical outcome more easily for the ER-positive than for the ER-negative cohort. Given the time it may take before microarray processing is used worldwide, particularly due to the costs and the lack of standards, it is important to pursue research using conventional markers. Our analysis suggests that it might be possible to improve the combination of different conventional prognostic markers into one prognostic index. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.