Journals / Uluslararası Hematoloji-Onkoloji Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 2

Türk Meme Kanserli Hastalarda Menopozal duruma Göre Prognostik Faktörler ve Moleküler Fenotiplerde Farklılıklar

Variation in Prognostic Factors and Molecular Phenotype with Menopausal Status in Turkish Patients with Breast Cancer

Pages
109–116
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This variations were compatible with the poor prognosis premenopausal patients with breast cancer.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In Turkish patients with breast cancer variations of prognostic factors were examined according to the menopausal status.
📊
Key Findings & Data:A total of 1449 patients was enrolled from Akdeniz University Hospital of Medical School and Kayseri Education and Research Hospital.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This variations were compatible with the poor prognosis premenopausal patients with breast cancer.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In Turkish patients with breast cancer variations of prognostic factors were examined according to the menopausal status. In addition, molecular variations were investigated according to the menopausal status. A total of 1449 patients was enrolled from Akdeniz University Hospital of Medical School and Kayseri Education and Research Hospital. The patients were divided into three groups as menopausal status (pre, peri and postmenopausal) and into four groups according to molecular types (luminal A,luminal B, HER 2 like and Unclassified-Basal like). Patients were retrospectively recorded in the SPSS software. There was significant difference in the estrogen and cerbB2 hormon receptor positivity between premenopausal and postmenopausal groups (p=0.003 and 0.032). Estrogen receptor ratio was higher in postmenopausal group, and CerbB2 receptor ratio was higher in premenopausal group. Luminal A molecular subtype was the dominant subgroup. Compared to the other two groups, in premenopausal group, the ratio of HER 2 Like and Unclassified-Basal like molecular type were higher and the ratio of the luminal types were lower. Luminal A was the dominant subgroup in Turkish patients with breast cancer. Rate of molecular types was determined to be varied with menopausal status. This variations were compatible with the poor prognosis premenopausal patients with breast cancer.

Özet

Türk meme kanserli hastalarda menopozal duruma göre prognostik faktörlerin farklılı¤ı incelendi. Ayrıca moleküler farklılıklar menopozal duruma göre araştırıldı. Akdeniz Üniversitesi ve Kayseri E¤itim ve Araştırma Hastanesi’nden toplam 1449 hasta kaydedildi. Hastalar menopozal duruma göre üç guruba (pre, peri ve postmenopozal) ve moleküler tiplere göre dört guruba (luminal A, luminal B, Her 2 Like ve Sınışandırılamayan-Basal like) ayrıldı. Hastalar retrospektif olarak SPSS istatistik programına kaydedildi. Moleküler gruplarda Basal Like ve Unclassified grup aynı grup içine alındı. Premenopozal ve postmenopozal gruplar arasında östrojen ve CerbB2 pozitişi¤i için anlamlı fark mevcuttu (p de¤eri 0.003 ve 0.032, sırası ile). Postmenopozal grupta östrojen reseptörü, premenopozal grupta Cerb B2 oranı daha yüksek idi. Luminal A moleküler alt tip baskın olan altgruptu. Di¤er iki gurupla karşılaş-tırıldı¤ında premenopozal gurupta HER 2 Like ve Sınışandırılamayan-Basal Like moleküler tiplerin oranı daha fazla, luminal tiplerin oranı daha düşük idi. Türk meme kanserli hastalarda Luminal A baskın olan subgruptu. Moleküler tiplerin oranlarının menopozal status ile farklılık gösterdi¤i belirlendi. Bu farklılık premenopozal meme kanserli hastaların kötü prognozu ile uyumluluk göstermekte idi.

🔖

Cite This Article

MUTLU, H., ÖZDOĞAN, M., ÇOLAK, T., AKÇA, Z., BÜYÜKÇELİK, A. (2013). Türk Meme Kanserli Hastalarda Menopozal duruma Göre Prognostik Faktörler ve Moleküler Fenotiplerde Farklılıklar. Uluslararası Hematoloji-Onkoloji Dergisi, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 2, 109–116. https://ajindex.com/articles/323184

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Han W, Kim SW, Park IA, et al. Young age: An independent risk factor for disease-free survival in women with operable breast cancer. BMC Cancer 4: 82-89, 2004
  2. Gajdos C, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ, et al. Stage 0 to stage III breast cancer in young women. J Am Coll Surg 190: 523-529, 2000
  3. Colleoni M, Rotmensz N, Robertson C, et al. Very young women (_____35 years) with operable breast cancer: Features of disease at presentation. Ann Oncol 13: 273-279, 2002
  4. Love RR, Duc NB, Dinh NV, et al. Young age as an adverse prognostic factor in premenopausal women with operable breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 2: 294- 298, 2002
  5. Anders CK, Hsu DS, Broadwater G, et al. Young age at diagnosis correlates with worse prognosis and defines a subset of breast cancers with shared patterns of gene expression. J Clin Oncol 26: 3324-3330, 2008
  6. Nappi RE, Wawra K, Schmitt S. Hypoactive sexual desire disorder in postmenopausal women. Gynecol Endocrinol 22: 318-323, 2006
  7. McKinlay SM. The normal menopause transition: an overview. Maturitas 23: 137-145, 1996
  8. Atasu T, Ozekici U, Hekim N. Menopoz Tedavisi ve Kanser. Nobel T›p Kitabevleri, Istanbul, 2001: 295- 298
  9. Jonathan S. Berek. Novak’s Gynecology. Çeviri Editö- rü: Ahmet Erk, Novak Jinekoloji, Nobel T›p Kitabevleri, Istanbul, 2004: 1109-1139
  10. Palacios S, Henderson VW, Siseles N, et al. Age of menopause and impact of climacteric symptoms by geographical region. Climacteric 13: 419-428, 2010
  11. Dratva J, Go´mez Real F, Schindler C, et al. Is age at menopause increasing across Europe? Results on age at menopause and determinants from two populationbased studies. Menopause 16: 385-394, 2009
  12. Castelo-Branco C, Blumel JE, Chedraui P, et al. Age at menopause in Latin America. Menopause 13: 706- 712, 2006
  13. Gold EB, Bromberger J, Crawford S, et al. Factors associated with age at natural menopause in a multiethnicsample of midlife women. Am J Epidemiol 153: 865-874, 2001
  14. Boulet MJ, Oddens BJ, Lehert P, et al. Climacteric and menopause in seven Southeast Asian countries. Maturitas 19: 157-176, 1994
  15. Neslihan Carda S, Bilge SA, Ozturk TN, et al. The menopausal age, related factors and climacteric symptoms in Turkish women. Maturitas 30: 37-40, 1998
  16. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 10869-10874, 2001
  17. Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L, et al. Concordance amo