切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华乳腺病杂志(电子版)

中华乳腺病杂志(电子版) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (05) : 270 -275. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0807.2022.05.002

论著

激素受体阳性、人表皮生长因子受体2阴性的女性乳腺癌患者21基因复发风险评分与临床病理特征的关系
邓旭1, 朱枫1, 闫战涛1, 雷婷1, 李青1,†()   
  1. 1. 213003　常州，苏州大学附属第三医院病理科
  • 收稿日期:2022-03-14 出版日期:2022-10-01
  • 通信作者: 李青
  • 基金资助:
    常州市卫健委青年人才科技项目(QN202114)

Correlation between 21-gene recurrence score and clinicopathological characteristics of HR-positive and HER-2-negative female breast cancer patients

Xu Deng1, Feng Zhu1, Zhantao Yan1, Ting Lei1, Qing Li1,†()   

  1. 1. Department of Pathology, Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Changzhou 213003, China
  • Received:2022-03-14 Published:2022-10-01
  • Corresponding author: Qing Li
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

邓旭, 朱枫, 闫战涛, 雷婷, 李青. 激素受体阳性、人表皮生长因子受体2阴性的女性乳腺癌患者21基因复发风险评分与临床病理特征的关系[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 270-275.

Xu Deng, Feng Zhu, Zhantao Yan, Ting Lei, Qing Li. Correlation between 21-gene recurrence score and clinicopathological characteristics of HR-positive and HER-2-negative female breast cancer patients[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Breast Disease(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(05): 270-275.

目的

探讨激素受体(HR)阳性、HER-2阴性女性乳腺癌患者21基因复发风险评分(RS)与临床病理特征之间的关系及其在不同BMI患者中的分布差异，分析21基因RS在乳腺癌患者个体化治疗中的指导意义。

方法

回顾性分析2017年9月至2021年8月苏州大学附属第三医院收治的142例手术切除并经病理确诊的HR阳性、HER-2阴性女性乳腺癌患者的临床病理资料。采用实时荧光定量聚合酶链式反应检测21基因的表达，并计算RS值。根据RS将患者分为低(RS≤15)、中(15<RS<26)、高RS(RS≥26) 3个亚组；根据BMI将患者分为正常组(BMI<24.0 kg/m2 )、超重组(24.0 kg/m2≤BMI<28.0 kg/m2)和肥胖组(BMI≥28.0 kg/m2 )3个亚组。采用χ2检验或Fisher确切概率法分析不同RS分组及不同BMI分组患者临床病理特征之间的差异，组间两两比较采用卡方分割法，并进一步对有统计学意义的连续变量资料进行线性相关分析。RS为非正态分布的计量资料，采用M(P25，P75)表示，组间比较采用非参数秩和检验；等级资料(组织学分级)采用非参数秩和检验。传统术后风险分组和21基因RS分组方法的比较采用McNemar检验。

结果

根据RS将患者分为低(n＝105)、中(n＝ 21)、高(n＝16)3组，根据BMI将患者分为体重正常组(n＝83)、超重组(n＝48)、肥胖组(n＝11)。不同RS分组乳腺癌患者组织学分级(H＝13.824，P＝0.001)、PR表达水平(χ2＝18.884，P<0.001)、Ki-67(χ2＝15.483，P<0.001)及分子分型(χ2＝12.986，P＝0.002)比较，差异均有统计学意义。RS与PR表达水平呈负相关(r＝－0.520，P<0.001)、与Ki-67呈正相关(r＝0.487，P<0.001)。不同BMI状态乳腺癌患者年龄(χ2＝8.401，P＝0.015)及绝经状态(χ2＝9.060，P＝0.011)比较，差异具有统计学意义。体重正常组、超重组和肥胖组的RS及其分布差异均无统计学意义(H＝0.460，P＝0.795；χ2＝3.042，P＝0.537)。RS分组和传统术后复发风险分组比较，差异具有统计学意义(χ2＝55.850，P<0.001)。根据21基因RS，重新归类为低RS组的72例传统术后中复发风险的患者中仅19人接受了化疗，术后随访7.0~54.0个月(中位时间：22.5个月)，截至2022年3月均未见复发或疾病进展。

结论

21基因RS可为早期HR阳性、HER-2阴性乳腺癌患者的术后辅助化疗提供依据。

关键词: 乳腺肿瘤, 分子分型, 21基因, 复发
Objective

To investigate the correlation between the 21-gene recurrence score (RS)and clinicopathological characteristics of women with hormone receptor(HR)-positive, HER-2-negative breast cancer, and RS distribution in patients with different body mass index(BMI)and to explore the clinical significance of RS in the personalized treatment of breast cancer patients.

Methods

The clinicopathological data of 142 female patients with HR-positive, HER-2-negative breast cancer, which were surgically resected and pathologically confirmed in the Third Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from September 2017 to August 2021, were retrospectively analyzed. The expression of 21 genes was detected by real-time fluorescence quantitative polymerase chain reaction and RS was calculated. According to RS, patients were divided into three subgroups: low (RS≤15), medium (15<RS<26), and high RS (RS≥26); According to BMI, patients were divided into three subgroups: normal weight group (BMI<24.0 kg/m2), overweight(24.0 kg/m2≤BMI<28.0 kg/m2), and obese group (BMI≥28 kg/m2). χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare the clinicopathological characteristics among different RS groups and different BMI groups. The linear correlation analysis was conducted on continuous variables with statistical significance. Because of skewed distribution, RS was expressed as M (P25, P75), and compared using nonparametric rank sum test between groups. The nonparametric rank sum test was used for graded data (histological grades). The McNemar test was used to compare the traditional postoperative recurrence risk grouping and 21-gene RS grouping.

Results

According to RS, patients were divided into low (n=105), medium (n=21) and high RS group (n=16), and according to BMI, patients were divided into normal weight group (n=83), overweight (n=48) and obese group (n=11). Statistically significant differences were found in the tissue grade(H=13.824, P=0.001), PR expression(χ2=18.884, P<0.001), Ki-67(χ2=15.483, P<0.001)and molecular typing (χ2=12.986, P=0.002)among different RS groups. Further analysis showed that RS was negatively correlated with PR expression (r=-0.520, P<0.001)and positively correlated with Ki-67(r=0.487, P<0.001). Statistically significant differences were found in the age(χ2=8.401, P=0.015)and menopausal status(χ2=9.060, P=0.011)among different BMI groups. No significant difference was found in RS value(H=0.460, P=0.795)and its distribution(χ2=3.042, P=0.537)among normal weight group, overweight group and obese group. There was a significant difference between the RS grouping and the traditional postoperative recurrence risk grouping(χ2=55.850, P<0.001). Only 19 out of 72 patients were reclassified as low recurrence risk group according to 21-gene RS from intermediate traditional postoperative recurrence risk group and received adjuvant chemotherapy. The postoperative follow-up period was 7.0-54.0 months (median: 22.5 months). Until March 2022, no recurrence or disease progression was observed.

Conclusion

The 21-gene RS could provide a reference for the adjuvant chemotherapy of patients with early HR-positive, HER-2-negative breast cancer.

Key words: Breast neoplasms, Molecular typing, 21 gene, Recurrence
表1 不同复发风险评分分组乳腺癌患者的临床病理特征比较[例(%)]
临床病理特征 低RS组(n＝105) 中RS组(n＝21) 高RS组(n＝16) 检验值 P值
年龄          
  <55岁 52(49.5) 7(33.3) 7(7/16) χ2＝1.898 0.387
  ≥55岁 53(50.5) 14(66.7) 9(9/16)
绝经状态          
  否 49(46.7) 7(33.3) 6(6/16) χ2＝1.543 0.462
  是 56(53.3) 14(66.7) 10(10/16)
肿瘤直径          
  ≤2 cm 86(81.9) 17(81.0) 10(10/16) χ2＝3.148 0.199
  >2 cm 19(18.1) 4(19.0) 6(6/16)
病理分型          
  浸润性导管癌 68(64.8) 18(85.7) 13(13/16) χ2＝4.775 0.092
  其他 37(35.2) 3(14.3) 3(3/16)
组织学分级          
  1级 12(16.7) 2(11.8) 0 H＝13.824 0.001
  2级 56(77.8) 14(82.3) 8(8/14)
  3级 4(5.5) 1(5.9) 6(6/14)a
PR          
  低表达 6(5.7) 2(9.5) 8(8/16) χ2＝18.884 <0.001
  高表达 99(94.3) 19(90.5) 8(8/16)b
Ki-67          
  <14% 60(57.1) 8(38.1) 1(1/16) χ2＝15.483 <0.001
  ≥14% 45(42.9) 13(61.9) 15(15/16)c
分子分型          
  luminal A型 56(53.3) 8(38.1) 1(1/16) χ2＝12.986 0.002
  luminal B型 49(46.7) 13(61.9) 15(15/16)d
表2 不同BMI分组乳腺癌患者的临床病理特征比较[例(%)]
临床病理特征 正常组(n＝83) 超重组(n＝48) 肥胖组(n＝11) 检验值 P值
年龄          
  <55岁 47(56.6) 16(33.3) 3(3/11) χ2＝8.401 0.015
  ≥55岁 36(43.4) 32(66.7)a 8(8/11)
绝经状态          
  否 45(54.2) 14(29.2) 3(3/11) χ2＝9.060 0.011
  是 38(45.8) 34(70.8)b 8(8/11)
肿瘤直径          
  ≤2 cm 68(81.9) 38(79.2) 7(7/11) χ2＝2.007 0.367
  >2 cm 15(18.1) 10(20.8) 4(4/11)
病理分型          
  浸润性导管癌 58(69.9) 34(70.8) 7(7/11) χ2＝0.222 0.895
  其他 25(30.1) 14(29.2) 4(4/11)
组织学分级a          
  1级 9(15.3) 5(13.5) 0 H＝0.978 0.613
  2级 44(74.6) 28(75.7) 6(6/7)
  3级 6(10.2) 4(10.8) 1(1/7)
PR          
  低表达 11(13.3) 4(8.3) 1(1/11) χ2＝0.793 0.673
  高表达 72(86.7) 44(91.7) 10(10/11)
Ki-67          
  <14% 45(54.2) 18(37.5) 6(6/11) χ2＝3.571 0.168
  ≥14% 38(45.8) 30(62.5) 5(5/11)
分子分型          
  luminal A型 43(51.8) 16(33.3) 6(6/11) χ2＝4.551 0.103
  luminal B型 40(48.2) 32(66.7) 5(5/11)
表3 不同BMI分组乳腺癌患者RS分布的比较[例(%)]
组别 例数 RS≤15 15<RS<26 RS≥26 χ2值 P值
正常组 83 61(73.5) 12(14.5) 10(12.0) 3.042 0.537
超重组 48 35(72.9) 9(18.8) 4(8.3)
肥胖组 11 9(9/11) 0 2(2/11)
表4 142例HR阳性、HER-2阴性乳腺癌患者传统术后复发风险分组与21基因RS分组的比较(例)
传统术后复发风险分组 21基因RS分组 χ2值 P值
低复发风险 中、高复发风险
低复发风险 33 6 55.850 <0.001
中、高复发风险 72 31
[1]
Tong Y, Gao W, Wu J, et al. Comprehensive association analysis of 21-gene recurrence score and obesity in Chinese breast cancer patients[J]. Front Oncol, 2021, 11：619 840.
[2]
黄育北. 中国女性乳腺癌筛查指南[J]. 中国肿瘤临床，2019, 46(9)：429-431.
[3]
Salmon H, Remark R, Gnjatic S, et al. Host tissue determinants of tumour immunity[J]. Nat Rev Cancer, 2019, 19 (4)：215-227.
[4]
Renehan AG, Tyson M, Egger M, et al. Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies[J]. Lancet, 2008, 371 (9612)：569-578.
[5]
Sebastiani F, Cortesi L, Sant M, et al. Increased incidence of breast cancer in postmenopausal women with high body mass index at the modena screening program[J]. J Breast Cancer, 2016, 19 (3)：283-291.
[6]
Picon-Ruiz M, Morata-Tarifa C, Valle-Goffin JJ, et al. Obesity and adverse breast cancer risk and outcome: mechanistic insights and strategies for intervention[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2017, 67 (5)：378-397.
[7]
Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Sasano H, et al. Breast tumours//WHO classifcation of tumours[M]. 5th ed. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer: 88-91.
[8]
刘钟芬，陈创，姚晓莉，等. 乳腺癌不同分子分型的临床病理特点及预后分析[J]. 中华医学杂志，2016, 96 (22)：1733-1737.
[9]
李杰宝，喻晓程，田野. 乳腺癌分子分型与临床病理参数的关系及预后[J]. 中华实验外科杂志，2018, 35 (6)：1027-1029.
[10]
Kunst NR, Alarid-Escudero F, Paltiel AD, et al. A value of information analysis of research on the 21-gene assay for breast cancer management[J]. Value Health, 2019, 22 (10)：1102-1110.
[11]
Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2004, 351 (27)：2817-2826.
[12]
Kizy S, Huang JL, Marmor S, et al. Distribution of 21-gene recurrence scores among breast cancer histologic subtypes[J]. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 2018, 142 (6)：735-741.
[13]
Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2006, 24 (23)：3726-3734.
[14]
Giuliano AE, Edge SB, Hortobagyi GN. Eighth edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: breast cancer[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2018, 25(7)：1783-1785.
[15]
《乳腺癌雌、孕激素受体免疫组织化学检测指南》编写组. 乳腺癌雌、孕激素受体免疫组织化学检测指南[J]. 中华病理学杂志，2015, 44 (4)：237-239.
[16]
《乳腺癌HER2检测指南(2019版)》编写组. 乳腺癌HER2检测指南(2019版)[J]. 中华病理学杂志，2019, 48(3)：169-175.
[17]
Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, et al. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2013[J]. Ann Oncol, 2013, 24 (9)：2206-2223.
[18]
中国肥胖问题工作组. 中国成人超重和肥胖症预防与控制指南(节录)[J]. 营养学报，2004, 26(1)：1-4.
[19]
中国抗癌协会乳腺癌专业委员会. 中国抗癌协会乳腺癌诊治指南与规范(2021年版)[J]. 中国癌症杂志，2021, 31 (10)：954-1040.
[20]
Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy guided by a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer[J]. J N Engl J Med, 2018, 379 (2)：111-121.
[21]
Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials[J]. Lancet, 2005, 365 (9472)：1687-1717.
[22]
Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2010, 11 (1)：55-65.
[23]
Harris LN, Ismaila N, McShane LM, et al. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on adjuvant systemic therapy for women with early-stage invasive breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2016, 34 (10)：1134-1150.
[24]
Zhu Y, Wang T, Tong Y, et al. 21-gene recurrence assay associated with favorable metabolic profiles in HR-positive, HER2-negative early-stage breast cancer patients[J]. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2021, 12：725161.
[25]
连婧，郗彦凤，高宁，等. Lumina型乳腺癌患者21基因复发风险评分与临床病理特征的相关性及其临床意义[J]. 肿瘤研究与临床，2021, 33 (3)：195-199.
[26]
Zambelli A, Simoncini E, Giordano M, et al. Prospective observational study on the impact of the 21-gene assay on treatment decisions and resources optimization in breast cancer patients in Lombardy: the BONDX study[J]. Breast, 2020, 52：1-7.
[27]
Muniz J, Kidwell KM, Henry NL. Associations between metabolic syndrome, breast cancer recurrence, and the 21-gene recurrence score assay[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2016, 157 (3)：597-603.
[28]
曹华，闫茂生，郑涛，等. 乳腺癌分子分型的临床意义[J/CD]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2011, 5 (6)：670-680.
[29]
Poorvu PD, Gelber SI, Rosenberg SM, et al. Prognostic impact of the 21-gene recurrence score assay among young women with node-negative and node-positive ER-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2020, 38 (7)：725-733.
[30]
Partridge AH, Hughes ME, Warner ET, et al. Subtype-dependent relationship between young age at diagnosis and breast cancer survival[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2016, 34 (27)：3308-3314.
[1] 李洋, 蔡金玉, 党晓智, 常婉英, 巨艳, 高毅, 宋宏萍. 基于深度学习的乳腺超声应变弹性图像生成模型的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(06): 563-570.
[2] 河北省抗癌协会乳腺癌专业委员会护理协作组. 乳腺癌中心静脉通路护理管理专家共识[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 321-329.
[3] 刘晨鹭, 刘洁, 张帆, 严彩英, 陈倩, 陈双庆. 增强MRI 影像组学特征生境分析在预测乳腺癌HER-2 表达状态中的应用[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 339-345.
[4] 张晓宇, 殷雨来, 张银旭. 阿帕替尼联合新辅助化疗对三阴性乳腺癌的疗效及预后分析[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 346-352.
[5] 邱琳, 刘锦辉, 组木热提·吐尔洪, 马悦心, 冷晓玲. 超声影像组学对致密型乳腺背景中非肿块型乳腺癌的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 353-360.
[6] 程燕妮, 樊菁, 肖瑶, 舒瑞, 明昊, 党晓智, 宋宏萍. 乳腺组织定位标记夹的应用与进展[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 361-365.
[7] 涂盛楠, 胡芬, 张娟, 蔡海峰, 杨俊泉. 天然植物提取物在乳腺癌治疗中的应用[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 366-370.
[8] 朱文婷, 顾鹏, 孙星. 非酒精性脂肪性肝病对乳腺癌发生发展及治疗的影响[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 371-375.
[9] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[10] 刘世君, 马杰, 师鲁静. 胃癌完整系膜切除术+标准D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[11] 高杰红, 黎平平, 齐婧, 代引海. ETFA和CD34在乳腺癌中的表达及与临床病理参数和预后的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 64-67.
[12] 谢田伟, 庞于樊, 吴丽. 超声引导下不同消融术对甲状腺良性结节体积缩减率、复发率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 80-83.
[13] 韩萌萌, 冯雪园, 马宁. 乳腺癌改良根治术后桡神经损伤1例[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 117-118.
[14] 李伟, 宋子健, 赖衍成, 周睿, 吴涵, 邓龙昕, 陈锐. 人工智能应用于前列腺癌患者预后预测的研究现状及展望[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 541-546.
[15] 皮尔地瓦斯·麦麦提玉素甫, 李慧灵, 艾克拜尔·艾力, 李赞林, 王志, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 生物补片修补巨大复发性腹壁切口疝临床疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 624-628.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号