↓ Skip to main content

The prognostic value of stromal and epithelial periostin expression in human breast cancer: correlation with clinical pathological features and mortality outcome

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The prognostic value of stromal and epithelial periostin expression in human breast cancer: correlation with clinical pathological features and mortality outcome
Published in
BMC Cancer, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12885-016-2139-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

P. V. Nuzzo, A. Rubagotti, L. Zinoli, S. Salvi, S. Boccardo, F. Boccardo

Abstract

PN is a secreted cell adhesion protein critical for carcinogenesis. In breast cancer, it is overexpressed compared to normal breast, and a few reports suggest that it has a potential role as a prognostic marker. Tumour samples obtained at the time of mastectomy from 200 women followed for a median time of 18.7 years (range 0.5-29.5 years) were investigated through IHC with a polyclonal anti-PN antibody using tissue microarrays. Epithelial and stromal PN expression were scored independently according to the percentage of coloured cells; the 60(th) percentile of PN epithelial expression, corresponding to 1 %, and the median value of PN stromal expression, corresponding to 90 %, were used as arbitrary cut-offs. The relationships between epithelial and stromal PN expression and clinical-pathological features, tumour phenotype and the risk of mortality following surgery were analysed. Appropriate statistics, including the Fine and Gray competing risk proportional hazard regression model, were used. The expression of PN in tumour epithelial cells was significantly lower than that which was observed in stromal cells (p < 0.000). No specific association between epithelial or stromal PN expression and any of the clinical-pathological parameters analysed was found as it was observed in respect to mortality when these variables were analysed individually. However, when both variables were considered as a function of the other one, the expression of PN in the stromal cells maintained a statistically significant predictive value with respect to both all causes and cancer-specific mortality only in the presence of high epithelial expression levels. No significant differences in either all causes or BCa-specific mortality rates were shown according to epithelial expression for tumours displaying higher stromal PN expression rates. However, the trends were opposite for the higher stromal values and the patients with high epithelial expression levels denoted the group with the worst prognosis, while higher epithelial values in patients with lower stromal expression levels denoted the group with the best prognosis, suggesting that PN epithelial/stromal interactions play a crucial role in breast carcinogenesis, most likely due to functional cross-talk between the two compartments. On the basis of PN expression in both compartments, we defined 4 subgroups of patients with different mortality rates with the group of patients characterized by positive epithelial and low stromal PN expression cells showing the lowest mortality risk as opposed to the groups of patients identified by a high PN expression in both cell compartments or those identified by a low or absent PN expression in both cell compartments showing the worst mortality rates. The differences were highly statistically significant and were also retained after multiparametric analysis. Competing risk analysis demonstrated that PN expression patterns characterizing each of previous groups are specifically associated with cancer-specific mortality. Although they require further validation through larger studies, our findings suggest that the patterns of expression of PN in both compartments can allow for the development of IHC "signatures" that maintain a strong independent predictive value of both all causes and, namely, of cancer-specific mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 9 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 25%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 17%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 9 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 February 2016.
All research outputs
#18,439,846
of 22,846,662 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#5,432
of 8,314 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#290,345
of 400,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#118
of 189 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,846,662 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,314 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 400,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 189 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.