Comparison of Clinicopathological Characteristics of BRCA1 and BRCA2 Carriers with Breast Cancer: The Role of Ki-67 Index

Le résumé fourni par la source

ABS TRACT Objective: To elucidate the clinicopathological differences between breast cancer 1 (BRCA1) and BRCA2 carriers among patients with breast carcinoma.Material and Methods: The present retrospective study explored the demographic and clinicopathological features of 57 BRCA carriers with breast cancer.The age, family history, tumor Ki-67 index, tumor grade, hormone receptor status (estrogen and progesterone), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status, tumor T and N Stage, tumor multifocality, and tumor treatment modalities (surgical or adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy) were recorded for each patient from the hospital automation system.Results: The patients with a median age of 39 (range: 23-68 years) years comprised 35% BRCA1 and 65% BRCA2 carriers.Higher median Ki-67 index was revealed for the BRCA1 group than for the BRCA2 group (40% vs. 80%, p=0.006).The proportions of patients with estrogen receptor (+) and progesterone receptor (+) tumors were 35.0% and 35.0%, respectively, in the BRCA1 group, whereas 75.7% and 73.0%, respectively, in the BRCA2 group (p value 0.003 and 0.005, respectively).The BRCA1 group demonstrated significantly higher proportion of triple-negative patient rate as compared to the BRCA2 group (21.6% vs. 55.0%,p=0.011).Multivariate logistic regression analysis conducted with the Ki-67 index, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, and triple-negative disease status identified the Ki-67 index as the only independent predictive factor that could distinguish the BRCA1 from the BRCA2 mutation.A high Ki-67 index (>45%) was correlated with the BRCA1 mutation (odds ratio: 0.970, 95% confidence interval: 0.943-0.999,p=0.044).Conclusion: A high Ki-67 index is more frequently prevalent in BRCA1 carriers than in BRCA2 mutation carriers among patients with breast cancer.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.