余科达, 狄根红, 吴炅, 陆劲松, 沈坤炜, 沈镇宙, 邵志敏. 孕激素受体对老年乳腺癌患者辅助内分泌治疗的预测价值[J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2006, 33(17): 999-1002.
引用本文: 余科达, 狄根红, 吴炅, 陆劲松, 沈坤炜, 沈镇宙, 邵志敏. 孕激素受体对老年乳腺癌患者辅助内分泌治疗的预测价值[J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2006, 33(17): 999-1002.
Yu Keda, Di Genhong, Wu Jiong, . The Predictive Value of Progesterone Receptor Status for Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Aged Patients with Breast Cancer[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2006, 33(17): 999-1002.
Citation: Yu Keda, Di Genhong, Wu Jiong, . The Predictive Value of Progesterone Receptor Status for Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Aged Patients with Breast Cancer[J]. CHINESE JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2006, 33(17): 999-1002.

孕激素受体对老年乳腺癌患者辅助内分泌治疗的预测价值

The Predictive Value of Progesterone Receptor Status for Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Aged Patients with Breast Cancer

  • 摘要: 目的 :探讨孕激素受体(P方法:回顾了1991年1月~2002年10月间就诊于复旦大学附属肿瘤医院的3788例连续性可手术乳腺癌患者临床病理资料,选择ER+且接受三苯氧胺3~5年的758例患者作为研究对象,通过分析ER+PR+患者与ER+PR阴性(-)患者不同的预后评估PR的预测价值。 结果 :绝经后患者的ER+PR-比例较高。与ER+PR+患者相比,ER+PR-患者在年轻人(<45岁)中的比例较低,而在老年人(≥60岁)中比例升高,但差别没有统计学意义。平均随访时间40个月后,两组间总的DFS无差别(P=0.1374),OS差别显著(P=0.0102)。按年龄<45岁,45岁~60岁和≥60岁三个阶段分层后发现,<45岁组及45岁~60岁组的ER+PR+与ER+PR-患者的DFS与OS均无差别,但是≥60岁患者两组间差别显著(DFS:P=0.0484;OS:P=0.0009),绝经后患者的组间差别也有相似发现。多因素分析也支持PR对ER+患者OS具有独立预后能力(全部:P=0.032;≥60岁:P=0.006)。 结论 :PR是能够很好地预测老年ER+患者对三苯氧胺的治疗效果,也对全部ER+患者有较弱的预测作用;老年ER+PR-患者对三苯氧胺治疗不敏感,需要临床更合理用药。

     

    Abstract: Objective : To investigate the predictive value of progesterone receptor (PR) status for adjuvant endocrine therapy in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer patients, especially the aged. Methods : The records of 768 ER+ patients with breast cancer who received adjuvant tamoxifen for 3 to 5 years were reviewed to evaluate the predictive value of PR status for tamoxifen treatment in ER+/PR+ and ER+/PR- populations with a mean follow-up time of 40 months. Results : The postmenopausal patients accounted for a high proportion of the ER+/PR- population. The proportion of ER+/PR- patients was especially low in those below age 45 and was high in the aged (≥60) compared to ER+/PR+ patients, but there was no statistical significance. With a follow up of a mean of 40 months, there was no difference in disease-free survival (DFS) between the ER+/PR+ group and the ER+/PR- group (P=0.1374). However, the ER+/PR+ group had a better overall survival (OS) (P=0.0102). If the ER+/PR+ group was classified into 3 strata by age (45 years,45-60 years and ≥60 years), both DFS and OS showed no significant difference between the ER+/PR+ group and the ER+/PR-group in those below age 45 or between 45 to 60 years. In contrast, the difference in the group older than 60 was significant for both DFS (P=0.0484) and OS (P=0.0009). Similar Results were found if the groups were classified by menses status. Multivariate analysis supported PR status as an independent prognostic value for overall survival in ER+ patients (all populations: P=0.032; ≥60 years: P=0.006). Conclusions : PR status is a predictive factor for the effect of adjuvant tamoxifen in aged ER+ patients, with a slight predictive value for all ER+ patients. It should be taken into account especially for ER+/PR- elderly patients who tend to be resistant to tamoxifen treatment.

     

/

返回文章
返回