Shannonaldridge5027

PURPOSE Periostin is a secreted extracellular matrix protein, which was originally described in osteoblasts. It supports osteoblastic differentiation and bone formation and has been implicated in the pathogenesis of several human malignancies, including breast cancer. However, little is known about the prognostic value of serum periostin levels in breast cancer. METHODS In this study, we analyzed serum levels of periostin in a cohort of 509 primary, non-metastatic breast cancer patients. Disseminated tumor cell (DTC) status was determined using bone marrow aspirates obtained from the anterior iliac crests. Periostin levels were stratified according to several clinical parameters and Pearson correlation analyses were performed. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were assessed by using the log-rank (Mantel-Cox) test. To identify prognostic factors, multivariate Cox regression analyses were used. RESULTS Mean serum levels of periostin were 505 ± 179 pmol/l. In older patients (> 60 years), periostin serum levels were significantly increased compared to younger patients (540 ± 184 pmol/l vs. 469 ± 167 pmol/l; p  less then  0.0001) and age was positively correlated with periostin expression (p  less then  0.0001). When stratifying the cohort according to periostin serum concentrations, the overall and breast cancer-specific mortality were significantly higher in those patients with high serum periostin (above median) compared to those with low periostin during a mean follow-up of 8.5 years (17.7% vs. 11.4% breast cancer-specific death; p = 0.03; hazard ratio 1.65). Periostin was confirmed to be an independent prognostic marker for breast cancer-specific survival (p = 0.017; hazard ratio 1.79). No significant differences in serum periostin were observed when stratifying the patients according to their DTC status. CONCLUSIONS Our findings emphasize the relevance of periostin in breast cancer and reveal serum periostin as a potential marker for disease prediction, independent on the presence of micrometastases.OBJECTIVE To comprehensively describe the tumor and clinical characteristics of breast cancer in a cohort of male patients and to assess the factors that affect survival. BACKGROUND Much of the standard care of male breast cancer is based on the diagnosis and treatment strategies of female breast cancer. However, important clinical differences between the two have been elucidated, which suggests the need for unique attention to male breast cancer. METHODS We evaluated the records of male patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer between 2004 and 2015 using the National Cancer Database (NCDB). Data obtained were demographic characteristics, clinical and tumor data, type of therapy, as well as survival data. We used descriptive statistics to characterize our study population. We then performed a survival and Cox proportional hazards analysis. RESULTS We identified 16,498 patients (median age 63 years). Several treatment modalities were used, of which surgery was the most common (14,882 [90.4%]). The total follow-up time was 13 years (156 months). Five-year survival was 77.7% (95% CI 76.9-78.4) and 10-year survival was 60.7%. In a Cox proportional hazards model, mastectomy was associated with the greatest survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0.49; p  less then  0.001). CONCLUSION We report what is to our knowledge the largest national population-based cohort of male breast cancer patients. Importantly, our data suggests that similar to female patients, several treatment modalities are significantly associated with improved survival in male patients, particularly surgery. Increasing age, black race, government insurance, more comorbidities, and higher tumor stages are associated with decreased survival.BACKGROUND BRCA germline pathogenic variants represent the most common inherited mechanism predisposing individuals to breast cancer, while germline pathogenic variants in one of the mismatch repair (MMR) genes represent the most common colon cancer-predisposing inherited syndrome, known as the Lynch syndrome (LS). Individuals who harbor pathogenic germline variants for both syndromes are extremely rare. U18666A Germline testing is now done routinely for patients with breast cancer and MMR testing is recommended for nearly all patients diagnosed with colon or rectal cancer (Benson et al in NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines) colon cancer (Version 4.2019-November 8, 2019). www.NCCN.org, Gradishar et al in NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology (NCCN guidelines) breast cancer (Version 3.2019-September 6, 2019).www.NCCN.org). We report a patient with germline mutations in both BRCA2 and the MMR gene MLH1 who developed breast cancer. The breast cancer showed loss of heterozygosity (LOH)nsiveness to the recently approved PARP inhibitors and checkpoint inhibitor therapies (Robson et al in N Engl J Med 377523-533, 2017, Lemery et al in 377(15)1409-1412, https//doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1709968, 2017), key because the gatekeeper transforming event for tumors related to inherited cancer syndromes is loss of normal tumor suppressor gene (TSG) protein expression.Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) under general anesthesia (GA) or intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) under sedation is usually used for echocardiographic guidance during transcatheter atrial septal defect (ASD) closure. However, appropriate selection of guidance has not been fully established. Our study aimed to evaluate whether selection of guidance depending on anatomic ASD features and TEE tolerability under sedation contributes to procedure success. On the basis of anatomic ASD characteristics and TEE tolerability under sedation during the pre-procedural TEE, we selected either TEE, ICE, or combined TEE and ICE under moderate-to-deep sedation or TEE under GA for guidance. Anatomic characteristics of the defect, medical costs, complications, and primary outcomes for these four different types of guidance were analyzed. A total of 154 patients were classified into four guidance groups depending on the results of diagnostic TEE under sedation; 11 patients were scheduled for the procedure under GA in advance.