Association of Nuclear Localization of Satb1 with Adverse Clinical Outcome in Breast Cancer.

Weiming Duan,Kai Chen,Wei Li,Wei Liu,Min Tao,Zi-Xing Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2016.34.15_suppl.e12029
IF: 45.3
2016-01-01
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Abstract:e12029 Background: Genome organizer SATB1 has been recently reported to associate with negative prognosis in several cancer forms.However, the role of SATB1 in breast cancer(BC) remains controversial.This study evaluated the expression of SATB1 and its role in predicting prognosis in BC. Methods: The SATB1 expression and its clinical significance were examined in 93 consecutive patients with invasive ductal breast carcinoma using immunohistochemistry. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate the prognostic relevance of SATB1 and the survival difference between groups was assessed by the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate difference of all possible factors. Moreover, the sensitivity and specificity of the aforementioned biomarkers were identified by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: Subcellular staining of SATB1 was heterogeneous, ranging from cytoplasmic to nuclear. SATB1 staining was strongly related to clinical stage, Ki67, ER and PR (all p < 0.05). When survival was analyzed according to SATB1 localization, we observed that patients with negative nuclear SATB1 staining and positive cytoplasmic staining had a similar better outcome compared with positive nuclear SATB1 staining samples, suggesting that cytoplasmic positive and nuclear negative SATB1 expression have a similar prognostic significance. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed a correlation between higher SATB1 nuclear expression levels and shorter overall survival times (p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that SATB1 was an independent prognostic factor. Interestingly, analysis of survival in these patients classified according to Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) score as “good” or “poor” risk showed a significant difference in survival time in the NPI either good or poor score subgroups according to SATB1 expression. Furthermore, ROC curves showed that the AUC for SATB1, Ki67, c-erbB-2, ER and PR were 0.859,0.662,0.637,0.586 and 0.498, respectively. Conclusions: Nuclear localization of SATB1 is a robust independent biomarker for prognosis as compared to currently routinely used diagnostic parameters in BC.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?