http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Park, Kyeongmee,Han, Sehwan,Kim, Jung-Yeon,Kim, Hyun-Jung,Kwon, Ji Eun,Gwak, Geumhee 한국유방암학회 2011 Journal of breast cancer Vol.14 No.4
<P><B>Purpose</B></P><P>Valid determination of HER2 status is a prerequisite to establish an adequate treatment strategy for breast cancer patients, regardless of the disease stage. The goal of this study was to examine the feasibility of the newly developed silver-enhanced <I>in situ</I> hybridization (SISH) technique as an alternative to fluorescence <I>in situ</I> hybridization (FISH) for HER2 assay in primary invasive breast cancer.</P><P><B>Methods</B></P><P>FISH and SISH for HER2 amplification were performed using tissue microarray. Both methods were used in 257 consecutive primary breast cancers.</P><P><B>Results</B></P><P>HER2 amplification was observed in 62 (23.1%) of a total of 257 breast cancers based on SISH. Of the 257 breast cancers measured using both methods, the results of the two methods were consistent in 248 (concordance, 96.5%; kappa=0.903). When we compared HER2 amplification in the primary tumor with the metastatic lymph nodes of the same patients, HER2 amplification was observed in nine cases (14.0%) out of 64 cases in which HER2 was not amplified in the primary tumors. In contrast, HER2 status was completely preserved in metastatic lymph nodes showing HER2 amplification in the primary tumor.</P><P><B>Conclusion</B></P><P>These results indicate that SISH can be a feasible alternative to FISH in the clinical setting. In node-positive breast cancer, confirmation of the HER2 status of the metastatic lymph nodes appears to be mandatory, regardless of the HER2 status of the primary tumors.</P>
Minsuh Park,Geumhee Gwak,Jungbin Kim,조현진,Keunho Yang,Yujin Lee,Kyeongmee Park,Jiyoung Kim,Youngjoo Shin,Yeyoung Seo 한국유방암학회 2022 Journal of Breast Disease Vol.10 No.1
Purpose: The biggest concern related to ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is local recurrence and recurrence patterns. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between clinicopathological factors and relapse in patients treated with DCIS. Methods: We reviewed medical records of 104 patients who were diagnosed as DCIS between January 1999 and December 2015 at a single institute. We compared and analyzed clinicopathological factors such as age at diagnosis, preoperative lesions on ultrasonography, preoperative tumor markers, operation methods in the breast, histological grade, nuclear grade, resection margin, comedonecrosis, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor expression, human epidermal factor receptor 2/neu expression, Ki-67, postoperative implementation of adjuvant hormonal therapy, and radiotherapy by dividing them into recurrent and non-recurrent groups. Results: Seventeen patients (16.3%) of 104 patients relapsed in the ipsilateral or contralateral breast. The median follow-up period of non-relapsed group was 4.9 years (range, 0.5–19.15) and the median follow-up period of relapsed group was 3.5 years (range, 1.4–14.13). Clinicopathological factors that were significantly related to relapse were nuclear grade (p=0.022) and Ki-67 (p=0.025) based on the results of chi-square or Fisher’s exact analysis. In multivariate analysis using logistic regression, Ki-67 (p=0.021) was significantly associated with DCIS relapse. Conclusion: This study suggested that the higher Ki-67 over 14% was strongly associated with DCIS relapse.
Seungyeol Baeg,Inseok Park,Jungbin Kim,Chansub Park,Hyunjin Cho,Keunho Yang,Jiyoung Kim,Youngjoo Shin,Kyeongmee Park,Geumhee Gwak 한국유방암학회 2020 Journal of Breast Disease Vol.8 No.1
Purpose: Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is one of the most aggressive subtypes of breast cancer. However, we have often experienced that triple positive breast cancer (TPBC) shows more aggressive clinical features than TNBC. In this retrospective study, we aimed to examine the differences in clinical courses between TNBC and TPBC. Methods: Using medical records and clinical data, we selected patients with breast cancer who met the criteria for the two groups, TNBC and TPBC, based on the expression or absence of the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2). We then compared these groups with respect to clinical and pathological variables, such as patient age at diagnosis, TNM stage, number of tumors, involvement of resection margin, operation methods, histologic grade (HG), nuclear grade (NG), and lymphatic invasion (LI). We also compared the disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes between the groups. Results: Seventy patients with TNBC and 91 with TPBC were identified among a total of 628 patients. In univariate analysis, TPBC was significantly more frequently associated with lower HG (p=0.001), lower NG (p=0.003), LI (p=0.001), and a Ki-67 index ≤20% (p<0.001). In multivariate analysis, a lower Ki-67 index (p=0.031) and LI (p=0.022) were identified as significant and independent factors contributing to DFS. In a survival analysis over time, the TPBC showed a worse OS than TNBC 5 years post-treatment for breast cancer. Consequently, the TPBC group had definite worse 10-year DFS (p=0.012) and showed relatively lower OS rate (p=0.058), than the TNBC group. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate considerable differences in long-term post-treatment survival of patients with TPBC and TNBC. Further studies to determine the proper management of both types of breast cancer and an accurate prognostic evaluation method are warranted.
Geumhee Gwak,Kyeongmee Park,Eunah Shin,Sehwan Han,Ji-Young Kim,Hong-Yong Kim,김영덕,Hong Ju Kim,김기환,배병노,Keun Ho Yang,Hyun-Jin Cho,Sung-Jin Park 한국유방암학회 2011 Journal of breast cancer Vol.14 No.3
Purpose: Our study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of adjuvant cyclophosphamide/vinorelbine/5-fluorourail (CVF) chemotherapy as an alternative to cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil (CMF) chemotherapy for treating early breast cancer. Methods: One hundred and forty-nine patients were randomly assigned to CMF or CVF adjuvant chemotherapy for treating their early stage breast cancer between September 2000 and December 2007. The disease-free survival (DFS), the overall survival (OS), and the toxicity profiles of both groups were compared. Results: Sixty-seven patients underwent CMF chemotherapy whereas 82 patients underwent CVF chemotherapy. The DFS and OS were 88 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 76-101 months) and 94 months (95% CI, 83-104 months), respectively for the CMF group, and 97 months (95% CI, 93-101 months), and 101 months (95% CI, 98-104 months), respectively for the CVF group. However, those survival gains of the CVF group were not statistically significant (p-value=0.069 for the DFS and 0.99 for the OS). The CVF group showed a favorable toxicity profile in terms of the grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities as compared to that of the CMF group. Conclusion: Clinical outcome of CVF chemotherapy was comparable to CMF with a favorable toxicity profiles. However, it is difficult to conclude the feasibility of CVF regimen because of small number of studied patients.