Prognostic significance of NANOG and KLF4 for breast cancer

Background Some of the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS cell)-inducing factors have been reported to be expressed in breast cancer. The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between the expression of iPS cell-inducing factors and the prognosis of breast cancer patients. Methods...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan) Japan), 2014, Vol.21 (1), p.96-101
Main Authors: Nagata, Takuya, Shimada, Yutaka, Sekine, Shinichi, Hori, Ryota, Matsui, Koshi, Okumura, Tomoyuki, Sawada, Shigeaki, Fukuoka, Junya, Tsukada, Kazuhiro
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Analysis
Biomarkers, Tumor - metabolism
Breast cancer
Breast Neoplasms - metabolism
Breast Neoplasms - mortality
Breast Neoplasms - pathology
Breast Neoplasms - surgery
Cancer patients
Cancer Research
Disease-Free Survival
DNA microarrays
Female
Homeodomain Proteins - metabolism
Humans
Immunohistochemistry
Kruppel-Like Transcription Factors - metabolism
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Metastasis
Middle Aged
Nanog Homeobox Protein
Octamer Transcription Factor-3 - metabolism
Oncology
Original Article
Predictive Value of Tests
Prognosis
Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-myc - metabolism
SOXB1 Transcription Factors - metabolism
Stem cells
Surgery
Surgical Oncology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Some of the induced pluripotent stem cell (iPS cell)-inducing factors have been reported to be expressed in breast cancer. The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between the expression of iPS cell-inducing factors and the prognosis of breast cancer patients. Methods In 100 breast cancer patients, the expression of c-MYC, KLF4, NANOG, OCT4, and SOX2 was determined by immunohistochemistry using a tissue microarray analysis. Results Patients with strong expression of NANOG had significantly lower disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival rates than those with weak expression of NANOG ( P  = 0.004 and 0.033, respectively). In contrast, patients with strong expression of KLF4 had better DFS ( P  = 0.014). Conclusions Strong expression of NANOG is an indicator of a poor prognosis for breast cancer patients, whereas KLF4 is a favorable prognostic indicator. Our results suggest that NANOG stimulates the growth and metastasis of breast cancer cells, whereas KLF4 inhibits these processes.
ISSN:1340-6868
1880-4233
DOI:10.1007/s12282-012-0357-y