| Title |
Cyclooxygenase-2 expression in proliferative Ki-67-positive breast cancers is associated with poor outcomes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-012-1971-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Byeong-Woo Park, Seho Park, Hyung Seok Park, Ja Seung Koo, Woo Ick Yang, Jun Sang Lee, Hyewon Hwang, Seung Il Kim, Kyong Sik Lee |
| Abstract |
In order to investigate the implications of cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) expression in combination with Ki-67 on breast cancer outcomes, the COX-2 and Ki-67 expression levels and other clinicopathologic parameters were investigated in 861 breast cancers. Clinicopathological parameters and survival were investigated in association with the expression levels of both COX-2 and Ki-67 using univariate and multivariate analyses. COX-2 expression was positive in 493 (57.3%) of invasive tumors. COX-2 was associated with favorable markers, but was not related to survival outcome by itself. However, COX-2 in proliferative tumors [COX-2(+)/Ki-67(+)] were significantly associated with unfavorable factors and the worst survival, but COX-2 in non-proliferative tumors [COX-2(+)/Ki-67(-)] showed significantly favorable parameters and better outcomes. COX-2(-)/Ki-67(any) showed intermediate prognosis. The statistical significance was maintained in stage-matched and multivariate analyses. The results of present study suggest that COX-2 expression is a common event in breast cancers and may play in a different ways by the proliferation status of the tumor cells. Further studies should be carried out to verify the role of COX-2 by proliferative conditions of breast tumor cells. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 20% |
| Professor | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Researcher | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 50% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 30% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2012.
All research outputs
#18,304,874
of 22,663,150 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#3,678
of 4,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,862
of 246,879 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#41
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,150 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,612 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,879 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.