% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Cheng:132795,
author = {J. Cheng$^*$ and T. Holland-Letz$^*$ and M. Wallwiener and
H. Surowy$^*$ and K. Cuk$^*$ and S. Schott$^*$ and A.
Trumpp$^*$ and K. Pantel and C. Sohn and A. Schneeweiss and
B. Burwinkel$^*$},
title = {{C}irculating free {DNA} integrity and concentration as
independent prognostic markers in metastatic breast cancer.},
journal = {Breast cancer research and treatment},
volume = {169},
number = {1},
issn = {1573-7217},
address = {Dordrecht [u.a.]},
publisher = {Springer Science + Business Media B.V.},
reportid = {DKFZ-2018-00439},
pages = {69 - 82},
year = {2018},
abstract = {Non-invasive blood-based molecular markers have been
investigated for cancer diagnosis and prognosis. Circulating
free or cell-free DNA (cfDNA) variables have been shown to
be putative markers in breast cancer prognosis.Here, we
investigated the potential prognostic ability of cfDNA
concentration and cfDNA integrity (cfDI) in a study cohort
of 268 patients by quantitative PCR. We compared cfDNA
concentration and cfDI at baseline and after one cycle of
therapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients.A
significantly increased cfDI (P = 1.21E-7 for ALU and
P = 1.87E-3 for LINE1) and decreased cfDNA concentration
(P = 1.17E-3 for ALU and P = 1.60E-2 for LINE1) in both
repetitive DNA elements after one cycle of therapy was
observed. A multiple Cox regression model indicated that
cfDI and cfDNA concentration can serve as independent
prognostic markers in patients at baseline with HR $(95\%$
CI) of 0.70 (0.48-1.01) for ALU cfDI, 0.63 (0.44-0.92) for
LINE1 cfDI, 2.44 (1.68-3.53) for ALU cfDNA concentration,
and 2.12 (1.47-3.06) for LINE1 cfDNA concentration and after
one cycle of therapy with HR $(95\%$ CI) of 0.59 (0.42-0.84)
for ALU cfDI, 0.51 (0.36-0.74) for LINE1 cfDI, 1.59
(1.31-1.92) for ALU cfDNA concentration, and 1.30
(1.17-1.45) for LINE1 cfDNA concentration, respectively. By
comparing integrated prediction error of different models,
cfDNA variables were shown to improve the prognostic power
of the CTC status.We hereby show that cfDNA variables,
especially in combination with other markers, can serve as
attractive prognostic markers for MBC patients at baseline
and during the systematic therapy.},
cin = {C080 / C060 / A010 / V960},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)C080-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)A010-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)V960-20160331},
pnm = {313 - Cancer risk factors and prevention (POF3-313)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-313},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:29340881},
doi = {10.1007/s10549-018-4666-5},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/132795},
}