Search

Simple Summary: In two cohorts of vaccinated cancer patients and healthcare workers, 5% had COVID-19 infection after vaccination. These infections occurred more frequently in younger cancer patients with gastrointestinal cancer, gynecological or breast cancer, or a localized cancer and in patients receiving chemotherapy or targeted therapy when vaccinated. In both cohorts, these breakthrough infections occurred early after initiation of vaccination (Alpha SARS-CoV-2 variant) or several months after the end of vaccination (Omicron SARS-CoV-2 variant). In both cohorts these COVID-19 cases in vaccinated individuals were not severe, with only four cancer patients requiring oxygen therapy. In a multicenter prospective cohort of cancer patients (CP; n = 840) and healthcare workers (HCWs; n = 935) vaccinated against COVID-19, we noticed the following: i/after vaccination, 4.4% of HCWs and 5.8% of CP were infected; ii/no characteristic was associated with post-vaccine COVID-19 infections among HCWs; iii/CP who developed infections were younger, more frequently women (NS), more frequently had gastrointestinal, gynecological, or breast cancer and a localized cancer stage; iv/CP vaccinated while receiving chemotherapy or targeted therapy had (NS) more breakthrough infections after vaccination than those vaccinated after these treatments; the opposite was noted with radiotherapy, immunotherapy, or hormonotherapy; v/most COVID-19 infections occurred either during the Alpha wave (11/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), early after the first vaccination campaign started, or during the Omicron wave (21/41 HCW, 20/49 CP), more than 3 months after the second dose; vi/risk of infection was not associated with values of antibody titers; vii/the outcome of these COVID-19 infections after vaccination was not severe in all cases. To conclude, around 5% of our CPs or HCWs developed a COVID-19 infection despite previous vaccination. The outcome of these infections was not severe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Vaccination against COVID-19 was a major weapon against current epidemics. In a multicenter cohort study conducted in cancer patients (CP) and health care workers (HCW) we demonstrated that: (i) vaccination was well accepted in both cohorts; (ii) the seropositivity rate was high after the first and second injections among HCW and among CP this was only after the second injection; (iii) similar patterns in antibody response followed the second dose; in both groups, antibody levels waned 3 months after the second dose. Overall, two-dose COVID-19 vaccination was effective in both populations studied, but could not totally prevent a few vaccine breakthrough infections, owing to the continuously emerging novel variants. In this prospective, real-life cohort study, we followed 523 cancer patients (CP) and 579 healthcare workers (HCW) from two cancer centers to evaluate the biological and clinical results of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Seventy percent of the CP and 90% of the HCW received an mRNA vaccine or the AZD1222 vaccine. Seropositivity was high after the first vaccine among HCW and poor among CP. The second dose resulted in almost 100% seropositivity in both cohorts. Antibody response was higher after the second injection than the first in both populations. Despite at least two doses, 8 CP (1.5%) and 14 HCW (2.4%) were infected, corresponding either to a weak level of antibody or a new strain of virus (particularly the Omicron variant of concern). Sixteen CP and three HCW were hospitalized but none of them died from COVID-19. To conclude, this study showed that two doses of COVID-19 vaccines were crucially necessary to attain sufficient seropositivity. However, the post-vaccination antibody level declines in individuals from the two cohorts and could not totally prevent new SARS-CoV-2 infections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients and Methods. Between June 1997 and March 2000, a total of 1,999 patients (age <65) with localized, resectable, non-pretreated, unilateral breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive either standard FEC100 for 6 cycles or 3 cycles of FEC100 followed by 3 cycles of 100 mg/m2 docetaxel (FEC-D), both given every 21 days. Radiotherapy was mandatory after conservative surgery and tamoxifen was given for 5 years to hormone receptor (HR)- positive patients. Five-year DFS was the trial's main endpoint. Updated 8-year survival data are presented. Results. With a median follow-up of 92.8 months, 639 patients experienced at least one event. A total number of 383 deaths were registered. Eight-year DFS rates were 65.8% with FEC alone and 70.2% with FEC-D. OS rates at 8 years were 78% with FEC alone and 83.2% with FEC-D. Cox regression analysis adjusted for age and number of positive nodes showed a 15% reduction in the relative risk of relapse and a 25% reduction in the relative risk of death in favor of FEC-D. Significant relative risk reductions were observed in the HR-positive, HER2-positive, and Ki67≥20% subpopulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Molecularly targeted agents have been reported to have anti-tumour activity for patients whose tumours harbour the matching molecular alteration. These results have led to increased off-label use of molecularly targeted agents on the basis of identified molecular alterations. We assessed the efficacy of several molecularly targeted agents marketed in France, which were chosen on the basis of tumour molecular profiling but used outside their indications, in patients with advanced cancer for whom standard-of-care therapy had failed.Methods: The open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 SHIVA trial was done at eight French academic centres. We included adult patients with any kind of metastatic solid tumour refractory to standard of care, provided they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, disease that was accessible for a biopsy or resection of a metastatic site, and at least one measurable lesion. The molecular profile of each patient's tumour was established with a mandatory biopsy of a metastatic tumour and large-scale genomic testing. We only included patients for whom a molecular alteration was identified within one of three molecular pathways (hormone receptor, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, RAF/MEK), which could be matched to one of ten regimens including 11 available molecularly targeted agents (erlotinib, lapatinib plus trastuzumab, sorafenib, imatinib, dasatinib, vemurafenib, everolimus, abiraterone, letrozole, tamoxifen). We randomly assigned these patients (1:1) to receive a matched molecularly targeted agent (experimental group) or treatment at physician's choice (control group) by central block randomisation (blocks of size six). Randomisation was done centrally with a web-based response system and was stratified according to the Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score (0 or 1 vs 2 or 3) and the altered molecular pathway. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. Treatments in both groups were given in accordance with the approved product information and standard practice protocols at each institution and were continued until evidence of disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which was not assessed by independent central review. We assessed safety in any patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01771458.Findings: Between Oct 4, 2012, and July 11, 2014, we screened 741 patients with any tumour type. 293 (40%) patients had at least one molecular alteration matching one of the 10 available regimens. At the time of data cutoff, Jan 20, 2015, 195 (26%) patients had been randomly assigned, with 99 in the experimental group and 96 in the control group. All patients in the experimental group started treatment, as did 92 in the control group. Two patients in the control group received a molecularly targeted agent: both were included in their assigned group for efficacy analyses, the patient who received an agent that was allowed in the experimental group was included in the experimental group for the purposes of safety analyses, while the other patient, who received a molecularly targeted agent and chemotherapy, was kept in the control group for safety analyses. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 5·8-11·6) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·1-11·6) in the control group at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Median progression-free survival was 2·3 months (95% CI 1·7-3·8) in the experimental group versus 2·0 months (1·8-2·1) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·88, 95% CI 0·65-1·19, p=0·41). In the safety population, 43 (43%) of 100 patients treated with a molecularly targeted agent and 32 (35%) of 91 patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy had grade 3-4 adverse events (p=0·30).Interpretation: The use of molecularly targeted agents outside their indications does not improve progression-free survival compared with treatment at physician's choice in heavily pretreated patients with cancer. Off-label use of molecularly targeted agents should be discouraged, but enrolment in clinical trials should be encouraged to assess predictive biomarkers of efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Longer times between diagnosis and treatments of cancer patients have been estimated as effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, relatively few studies attempted to estimate actual delay to treatment at the patient level., Objective: To assess changes in delays to first treatment and surgery among newly diagnosed patients with localized breast cancer (BC) during the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: We used data from the PAPESCO-19 multicenter cohort study, which included patients from 4 French comprehensive cancer centers. We measured the delay to first treatment as the number of days between diagnosis and the first treatment regardless of whether this was neoadjuvant chemotherapy or surgery. COVID-19 pandemic exposure was estimated with a composite index that considered both the severity of the pandemic and the level of lockdown restrictions. We ran generalized linear models with a log link function and a gamma distribution to model the association between delay and the pandemic., Results: Of the 187 patients included in the analysis, the median delay to first treatment was 42 (IQR:32-54) days for patients diagnosed before and after the start of the 1st lockdown (N = 99 and 88, respectively). After adjusting for age and centers of inclusion, a higher composite pandemic index (> = 50 V.S. <50) had only a small, non-significant effect on times to treatment. Longer delays were associated with factors other than the COVID-19 pandemic., Conclusion: We found evidence of no direct impact of the pandemic on the actual delay to treatment among patients with localized BC., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest with this research., (Copyright: © 2024 Zhou et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Many patients receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for breast cancer experience side effects and reduced quality of life (QoL) and discontinue ET. We sought to describe these issues and develop a prediction model of early discontinuation of ET., Methods: Among patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative stage I-III breast cancer of the Cancer Toxicities cohort (NCT01993498) who were prescribed adjuvant ET between 2012 and 2017, upon stratification by menopausal status, we evaluated adjuvant ET patterns including treatment change and patient-reported discontinuation and ET-associated toxicities and impact on QoL. Independent variables included clinical and demographic features, toxicities, and patient-reported outcomes. A machine-learning model to predict time to early discontinuation was trained and evaluated on a held-out validation set., Results: Patient-reported discontinuation rate of the first prescribed ET at 4 years was 30% and 35% in 4122 postmenopausal and 2087 premenopausal patients, respectively. Switching to a new ET was associated with higher symptom burden, poorer QoL, and higher discontinuation rate. Early discontinuation rate of adjuvant ET before treatment completion was 13% in postmenopausal and 15% in premenopausal patients. The early discontinuation model obtained a C index of 0.62 in the held-out validation set. Many aspects of QoL, most importantly fatigue and insomnia (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire 30), were associated with early discontinuation., Conclusion: Tolerability and adherence to ET remains a challenge for patients who switch to a second ET. An early discontinuation model using patient-reported outcomes identifies patients likely to discontinue their adjuvant ET. Improved management of toxicities and novel more tolerable adjuvant ETs are needed for maintaining patients on treatment., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Big Data and Artificial Intelligence can profoundly transform medical practices, particularly in oncology. Comprehensive Cancer Centers have a major role to play in this revolution. With the purpose of advancing our knowledge and accelerating cancer research, it is urgent to make this pool of data usable through the development of robust and effective data warehouses. Through the recent experience of Comprehensive Cancer Centers in France, this article shows that, while the use of hospital data warehouses can be a source of progress by taking into account multisource, multidomain and multiscale data for the benefit of knowledge and patients, it nevertheless raises technical, organizational and legal issues that still need to be addressed. The objectives of this article are threefold: 1. to provide insight on public health stakes of development in Comprehensive Cancer Centers to manage cancer patients comprehensively; 2. to set out a challenge of structuring the data from within them; 3. to outline the legal issues of implementation to carry out real-world evidence studies. To meet objective 1, this article firstly proposed a discussion on the relevance of an integrated approach to manage cancer and the formidable tool that data warehouses represent to achieve this. To address objective 2, we carried out a literature review to screen the articles published in PubMed and Google Scholar through the end of 2022 on the use of data warehouses in French Comprehensive Cancer Centers. Seven publications dealing specifically with the issue of data structuring were selected. To achieve objective 3, we presented and commented on the main aspects of French and European legislation and regulations in the field of health data, hospital data warehouses and real-world evidence.

Electronic Medical Records (EMR) and Electronic Health Records (EHR) are often missing critical information about the death of a patient, although it is an essential metric for medical research in oncology to assess survival outcomes, particularly for evaluating the efficacy of new therapeutic approaches. We used open government data in France from 1970 to September 2021 to identify deceased patients and match them with patient data collected from the Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest (ICO) data warehouse (Integrated Center of Oncology-the third largest cancer center in France) between January 2015 and November 2021. To meet our objective, we evaluated algorithms to perform a deterministic record linkage: an exact matching algorithm and a fuzzy matching algorithm. Because we lacked reference data, we needed to assess the algorithms by estimating the number of homonyms that could lead to false links, using the same open dataset of deceased persons in France. The exact matching algorithm allowed us to double the number of dates of death in the ICO data warehouse, and the fuzzy matching algorithm tripled it. Studying homonyms assured us that there was a low risk of misidentification, with precision values of 99.96% for the exact matching and 99.68% for the fuzzy matching. However, estimating the number of false negatives proved more difficult than anticipated. Nevertheless, using open government data can be a highly interesting way to improve the completeness of the date of death variable for oncology patients in data warehouses.

Purpose: Among metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients, those with a triple-negative breast cancer phenotype (mTNBC) have the worst prognosis, but the benefit of chemotherapy beyond second line on outcome remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to identify predictive factors of outcome after third- or fourth-line chemotherapy., Methods: The ESME-MBC database is a French prospective real-life cohort with homogeneous data collection, including patients who initiated first-line treatment for MBC (2008-2016) in 18 cancer centers. After selection of mTNBC cases, we searched for independent predictive factors (Cox proportional-hazards regression models) for overall survival (OS) on third- and fourth-line chemotherapy (OS3, OS4). We built prognostic nomograms based on the main prognostic factors identified., Results: Of the 22,266 MBC cases in the ESME cohort, 2903 were mTNBC, 1074 (37%) and 598 (20%) of which had received at least 3 or 4 lines of chemotherapy. PFS after first- and second-line chemotherapy (PFS1, PFS2) and number of metastatic sites ≥3 at baseline were identified by multivariate analysis as prognostic factors for both OS3 (HR = 0.76 95%CI[0.66-0.88], HR = 0.55 95%CI[0.46-0.65], HR = 1.36 95%CI[1.14-1.62], respectively), and OS4 (HR = 0.76 95%CI[0.63-0.91], HR = 0.56 95%CI[0.45-0.7], HR = 1.37 95%CI[1.07-1.74]), respectively. In addition, metastasis-free interval was identified as a prognostic factor for OS3 (p = 0.01), while PFS3 influenced OS4 (HR = 0.75 95%CI[0.57-0.98]). Nomograms predicting OS3 and OS4 achieved a C-index of 0.62 and 0.61, respectively., Conclusion: The duration of each previous PFS is a major prognostic factor for OS in mTNBC patients receiving third- or fourth-line chemotherapy. The clinical utility of nomograms including this information was not demonstrated., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. De La Motte Rouge reports personal fees and non-financial support from ASTRAZENECA, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from PFIZER, grants from NOVARTIS, personal fees and non-financial support from EISAI, personal fees and non-financial support from ROCHE, grants and non-financial support from MSD, outside the submitted work. Dr. Robain reports ESME Platform was supported by Roche, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai. Prof. Campone reports grants from Pfizer, grants from AstraZeneca, grants from Sanofi, grants from Pierre Fabre, grants from Takeda, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Lilly, outside the submitted work. Dr. MOURET-REYNIER reports grants from Novartis, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Pierre Fabre, MSD, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Young age is a poor prognostic factor in early stage breast cancer (BC) but its value is less established in metastatic BC (MBC). We evaluated the impact of age at MBC diagnosis on overall survival (OS) across three age groups (<40, 40 to 60 and > 60 years(y))., Methods: ESME MBC database is a national cohort, collecting retrospective data from 18 participating French cancer centers between January 01, 2008 and December 31, 2014., Results: Among 14 403 women included, 1077 (7.5%), 6436 (44.7%) and 6890 (47.8%) pts were <40, 40-60 and > 60 y respectively. Pts <40 had significantly more aggressive presentations than other age groups: more frequent HER2+ (25.7 vs 15.3% in >60y) and triple negative subtypes (27.4 vs 14.6% in >60y), and more frequent visceral involvement (36.3 vs 29.8% in >60y). At a median follow-up of 48 months, median OS differed across age groups: 38.8, 38.4 and 35.6 months for pts <40, 40-60 and > 60y, respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared to pts <40y, older pts had a statistically significant higher risk of death (all causes of death included), although of limited clinical value (HR = 1.1, IC 95%:1.01-1.20). There was a significant trend for better OS in pts <40y with HER2+ and luminal diseases. A possible explanation is a greater use of anti-Her2 therapies as first-line treatments: 86.6, 81.9 and 74.9% for pts <40, 40-60 and > 60y, respectively (p < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Although young age seems associated with more aggressive presentations at diagnosis of MBC, it has no deleterious effect on OS in this large series., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Co-authors having declared no conflict of interests: Sophie Frank, Matthieu Carton, Coraline Dubot, Barbara Pistilli (GR), Audrey Mailliez (COL), Christelle Levy (CFB), Véronique D’Hondt (ICM), Marc Debled (IB), Thomas Vermeulin (CHB), Bruno Coudert (CGFL), Christophe Perrin (CEM), Anthony Gonçalves (IPC), Lionel Uwer (ICL), Jean-Marc Ferrero (CAL), Jean-Christophe Eymard (IJG), Thierry Petit (CPS), Marie-Ange Mouret-Reynier (CJP), Anne Patsouris (ICO PP), Tahar Guesmia (R&D Unicancer), Thomas Bachelot (CLB), Mathieu Robain (R&D Unicancer), Paul Cottu. Mario campone: Advisory Board: Consulting fees to my Institut:Astra ZENECA, Novartis, Abbvie, Sanofi, Pfizer, Sandoz, ACCORD. Personal fees to Lilly, G1 Therapeutic Consultant: Fees to my Institute: Pierre Fabre Oncology; Sanofi; Novartis; Servier. Speaker bureau: Personnal fees Novartis, Lilly Travel: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Astra Zeneca. Barbara Pistilli:P ersonal fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Myriad, Pierre Fabre and non-financial support from Pfizer, Puma and Merus, Novartis outside the submitted work Florence Dalenc: Advisory Board: Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly Travel: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Astra Zeneca Paul Cottu: Advisory Board: Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, Roche Travel: Pfizer, Novartis, Roche, Astra Zeneca., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Physician empathy has been associated with improved clinical outcomes and lower physician burnout. We evaluated whether forum theater (FT), a form of applied drama that allows participants to enter the performance and represent the actions associated with emotions, would foster empathy in medical students, and which underlying variables would be associated to empathy scores., Methods: Three classes totaling 488 fourth-year medical students participated in the study. Forum theater was used to explore difficult encounters with patients and family members: announcement of cancer, fall at home of an elderly person requiring hospitalization, appointment with a patient suffering from depression, announcement of diabetes in an adolescent. The first scene was played by actors in front of a group of students, then audience members were asked to enter the performance and, by taking over the role of the "physician-actor," to explore alternative interactions. All the students followed two sessions as actors and observers in random order and were randomly assigned to FT sessions after 36 or 56 weeks of clinical rotations. They completed the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy (JFSE) anonymously., Results: Students were 22.1 ± 1.5 years old (43% males). Empathy scores increased after each session: 102.0 ± 9.8 before the sessions, 106.3 ± 9.8 after session 1 and 107.8 ± 11.5 after session 2 (p <  0.05). In regression models, gender (F vs. M, + 3.0 ± 1.0, p <  0.001) and position in the session (actor vs. observer, + 2.1 ± 1.0, p < 0.05) were significant determinants of JFSE scores, whereas age, session theme, and duration of clinical rotation were not., Conclusion: Being an actor in forum theater was a valuable tool for enhancing empathy scores in medical students.

Background: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin pathway is frequently activated in HER2-positive breast cancer and may play a major role in resistance to trastuzumab. Buparlisib is a pan-class-I PI3K inhibitor with potent and selective activity against wild-type and mutant PI3K p110 isoforms., Patients and Methods: PIKHER2 phase IB study aimed primarily to determine a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and propose a recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for buparlisib in combination with lapatinib in HER2-positive, trastuzumab-resistant, advanced breast cancer. Oral buparlisib (40, 60 or 80 mg) and lapatinib (750, 1000 or 1250 mg) were administered daily. A modified continuous reassessment method using an adaptive Bayesian model guided the dose escalation of both agents. Secondary end-points included antitumour activity and pharmacokinetic (PK) assessments., Results: A total of 24 patients were treated across five dose levels. Dose-limiting toxicities included transaminases elevation, vomiting, stomatitis, hyperglycemia and diarrhoea. MTD was declared at buparlisib 80 mg/d + lapatinib 1250 mg/d, but toxicities and early treatment discontinuation rate beyond cycle 1 led to select buparlisib 80 mg + lapatinib 1000 mg/d as the RP2D. Main drug-related adverse events included diarrhoea, nausea, skin rash, asthenia, depression, anxiety and transaminases increase. There was no significant evidence for drug-drug PK interaction. Disease control rate was 79% [95% confidence interval [CI] 57-92%], one patient obtained a complete remission, and six additional patients experienced stable disease for ≥ 24 weeks (clinical benefit rate of 29% [95% CI 12-51%])., Conclusion: Combining buparlisib and lapatinib in HER2-positive trastuzumab-resistant advanced breast cancer was feasible. Preliminary evidence of antitumour activity was observed in this heavily pre-treated population., Trial Registration Id: NCT01589861., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Gemcitabine and epirubicin were evaluated in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), efficacy, and toxicity of the combination. Patients initially received 800 mg/m(2) of gemcitabine (days 1 and 8) and 50 mg/m(2) of epirubicin (day 1) every 21 days. Each dose level had three to eight patients. Phase II used the dose level preceding the MTD. Forty-eight patients enrolled without reaching MTD; therefore, phase II used the highest dose level (1500 mg/m(2) of gemcitabine, 90 mg/m(2) of epirubicin). After 23 patients (group A) experienced hematologic toxicities and frequent dose reductions, 15 received 1250 mg/m(2) gemcitabine (days 1 and 4) and 90 mg/m(2) epirubicin (day 1) every 21 days (group B). Out of 38 patients, 46% responded (group A 32%, group B 67%). Median response duration was 8.5 months; median time to progression 8.4 months; and median time to treatment failure 4.8 months. Gemcitabine and epirubicin are well tolerated and active in MBC patients, and the group B regimen warrants further investigation.

Novel prognostic biomarkers are imperatively needed to help direct treatment decisions by typing subgroups of node-negative breast cancer patients. The current study has used a proteomic approach of SELDI-TOF-MS screening to identify differentially cytosolic expressed proteins with a prognostic impact in 30 node-negative breast cancer patients with no relapse versus 30 patients with metastatic relapse. The data analysis took into account 73 peaks, among which 2 proved, by means of univariate Cox regression, to have a good cumulative prognostic-informative power. Repeated random sampling (n = 500) was performed to ensure the reliability of the peaks. Optimized thresholds were then computed to use both peaks as risk factors and, adding them to the St. Gallen ones, improve the prognostic classification of node-negative breast cancer patients. Identification of ubiquitin and ferritin light chain (FLC), corresponding to the two peaks of interest, was obtained using ProteinChip LDI-Qq-TOF-MS. Differential expression of the two proteins was further confirmed by Western blotting analyses and immunohistochemistry. SELDI-TOF-MS protein profiling clearly showed that a high level of cytosolic ubiquitin and/or a low level of FLC were associated with a good prognosis in breast cancer.