Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention (아시아태평양암예방학회)
권호 표지

Predictive Role of Molecular Subtypes in Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients in Northeast China

Lv, Minhao;Li, Beibei;Li, Yongfeng;Mao, Xiaoyun;Yao, Fan;Jin, Feng

  • Published : 20110900
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Introduction: Breast cancer is increasingly regarded as a heterogeneous disease which can be classified into distinct molecular subtypes with prognostic significance. Materials and methods: ER, PR, HER2 and ki-67 were used to divided 102 breast cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) into 4 subtypes: luminal A (ER+, PR+, HER2-, and ki-67 ${\leq}14%$), luminal B (ER+, PR+, HER2- and ki-67>14% ; ER+ and/or PR+, HER2+), HER2-overexpression (ER-, PR- and HER2+) and triple-negative (ER-, PR-,and HER2-). Results: Among 102 patients, a pCR was seen in 16 (15.7%) patients. The pathologic complete remission (pC) rates according to different subtypes are as follows: luminal A, 0 of 20 (0.0%), luminal B, 2 of 23 (8.7%), HER2-overexpressio,n 4 of 18 (22.2%), and triple-negative, 10 of 41 (24.4%) (p=0.041). In triple-negative subtype patients, the rates of pCR differed significantly among the 3 chemotherapy regimens with 5.6% (1/18) for CEF (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin and flurouracil), 20.0% (1/5) for TE (docetaxel and epirubicin) and 44.4% (8/18) for TCb (docetaxel and carboplatin) (p=0.024). In locally advanced breast cancer patients, the rates of pCR seem to differ among the 3 chemotherapy regimens with 6.7% (2/30) for CEF, 0.0% (0/8) for TE and 23.1% (6/26) for TCb, but this did not attain statistical significance (p>0.05). Conclusions: Molecular subtypes are good predictors for response to NCT in breast cancer patients in Northeast China. Compared with luminal A tumors, HER2-overexpression and triple-negative subtypes are more sensitive to NCT. For triple-negative breast cancer, we concluded that the TCb combination is a promising NCT regimen. Our results also indicated that the TCb combination is promising for the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer.

Keywords

References

  1. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, et al (1997). Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol, 15, 2483-93. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1997.15.7.2483
  2. Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ (2007). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Br J Surg, 94, 1189-200. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.5894
  3. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, et al (2008). Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol, 26, 778-85. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.0235
  4. Van Der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, et al (2001). Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol, 19, 4224-37. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2001.19.22.4224
  5. Kim SI, Sohn J, Koo JS, et al (2010). Molecular subtypes and tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Oncology, 79, 324-30. https://doi.org/10.1159/000322192
  6. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al (2006). Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA, 295, 2492-502. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.295.21.2492
  7. Hugh J, Hanson J, Cheang MC, et al (2009). Breast cancer subtypes and response to docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer: use of an immunohistochemical defi nition in the BCIRG 001 trial. J Clin Oncol, 27, 1168-76. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.18.1024
  8. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, et al (2004). Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res, 10, 5367-74. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0220
  9. Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C, et al (2008). Basal-like breast cancer defi ned by fi ve biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res, 14, 1368-76. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1658
  10. Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R, et al (2006). Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol, 19, 264-71. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800528
  11. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, et al (2007). The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res, 13, 2329-34. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1109
  12. James K, Eisenhauer E, Christian M, et al (1999). Measuring response in solid tumors: unidimensional versus bidimensional measurement. J Natl Cancer Inst, 91, 523-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/91.6.523
  13. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al (2000). Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature, 406, 747-52. https://doi.org/10.1038/35021093
  14. Peppercorn J, Perou CM, Carey LA (2008). Molecular subtypes in breast cancer evaluation and management: divide and conquer. Cancer Invest, 26, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1080/07357900701784238
  15. De Ronde JJ, Hannemann J, Halfwerk H, et al (2010). Concordance of clinical and molecular breast cancer subtyping in the context of preoperative chemotherapy response. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 119, 119-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0499-6
  16. Huober J, von Minckwitz G, Denkert C, et al (2010). Effect of neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy in different biological breast cancer phenotypes: overall results from the GeparTrio study. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 124, 133-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-1103-9
  17. Bhargava R, Beriwal S, Dabbs DJ, et al (2010). Immunohistochemical surrogate markers of breast cancer molecular classes predicts response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy : A single institutional experience with 359 cases. Cancer, 116, 1431-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24876
  18. Straver ME, Rutgers EJ, Rodenhuis S, et al (2000).The relevance of breast cancer subtypes in the outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol, 17, 2411-8.
  19. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al (1998). Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 16, 2672-85. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1998.16.8.2672
  20. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, et al (2008). Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol, 26, 778-85. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.15.0235
  21. Carey LA, Metzger R, Dees EC, et al (2005). American Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcome. J Natl Cancer Inst, 97, 1137-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji206
  22. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC, et al (2009). Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol, 27, 1160-7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.18.1370
  23. Blows FM, Driver KE, Schmidt MK, et al (2010). Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies. PLoS Med, 7, e1000279. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000279
  24. Rodenhuis S, Mandjes IA, Wesseling J, et al (2010). A simple system for grading the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol, 21, 481-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp348
  25. Kim R, Osaki A, Toge T (2005). Current and future roles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer, 6, 223-32. https://doi.org/10.3816/CBC.2005.n.024
  26. Peintinger F, Symmans WF, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al (2006). The safety of breast-conserving surgery in patients who achieve a complete pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer, 107, 1248-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22111
  27. Thomas A, Ohlinger R, Hauschild M, et al (2006). Options and limits of surgery after pre-operative chemotherapy in breast cancer. Anticancer Res, 26, 1677-82.
  28. Chang HR , Glaspy J , Allison MA, et al (2010). Differential response of triple-negative breast cancer to a docetaxel and carboplatin-based neoadjuvant treatment. Cancer, 116, 4227-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25309
  29. Staudacher L, Cottu PH, Diéras V, et al (2011). Platinum-based chemotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: the Institut Curie experience. Ann Oncol, 22, 848-56. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq461
  30. Gogas H, Pectasides D, Kostopoulos I, et al (2010). Paclitaxel and carboplatin as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer: A phase II trial of the Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group. Clin Breast Cancer, 10, 230-7. https://doi.org/10.3816/CBC.2010.n.031
  31. Goldstein NS, Decker D, Severson D, et al (2007). Molecular classification system identifies invasive breast carcinoma patients who are most likely and those who are least likely to achieve a complete pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer, 110, 1687-96. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22981
  32. Andre F, Mazouni C, Liedtke C, et al (2008). HER2 expression and efficacy of preoperative paclitaxel/ FAC chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 108, 183-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9594-8