Alterations in Breast Cancer Biomarkers Following Neoadjuvant Therapy.
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2021
Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
29
07
2020
accepted:
09
02
2021
pubmed:
23
3
2021
medline:
28
9
2021
entrez:
22
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Biomarker changes in patients with residual disease (RD) after neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAT) have unclear consequences. This study examined the prevalence of biomarker [hormone receptor (HR) and HER2] change and its effect on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). A total of 303 patients treated with NAT from 2008 to 2016 were identified from a prospective database. Biomarker status at diagnosis was determined and retested after NAT in patients with RD. DFS and OS were compared among three groups: no biomarker change, clinically insignificant change in either ER or PR without alteration in HR status, and clinically significant change in at least one biomarker with resultant change in HR or HER2 status. Subgroups with no change and HR change were examined [HR+HER2- no change, triple negative (TN) no change, HR+HER2- to TN, TN to HR+HER2]. Overall, 61.4% of patients had RD. Of these, 32.8% had changes in at least one biomarker. At median follow up of 5.48 years, no biomarker change was associated with improved DFS compared with changes in HR or HER2 status (p = 0.043). In addition, no biomarker change (p = 0.005) and clinically insignificant changes in biomarker status (p = 0.019) were associated with improved OS compared with clinically significant changes in HR or HER2 status. Among subgroups, HR+HER2- to TN was associated with worse DFS (p = 0.029) and OS (p = 0.008) compared with HR+HER2- no change. Among those with RD, biomarker status change was common and impacted survival in subgroups of HR+ or TN disease. Retesting biomarkers after NAT has prognostic implications.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33748896
doi: 10.1245/s10434-021-09814-1
pii: 10.1245/s10434-021-09814-1
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
5907-5917Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
Amat S, Abrial C, Penault-Llorca F, et al. High prognostic significance of residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a retrospective study in 710 patients with operable breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;94:255–63.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-005-9008-8
Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi C, Goldhirsch A, et al. Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:1940–8.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.6187
Xie L, Li X, Wang Q, et al. Effects of core needle biopsy and subsequent neoadjuvant chemotherapy on molecular alterations and outcome in breast cancer. Onco Targets Ther. 2018;11:677–85.
doi: 10.2147/OTT.S145715
Romero A, García-Sáenz JA, Fuentes-Ferrer M, et al. Correlation between response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival in locally advanced breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol. 2013;24:655–61.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds493
Cockburn A, Yan J, Rahardja D, et al. Modulatory effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on biomarkers expression; assessment by digital image analysis and relationship to residual cancer burden in patients with invasive breast cancer. Hum Pathol. 2014;45:249–58.
doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2013.09.002
Miller M, Ottesen RA, Niland JC, Kruper L, Chen SL, Vito C. Tumor response ratio predicts overall survival in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:3317–23.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-014-3922-0
Peintinger F, Sinn B, Hatzis C, et al. Reproducibility of residual cancer burden for prognostic assessment of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Mod Pathol. 2015;28:913–20.
doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2015.53
Enomoto Y, Morimoto T, Nishimukai A, et al. Impact of biomarker changes during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for clinical response in patients with residual breast cancers. Int J Clin Oncol. 2016;21:254–61.
doi: 10.1007/s10147-015-0897-1
Esserman LJ, Berry DA, DeMichele A, et al. Pathologic complete response predicts recurrence-free survival more effectively by cancer subset: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL—CALGB 150007/150012, ACRIN 6657. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:3242–9.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.2779
Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384:164–72.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8
Lai J, Wang H, Peng J, Chen P, Pan Z. Establishment and external validation of a prognostic model for predicting disease-free survival and risk stratification in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:2347–56.
doi: 10.2147/CMAR.S171129
von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, et al. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1796–804.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595
Robertson S, Rönnlund C, de Boniface J, Hartman J. Re-testing of predictive biomarkers on surgical breast cancer specimens is clinically relevant. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;174:795–805.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-05119-2
Hammond MEH, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2784–95.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6529
Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Allison KH, et al. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline focused update. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:2105–22.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2018.77.8738
Schemper M, Smith TL. A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:343–6.
doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(96)00075-X
Kalbfleisch JD, Prentice RL. The statistical analysis of failure time data. New York: Wiley; 1980.
Kramer CY. Extension of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications. Biometrics. 1956;12:307–10.
doi: 10.2307/3001469
Cox DR. Regression Models and Life Tables. J R Stat Soc. 1972;B34:187–220.
Yamashita T, Yamashita K, Kamimura R. A stepwise AIC method for variable selection in linear regression. Commun Stat Theor Methods. 2007;36:2395–403.
doi: 10.1080/03610920701215639
Grambsch P, Therneau T. Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika. 1994;81:515–26.
doi: 10.1093/biomet/81.3.515
Untch M, von Minckwitz G. Advances in neoadjuvant (primary) systemic therapy with cytotoxic agents. Breast Cancer Res. 2009;11:203.
doi: 10.1186/bcr2227
van de Ven S, Smit VT, Dekker TJA, Nortier JWR, Kroep JR. Discordances in ER, PR, and HER2 receptors after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2011;37:422–30.
pubmed: 21177040
Chen X, Yuan Y, Gu Z, Shen K. Accuracy of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status between core needle and open excision biopsy in breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134:957–67.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-012-1990-z
Tacca O, Penault-Llorca F, Abrial C, et al. Changes in and prognostic value of hormone receptor status in a series of operable breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Oncologist. 2007;12:636–43.
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.12-6-636
Rose DP, Davis TE. Effects of adjuvant chemohormonal therapy on the ovarian and adrenal function of breast cancer patients. Cancer Res. 1980;40:4043–7.
pubmed: 6451282
Tan Q-X, Qin Q-H, Yang W-P, Lian B, Wei C-Y. Prognostic value of hormone receptor status conversion following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in a series of operable breast cancer patients. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2014;7:4086–94.
pubmed: 25120787
pmcid: 4129022
Jin X, Jiang Y-Z, Chen S, Yu K-D, Shao Z-M, Di G-H. Prognostic value of receptor conversion after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a prospective observational study. Oncotarget. 2015;6:9600–11.
doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.3292
Lim SK, Lee MH, Park IH, et al. Impact molecular subtype conversion of breast cancers after neoadjuvant chemotherapy on clinical outcome. Cancer Res Treat. 2016;48:133–41.
doi: 10.4143/crt.2014.262
Niikura N, Tomotaki A, Miyata H, et al. Changes in tumor expression of HER2 and hormone receptors status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 21,755 patients from the Japanese breast cancer registry. Ann Oncol. 2016;27:480–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv611 .
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv611
pubmed: 26704052
Hirata T, Shimizu C, Yonemori K, et al. Change in the hormone receptor status following administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on the long-term outcome in patients with primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:1529–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605360 .
doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605360
pubmed: 19809429
pmcid: 2778525
Li C, Fan H, Xiang Q, et al. Prognostic value of receptor status conversion following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;178:497–504. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-019-05421-7 .
doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05421-7
pubmed: 31471838
Mittendorf EA, Wu Y, Scaltriti M, et al. Loss of HER2 amplification following trastuzumab-based neoadjuvant systemic therapy and survival outcomes. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:7381–8. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1735 .
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-1735
pubmed: 19920100
pmcid: 2788123
Parinyanitikul N, Lei X, Chavez-MacGregor M, et al. Receptor status change from primary to residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and analysis of survival outcomes. Clin Breast Cancer. 2015;15:153–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2014.09.006 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2014.09.006
pubmed: 25454687