Nadia Harbeck1, Ronald E Kates, Manfred Schmitt. 1. Clinical Research Group, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany. nadia.harbeck@lrz.tum.de
Abstract
PURPOSE: A strong prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1) as individual factors is well established in breast cancer. The improvement in clinical risk assessment gained by combining these factors is evaluated here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: uPA and PAI-1 levels were prospectively measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in tumor tissue extracts of 761 patients with primary breast cancer. RESULTS: In the clinically important subgroup of node-negative patients without adjuvant systemic therapy (n = 269; median follow-up, 60 months), the clinical value of testing both uPA and PAI-1 is demonstrated. The criterion either or both high identifies with high sensitivity the patients at high relapse risk while keeping more than half in the low-risk group. uPA/PAI-1 is the strongest predictor of disease-free survival and overall survival; patients with high uPA/PAI-1 have an increased relapse risk (P <.001; relative risk, 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 9.1), in particular for early relapse. Even within risk groups stratified by established criteria (nodal or menopausal status, tumor size, grade, or steroid hormone receptors), uPA/PAI-1 provides significant risk group discrimination. In the whole collective, the significant interaction between uPA/PAI-1 and adjuvant systemic therapy suggests a benefit from adjuvant therapy in high-risk patients as defined by uPA/PAI-1. CONCLUSION: The clinical relevance of the two tumor-invasion factors uPA and PAI-1 is greatest when they are used in combination. The particular combination of uPA and PAI-1 (both low v either or both high) is superior to either factor alone and supports risk-adapted individualized therapy decisions.
PURPOSE: A strong prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1) as individual factors is well established in breast cancer. The improvement in clinical risk assessment gained by combining these factors is evaluated here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: uPA and PAI-1 levels were prospectively measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in tumor tissue extracts of 761 patients with primary breast cancer. RESULTS: In the clinically important subgroup of node-negative patients without adjuvant systemic therapy (n = 269; median follow-up, 60 months), the clinical value of testing both uPA and PAI-1 is demonstrated. The criterion either or both high identifies with high sensitivity the patients at high relapse risk while keeping more than half in the low-risk group. uPA/PAI-1 is the strongest predictor of disease-free survival and overall survival; patients with high uPA/PAI-1 have an increased relapse risk (P <.001; relative risk, 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 9.1), in particular for early relapse. Even within risk groups stratified by established criteria (nodal or menopausal status, tumor size, grade, or steroid hormone receptors), uPA/PAI-1 provides significant risk group discrimination. In the whole collective, the significant interaction between uPA/PAI-1 and adjuvant systemic therapy suggests a benefit from adjuvant therapy in high-risk patients as defined by uPA/PAI-1. CONCLUSION: The clinical relevance of the two tumor-invasion factors uPA and PAI-1 is greatest when they are used in combination. The particular combination of uPA and PAI-1 (both low v either or both high) is superior to either factor alone and supports risk-adapted individualized therapy decisions.
Authors: Nadia Harbeck; Manfred Schmitt; Martina Vetter; Janna Krol; Daniela Paepke; Mathias Uhlig; Stefan Paepke; Fritz Jänicke; Anneke Geurts-Moespot; Gunter von Minckwitz; Fred Sweep; Christoph Thomssen Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Ainhoa Arana Echarri; Mark Beresford; John P Campbell; Robert H Jones; Rachel Butler; Kenneth J Gollob; Patricia C Brum; Dylan Thompson; James E Turner Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Bernd Uhl; Laura A Mittmann; Julian Dominik; Roman Hennel; Bojan Smiljanov; Florian Haring; Johanna B Schaubächer; Constanze Braun; Lena Padovan; Robert Pick; Martin Canis; Christian Schulz; Matthias Mack; Ewgenija Gutjahr; Peter Sinn; Jörg Heil; Katja Steiger; Sandip M Kanse; Wilko Weichert; Markus Sperandio; Kirsten Lauber; Fritz Krombach; Christoph A Reichel Journal: EMBO Mol Med Date: 2021-05-16 Impact factor: 12.137
Authors: Nuran Bektas Serce; Andreas Boesl; Irina Klaman; Sonja von Serényi; Erik Noetzel; Michael F Press; Arno Dimmler; Arndt Hartmann; Jalid Sehouli; Ruth Knuechel; Matthias W Beckmann; Peter A Fasching; Edgar Dahl Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2012-12-13 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Katharina Mandel; Daniel Seidl; Dirk Rades; Hendrik Lehnert; Frank Gieseler; Ralf Hass; Hendrik Ungefroren Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: J G H van Nes; V T H B M Smit; H Putter; P J Kuppen; S J Kim; M Daito; J Ding; M Shibayama; S Numada; K Gohda; T Matsushima; H Ishihara; S Noguchi; C J H van de Velde Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-01-20 Impact factor: 7.640