PURPOSE:Tamoxifen (TAM) is increasingly administered to new early breast cancer patients. Because it is not devoid of toxic effects, we studied factors potentially predictive of its efficacy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:From 1978 to 1983, 433 patients were enrolled in the GUN randomized trial: 206 were assigned toTAM versus 227 controls (no-TAM). Premenopausal patients with axillary lymph node involvement (60 TAM versus 65 no-TAM) also received nine CMF cycles. Eight biological markers were retrospectively assayed for most patients: estrogen; progesterone; prolactin receptors (PrlRs); microvessel count (MVC); S-phase fraction; tumor ploidy; epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR); and HER2. We performed a multivariate test of the TAM/covariate interactions to establish whether these variables predicted for TAM efficacy. Estimates of the TAM effect were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) of death of TAM over no-TAM patients with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 15 years, PrlRs, MVC, S-phase fraction, ploidy, and EGFR did not influence TAM efficacy. Differently, HER2 had an overall significant predictive effect: HR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40-0.87) in HER2-negative subjects versus HR = 1.09 (95% CI: 0.63-1.87) in HER2-positive subjects (interaction test: P = 0.04). The predictive effect of HER2 was also evident in the subgroup of patients with steroid receptor-positive tumors (HER2 positive: HR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.70-2.51; HER2 negative: HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.47-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: With the statistical power of the present randomized trial, S-phase, ploidy, EGFR, PrlR, and MVC do not seem to predict for TAM efficacy. Conversely, our data support the hypothesis that tumors overexpressing HER2 might not benefit from adjuvant TAM.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Tamoxifen (TAM) is increasingly administered to new early breast cancerpatients. Because it is not devoid of toxic effects, we studied factors potentially predictive of its efficacy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: From 1978 to 1983, 433 patients were enrolled in the GUN randomized trial: 206 were assigned to TAM versus 227 controls (no-TAM). Premenopausal patients with axillary lymph node involvement (60 TAM versus 65 no-TAM) also received nine CMF cycles. Eight biological markers were retrospectively assayed for most patients: estrogen; progesterone; prolactin receptors (PrlRs); microvessel count (MVC); S-phase fraction; tumor ploidy; epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR); and HER2. We performed a multivariate test of the TAM/covariate interactions to establish whether these variables predicted for TAM efficacy. Estimates of the TAM effect were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) of death of TAM over no-TAMpatients with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 15 years, PrlRs, MVC, S-phase fraction, ploidy, and EGFR did not influence TAM efficacy. Differently, HER2 had an overall significant predictive effect: HR = 0.59 (95% CI: 0.40-0.87) in HER2-negative subjects versus HR = 1.09 (95% CI: 0.63-1.87) in HER2-positive subjects (interaction test: P = 0.04). The predictive effect of HER2 was also evident in the subgroup of patients with steroid receptor-positive tumors (HER2 positive: HR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.70-2.51; HER2 negative: HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.47-1.14). CONCLUSIONS: With the statistical power of the present randomized trial, S-phase, ploidy, EGFR, PrlR, and MVC do not seem to predict for TAM efficacy. Conversely, our data support the hypothesis that tumors overexpressing HER2 might not benefit from adjuvant TAM.
Authors: Chungyeul Kim; Gong Tang; Katherine L Pogue-Geile; Joseph P Costantino; Frederick L Baehner; Joffre Baker; Maureen T Cronin; Drew Watson; Steven Shak; Olga L Bohn; Debora Fumagalli; Yusuke Taniyama; Ahwon Lee; Megan L Reilly; Victor G Vogel; Worta McCaskill-Stevens; Leslie G Ford; Charles E Geyer; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark; Soonmyung Paik Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-09-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: K Jirström; L Rydén; L Anagnostaki; B Nordenskjöld; O Stål; S Thorstenson; G Chebil; P-E Jönsson; M Fernö; G Landberg Journal: J Clin Pathol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 3.411
Authors: Heather M Brechbuhl; Jessica Finlay-Schultz; Tomomi M Yamamoto; Austin E Gillen; Diana M Cittelly; Aik-Choon Tan; Sharon B Sams; Manoj M Pillai; Anthony D Elias; William A Robinson; Carol A Sartorius; Peter Kabos Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-10-04 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Sabine Riethdorf; Bernhard Hoegel; Birgit John; German Ott; Peter Fritz; Susanne Thon; Thomas Loening; Klaus Pantel Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-16 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Maria D Corte; Juan A Rodil; Julio Vázquez; Lucia García; Juan C Rodríguez; Miguel Bongera; José C Fernández; Luis O González; Ma Luz Lamelas; Maite Allende; José L García-Muñiz; Antonio Fueyo; Francisco J Vizoso Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2005-11-01 Impact factor: 4.553