PURPOSE:Tamoxifen has long been the drug of choice in adjuvant endocrine therapy of steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, and it still remains important due to its well-documented beneficial effect. Hormone receptor status is often reported as "positive" or "negative" using 10% positive nuclei as a cutoff. In this study, we aimed to assess whether a further subclassification of hormone receptor status could enhance the treatment predictive value. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The immunohistochemical expression of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) was quantified in tissue microarrays with tumors from 500 premenopausal breast cancer patients previously included in a randomized trial of adjuvant tamoxifen compared with an untreated control group. RESULTS: Our findings show a gradually increasing tamoxifen effect in tumors with >10% ER-positive nuclei. However, when analyzing tamoxifen response according to various PR fractions, we found that it was primarily patients with tumors showing >75% PR-positive nuclei that responded to tamoxifen treatment, with an improved recurrence-free [relative risk, 0.42 (0.25-0.70); P = 0.001] as well as overall [relative risk, 0.49 (0.28-0.84); P = 0.010] survival. CONCLUSIONS:Adjuvant tamoxifen improved recurrence-free and overall survival for premenopausal patients with tumors showing >75% PR-positive nuclei. No effect could be shown in tumors with fewer PR-positive nuclei. The PR was a stronger predictor of treatment response than the ER. Based on these findings, we suggest the implementation of a fractioned rather than dichotomized immunohistochemical evaluation of hormone receptors in clinical practice, possibly with greater emphasis on the PR than the ER.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Tamoxifen has long been the drug of choice in adjuvant endocrine therapy of steroid hormone receptor-positive breast cancer, and it still remains important due to its well-documented beneficial effect. Hormone receptor status is often reported as "positive" or "negative" using 10% positive nuclei as a cutoff. In this study, we aimed to assess whether a further subclassification of hormone receptor status could enhance the treatment predictive value. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The immunohistochemical expression of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) was quantified in tissue microarrays with tumors from 500 premenopausal breast cancerpatients previously included in a randomized trial of adjuvant tamoxifen compared with an untreated control group. RESULTS: Our findings show a gradually increasing tamoxifen effect in tumors with >10% ER-positive nuclei. However, when analyzing tamoxifen response according to various PR fractions, we found that it was primarily patients with tumors showing >75% PR-positive nuclei that responded to tamoxifen treatment, with an improved recurrence-free [relative risk, 0.42 (0.25-0.70); P = 0.001] as well as overall [relative risk, 0.49 (0.28-0.84); P = 0.010] survival. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant tamoxifen improved recurrence-free and overall survival for premenopausal patients with tumors showing >75% PR-positive nuclei. No effect could be shown in tumors with fewer PR-positive nuclei. The PR was a stronger predictor of treatment response than the ER. Based on these findings, we suggest the implementation of a fractioned rather than dichotomized immunohistochemical evaluation of hormone receptors in clinical practice, possibly with greater emphasis on the PR than the ER.
Authors: M Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; D Craig Allred; Karen L Hagerty; Sunil Badve; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Glenn Francis; Neil S Goldstein; Malcolm Hayes; David G Hicks; Susan Lester; Richard Love; Pamela B Mangu; Lisa McShane; Keith Miller; C Kent Osborne; Soonmyung Paik; Jane Perlmutter; Anthony Rhodes; Hironobu Sasano; Jared N Schwartz; Fred C G Sweep; Sheila Taube; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul Valenstein; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel Visscher; Thomas Wheeler; R Bruce Williams; James L Wittliff; Antonio C Wolff Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: Amy R Peck; Agnieszka K Witkiewicz; Chengbao Liu; Ginger A Stringer; Alexander C Klimowicz; Edward Pequignot; Boris Freydin; Thai H Tran; Ning Yang; Anne L Rosenberg; Jeffrey A Hooke; Albert J Kovatich; Marja T Nevalainen; Craig D Shriver; Terry Hyslop; Guido Sauter; David L Rimm; Anthony M Magliocco; Hallgeir Rui Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-16 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jason S Carroll; Theresa E Hickey; Gerard A Tarulli; Michael Williams; Wayne D Tilley Journal: Nat Rev Cancer Date: 2016-11-25 Impact factor: 60.716
Authors: Elizabeth N Kornaga; Alexander C Klimowicz; Natalia Guggisberg; Travis Ogilvie; Don G Morris; Marc Webster; Anthony M Magliocco Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Gene Young Cho; Linda Moy; Sungheon G Kim; Steven H Baete; Melanie Moccaldi; James S Babb; Daniel K Sodickson; Eric E Sigmund Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Dalal M Al Tamimi; Mohamed A Shawarby; Ayesha Ahmed; Ammar K Hassan; Amal A AlOdaini Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2010-05-21 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Chad J Creighton; C Kent Osborne; Marc J van de Vijver; John A Foekens; Jan G Klijn; Hugo M Horlings; Dimitry Nuyten; Yixin Wang; Yi Zhang; Gary C Chamness; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Adrian V Lee; Rachel Schiff Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2008-04-19 Impact factor: 4.872