PURPOSE: Primary chemotherapy brings the opportunity for an early and accurate assessment of response and offers an ideal model to search for new predictors of response. HER-2/neu is one of the most studied genes for this purpose. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Her-2/neu was tested in a non-randomized series of 300 patients with operable breast carcinomas treated with primary CMF. Response was assessed by mammography. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated after a mean follow-up of 116 months. Statistical analysis was performed to study the association between HER-2/neu status and response to CMF. RESULTS: Overexpression/amplification was found in 23.66% cases. Univariate analysis showed that response was similar in HER-2/neu positive and negative tumors (51.38 vs. 47.36%, P = 0.6). Triple negative tumors (ER, PR and HER-2/neu negative) presented the highest response rate (64.9%). By multivariate analysis, response was significantly correlated to higher nuclear grade and negative estrogen receptor status (P = 0.02 and 0.007, respectively). Patients with HER-2/neu positive tumors presented shorter survival rates (P = 0.06). Patients with response to CMF showed a better survival over non-responders independent of Her-2/neu status. Patients with the combination of response to CMF and Her-2/neu negative tumors presented the best outcome. On the other hand, the association of no response to CMF and positive Her-2/neu score was statistically related to poor DFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: CMF indication is independent of Her-2/neu status.
PURPOSE: Primary chemotherapy brings the opportunity for an early and accurate assessment of response and offers an ideal model to search for new predictors of response. HER-2/neu is one of the most studied genes for this purpose. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Her-2/neu was tested in a non-randomized series of 300 patients with operable breast carcinomas treated with primary CMF. Response was assessed by mammography. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated after a mean follow-up of 116 months. Statistical analysis was performed to study the association between HER-2/neu status and response to CMF. RESULTS: Overexpression/amplification was found in 23.66% cases. Univariate analysis showed that response was similar in HER-2/neu positive and negative tumors (51.38 vs. 47.36%, P = 0.6). Triple negative tumors (ER, PR and HER-2/neu negative) presented the highest response rate (64.9%). By multivariate analysis, response was significantly correlated to higher nuclear grade and negative estrogen receptor status (P = 0.02 and 0.007, respectively). Patients with HER-2/neu positive tumors presented shorter survival rates (P = 0.06). Patients with response to CMF showed a better survival over non-responders independent of Her-2/neu status. Patients with the combination of response to CMF and Her-2/neu negative tumors presented the best outcome. On the other hand, the association of no response to CMF and positive Her-2/neu score was statistically related to poor DFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: CMF indication is independent of Her-2/neu status.
Authors: Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend Journal: Nature Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: S Ménard; P Valagussa; S Pilotti; L Gianni; E Biganzoli; P Boracchi; G Tomasic; P Casalini; E Marubini; M I Colnaghi; N Cascinelli; G Bonadonna Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: G Bonadonna; P Valagussa; C Brambilla; L Ferrari; A Moliterni; M Terenziani; M Zambetti Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Abelardo Moreno; Agustín Escobedo; Enrique Benito; Jose Ma Serra; Anna Gumà; Francisco Riu Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: D C Allred; G M Clark; A K Tandon; R Molina; D C Tormey; C K Osborne; K W Gilchrist; E G Mansour; M Abeloff; L Eudey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1992-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: B Fisher; J Bryant; N Wolmark; E Mamounas; A Brown; E R Fisher; D L Wickerham; M Begovic; A DeCillis; A Robidoux; R G Margolese; A B Cruz; J L Hoehn; A W Lees; N V Dimitrov; H D Bear Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Thomas A Buchholz; Eugene H Huang; Donald Berry; Lajos Pusztai; Eric A Strom; Marsha D McNeese; George H Perkins; Naomi R Schechter; Henry M Kuerer; Aman U Buzdar; Vicente Valero; Kelly K Hunt; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Aysegul A Sahin Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Gottfried E Konecny; Christoph Thomssen; Hans Joachim Lück; Michael Untch; He-Jing Wang; Walter Kuhn; Holger Eidtmann; Andreas du Bois; Sigrid Olbricht; Dieter Steinfeld; Volker Möbus; Gunter von Minckwitz; Suganda Dandekar; Lillian Ramos; Giovanni Pauletti; Mark D Pegram; Fritz Jänicke; Dennis J Slamon Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2004-08-04 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: C Wright; S Nicholson; B Angus; J R Sainsbury; J Farndon; J Cairns; A L Harris; C H Horne Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 1992-01 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Jian-min Fu; Jie Zhou; Jian Shi; Jian-sheng Xie; Li Huang; Adrian Y S Yip; Wings T Y Loo; Louis W C Chow; Elizabeth L Y Ng Journal: J Transl Med Date: 2012-09-19 Impact factor: 5.531