PURPOSE: To clarify clinicopathological similarities and differences between breast carcinomas that achieve pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and those showing progressive disease (PD) during NAC, we compared pre-NAC clinicopathological characteristics between these tumors. METHODS: Subjects comprised 32 patients (6%) achieved pCR and 33 patients (7%) showed PD of 494 patients (498 breasts) with stage II or III breast carcinoma who underwent anthracycline-based or taxane chemotherapy or both, followed by surgery, between 2000 and 2006. We compared patient characteristics before NAC, and histomorphology, immunohistochemistry, and molecular subtypes of tumors using pre-NAC biopsy samples. Immunohistochemistry included estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6). Molecular subtypes were defined by ER, PgR, HER2, EGFR, and CK5/6. We compared these factors between pCR and PD using univariate chi (2) testing and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: No significant differences between groups were seen regarding NAC regimens. Solid-tubular carcinoma (53% of pCR, 61% of PD), histological grade 3 (78% of pCR, 79% of PD), ER-status (91% of pCR, 82% of PD), and basal-like subtype (44% of pCR, 58% of PD) were often observed in both groups. In multivariate analyses, lower clinical N stage at diagnosis (P = 0.004) and HER2/ER-PgR- subtype (P = 0.020) were significantly associated with pCR. CONCLUSIONS: Breast carcinomas achieving pCR or showing PD with NAC have common peculiar characteristics such as solid-tubular carcinoma, high grade, hormone receptor negativity, and basal-like subtype. Conversely, discriminative factors include clinical N stage at diagnosis and HER2/ER-PgR- subtype.
PURPOSE: To clarify clinicopathological similarities and differences between breast carcinomas that achieve pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and those showing progressive disease (PD) during NAC, we compared pre-NAC clinicopathological characteristics between these tumors. METHODS: Subjects comprised 32 patients (6%) achieved pCR and 33 patients (7%) showed PD of 494 patients (498 breasts) with stage II or III breast carcinoma who underwent anthracycline-based or taxane chemotherapy or both, followed by surgery, between 2000 and 2006. We compared patient characteristics before NAC, and histomorphology, immunohistochemistry, and molecular subtypes of tumors using pre-NAC biopsy samples. Immunohistochemistry included estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6). Molecular subtypes were defined by ER, PgR, HER2, EGFR, and CK5/6. We compared these factors between pCR and PD using univariate chi (2) testing and multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: No significant differences between groups were seen regarding NAC regimens. Solid-tubular carcinoma (53% of pCR, 61% of PD), histological grade 3 (78% of pCR, 79% of PD), ER-status (91% of pCR, 82% of PD), and basal-like subtype (44% of pCR, 58% of PD) were often observed in both groups. In multivariate analyses, lower clinical N stage at diagnosis (P = 0.004) and HER2/ER-PgR- subtype (P = 0.020) were significantly associated with pCR. CONCLUSIONS:Breast carcinomas achieving pCR or showing PD with NAC have common peculiar characteristics such as solid-tubular carcinoma, high grade, hormone receptor negativity, and basal-like subtype. Conversely, discriminative factors include clinical N stage at diagnosis and HER2/ER-PgR- subtype.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Chad A Livasy; Gamze Karaca; Rita Nanda; Maria S Tretiakova; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Dominic T Moore; Charles M Perou Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 7.842
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: Thomas C Putti; Dalia M Abd El-Rehim; Emad A Rakha; Claire E Paish; Andrew H S Lee; Sarah E Pinder; Ian O Ellis Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Torsten O Nielsen; Forrest D Hsu; Kristin Jensen; Maggie Cheang; Gamze Karaca; Zhiyuan Hu; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Chad Livasy; Dave Cowan; Lynn Dressler; Lars A Akslen; Joseph Ragaz; Allen M Gown; C Blake Gilks; Matt van de Rijn; Charles M Perou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Fabrice Andre; Chafika Mazouni; Cornelia Liedtke; Shu-Wan Kau; Debby Frye; Marjorie Green; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; W Fraser Symmans; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-04-28 Impact factor: 4.872
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