PURPOSE: The Tamoxifen and Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial included a prospectively planned pathology substudy testing the predictive value of progesterone receptor (PgR) expression for outcome of estrogen receptor-positive (ER-positive) early breast cancer treated with exemestane versus tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pathology blocks from 4,781 TEAM patients randomly assigned toexemestane versus tamoxifen followed by exemestane for 5 years of total therapy were collected centrally, and tissue microarrays were constructed from samples from 4,598 patients. Quantitative analysis of hormone receptors (ER and PgR) was performed by using image analysis and immunohistochemistry, and the results were linked to outcome data from the main TEAM trial and analyzed relative to disease-free survival and treatment. RESULTS: Of 4,325 eligible ER-positive patients, 23% werePgR-poor (Allred < 4) and 77% were PgR- rich (Allred ≥ 5). No treatment-by-marker effect for PgR was observed for exemestane versus tamoxifen (PgR-rich hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.05; PgR-poor HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.19; P = .88 for interaction). Both PgR and ER expression were associated with patient prognosis in univariate (PgR HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.65; P < .001; ER HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.86; P = .002), and multivariate analyses (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively). A trend toward a treatment-by-marker effect for ER-rich patients was observed. CONCLUSION: Preferential exemestane versus tamoxifen treatment benefit was not predicted by PgR expression; conversely, patients with ER-rich tumors may derive additional benefit from exemestane. Quantitative analysis of ER and PgR expression provides highly significant information on risk of early relapse (within 1 to 3 years) during treatment.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The Tamoxifen and Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial included a prospectively planned pathology substudy testing the predictive value of progesterone receptor (PgR) expression for outcome of estrogen receptor-positive (ER-positive) early breast cancer treated with exemestane versus tamoxifen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Pathology blocks from 4,781 TEAM patients randomly assigned to exemestane versus tamoxifen followed by exemestane for 5 years of total therapy were collected centrally, and tissue microarrays were constructed from samples from 4,598 patients. Quantitative analysis of hormone receptors (ER and PgR) was performed by using image analysis and immunohistochemistry, and the results were linked to outcome data from the main TEAM trial and analyzed relative to disease-free survival and treatment. RESULTS: Of 4,325 eligible ER-positive patients, 23% were PgR-poor (Allred < 4) and 77% were PgR- rich (Allred ≥ 5). No treatment-by-marker effect for PgR was observed for exemestane versus tamoxifen (PgR-rich hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.05; PgR-poor HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.19; P = .88 for interaction). Both PgR and ER expression were associated with patient prognosis in univariate (PgR HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.65; P < .001; ER HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.86; P = .002), and multivariate analyses (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively). A trend toward a treatment-by-marker effect for ER-rich patients was observed. CONCLUSION: Preferential exemestane versus tamoxifen treatment benefit was not predicted by PgR expression; conversely, patients with ER-rich tumors may derive additional benefit from exemestane. Quantitative analysis of ER and PgR expression provides highly significant information on risk of early relapse (within 1 to 3 years) during treatment.
Authors: Giuseppe Viale; Meredith M Regan; Eugenio Maiorano; Mauro G Mastropasqua; Patrizia Dell'Orto; Birgitte Bruun Rasmussen; Johnny Raffoul; Patrick Neven; Zsolt Orosz; Stephen Braye; Christian Ohlschlegel; Beat Thürlimann; Richard D Gelber; Monica Castiglione-Gertsch; Karen N Price; Aron Goldhirsch; Barry A Gusterson; Alan S Coates Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-08-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mitch Dowsett; Steve R Ebbs; J Michael Dixon; Anthony Skene; Clive Griffith; Irene Boeddinghaus; Janine Salter; Simone Detre; Margaret Hills; Susan Ashley; Stephen Francis; Geraldine Walsh; Ian E Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: R C Coombes; L S Kilburn; C F Snowdon; R Paridaens; R E Coleman; S E Jones; J Jassem; C J H Van de Velde; T Delozier; I Alvarez; L Del Mastro; O Ortmann; K Diedrich; A S Coates; E Bajetta; S B Holmberg; D Dodwell; E Mickiewicz; J Andersen; P E Lønning; G Cocconi; J Forbes; M Castiglione; N Stuart; A Stewart; L J Fallowfield; G Bertelli; E Hall; R G Bogle; M Carpentieri; E Colajori; M Subar; E Ireland; J M Bliss Journal: Lancet Date: 2007-02-17 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Syed K Mohsin; Heidi Weiss; Thomas Havighurst; Gary M Clark; Melora Berardo; Le D Roanh; Ta V To; Zhang Qian; Zho Qian; Richard R Love; D Craig Allred Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: John F Forbes; Jack Cuzick; Aman Buzdar; Anthony Howell; Jeffrey S Tobias; Michael Baum Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Seth Winfree; Michael J Ferkowicz; Pierre C Dagher; Katherine J Kelly; Michael T Eadon; Timothy A Sutton; Troy A Markel; Mervin C Yoder; Kenneth W Dunn; Tarek M El-Achkar Journal: Transl Res Date: 2017-07-22 Impact factor: 7.012
Authors: Rania El Majzoub; Mohammad Fayyad-Kazan; Assaad Nasr El Dine; Rawan Makki; Eva Hamade; René Grée; Ali Hachem; Rabih Talhouk; Hussein Fayyad-Kazan; Bassam Badran Journal: Genes Genomics Date: 2019-09-20 Impact factor: 1.839
Authors: Halei C Benefield; Emma H Allott; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Charles M Perou; Lisa A Carey; Joseph Geradts; Xuezheng Sun; Benjamin C Calhoun; Melissa A Troester Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506