PURPOSE: Aneusomy 17 causes inconsistency in fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-based human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2 status assessment using different algorithms (copy number or the HER-2/centromere enumerator probe 17 [CEP-17] ratio). We investigated the effects of FISH-based HER-2 status assessment and aneusomy 17 on responsiveness to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study recruited 152 patients with locally advanced breast cancer who underwent four-cycle weekly paclitaxel plus carboplatin without trastuzumab. RESULTS: The pathologic complete remission (pCR) rate in the breast and axilla was 24.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.7%-32.0%). Although HER-2 status, assessed by either HER-2/CEP-17 ratio-based FISH or copy number-based FISH, was a predictor of NAC sensitivity, ratio-assessed HER-2 status had a poorer performance in determining patients' responsiveness to NAC (p = .029). Patients who were not HER-2 amplified when assessed using the HER-2/CEP-17 ratio but were HER-2 amplified when assessed using copy number (~5%) were eventually proven to be responsive to NAC, with a pCR rate of 57% (95% CI, 18.4%-90.1%). In contrast, patients who were HER-2 amplified when assessed by the ratio but not HER-2 amplified when assessed using copy number (~3%) were completely irresponsive. Higher HER-2 copy numbers represented increasing chances of a pCR (adjusted odds ratio, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.35-7.08), with an apparent gene-dose effect (p for trend < .001). CONCLUSION: It is likely that HER-2 copy number but not the HER-2/CEP-17 ratio determines NAC sensitivity. Additional studies to validate our findings are warranted.
PURPOSE: Aneusomy 17 causes inconsistency in fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)-based humanepidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2 status assessment using different algorithms (copy number or the HER-2/centromere enumerator probe 17 [CEP-17] ratio). We investigated the effects of FISH-based HER-2 status assessment and aneusomy 17 on responsiveness to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective study recruited 152 patients with locally advanced breast cancer who underwent four-cycle weekly paclitaxel plus carboplatin without trastuzumab. RESULTS: The pathologic complete remission (pCR) rate in the breast and axilla was 24.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.7%-32.0%). Although HER-2 status, assessed by either HER-2/CEP-17 ratio-based FISH or copy number-based FISH, was a predictor of NAC sensitivity, ratio-assessed HER-2 status had a poorer performance in determining patients' responsiveness to NAC (p = .029). Patients who were not HER-2 amplified when assessed using the HER-2/CEP-17 ratio but were HER-2 amplified when assessed using copy number (~5%) were eventually proven to be responsive to NAC, with a pCR rate of 57% (95% CI, 18.4%-90.1%). In contrast, patients who were HER-2 amplified when assessed by the ratio but not HER-2 amplified when assessed using copy number (~3%) were completely irresponsive. Higher HER-2 copy numbers represented increasing chances of a pCR (adjusted odds ratio, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.35-7.08), with an apparent gene-dose effect (p for trend < .001). CONCLUSION: It is likely that HER-2 copy number but not the HER-2/CEP-17 ratio determines NAC sensitivity. Additional studies to validate our findings are warranted.
Authors: Roman Rouzier; Charles M Perou; W Fraser Symmans; Nuhad Ibrahim; Massimo Cristofanilli; Keith Anderson; Kenneth R Hess; James Stec; Mark Ayers; Peter Wagner; Paolo Morandi; Chang Fan; Islam Rabiul; Jeffrey S Ross; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Lajos Pusztai Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2005-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Michael F Press; Guido Sauter; Marc Buyse; Leslie Bernstein; Roberta Guzman; Angela Santiago; Ivonne E Villalobos; Wolfgang Eiermann; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Miguel Martin; Nicholas Robert; John Crown; Valerie Bee; Henry Taupin; Kerry J Flom; Isabelle Tabah-Fisch; Giovanni Pauletti; Mary-Ann Lindsay; Alessandro Riva; Dennis J Slamon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-12-28 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ann S Knoop; Helle Knudsen; Eva Balslev; Birgitte B Rasmussen; Jens Overgaard; Kirsten V Nielsen; Andreas Schonau; Katrín Gunnarsdóttir; Karen E Olsen; Henning Mouridsen; Bent Ejlertsen Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-10-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Yuko Yamamura; Kristine R Broglio; Lajos Pusztai; Aman U Buzdar; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Francisco J Esteva Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Keith N Ogston; Iain D Miller; Simon Payne; Andrew W Hutcheon; Tarun K Sarkar; Ian Smith; A Schofield; Steven D Heys Journal: Breast Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.380
Authors: H B Muss; A D Thor; D A Berry; T Kute; E T Liu; F Koerner; C T Cirrincione; D R Budman; W C Wood; M Barcos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1994-05-05 Impact factor: 91.245
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