INTRODUCTION: The identification and validation of biomarkers of chemotherapy sensitivity is critical in order to individualise therapy in breast cancer. We evaluated pathological complete response (pCR) to GAT, and its correlation with tumour biomarkers before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stage III (and stage II with T≥5 cm) breast cancer patients were included. Treatment consisted of adriamycin (40 mg/m(2)) day 1, and paclitaxel (150 mg/ m(2)) followed by gemcitabine (2000 mg/m(2)) day 2, every 14 days for six cycles. Tissue from pre-treatment biopsy and surgery was evaluated for biologic markers by immunohistochemistry. Two XPD single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) were also analysed. RESULTS: Forty-six patients entered the trial. Median age was 49.5 years (range 31-72); 25 patients (54%) were pre-menopausal; 12 (26%) were ER-PgR-negative; pCR was observed in 17% (95% CI: 6.4-28.4) of patients. Significant differences in marker expression (mean±SD) in correlation to pathological response were only found in Ki- 67. After treatment, tumours showed lower Ki-67-, surviving- and pERK-positive cells. No correlation between XPD polymorphisms and pCR was found. The overall response rate was 89% (95% CI: 80.1-98.1). Fifteen patients (33%) underwent breast-conserving surgery. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 toxicities were neutropenia (with one febrile neutropenia) and asthenia. CONCLUSION: These results show an effective regimen with acceptable tolerability. Our data suggest that not only classical markers (ER, Ki-67), but also survivin and pERK could be involved in the response to GAT, which may contribute to therapy individualisation in future study designs.
INTRODUCTION: The identification and validation of biomarkers of chemotherapy sensitivity is critical in order to individualise therapy in breast cancer. We evaluated pathological complete response (pCR) to GAT, and its correlation with tumour biomarkers before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Stage III (and stage II with T≥5 cm) breast cancerpatients were included. Treatment consisted of adriamycin (40 mg/m(2)) day 1, and paclitaxel (150 mg/ m(2)) followed by gemcitabine (2000 mg/m(2)) day 2, every 14 days for six cycles. Tissue from pre-treatment biopsy and surgery was evaluated for biologic markers by immunohistochemistry. Two XPD single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) were also analysed. RESULTS: Forty-six patients entered the trial. Median age was 49.5 years (range 31-72); 25 patients (54%) were pre-menopausal; 12 (26%) were ER-PgR-negative; pCR was observed in 17% (95% CI: 6.4-28.4) of patients. Significant differences in marker expression (mean±SD) in correlation to pathological response were only found in Ki- 67. After treatment, tumours showed lower Ki-67-, surviving- and pERK-positive cells. No correlation between XPD polymorphisms and pCR was found. The overall response rate was 89% (95% CI: 80.1-98.1). Fifteen patients (33%) underwent breast-conserving surgery. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 toxicities were neutropenia (with one febrile neutropenia) and asthenia. CONCLUSION: These results show an effective regimen with acceptable tolerability. Our data suggest that not only classical markers (ER, Ki-67), but also survivin and pERK could be involved in the response to GAT, which may contribute to therapy individualisation in future study designs.
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: Peter F Lebowitz; Jennifer Eng-Wong; Sandra M Swain; Arlene Berman; Maria J Merino; Catherine K Chow; David Venzon; Farah Zia; David Danforth; Edison Liu; Joanne Zujewski Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-10-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: R de las Peñas; M Sanchez-Ronco; V Alberola; M Taron; C Camps; R Garcia-Carbonero; B Massuti; C Queralt; M Botia; R Garcia-Gomez; D Isla; M Cobo; M Santarpia; F Cecere; P Mendez; J J Sanchez; R Rosell Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2006-01-11 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: J A van der Hage; C J van de Velde; J P Julien; M Tubiana-Hulin; C Vandervelden; L Duchateau Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-11-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Ian C Smith; Steven D Heys; Andrew W Hutcheon; Iain D Miller; Simon Payne; Fiona J Gilbert; Antoinne K Ah-See; Oleg Eremin; Leslie G Walker; Tarun K Sarkar; S Peter Eggleton; Keith N Ogston Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
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: T J Powles; T F Hickish; A Makris; S E Ashley; M E O'Brien; V A Tidy; S Casey; A G Nash; N Sacks; D Cosgrove Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Emilio Alba; Ana Lluch; Nuria Ribelles; Antonio Anton-Torres; Pedro Sanchez-Rovira; Joan Albanell; Lourdes Calvo; Jose Antonio Lopez García-Asenjo; Jose Palacios; Jose Ignacio Chacon; Amparo Ruiz; Juan De la Haba-Rodriguez; Miguel A Segui-Palmer; Beatriz Cirauqui; Mireia Margeli; Arrate Plazaola; Agusti Barnadas; Maribel Casas; Rosalia Caballero; Eva Carrasco; Federico Rojo Journal: Oncologist Date: 2016-01-19
Authors: Katarzyna Zabielska-Koczywąs; Izabella Dolka; Magdalena Król; Artur Żbikowski; Wiktor Lewandowski; Józef Mieczkowski; Michał Wójcik; Roman Lechowski Journal: Molecules Date: 2017-02-08 Impact factor: 4.411