| Literature DB >> 24569467 |
S Giacchetti1, R Porcher2, J Lehmann-Che3, A-S Hamy1, A de Roquancourt4, C Cuvier1, P-H Cottu1, P Bertheau4, M Albiter5, F Bouhidel4, F Coussy1, J-M Extra1, M Marty1, H de Thé3, M Espié1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Triple-negative (TN) breast cancers exhibit major initial responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, but generally have a poor outcome. Because of the lack of validated drug targets, chemotherapy remains an important therapeutic tool in these cancers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24569467 PMCID: PMC3960631 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2014.81
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Cancer ISSN: 0007-0920 Impact factor: 7.640
Patients characteristics at inclusion (%)
| No. patients | 99 | 168 | |
| Age, median (range), years | 46 (24–76) | 48 (26–78) | 0.046 |
| Clinical tumour | | | 0.004 |
| T1 | 0 (0) | 2 (1) | |
| T2 | 16 (16) | 50 (30) | |
| T3 | 51 (52) | 88 (52) | |
| T4 | 32 (32) | 28 (17) | |
| Clinical nodal status | | | 0.12 |
| N0 | 23 (23) | 57 (34) | |
| N1 | 53 (54) | 87 (52) | |
| N2 | 21 (21) | 21 (12) | |
| N3 | 2 (2) | 3 (2) | |
| Histological type | | | 0.65 |
| Ductal | 91 (92) | 148 (88) | |
| Lobular | 6 (6) | 14 (8) | |
| Other | 2 (2) | 6 (4) | |
| Histological grade | | | 0.007 |
| Grade 1 | 0 (0) | 13 (8) | |
| Grade 2 | 49 (50) | 82 (49) | |
| Grade 3 | 49 (50) | 71 (43) | |
| Missing | 1 | 2 | |
| ER expression | | | >0.99 |
| Negative | 31 (34) | 56 (33) | |
| Positive | 61 (66) | 112 (67) | |
| Missing | 7 | 0 | |
| PR expression | 0.11 | ||
| Negative | 48 (53) | 106 (63) | |
| Positive | 43 (47) | 61 (37) | |
| Missing | 8 | 1 | |
| HER2 expression | | | 0.62 |
| Negative | 72 (79) | 137 (82) | |
| Positive | 19 (21) | 30 (18) | |
| Missing | 8 | 1 | |
| Triple negative | | | 0.76 |
| No | 70 (77) | 125 (75) | |
| Yes | 21 (23) | 42 (25) | |
| Missing | 8 | 1 |
Abbreviations: ER=oestrogen receptor; HER2=human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; PR=progesterone receptor; pts=patients.
Patients with triple-negative tumour characteristics at inclusion (%)
| No. patients | 21 | 70 | 42 | 125 |
| Age, median (range), years | 46 (29–69) | 46 (24–76) | 47 (29–78) | 49 (26–76) |
| T1 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 2 (2) |
| T2 | 4 (19) | 8 (11) | 14 (33) | 36 (29) |
| T3 | 15 (71) | 34 (49) | 24 (57) | 63 (50) |
| T4 | 2 (10) | 28 (40) | 4 (10) | 24 (19) |
| N0 | 7 (33) | 16 (23) | 14 (33) | 43 (34) |
| N1 | 11 (52) | 39 (56) | 21 (50) | 66 (53) |
| N2 | 3 (14) | 13 (19) | 6 (14) | 14 (11) |
| Ductal | 20 (95) | 63 (90) | 36 (86) | 111 (89) |
| Lobular | 0 (0) | 6 (9) | 1 (2) | 13 (10) |
| Other | 1 (5) | 1 (1) | 5 (12) | 1 (1) |
| Grade 1 | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 12 (10) |
| Grade 2 | 3 (14) | 40 (57) | 8 (19) | 74 (60) |
| Grade 3 | 18 (86) | 30 (43) | 34 (81) | 37 (30) |
| Missing | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Abbreviation: TN=triple negative.
Pathological complete response
| Pathological response evaluated (%) | 99 (100) | 165 (98) | |
| All tumours | 16/99 (16%) | 19/165 (12%) | 0.35 |
| ER expression | | | Interaction |
| Negative | 14/31 (45%) | 13/55 (24%) | 0.053 |
| Positive | 2/61 (3%) | 6/110 (5%) | 0.71 |
| Missing | 7 | 0 | |
| PR expression | | | Interaction: |
| Negative | 14/48 (29%) | 18/105 (17%) | 0.13 |
| Positive | 2/43 (5%) | 1/59 (2%) | 0.57 |
| Missing | 8 | 1 | |
| HER2 expression | | | Interaction: |
| Negative | 11/72 (15%) | 14/134 (10%) | 0.37 |
| Positive | 5/19 (26%) | 5/30 (17%) | 0.48 |
| Missing | 8 | 1 | |
| Triple negative | | | Interaction: |
| No | 6/70 (9%) | 9/123 (3.7%) | 0.78 |
| Yes | 10/21 (48%) | 10/41 (24%) | 0.087 |
| Missing | 8 | 1 |
Abbreviations: ER=oestrogen receptor; HER2=human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; PR=progesterone receptor; pts=patients.
Figure 1Overall survival and disease-free survival of the patients treated with SIM ( Numbers of patients still followed at each time point are indicated. Time is in years, shaded areas represent pointwise 95% confidence intervals.
Figure 2Disease-free survival ( Restricting the analysis to the first 72 months, the SIM regimen achieved a significantly longer DFS than EC-T in patients with TN tumours.
Results of multivariable analysis of DFS and OS
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Histological grade 3 | 1.00 (0.61–1.65) | 0.98 | 1.39 (0.73–2.64) | 0.31 |
| N-stage ⩾2 | 2.19 (1.33–3.60) | 0.002 | 2.35 (1.28–4.33) | 0.006 |
| T-stage 4 | 1.10 (0.66–1.85) | 0.71 | 1.41 (0.73–2.72) | 0.31 |
| TN status by protocol interaction | | 0.023 | | 0.063 |
| Non-constant effect in time for TN | | 0.004 | | 0.0004 |
| Before 2 years | 3.98 (1.69–9.37) | 0.002 | 12.4 (2.94–52.2) | 0.0006 |
| After 2 years | 0.74 (0.28–1.95) | 0.54 | 1.42 (0.51–3.94) | 0.50 |
| Before 2 years | 2.09 (0.93–4.68) | 0.075 | 2.06 (0.46–9.16) | 0.34 |
| After 2 years | 0.95 (0.49–1.81) | 0.87 | 1.02 (0.47–2.22) | 0.95 |
| Before 2 years | 0.55 (0.20–1.56) | 0.26 | 0.66 (0.19–2.29) | 0.52 |
| After 2 years | 0.25 (0.07–0.86) | 0.028 | 0.33 (0.09–1.24) | 0.10 |
Abbreviations: CI=confidence interval; DFS=disease-free survival; HR=hazard ratio; OS=overall survival; TN=triple negative.