| Literature DB >> 24893880 |
Naoki Aomatsu, Masakazu Yashiro1, Shinichiro Kashiwagi, Hidemi Kawajiri, Tsutomu Takashima, Masahiko Ohsawa, Kenichi Wakasa, Kosei Hirakawa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is one of the standard care regimens for patients with resectable early-stage breast cancer. It would be advantageous to determine the chemosensitivity of tumors before initiating NAC. One of the parameters potentially compromising such chemosensitivity would be a hypoxic microenvironment of cancer cells. The aim of this study was thus to clarify the correlation between expression of the hypoxic marker carbonic anhydrase-9 (CA9) and chemosensitivity to NAC as well as prognosis of breast cancer patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24893880 PMCID: PMC4058694 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-400
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Figure 1Immunohistochemical determination of CA9 expression. The positivity of a tumor for CA-9 was semi-quantitatively analyzed according to the percentage of cells showing membrane positivity. Score 0, negative staining in all cells; score 1+, weakly positive or focally positive staining in <10% of the cells; score 2+, moderately positive staining covering >10% of the cells; and score 3+, strongly positive staining, including >10% of the cells.
Figure 2Association between clinicopathologic response and disease-free survival. Disease-free survival in pathologic non-responders was significantly (p = 0.002) shorter than that in pathologic responders, while the clinical response was not associated with disease-free survival (p = 0.78).
Correlations between CA9 expression and clinicopathological parameters in CNB of 102 primary breast cancers
| | | | |
|---|---|---|---|
| | |||
| Age | | | |
| ≥55 | 21 (42%) | 29 (58%) | |
| <55 | 26 (50%) | 26 (50%) | 0.418 |
| Menopause | | | |
| Positive | 31 (44%) | 40 (56%) | |
| Negative | 16 (52%) | 15 (48%) | 0.459 |
| Intrinsic subtype | | | |
| Luminal | 22 (48%) | 24 (52%) | |
| Luminal-HER | 4 (50%) | 4 (50%) | |
| HER2 | 4 (24%) | 13 (76%) | 0.209 |
| Triple-negative | 17 (55%) | 14 (45%) | |
| Tumor size | | | |
| ≥ 4 cm | 12 (67%) | 6 (33%) | |
| < 4 cm | 35 (42%) | 49 (58%) | 0.053 |
| Lymph node status | | | |
| Positive | 23 (70%) | 10 (30%) | |
| Negative | 24 (35%) | 45 (65%) | 0.001 |
| Lymph-vascular invasion | | | |
| Positive | 20 (69%) | 9 (31%) | |
| Negative | 27 (37%) | 46 (63%) | 0.003 |
| Nuclear grade (NG) | | | |
| NG1 | 32 (43%) | 42 (57%) | |
| NG 2&3 | 15 (54%) | 13 (46%) | 0.350 |
| Pathological response | | | |
| pCR | 7 (23%) | 23 (77%) | |
| Non-pCR | 40 (56%) | 32 (44%) | 0.003 |
| Responder (histological grade 2&3) | 16 (29%) | 40 (71%) | |
| non-Responder (histological grade 1) | 31 (67%) | 15 (33%) | <0.001 |
| Clinical response | | | |
| Responder (cCR + cPR) | 33 (41%) | 47 (59%) | |
| non-Responder (cNC + cPD) | 14 (64%) | 8 (36%) | 0.062 |
| Recurrence | | | |
| Yes | 22 (79%) | 6 (21%) | |
| No | 25 (34%) | 49 (66%) | <0.001 |
Correlations between the pathological and clinical response and the pCR
| | | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pathological response | | | |
| Responder (histological grade 2&3) | 30 | 26 | |
| non-Responder (histological grade 1) | 0 | 46 | |
| Clinical response | | | |
| Responder (cCR + cPR) | 28 | 52 | |
| non-Responder (cNC + cPD) | 2 | 20 | |
Univariate and multivariate analyses of the pathological complete response in 102 breast cancers
| | | | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA9 expression in CNB | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 0.24 | 0.09-0.63 | 0.041 | 0.21 | 0.07-0.59 | 0.003 |
| ER | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 0.24 | 0.10-0.61 | 0.002 | 0.23 | 0.02-2.37 | 0.219 |
| PgR | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 0.22 | 0.08-0.61 | 0.004 | 0.36 | 0.10-1.30 | 0.120 |
| HER2 | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 1.75 | 0.68-4.48 | 0.244 | | | |
| Molecular subtypes | | | | | | |
| HR+/HER2- vs others | 0.33 | 0.13-0.83 | 0.018 | 1.78 | 0.18-17.44 | 0.622 |
| HR-/HER2+ vs others | 0.02 | 0.01-2999894 | 0.728 | | | |
| HR-/HER2+ vs others | 1.75 | 0.683-4.483 | 0.244 | | | |
| HR-/HER2- vs others | 1.17 | 0.93-1.46 | 0.176 | | | |
| Age | | | | | | |
| ≥55 vs <55 | 0.88 | 0.37-2.05 | 0.759 | | | |
| Menopause | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 0.82 | 0.33-2.05 | 0.677 | | | |
| Tumor size | | | | | | |
| ≥4 cm vs <4 cm | 0.64 | 0.19-2.12 | 0.463 | | | |
| Lymph node status | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 4.33 | 0.93-20.1 | 0.061 |
Figure 3Disease-free survival of patients based on CA-9 expression. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve shows the disease-free survival in relation to the CA-9 expression. A statistically significant difference in the survival was observed between the CA-9-positive and CA-9-negative groups in both CNB specimens and resected tissues (log-rank, p = 0.01 and p = 0.03, respectively).
Univariate and multivariate analysis of disease-free survival
| | | | | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CA9 expression in CNB specimens | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 4.44 | 1.80-10.9 | 0.001 | 2.32 | 0.88-6.08 | 0.089 |
| CA9 expression in resected tissues | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 2.63 | 1.21-5.70 | 0.014 | 2.39 | 1.04-5.49 | 0.041 |
| Tumor size | | | | | | |
| ≥ 4 cm vs < 4 cm | 2.46 | 1.11-5.45 | 0.026 | 1.61 | 0.65-3.97 | 0.302 |
| Lymph node status | | | | | | |
| N1-3 vs N0 | 3.00 | 1.42-6.35 | 0.004 | 0.97 | 0.38-2.47 | 0.955 |
| Lymph-vascular invasion | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 4.22 | 1.99-8.92 | <0.001 | 2.75 | 1.11-6.62 | 0.028 |
| ER | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 0.91 | 0.43-1.94 | 0.807 | | | |
| PgR | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 0.95 | 0.45-2.02 | 0.905 | | | |
| HER2 | | | | | | |
| positive vs negative | 1.36 | 0.59-3.11 | 0.46 | | | |
| Clinical response | | | | | | |
| Responder vs non-responder | 0.88 | 0.37-2.08 | 0.78 | | | |
| Pathological response | | | | | | |
| Responder vs non-responder | 0.29 | 0.12-0.67 | 0.004 | 1.03 | 0.38-2.78 | 0.953 |
| pCR vs non-pCR | 0.19 | 0.45-0.81 | 0.024 | 1.34 | 0.27-6.62 | 0.722 |