| Literature DB >> 27184134 |
Helen Gogas1, Vassiliki Kotoula2,3, Zoi Alexopoulou4, Christos Christodoulou5, Ioannis Kostopoulos2, Mattheos Bobos3, Georgia Raptou2, Elpida Charalambous3, Eleftheria Tsolaki3, Ioannis Xanthakis6, George Pentheroudakis7, Angelos Koutras8, Dimitrios Bafaloukos9, Pavlos Papakostas10, Gerasimos Aravantinos11, Amanda Psyrri12, Kalliopi Petraki13, Konstantine T Kalogeras3,14, Dimitrios Pectasides15, George Fountzilas3,16.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for more efficient patient stratification for receiving trastuzumab in the metastatic breast cancer (mBC) setting, since only part of such patients benefit from the addition of this agent to chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of biomarkers including MYC and MET in mBC patients treated with trastuzumab-based regimens.Entities:
Keywords: Amplification; Centromere copy number; FISH; HER2; MET; MYC; Metastatic breast cancer; TOP2A; Trastuzumab; qPCR
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27184134 PMCID: PMC4869295 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-016-0883-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Patient characteristics in the entire cohort and according to central HER2 status
| Entire cohort | HER2-negative | HER2-positive | p value | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | 229 | 90 (39.3 %) | 139 (60.7 %) | ||||
| Age (years) | |||||||
| Median (range) | 57 (28–95) | 59 (32–79) | 55 (28–95) |
| |||
CT chemotherapy, RT radiotherapy
Significant p values are shown in italics
Fig. 1Remark diagram for the biological material tested
Fig. 2Examples of MYC and MET status by FISH. a Normal MYC; b amplified MYC; c normal MET; d one of four amplified MET tumors
Marker associations according to central HER2 status
| HER2-negative | HER2-positive | p value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ki67 (%) | |||||
| Median (range) | 38 (1–90) | 40 (1–90) | 0.12 | ||
| HER2 copies (FISH) | |||||
| Median (range) | 2 (1–9) | 13 (2–39) | < | ||
| Mean (±SD) | 3 (1) | 14 (8) | |||
| HER2 ratio (FISH) | |||||
| Median (range) | 1 (1–8) | 5 (1–28) | < | ||
| Mean (±SD) | 1 (1) | 7 (4) | |||
| CEN17 | |||||
| Median (range) | 2 (1–4) | 2 (1–4) |
| ||
| Mean (±SD) | 2 (1) | 2 (1) | |||
| CEN8 | |||||
| Median (range) | 3 (1–9) | 2 (1–5) | 0.80 | ||
| Mean (±SD) | 3 (1) | 3 (1) | |||
| CEN7 | |||||
| Median (range) | 2 (1–4) | 2 (1–5) | 0.50 | ||
| Mean (±SD) | 2 (1) | 2 (1) | |||
Significant p values are shown in italics
Fig. 3Patient outcome according to central HER2 status, MYC and MET copy numbers (CN). CN was assessed by qPCR. a, c, e survival; b, d, f time to progression
Fig. 4Effect of centromere profiles on the outcome of patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC). In a, b, patients were distinguished in those who relapsed after adjuvant treatment (R-mBC), and those who presented with metastatic disease at first diagnosis (de novo mBC). In c, d, patients were grouped for centrally HER2-positive and HER2-negative disease. a, c Survival; b, d time to progression. 1chr increased CEN copies in 1 chromosome only; other normal CEN or increased copies for >1 CEN
Multivariate Cox regression analysis for patient survival
| Entire cohort (N = 119) | N of patients | N of events | Hazard ratio | 95 % CI | Wald’s p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance status | |||||
| 1–2–3 vs. 0 | 32 vs. 87 | 27 vs. 61 |
| 1.03–2.62 | 0.036 |
| TOP2A (FISH) ratio 2.0 copies 4.0 | |||||
| Amplified vs. non-amplified | 42 vs. 77 | 28 vs. 60 |
| 0.38–1.00 | 0.050 |
| MYC CN | |||||
| Gain vs. no gain | 10 vs. 109 | 10 vs. 78 |
| 2.67–13.6 | <0.001 |
| Type of disease*CEN profile (binary) | 0.048 | ||||
| CEN profile, 1chr vs. other @ R-mBC | 28 vs. 58 | 24 vs. 39 |
| 1.36–3.85 | |
| CEN profile, 1chr vs. other @ de novo-mBC | 12 vs. 21 | 9 vs. 16 | 0.77 | 0.29–2.04 | |
| de novo-mBC vs. R-mBC @ CEN profile, other | 21 vs. 58 | 16 vs. 39 | 1.15 | 0.64–2.08 | |
| de novo-mBC vs. R-mBC @ CEN profile, 1chr | 12 vs. 28 | 9 vs. 24 |
| 0.16–0.93 | |
| HER2-positive (N = 83) | |||||
| TOP2A (FISH) ratio 2.0 copies 4.0 | |||||
| Amplified vs. non-amplified | 39 vs. 44 | 25 vs. 35 |
| 0.35–0.98 | 0.041 |
| MYC CN | |||||
| Gain vs. no gain | 7 vs. 76 | 7 vs. 53 |
| 1.90–10.2 | 0.001 |
| HER2-negative (N = 45) | |||||
| Menopausal status | |||||
| Post vs. pre | 28 vs. 17 | 25 vs. 10 |
| 1.57–8.65 | 0.003 |
| ER/PgR | |||||
| Positive vs. negative | 39 vs. 6 | 29 vs. 6 |
| 0.08–0.58 | 0.002 |
| MYC FISH binary (ratio 2, copies >5) | |||||
| Amplified vs. non-amplified | 4 vs. 41 | 4 vs. 31 |
| 1.40–14.70 | 0.012 |
| Ki67 (by increase 5 %) |
| 1.07–1.26 | 0.001 | ||
| R-mBC (N = 84) | |||||
| Age | |||||
| ≥50 vs. <50 | 56 vs. 28 | 39 vs. 23 |
| 0.28–0.89 | 0.019 |
| Performance status | |||||
| 1-2-3 vs. 0 | 25 vs. 59 | 22 vs. 40 |
| 1.07–3.14 | 0.028 |
| ER/PgR | |||||
| Positive vs. negative | 57 vs. 27 | 39 vs. 23 |
| 0.24–0.76 | 0.004 |
| PI3K | |||||
| Activation vs. non-activation | 74 vs. 10 | 56 vs. 6 |
| 1.63–12.39 | 0.004 |
| MYC CN | |||||
| Gain vs. no gain | 6 vs. 78 | 6 vs. 56 |
| 6.77–61.99 | <0.001 |
| de novo-mBC (N = 49) | |||||
| Performance status | |||||
| 1-2-3 vs. 0 | 13 vs. 36 | 12 vs. 26 |
| 0.99–4.02 | 0.055 |
| ER/PgR | |||||
| Positive vs. negative | 36 vs. 13 | 27 vs. 11 |
| 0.03–0.77 | 0.023 |
| HER2 status/subtypes | 0.13 | ||||
| Luminal HER2 vs. HER2-negative | 21 vs. 17 | 16 vs. 13 | 1.15 | 0.53–2.49 | 0.72 |
| HER-enriched vs. HER2-negative | 11 vs. 17 | 9 vs. 13 |
| 0.04–0.96 | 0.045 |
N number, CI confidence interval, CN copy number, italics unfavorable, bold italics favorable prediction