Literature DB >> 28399113

Comment on 'Renewed interest in the progesterone receptor in breast cancer'.

Giovanni Simone1, Sergio Diotaiuti2, Maria Digennaro3, Domenico Sambiasi3, Simona De Summa4, Stefania Tommasi4, Rosanna Altieri2, Annita Mangia5, Caterina Dantona6, Angelo Paradiso3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28399113      PMCID: PMC5520524          DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2017.90

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Cancer        ISSN: 0007-0920            Impact factor:   7.640


× No keyword cloud information.
Sir, The present letter refers to the Editorial by Lim et al, on clinical relevance of progesterone receptor (PgR) expression in breast cancer, which was recently published in British Journal of Cancer (Lim ). The Editorial by Lim et al stated the need to reconsider the value of PgR as a prognostic-predictive factor in both the adjuvant and metastatic settings that has ‘to date not been demonstrated’ (Lim ). In effect, the debate around the clinical value of PgR has been renewed by recent results describing its prognostic relevance when included in an endocrine receptor score (Campbell ), the substantial crosstalk between the estrogen receptor (ER) and PgR signaling pathways (Mohammed ) and new progestins in experimental phase (Esber ). It remains out from this debate one of the most modern aspects of the standard treatment for primary breast cancer, that is, the management of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) in patients with early disease. In fact, nowadays, SLNB is considered the standard approach for axillary staging in patients with clinically non-palpable axillary lymph nodes (Lyman ). However, the need for availability of powerful predictive markers of disease involvement of locoregional nodes is still stressed by the fact that, in patients with clinically negative axilla, the successive demonstration of axillary node involvement by SLNB is generally low, thus ensuring that this technique is not strictly needed for a large proportion of cases. In recent retrospective studies analysing small series of patients, the only factors predicting SLNB metastatisation were age and body mass index at disease diagnosis (Thangarajah ) and Ki-67 tumour expression (Ozemir ). In order to look for clinical–pathological tumour characteristics predicting the pathological status of the axilla, we retrospectively analysed breast cancer cases consecutively treated with primary surgery between 2008–2014 at our National Cancer Research Centre of Bari. Data from 2002 patients were collected; 1297 (64.78%) cases resulted characterised by clinically positive axillary nodes and then received complete axillary lymph node dissection. The remaining 705 (35, 22%) cases, with clinically negative axillary nodes, received SLNB and entered the present analysis. ER, PgR, and Mib-1 biomarkers were analysed by immunoistochemical assays and categorised according to standard literature scores already utilised by our team (Paradiso ). HER2/neu oncogene status was determined according to ASCO/CAP guidelines (Lim ). In detail, the group of patients who received SLNB were aged ⩾59 years in 44.2% of cases, T2 in 31.2% of cases, ER positive (>1% of positive tumour cells) in 84% of tumours, and PgR positive (>1% positive tumour cells) in 72.9% of tumours, with high expression of Mib-1 (⩾14% of positive tumour cells) in 48.7% of tumours; finally, 14.2% of tumours resulted in HER2/neu amplified according to IHC/FISH complementary analysis. One hundred and thirty out of the 705 cases treated with SLNB showed metastasis at least in one of the cleared nodes (median number of cleared nodes=2.3). At univariate analysis, young age (odds ratio (OR) 0.46; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.3–0.7; P=0.003), T2 size (OR: 1.75; 95% CI:1.12–2.7; P=0.01) and high Mib1 expression (OR: 1.53, 95% CI: 1.04–2.27, P=0.03) resulted significantly associated with the presence of pathological involvement of axillary nodes at SLNB. When a multivariate analysis was performed by a backward stepwise selection using the stepAIC function from the R MASS package (Venables and Ripley, 2002), age at diagnosis, tumour size, PgR status and Mib-1 expression were selected as still statistically significant, with model fitting results shown in Table 1; in specific, PgR-positive status confirmed to be significantly predictive of negative SLNB with an OR of 1.93 (95% CI: 1.12–3.46; P=0.02).
Table 1

Logistic regression analysis with the dependent variable pathological positive axillary node status at SLNB

Retained variables OR (95% CI) P -value
(a) Logistic regression (backward stepwise procedure)
Age ⩾59 years0.56 (0.34–0.89)0.016
Tumour size >20 mm1.68 (1.063–2.66)0.025
PgR negativea1.93 (1.12–3.46)0.02
Mib-1 higha1.72 (1.07–2.79)0.025
(b) Logistic regression (‘both’ stepwise procedure for interaction analysis)
PgR negative2.69 (1.37–5.67)0.005
Mib-1 high/tumour size large2.51 (0.59–3.54)0.018

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; PgR, progesterone receptor; SLNB, sentinel lymph node biopsy. Variables selected by backward stepwise procedure (a) and by ‘both’ stepwise procedures (b) for interaction analysis.

See text for definition.

Even more interesting, when possible interaction between the variables selected in the first analysis was considered (backward/forward stepwise selection), only PgR-positive status confirmed to be associated independently from other variables with SLNB status (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17–0.72; P<0.005) while a significant interaction became evident between tumour size and Mib-1 expression (Table 1). This last evidence suggests PgR as the only tumour biomarker independently related with SLNB status while higher tumour-proliferative activity and large tumour size have to be considered together to significantly predict locoregional disease spread. In conclusion, in a large, monoinstitutional, and consecutive series of breast cancer patients, we showed that PgR-positive status is a powerful and independent indicator of negative axilla involvement in patients with clinically negative regional nodes and this could be taken into consideration when clinical strategy has to be defined.
  8 in total

1.  Implications of the Updated 2013 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Guideline Recommendations on Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Gene Testing Using Immunohistochemistry and Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization for Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Tse Hui Lim; Alvin Soon Tiong Lim; Aye Aye Thike; Sim Leng Tien; Puay Hoon Tan
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 5.534

2.  Predictors of sentinel lymph node metastases in breast cancer-radioactivity and Ki-67.

Authors:  Fabinshy Thangarajah; Wolfram Malter; Stefanie Hamacher; Matthias Schmidt; Stefan Krämer; Peter Mallmann; Verena Kirn
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2016-09-23       Impact factor: 4.380

3.  Factors affecting sentinel lymph node metastasis in Turkish breast cancer patients: Predictive value of Ki-67 and the size of lymph node.

Authors:  I A Ozemir; K Orhun; T Eren; H Baysal; J Sagiroglu; M Leblebici; A B Ceyran; O Alimoglu
Journal:  Bratisl Lek Listy       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 1.278

4.  Anti-Tumoral Effects of Anti-Progestins in a Patient-Derived Breast Cancer Xenograft Model.

Authors:  Nathalie Esber; Clément Cherbonnier; Michèle Resche-Rigon; Abdallah Hamze; Mouad Alami; Jérôme Fagart; Hugues Loosfelt; Marc Lombès; Nathalie Chabbert-Buffet
Journal:  Horm Cancer       Date:  2016-03-03       Impact factor: 3.869

5.  Nuclear NHERF1 expression as a prognostic marker in breast cancer.

Authors:  A Paradiso; E Scarpi; A Malfettone; T Addati; F Giotta; G Simone; D Amadori; A Mangia
Journal:  Cell Death Dis       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 8.469

6.  Progesterone receptor modulates ERα action in breast cancer.

Authors:  Hisham Mohammed; I Alasdair Russell; Rory Stark; Oscar M Rueda; Theresa E Hickey; Gerard A Tarulli; Aurelien A Serandour; Aurelien A A Serandour; Stephen N Birrell; Alejandra Bruna; Amel Saadi; Suraj Menon; James Hadfield; Michelle Pugh; Ganesh V Raj; Gordon D Brown; Clive D'Santos; Jessica L L Robinson; Grace Silva; Rosalind Launchbury; Charles M Perou; John Stingl; Carlos Caldas; Wayne D Tilley; Jason S Carroll
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  The combined endocrine receptor in breast cancer, a novel approach to traditional hormone receptor interpretation and a better discriminator of outcome than ER and PR alone.

Authors:  Esther J Campbell; Mathias Tesson; Flora Doogan; Zahra M A Mohammed; Elizabeth Mallon; Joanne Edwards
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Renewed interest in the progesterone receptor in breast cancer.

Authors:  Elgene Lim; Carlo Palmieri; Wayne D Tilley
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 7.640

  8 in total
  1 in total

1.  The impact of progesterone receptor expression on prognosis of patients with rapidly proliferating, hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer: a post hoc analysis of the IBIS 3 trial.

Authors:  Sara Bravaccini; Giuseppe Bronte; Emanuela Scarpi; Sara Ravaioli; Roberta Maltoni; Anita Mangia; Maria Maddalena Tumedei; Maurizio Puccetti; Patrizia Serra; Lorenzo Gianni; Laura Amaducci; Nicoletta Biglia; Valentina Bounous; Angelo Virgilio Paradiso; Rosella Silvestrini; Dino Amadori; Andrea Rocca
Journal:  Ther Adv Med Oncol       Date:  2020-02-27       Impact factor: 8.168

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.