A Bouchard-Fortier1, L Provencher2,3,4, C Blanchette4, C Diorio2,3,4. 1. Division of Surgical Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. 2. Centre des maladies du sein Deschênes-Fabia, Hôpital du Saint-Sacrement. 3. Faculté de médecine, Centre de recherche sur le Cancer, Université Laval, and. 4. Oncology Unit, chu de Québec Research Center-Université Laval, Quebec City, QC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Anti-hormonal therapy (tamoxifen) is recommended for estrogen receptor (er)-positive breast cancer (bca); however, its effect on low-receptor cancers is unclear. We retrospectively evaluated the effect of adjuvant tamoxifen in patients with weakly er-positive bca. METHODS: We identified 2221 bca patients who had been er-tested by ligand-based assay (lba) during 1976-1995 and who had been treated and followed until 2008. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, body mass index, tumour size, nodal status, surgery, and chemotherapy were used to assess the effect of er level on bca survival in patients who received tamoxifen. RESULTS: Overall, 17% (383) of patients were within 0-3 fmol/mg cytosol protein, and 12% (266) were within 4-9 fmol/mg cytosol protein. Patients with er levels of 0-3, 4-9, 10-19, 20-49, and 50 fmol/mg or more cytosol protein had 20-year bca survival rates of 56%, 56%, 63%, 71%, and 60% respectively. Of the 2221 patients studied, 661 (29.8%) received anti-hormonal therapy. Within the latter group, er levels of 0-3, 4-9, 10-19, 20-49, and 50 fmol/mg or more cytosol protein were associated with a hazard ratio for lower bca mortality: respectively, 1.00 (reference), 0.59 (p = 0.09), 0.19 (p < 0.0001), 0.26 (p < 0.0001), and 0.31 (p < 0.0001)-the risk reduction being significant only for er levels of 10 fmol/mg or more cytosol protein. CONCLUSIONS: Tamoxifen use in bca patients with a weakly positive er status (4-9 fmol/mg cytosol protein), compared with those having higher er levels (≥10 fmol/mg cytosol protein), is not associated with a significantly lower bca-specific mortality. Our results do not support treatment with anti-hormonal therapy for bca patients with a weakly positive er status as identified by lba.
PURPOSE: Anti-hormonal therapy (tamoxifen) is recommended for estrogen receptor (er)-positive breast cancer (bca); however, its effect on low-receptor cancers is unclear. We retrospectively evaluated the effect of adjuvant tamoxifen in patients with weakly er-positive bca. METHODS: We identified 2221 bca patients who had been er-tested by ligand-based assay (lba) during 1976-1995 and who had been treated and followed until 2008. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, body mass index, tumour size, nodal status, surgery, and chemotherapy were used to assess the effect of er level on bca survival in patients who received tamoxifen. RESULTS: Overall, 17% (383) of patients were within 0-3 fmol/mg cytosol protein, and 12% (266) were within 4-9 fmol/mg cytosol protein. Patients with er levels of 0-3, 4-9, 10-19, 20-49, and 50 fmol/mg or more cytosol protein had 20-year bca survival rates of 56%, 56%, 63%, 71%, and 60% respectively. Of the 2221 patients studied, 661 (29.8%) received anti-hormonal therapy. Within the latter group, er levels of 0-3, 4-9, 10-19, 20-49, and 50 fmol/mg or more cytosol protein were associated with a hazard ratio for lower bca mortality: respectively, 1.00 (reference), 0.59 (p = 0.09), 0.19 (p < 0.0001), 0.26 (p < 0.0001), and 0.31 (p < 0.0001)-the risk reduction being significant only for er levels of 10 fmol/mg or more cytosol protein. CONCLUSIONS:Tamoxifen use in bca patients with a weakly positive er status (4-9 fmol/mg cytosol protein), compared with those having higher er levels (≥10 fmol/mg cytosol protein), is not associated with a significantly lower bca-specific mortality. Our results do not support treatment with anti-hormonal therapy for bca patients with a weakly positive er status as identified by lba.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; cytosol protein; estrogen receptor positivity; tamoxifen
Authors: P L Fitzgibbons; D L Page; D Weaver; A D Thor; D C Allred; G M Clark; S G Ruby; F O'Malley; J F Simpson; J L Connolly; D F Hayes; S B Edge; A Lichter; S J Schnitt Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 5.534
Authors: R M Elledge; S Green; R Pugh; D C Allred; G M Clark; J Hill; P Ravdin; S Martino; C K Osborne Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2000-03-20 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: A Merglen; H M Verkooijen; G Fioretta; I Neyroud-Caspar; V Vinh-Hung; G Vlastos; P O Chappuis; M Castiglione; E Rapiti; C Bouchardy Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: C Davies; J Godwin; R Gray; M Clarke; D Cutter; S Darby; P McGale; H C Pan; C Taylor; Y C Wang; M Dowsett; J Ingle; R Peto Journal: Lancet Date: 2011-07-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Nasr M A Allahloubi; Abdel-Rahman N Zekri; Mohamed Ragab; Marwa Mohanad; Ola S Ahmed; Salem Eid; Mohamed Ghareeb; Iman Gouda; Abeer A Bahnassy Journal: Biochem Genet Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 1.890
Authors: Thilde Terkelsen; Francesco Russo; Pavel Gromov; Vilde Drageset Haakensen; Søren Brunak; Irina Gromova; Anders Krogh; Elena Papaleo Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Richard Sleightholm; Beth K Neilsen; Safwan Elkhatib; Laura Flores; Saihari Dukkipati; Runze Zhao; Songita Choudhury; Bret Gardner; Joey Carmichael; Lynette Smith; Nathan Bennion; Andrew Wahl; Michael Baine Journal: J Clin Med Res Date: 2021-01-12
Authors: Philipp Jurmeister; Karsten Weber; Sonia Villegas; Thomas Karn; Michael Untch; Anne Thieme; Volkmar Müller; Eliane Taube; Peter Fasching; Wolfgang D Schmitt; Frederik Marmé; Elmar Stickeler; Bruno V Sinn; Paul Jank; Christian Schem; Frederick Klauschen; Marion van Mackelenbergh; Carsten Denkert; Sibylle Loibl; David Capper Journal: Clin Epigenetics Date: 2021-10-03 Impact factor: 6.551