Marco Timmer1, Jan-Michael Werner2, Gabriele Röhn2, Monika Ortmann3, Tobias Blau4, Christina Cramer2, Pantelis Stavrinou2, Boris Krischek2, Peter Mallman5, Roland Goldbrunner2. 1. Department of General Neurosurgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany marco.timmer@uk-koeln.de. 2. Department of General Neurosurgery, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 3. Institute for Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 4. Institute for Neuropathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. 5. Department of Gynecology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Knowing the molecular footprint of tumors is a precondition for personalized medicine. For breast cancer, targeted therapies are frequently based on the molecular status of the tissue gained from the primary tumor operation. However, it is unclear whether metastases in different organs maintain the same status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared the estrogen- (ER), progesterone- (PgR) and HER2/neu receptor status of the primary tumor with brain metastases in a series of 24 consecutive breast cancer patients. RESULTS: 62.5-75% of patients exhibited a constant receptor status between the primary tumor and the brain metastasis, whereas discordance rates of 25-37.5% were found, depending on the receptor. The rate of ER and PgR expression was each 41.6% in the primary tumors and decreased to 12.5% and 16.6% in the brain metastases. In contrast, the rate for Her2+ tumors increased from 41.6% in primary breast cancer to 65.2% in the respective brain metastases. The Ki-67 proliferation index increased significantly from a mean of 21% at the primary tumor site to 60% in brain metastases (p<0.001). All anti-estrogen treated breast tumors lost the estrogen receptor expression in the brain metastases, whereas no Her2/neu conversions occurred after treatment with trastuzumab. CONCLUSION: In summary, receptor conversion is frequent during disease progression. Therefore, the receptor status of the primary tumor is invalid for planning a therapy targeted against brain metastases, especially after hormone-therapy. In these cases, new tissue collection by biopsy or resection is mandatory for the selection of adequate therapeutic targets and accurate decision-making for systemic therapies. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: Knowing the molecular footprint of tumors is a precondition for personalized medicine. For breast cancer, targeted therapies are frequently based on the molecular status of the tissue gained from the primary tumor operation. However, it is unclear whether metastases in different organs maintain the same status. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We compared the estrogen- (ER), progesterone- (PgR) and HER2/neu receptor status of the primary tumor with brain metastases in a series of 24 consecutive breast cancerpatients. RESULTS: 62.5-75% of patients exhibited a constant receptor status between the primary tumor and the brain metastasis, whereas discordance rates of 25-37.5% were found, depending on the receptor. The rate of ER and PgR expression was each 41.6% in the primary tumors and decreased to 12.5% and 16.6% in the brain metastases. In contrast, the rate for Her2+ tumors increased from 41.6% in primary breast cancer to 65.2% in the respective brain metastases. The Ki-67 proliferation index increased significantly from a mean of 21% at the primary tumor site to 60% in brain metastases (p<0.001). All anti-estrogen treated breast tumors lost the estrogen receptor expression in the brain metastases, whereas no Her2/neu conversions occurred after treatment with trastuzumab. CONCLUSION: In summary, receptor conversion is frequent during disease progression. Therefore, the receptor status of the primary tumor is invalid for planning a therapy targeted against brain metastases, especially after hormone-therapy. In these cases, new tissue collection by biopsy or resection is mandatory for the selection of adequate therapeutic targets and accurate decision-making for systemic therapies. Copyright
Authors: Paul W Sperduto; Shane Mesko; Jing Li; Daniel Cagney; Ayal Aizer; Nancy U Lin; Eric Nesbit; Tim J Kruser; Jason Chan; Steve Braunstein; Jessica Lee; John P Kirkpatrick; Will Breen; Paul D Brown; Diana Shi; Helen A Shih; Hany Soliman; Arjun Sahgal; Ryan Shanley; William Sperduto; Emil Lou; Ashlyn Everett; Drexell Hunter Boggs; Laura Masucci; David Roberge; Jill Remick; Kristin Plichta; John M Buatti; Supriya Jain; Laurie E Gaspar; Cheng-Chia Wu; Tony J C Wang; John Bryant; Michael Chuong; James Yu; Veronica Chiang; Toshimichi Nakano; Hidefumi Aoyama; Minesh P Mehta Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: S Grau; M Herling; C Mauch; N Galldiks; H Golla; M Schlamann; A H Scheel; E Celik; M Ruge; R Goldbrunner Journal: Chirurg Date: 2021-01-27 Impact factor: 0.955
Authors: Alexios-Fotios A Mentis; Petros D Grivas; Efthimios Dardiotis; Nicholas A Romas; Athanasios G Papavassiliou Journal: Cell Mol Life Sci Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 9.261
Authors: Devarati Mitra; Jeffrey W Clark; Helen A Shih; Kevin S Oh; Priscilla K Brastianos; Jennifer Y Wo; Matthew R Strickland; William T Curry; Aparna R Parikh; Ryan B Corcoran; David P Ryan; A John Iafrate; Darrell R Borger; Jochen K Lennerz; Theodore S Hong Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-10-29
Authors: Stephanie Kim Cheok; Azeet Narayan; Anna Arnal-Estape; Scott Gettinger; Sarah B Goldberg; Harriet M Kluger; Don Nguyen; Abhijit Patel; Veronica Chiang Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2021-01-12