Willemijne A M E Schrijver1, Karijn P M Suijkerbuijk2, Carla H van Gils3, Elsken van der Wall2, Cathy B Moelans1, Paul J van Diest1. 1. Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht Cancer Center, Utrecht, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Abstract
Background: In metastatic breast cancer, hormone and/or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapy decision-making is still largely based on tissue characteristics of the primary tumor. However, a change of estrogen receptor alpha (ERα), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 status in distant metastases has frequently been reported. The actual incidence of this phenomenon has been debated. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis including 39 studies assessing receptor conversion from primary breast tumors to paired distant breast cancer metastases. We noted the direction of change (positive to negative or vice versa) and performed subgroup analyses for different thresholds for positivity, the type of test used to assess HER2 receptor status, and metastasis location-specific differences (two-sided tests). Results: Overall, the incidence of receptor conversion varied largely between studies. For ERα, PR, and HER2, we found that random effects pooled positive to negative conversion percentages of 22.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 16.4% to 30.0%), 49.4% (95% CI = 40.5% to 58.2%), and 21.3% (95% CI = 14.3% to 30.5%), respectively. Negative to positive conversion percentages were 21.5% (95% CI = 18.1% to 25.5%), 15.9% (95% CI = 11.3% to 22.0%), and 9.5% (95% CI = 7.4% to 12.1%). Furthermore, ERα discordance was statistically significantly higher in the central nervous system and bone compared with liver metastases (20.8%, 95% CI = 15.0% to 28.0%, and 29.3%, 95% CI = 13.0% to 53.5%, vs 14.3%, 95% CI = 11.3% to 18.1, P = .008 and P < .001, respectively), and PR discordance was higher in bone (42.7%, 95% CI = 35.1% to 50.6%, P < .001) and liver metastases (47.0%, 95% CI = 41.0% to 53.0%, P < .001) compared with central nervous system metastases (23.3%, 95% CI = 16.0% to 32.6%). Conclusions: Receptor conversion for ERα, PR, and HER2 occurs frequently in the course of disease progression in breast cancer. Large prospective studies assessing the impact of receptor conversion on treatment efficacy and survival are needed. Meanwhile, reassessing receptor status in metastases is strongly encouraged.
Background: In metastatic breast cancer, hormone and/or human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted therapy decision-making is still largely based on tissue characteristics of the primary tumor. However, a change of estrogen receptor alpha (ERα), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 status in distant metastases has frequently been reported. The actual incidence of this phenomenon has been debated. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis including 39 studies assessing receptor conversion from primary breast tumors to paired distant breast cancer metastases. We noted the direction of change (positive to negative or vice versa) and performed subgroup analyses for different thresholds for positivity, the type of test used to assess HER2 receptor status, and metastasis location-specific differences (two-sided tests). Results: Overall, the incidence of receptor conversion varied largely between studies. For ERα, PR, and HER2, we found that random effects pooled positive to negative conversion percentages of 22.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 16.4% to 30.0%), 49.4% (95% CI = 40.5% to 58.2%), and 21.3% (95% CI = 14.3% to 30.5%), respectively. Negative to positive conversion percentages were 21.5% (95% CI = 18.1% to 25.5%), 15.9% (95% CI = 11.3% to 22.0%), and 9.5% (95% CI = 7.4% to 12.1%). Furthermore, ERα discordance was statistically significantly higher in the central nervous system and bone compared with liver metastases (20.8%, 95% CI = 15.0% to 28.0%, and 29.3%, 95% CI = 13.0% to 53.5%, vs 14.3%, 95% CI = 11.3% to 18.1, P = .008 and P < .001, respectively), and PR discordance was higher in bone (42.7%, 95% CI = 35.1% to 50.6%, P < .001) and liver metastases (47.0%, 95% CI = 41.0% to 53.0%, P < .001) compared with central nervous system metastases (23.3%, 95% CI = 16.0% to 32.6%). Conclusions: Receptor conversion for ERα, PR, and HER2 occurs frequently in the course of disease progression in breast cancer. Large prospective studies assessing the impact of receptor conversion on treatment efficacy and survival are needed. Meanwhile, reassessing receptor status in metastases is strongly encouraged.
Authors: Nooshin Hashemi-Sadraei; Gaëlle M Müller-Greven; Fadi W Abdul-Karim; Ilya Ulasov; Erinn Downs-Kelly; Monica E Burgett; Adam Lauko; Maha A Qadan; Robert J Weil; Manmeet S Ahluwalia; Lingling Du; Richard A Prayson; Samuel T Chao; Thomas G Budd; Jill Barnholtz-Sloan; Amy S Nowacki; Ruth A Keri; Candece L Gladson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 4.130
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: B M Aarts; F M Gómez Muñoz; H Wildiers; V O Dezentjé; T R Baetens; W Schats; M Lopez-Yurda; R C Dresen; B J de Wit-van der Veen; C M Deroose; G Maleux; R G H Beets-Tan; E G Klompenhouwer Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 2.740
Authors: Elisabeth S Stovgaard; Karama Asleh; Nazia Riaz; Samuel Leung; Dongxia Gao; Lise B Nielsen; Anne-Vibeke Lænkholm; Eva Balslev; Maj-Britt Jensen; Dorte Nielsen; T O Nielsen Journal: Oncoimmunology Date: 2021-05-11 Impact factor: 8.110