| Literature DB >> 29348788 |
Nelli Roininen1,2, Kirsi-Maria Haapasaari2, Peeter Karihtala1.
Abstract
Although validated predictive factors for breast cancer chemoresistance are scarce, there is emerging evidence that the induction of certain redox-regulating enzymes may contribute to a poor chemotherapy effect. We investigated the possible association between chemoresistance and cellular redox state regulation in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer. In total, 53 women with primarily inoperable or inflammatory breast cancer who were treated with NACT were included in the study. Pre-NACT core needle biopsies and postoperative tumor samples were immunohistochemically stained for nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 (Nrf2), Kelch-like ECH-associated protein 1 (Keap1), thioredoxin (Trx), and peroxiredoxin I (Prx I). The expression of all studied markers increased during NACT. Higher pre-NACT nuclear Prx I expression predicted smaller size of a resected tumor (p = 0.00052; r = -0.550), and higher pre-NACT cytoplasmic Prx I expression predicted a lower amount of evacuated nodal metastasis (p = 0.0024; r = -0.472). Pre-NACT nuclear Trx expression and pre-NACT nuclear Keap1 expression had only a minor prognostic significance as separate factors, but when they were combined, low expression for both antibodies before NACT predicted dismal disease-free survival (log-rank p = 0.0030). Our results suggest that redox-regulating enzymes may serve as potential prognostic factors in primarily inoperable breast cancer patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29348788 PMCID: PMC5733970 DOI: 10.1155/2017/2908039
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 6.543
Patient characteristics.
| Number of patients | Percentage or range | |
|---|---|---|
|
| 56.4 | 32–77 |
|
|
|
|
| Premenopausal | 17 | 32.1 |
| Postmenopausal | 28 | 52.8 |
| Not known | 8 | 15.1 |
|
|
|
|
| Bilateral breast cancer | 4 | 7.5 |
| Unilateral breast cancer | 49 | 92.5 |
|
|
|
|
| Docetaxel + doxorubicin | 20 | 37.7 |
| Docetaxel + trastuzumab | 14 | 26.4 |
| Docetaxel + epirubicin | 3 | 5.7 |
| Other chemotherapy | 16 | 30.2 |
|
| 6.0 | 2–16 |
|
|
|
|
| Mastectomy and axillary evacuation | 53 | 100 |
|
|
|
|
| Cyclophosphamide + epirubicin + fluorouracil | 11 | 20.8 |
| Other chemotherapy | 18 | 34 |
| No adjuvant chemotherapy | 24 | 45.3 |
|
|
|
|
| Yes | 52 | 98.1 |
| No | 1 | 1.9 |
|
|
|
|
| Tamoxifen | 10 | 18.9 |
| Aromatase inhibitor | 23 | 43.4 |
| GnRH analogue + tamoxifen | 5 | 9.4 |
| GnRH analogue + aromatase inhibitor | 1 | 1.9 |
| Tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitor (sequentially) | 2 | 3.8 |
| No adjuvant hormonal therapy | 12 | 22.6 |
|
|
|
|
| Distant | 20 | 37.7 |
| Local | 3 | 5.6 |
| No recurrence | 30 | 56.6 |
Pre- and postoperative tumor sizes.
| Mean size (mm) and number of patients | Range | |
|---|---|---|
| Tumor size at the time of diagnosis | 54.6 (50) | 10–140 mm |
| Preoperative tumor size | 31.2 (47) | 0–90 mm |
| Postoperative tumor size | 39.1 (52) | 0–150 mm |
Tumor properties. Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), Ki-67, and HER2 expressions and grade are reported as in postoperative PAD. If unavailable in postoperative PPS, the assessment from the core needle biopsy is reported.
| Number of patients | Percentage or range | |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Complete response | 6 | 11.3 |
| Partial response | 44 | 83.0 |
| Stable disease | 2 | 3.8 |
| Progression | 0 | 0 |
|
|
|
|
| Grade 1 | 1 | 1.9 |
| Grade 2 | 19 | 35.8 |
| Grade 3 | 19 | 35.8 |
| No information or no viable cancer cells | 14 | 26.4 |
|
|
|
|
| Negative (0%) | 9 | 17.0 |
| Weak (1–9%) | 8 | 15.1 |
| Moderate (10–59%) | 2 | 3.8 |
| High (>59%) | 34 | 64.2 |
|
|
|
|
| Negative (0%) | 23 | 43.4 |
| Weak (1–9%) | 5 | 9.4 |
| Moderate (10–59%) | 3 | 5.6 |
| High (>59%) | 22 | 41.5 |
|
|
|
|
| Negative (<5%) | 6 | 11.3 |
| Weak (5–14%) | 12 | 22.6 |
| Moderate (15–30%) | 12 | 22.6 |
| High positive (>30%) | 22 | 41.5 |
| No information or no viable cancer cells | 1 | 1.9 |
|
|
|
|
| Negative | 37 | 69.8 |
| Positive (confirmed with CISH) | 16 | 30.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Absent | 43 | 81.1 |
| Present | 10 | 18.9 |
∗The information of pre-NACT tumor size was missing from one patient.
Figure 1Immunohistochemical detection of protein levels of Keap1 (a), Nrf2 (b), Trx (c), and Prx I (d) in postoperative samples of NACT-treated patients. The figures represent samples with weakly positive (a), moderately/strongly positive (b), and strongly positive (c, d) cytoplasmic staining. None of the tumor samples were totally negative, but negative staining can be seen in connective tissue (c, d). Nuclear staining is negative in figures (b) and (d) and partly moderately positive in (a) and (c).
Antigen staining in different cell compartments. The percentages represent cases showing any immunopositivity.
| Target protein | Cytoplasmic staining, pretreatment (%) | Cytoplasmic staining, posttreatment (%) | Nuclear staining, pretreatment (%) | Nuclear staining, posttreatment (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keap1 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 45.3 | 88.9 |
| Nrf2 | 94.6 | 100.0 | 0 | 0 |
| Prx I | 100.0 | 100.0 | 45.9 | 100.0 |
| Trx | 94.6 | 100.0 | 64.9 | 81.8 |
Figure 2Kaplan-Meier curves comparing preneoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) expression of Trx (a) and Keap1 (b). Cut-offs for low and high expression have been generated with ROC analysis. In part (c), cases with both low nuclear pre-NACT Keap1 and low nuclear pre-NACT Keap1 have been set against other patients. Crosses indicate censored cases.