OBJECTIVES: Pathologic complete response (pCR) rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was compared between 141 estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (43%), 41 low ER+ (13%), 47 moderate ER+ (14%), and 98 high ER+ (30%) tumors. METHODS: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive cases, cases without semiquantitative ER score, and patients treated with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy alone were excluded. RESULTS: The pCR rate of low ER+ tumors was similar to the pCR rate of ER- tumors (37% and 26% for low ER and ER- respectively, P = .1722) but significantly different from the pCR rate of moderately ER+ (11%, P = .0049) and high ER+ tumors (4%, P < .0001). Patients with pCR had an excellent prognosis regardless of the ER status. In patients with residual disease (no pCR), the recurrence and death rate were higher in ER- and low ER+ cases compared with moderate and high ER+ cases. CONCLUSIONS: Low ER+ breast cancers are biologically similar to ER- tumors. Semiquantitative ER H-score is an important determinant of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
OBJECTIVES: Pathologic complete response (pCR) rate after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was compared between 141 estrogen receptor (ER)-negative (43%), 41 low ER+ (13%), 47 moderate ER+ (14%), and 98 high ER+ (30%) tumors. METHODS: Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive cases, cases without semiquantitative ER score, and patients treated with neoadjuvant endocrine therapy alone were excluded. RESULTS: The pCR rate of low ER+ tumors was similar to the pCR rate of ER- tumors (37% and 26% for low ER and ER- respectively, P = .1722) but significantly different from the pCR rate of moderately ER+ (11%, P = .0049) and high ER+ tumors (4%, P < .0001). Patients with pCR had an excellent prognosis regardless of the ER status. In patients with residual disease (no pCR), the recurrence and death rate were higher in ER- and low ER+ cases compared with moderate and high ER+ cases. CONCLUSIONS: Low ER+ breast cancers are biologically similar to ER- tumors. Semiquantitative ER H-score is an important determinant of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Authors: Halei C Benefield; Emma H Allott; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Charles M Perou; Lisa A Carey; Joseph Geradts; Xuezheng Sun; Benjamin C Calhoun; Melissa A Troester Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Shahla Bari; David Boulware; Jiannong Li; Loretta Loftus; Aixa Soyano Muller; Zena Jameel; Hung Khong; Brian J Czerniecki; Ricardo L B Costa Journal: Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) Date: 2022-08-06
Authors: Hesham Elghazaly; Hope S Rugo; Hamdy A Azim; Sandra M Swain; Banu Arun; Matti Aapro; Edith A Perez; Benjamin O Anderson; Frederique Penault-Llorca; Pierfranco Conte; Nagi S El Saghir; Cheng-Har Yip; Marwan Ghosn; Philip Poortmans; Mohamed A Shehata; Armando E Giuliano; Jessica W T Leung; Valentina Guarneri; Joseph Gligorov; Bahadir M Gulluoglu; Hany Abdel Aziz; Mona Frolova; Mohamed Sabry; Charles M Balch; Roberto Orecchia; Heba M El-Zawahry; Sana Al-Sukhun; Khaled Abdel Karim; Alaa Kandil; Ruslan M Paltuev; Meteb Foheidi; Mohamed El-Shinawi; Manal ElMahdy; Omalkhair Abulkhair; Wentao Yang; Adel T Aref; Joaira Bakkach; Nermean Bahie Eldin; Hagar Elghazawy Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-08 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Jennifer Zeng; Marcia Edelweiss; Dara S Ross; Bin Xu; Tracy-Ann Moo; Edi Brogi; Timothy M D'Alfonso Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 5.686
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
Authors: Young Joo Lee; Young Sol Hwang; Junetae Kim; Sei-Hyun Ahn; Byung Ho Son; Hee Jeong Kim; Beom Seok Ko; Jisun Kim; Il Yong Chung; Jong Won Lee; Sae Byul Lee Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 4.379