| Literature DB >> 31739285 |
Chen Xu1, Yalan Liu1, Dongxian Jiang1, Xiaowen Ge1, Jie Huang1, Jieakesu Su1, Xue Zhang1, Shaohua Lu1, Yuan Ji1, Jun Hou1, Tianshu Liu2, Yingyong Hou1.
Abstract
Dual block HER2 assessment can effectively increase the HER2 positive rate in resected specimens of gastric cancer (GC). The aim of this study is to explore whether GC patients with extra gained HER2 positivity by dual block assessment can benefit from trastuzumab therapy. Twenty-eight GC patients receiving gastrectomy prior to trastuzumab treatment were retrospectively analyzed. All the cases routinely accepted dual block HER2 assessment. The cases were divided into 2 cohorts based on HER2 status: cohort A with concordant HER2 results and cohort B with discordant HER2 results between the two blocks (cases with extra gained HER2 positivity). Response rate (RR), progress free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between the two cohorts. The results showed that no significant differences were found between the two cohorts in main clinicopathologic characteristics. No statistical difference was found in response rate (47.6% vs 57.1%) (P=1.0), either. The two cohorts did not demonstrate statistical differences in the PFS (10.5 months (95%CI 6.4-14.6) vs 8.0 months (95%CI 3.2-12.8), P=0.686) and the OS (23.3 months (95%CI 12.1-34.5) vs 20.0 months (95%CI 10.1-29.9), P=0.776). In conclusion, our study suggests that patients with extra gained HER2 positivity may not show compromised efficacy to trastuzumab treatment.Entities:
Keywords: HER2; dual block; gastric cancer; heterogeneity; trastuzumab
Year: 2019 PMID: 31739285 PMCID: PMC6914406 DOI: 10.18632/aging.102415
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
Patient characteristics.
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 21 (75.0) | 16 (76.2) | 5 (71.4) | |
| Female | 7 (25.0) | 5 (23.8) | 2 (28.6) | |
| Age, median (range) | 62.0 (30.0-79.0) | |||
| <60 | 12 (42.9) | 8 (38.1) | 4 (57.1) | |
| ≥60 | 16 (57.1) | 13 (61.9) | 3 (42.9) | |
| Location | ||||
| OGJ | 5 (17.9) | 3 (14.3) | 2 (28.6) | |
| Stomach | 23 (82.1) | 18 (85.7) | 5 (71.4) | |
| Lauren | ||||
| Intestinal | 18 (64.3) | 15 (71.4) | 3 (42.9) | |
| Diffuse | 5 (17.9) | 3 (14.3) | 2 (28.6) | |
| Mixed | 5 (17.9) | 3 (14.3) | 2 (28.6) | |
| Differentation | ||||
| Moderate | 13 (46.4) | 11 (52.4) | 2 (28.6) | |
| Poorly | 17 (60.7) | 10 (47.7) | 5 (71.4) | |
| Stage after surgery | ||||
| IIA | 2 (7.1) | 2 (9.6) | 0 (0.0) | |
| IIB | 4 (14.3) | 3 (14.3) | 1 (12.5) | |
| IIIA | 5 (17.9) | 5 (23.8) | 0 (0.0) | |
| IIIB | 4 (14.3) | 1 (4.8) | 3 (37.5) | |
| IIIC | 4 (14.3) | 3 (14.3) | 1 (12.5) | |
| IV | 10 (35.7) | 7 (33.3) | 3 (37.5) | |
| Median cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy, median (range) | 4.0 (0-8) | 5.5 (0-8) | 2.5 (0-4) | |
| Median cycles of palliative chemotherapy, median (range) | 9.5 (2-34) | 8 (2-34) | 10 (5-20) | |
| Median cycles of transtzumab, median (range) | 8 (1-34) | 8 (1-34) | 6 (4-20) | |
| Start of trastuzumab administration | ||||
| First line | 20 (71.4) | 17 (81.0) | 3 (42.9) | |
| Second line | 7 (25.0) | 3 (14.3) | 4 (57.1) | |
| Third line | 1 (3.6) | 1 (4.8) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Trastuzumab administration | ||||
| Within line | 10 (35.7) | 7 (33.3) | 3 (42.9) | |
| Cross line | 18 (64.3) | 14 (66.7) | 4 (57.1) | |
| Response | ||||
| CR/PR | 14 (50.0) | 10 (47.6) | 4 (57.1) | |
| SD/PD | 14 (50.0) | 11 (52.4) | 3 (42.9) | |
| Chemotherapy before surgery | ||||
| No | 25 (89.3) | 18 (85.7) | 7 (100.0) | |
| Yes | 3 (10.7) | 3 (14.3) | 0 (0.0) | |
| Number of metastasis | ||||
| <3 | 20 (71.4) | 14 (66.7) | 6 (4-20) | |
| ≥3 | 8 ((28.6) | 7 (33.3) | 1 (14.3) | |
| mPFS (95%CI, months) | 10.5 (5.5-15.5) | 10.5 (6.4-14.6) | 8.0 (3.2-12.8) | |
| mOS(95%CI, months) | 24.6 (17.3-31.9) | 23.3 (12.1-34.5) | 20.0 (10.1-29.9) |
Abbreviations: OGJ: oesophagogastric junction; CR: complete response; PR: partial response; SD: stable disease; PD: progressive disease; mPFS: median progression free survival; mOS: median overall survival.
HER2 status of both blocks in the two cohorts.
| Cohort A | |||
| 3 | 3 | 15 | |
| 2 | 2 | 6 | |
| Cohort B | |||
| 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 3 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| 2 | 0 | 1 |
Figure 1Representative images of the two cohorts. (A) A case of cohort A showed concordant HER2 results between the two blocks with homogeneous HER2 3+ staining. A1, A1’, Block 1; A2, A2’, Block 2. (B) A case of cohort A showed concordant HER2 results between the two blocks with heterogeneous HER2 3+ staining. B1, B1’, Block 1; B2, B2’, Block 2. (C) A case of cohort B showed discordant HER2 results between both blocks with 3+ in block 1 and 0 in block 2. C1, C1’, Block 1; C2, C2’, Block 2. Magnification ×200.
Figure 2Survival analysis of both cohorts. (A) The mPFS of the two cohorts showed no statistical difference (10.5 months (95%CI 6.4-14.6) vs 8.0 months (95%CI 3.2-12.8)) (P=0.689). (B) The mOS of the two cohorts did not show statistical difference (23.3 months (95%CI 12.1-34.5) vs 20.0 months (95%CI 10.1-29.9)) (P=0.690).