Xiaodan Liu1,2, Shenyi Jiang3, Xin Tian1, Youhong Jiang1. 1. Molecular Oncology Laboratory of Cancer Research Institute, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China. 2. Department of General Surgery, Shenyang Military General Hospital Shenyang, China. 3. Department of General Medical Practice, The First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University Shenyang, Liaoning Province, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess cleaved caspase-3 (CC3), Ki-67, and E-cadherin (E-cad) expression in relation to chemotherapy response and prognosis of patients with advanced primary triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: CC3 expression was detected immunohistochemically in 67 pre-chemotherapy biopsy samples. Ki67 and E-cad levels were obtained from patients' medical records. RESULTS: CC3-positivity (N = 32; 47.8%) was associated with a higher first-line chemotherapy overall response rate (ORR; P = 0.028) and second-line chemotherapy clinical benefit rate (CBR; P = 0.033). The Ki-67 high-risk group (N = 51; 76.1%) exhibited a reduced second-line chemotherapy CBR (P = 0.024). The E-cad negative group (N = 25; 37.3%) exhibited a lower first-line chemotherapy ORR (P = 0.044) and CBR (P<0.001), and a lower second-line chemotherapy CBR (P = 0.020). CC3, Ki-67, and E-cad were significant predictors of third-line chemotherapy ORR or CBR. Similar numbers of chemotherapy cycles were completed by the CC3-positive and -negative groups. The Ki-67 high-risk and E-cad negative groups completed fewer second-line chemotherapy cycles (P = 0.038) and fewer first-line chemotherapy cycles, respectively (P = 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analyses identified worse outcomes for the CC3-positive, Ki-67 high-risk, and E-cad negative groups than for their corresponding comparison groups (P<0.05). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified CC3 expression and an absence of E-cad expression as independent survival factors (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our CC3-positive group exhibited a better chemotherapy response, but a worse prognosis. The Ki-67 high-risk and E-cad negative groups exhibited both a worse chemotherapy response and worse prognosis. IJCEP
OBJECTIVE: To assess cleaved caspase-3 (CC3), Ki-67, and E-cadherin (E-cad) expression in relation to chemotherapy response and prognosis of patients with advanced primary triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). METHODS: CC3 expression was detected immunohistochemically in 67 pre-chemotherapy biopsy samples. Ki67 and E-cad levels were obtained from patients' medical records. RESULTS: CC3-positivity (N = 32; 47.8%) was associated with a higher first-line chemotherapy overall response rate (ORR; P = 0.028) and second-line chemotherapy clinical benefit rate (CBR; P = 0.033). The Ki-67 high-risk group (N = 51; 76.1%) exhibited a reduced second-line chemotherapy CBR (P = 0.024). The E-cad negative group (N = 25; 37.3%) exhibited a lower first-line chemotherapy ORR (P = 0.044) and CBR (P<0.001), and a lower second-line chemotherapy CBR (P = 0.020). CC3, Ki-67, and E-cad were significant predictors of third-line chemotherapy ORR or CBR. Similar numbers of chemotherapy cycles were completed by the CC3-positive and -negative groups. The Ki-67 high-risk and E-cad negative groups completed fewer second-line chemotherapy cycles (P = 0.038) and fewer first-line chemotherapy cycles, respectively (P = 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analyses identified worse outcomes for the CC3-positive, Ki-67 high-risk, and E-cad negative groups than for their corresponding comparison groups (P<0.05). Multivariate Cox regression analysis identified CC3 expression and an absence of E-cad expression as independent survival factors (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our CC3-positive group exhibited a better chemotherapy response, but a worse prognosis. The Ki-67 high-risk and E-cad negative groups exhibited both a worse chemotherapy response and worse prognosis. IJCEP
Authors: E Senkus; S Kyriakides; S Ohno; F Penault-Llorca; P Poortmans; E Rutgers; S Zackrisson; F Cardoso Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Bruce G Haffty; Qifeng Yang; Michael Reiss; Thomas Kearney; Susan A Higgins; Joanne Weidhaas; Lyndsay Harris; Willam Hait; Deborah Toppmeyer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-11-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Eswaran Devarajan; Aysegul A Sahin; Jack S Chen; Raghu R Krishnamurthy; Neeraj Aggarwal; Anne-Marie Brun; Anna Sapino; Fan Zhang; Dhawal Sharma; Xiao-He Yang; Ann D Tora; Kapil Mehta Journal: Oncogene Date: 2002-12-12 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Farrah Kassam; Katherine Enright; Rebecca Dent; George Dranitsaris; Jeff Myers; Candi Flynn; Michael Fralick; Ritu Kumar; Mark Clemons Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: Rajendra Persad; Chen Liu; Tsung-Teh Wu; Patrick S Houlihan; Stanley R Hamilton; Anna M Diehl; Asif Rashid Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Gloria J Morris; Sashi Naidu; Allan K Topham; Fran Guiles; Yihuan Xu; Peter McCue; Gordon F Schwartz; Pauline K Park; Anne L Rosenberg; Kristin Brill; Edith P Mitchell Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-08-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: A Goldhirsch; E P Winer; A S Coates; R D Gelber; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-04 Impact factor: 32.976