Qixing Tan1, Qinghong Qin1, Zhen Huang1, Bin Lian1, Qinguo Mo2, Changyuan Wei3. 1. Department of Breast Surgery, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, 71 Hedi Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Breast Surgery, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, 71 Hedi Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China. qinguomo2020@163.com. 3. Department of Breast Surgery, Guangxi Medical University Cancer Hospital, 71 Hedi Road, Nanning, 530021, Guangxi, People's Republic of China. gxzlrx@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) has complex biological function, and is a candidate oncogene with a wide variety of deleterious functions in breast cancer. Here, we evaluated the relationship between expression of HO-1 protein with clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer patients. METHODS: We used immunohistochemistry (IHC) to determine expression of HO-1 protein from core needle biopsy before NAC, then applied univariate and multivariate analyses to understand the relationship between HO-1 with pathological complete response (pCR) outcomes. Next, Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank tests were used to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), between groups, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis applied for prognostic evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 575 patients with locally advanced invasive breast cancer were included in the study, of which 111 (19.3%) achieved pCR after NAC. Results from multivariate analysis showed that high HO-1 expression was an independent predictor of low pCR rate (OR 0.254, 95% CI 0.026-0.643, p = 0.002). Moreover, results from survival analysis showed that high HO-1 expression was significantly associated with shorter DFS (HR 4.843, 95% CI 1.205-32.572, p = 0.026), but not with OS (HR 3.219, 95% CI 0.928-32.124, p = 0.071). Furthermore, HO-1 expression was significantly associated with lower pCR rate (OR 0.102, 95% CI 0.013-0.352), p = 0.001), poor DFS (HR 8.562, 95% CI 1.592-34.950, p = 0.009), and OS (HR 7.835, 95% CI 1.220-56.213, p = 0.023) of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that HO-1 expression is not only a biomarker for predicting pCR, but also a prognostic factor in breast cancer patients in a neoadjuvant setting, especially in TNBC subgroups.
PURPOSE: Heme oxygenase-1 (HO-1) has complex biological function, and is a candidate oncogene with a wide variety of deleterious functions in breast cancer. Here, we evaluated the relationship between expression of HO-1 protein with clinical response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) in breast cancer patients. METHODS: We used immunohistochemistry (IHC) to determine expression of HO-1 protein from core needle biopsy before NAC, then applied univariate and multivariate analyses to understand the relationship between HO-1 with pathological complete response (pCR) outcomes. Next, Kaplan-Meier and Log-rank tests were used to compare disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), between groups, and Cox proportional hazards regression analysis applied for prognostic evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 575 patients with locally advanced invasive breast cancer were included in the study, of which 111 (19.3%) achieved pCR after NAC. Results from multivariate analysis showed that high HO-1 expression was an independent predictor of low pCR rate (OR 0.254, 95% CI 0.026-0.643, p = 0.002). Moreover, results from survival analysis showed that high HO-1 expression was significantly associated with shorter DFS (HR 4.843, 95% CI 1.205-32.572, p = 0.026), but not with OS (HR 3.219, 95% CI 0.928-32.124, p = 0.071). Furthermore, HO-1 expression was significantly associated with lower pCR rate (OR 0.102, 95% CI 0.013-0.352), p = 0.001), poor DFS (HR 8.562, 95% CI 1.592-34.950, p = 0.009), and OS (HR 7.835, 95% CI 1.220-56.213, p = 0.023) of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients. CONCLUSION: Our results indicated that HO-1 expression is not only a biomarker for predicting pCR, but also a prognostic factor in breast cancer patients in a neoadjuvant setting, especially in TNBC subgroups.
Authors: Misbat Chaudry; Xiudong Lei; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Elizabeth A Mittendorf; Vicente Valero; Debu Tripathy; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Eleftherios P Mamounas; Stewart J Anderson; James J Dignam; Harry D Bear; Thomas B Julian; Charles E Geyer; Alphonse Taghian; D Lawrence Wickerham; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Waqar Haque; Vivek Verma; Sandra Hatch; V Suzanne Klimberg; E Brian Butler; Bin S Teh Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Yi Ren; Samantha M Thomas; Rachel A Greenup; Jennifer K Plichta; Laura H Rosenberger; Nina Tamirisa; Jeremy Force; Judy C Boughey; Terry Hyslop; E Shelley Hwang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Priya Rastogi; Stewart J Anderson; Harry D Bear; Charles E Geyer; Morton S Kahlenberg; André Robidoux; Richard G Margolese; James L Hoehn; Victor G Vogel; Shaker R Dakhil; Deimante Tamkus; Karen M King; Eduardo R Pajon; Mary Johanna Wright; Jean Robert; Soonmyung Paik; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-02-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J Ferlay; M Colombet; I Soerjomataram; C Mathers; D M Parkin; M Piñeros; A Znaor; F Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 7.396