Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for different molecular breast cancer subtypes: a retrospective study in Russian population

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Medical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the objective clinical response (cOR), pathological complete response (pCR), and progression-free survival (PFS) in 231 Russian patients with four subtypes of breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. About 130 (56.3 %) patients received anthracycline-based, 56 (24.2 %) capecitabine-containing (CAX), 28 (12.1 %) taxotere and 17 (7.4 %) non-anthracycline-containing chemotherapy regimens at the Tomsk Cancer Research Institute between 2000 and 2010. Tumors were subtyped according to the hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) immunohistochemical data. The majority of tumors (48.9 %) were ER+/PR+ and HER2-negative (HR+/HER2−), 10.4 % were ER+ PR+ and HER2-positive (HR+/HER2+), 9.1 % were ER−/PR− and HER2-overexpressed (HER2-enriched) and 31.6 % were ER-/PR- and HER2-negative (triple negative). Both cOR and pCR were significantly higher in the triple-negative tumors compared to the other subtypes (P = 0.021 and P = 0.033, respectively). Among the four chemotherapy regimens, only CAX regimen had a predictive value for cOR (HR 2.30, 95 % CI 1.16–4.58, P = 0.009). Multivariate regression analysis showed that the triple-negative subtype (HR 2.54, 95 % CI 1.06–1.42, P = 0.011) and CAX regimen (HR 3.01, 95 % CI 1.01–1.46, P = 0.002) were significantly associated with cOR. No association between patient’s PFS and a tumor subtype was observed. However, there was a trend for a prolonged PFS among patients with cOR (P = 0.056). Our data indicate a potentially better prognosis for triple-negative breast cancer patients if treated with the CAX neoadjuvant regimen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

cOR:

Objective clinical response

pCR:

Pathological complete response

HR:

Hormone receptor

HER2:

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

NCT:

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy

ECOG:

Eastern cooperative oncology group

FAC:

5-Fluorouracil, adriamycin, cyclophosphamide

CAX:

Cyclophosphamide, adriamycin, capecitabine

CMF:

Cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil

NCCN:

National Comprehensive Cancer Network

NR:

Nonresponders

ER:

Estrogen receptor

PR:

Progesterone receptor

IHC:

Immunohistochemistry

PFS:

Progression-free survival

TN:

Triple negative

AC:

Doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide

TX:

Docetaxel, capecitabine

NX:

Vinorelbine, capecitabine

References

  1. Pisareva LF, Odyntsova IN, Kuderek BK. Epidemiological features of breast cancer in Western Siberian and Far East region. Tomsk: Tomsk University Co; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Davydov MI, Aksel EM. Cancer statistics in Russia and CIS in 2009. JNN Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center RAMS. 2011;22:9–123.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Semiglazov VF. New approaches to the treatment of breast cancer. Vopr Onkol. 2013;59(3):288–91.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Untch M, von Minckwitz G. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy: early response as a guide for further treatment: clinical, radiological, and biological. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2011;43:138–41. doi:10.1093/jncimonographs/lgr028.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Schott AF, Hayes DF. Defining the benefits of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1747–9. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.41.3161.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Yin Y, Zhang P, Xu BH, Zhang BL, Li Q, Yuan P, Cai RG, Wang JY, Wang X, Xu XZ. Unfavorable pathological complete response rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy epirubicin plus taxanes for locally advanced triple-negative breast cancer. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2013;33(2):262–5. doi:10.1007/s11596-013-1108-9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Hayashi Y, Takei H, Nozu S, Tochigi Y, Ichikawa A, Kobayashi N, Kurosumi M, Inoue K, Yoshida T, Nagai SE, Oba H, Tabei T, Horiguchi J, Takeyoshi I. Analysis of complete response by MRI following neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts pathological tumor responses differently for molecular subtypes of breast cancer. Oncol Lett. 2013;5(1):83–9.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Spanheimer PM, Carr JC, Thomas A, Sugg SL, Scott-Conner CE, Liao J, Weigel RJ. The response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy predicts clinical outcome and increases breast conservation in advanced breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2013;206(1):2–7. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.10.025.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Rea D, Tomlins A, Francis A. Time to stop operating on breast cancer patients with pathological complete response? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2013;39(9):924–30. doi:10.1016/j.ejso.2013.06.005.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Lv M, Li B, Li Y, Mao X, Yao F, Jin F. Predictive role of molecular subtypes in response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients in Northeast China. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12(9):2411–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kim SI, Sohn J, Koo JS, Park SH, Park HS, Park BW. Molecular subtypes and tumor response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Oncology. 2010;79(5–6):324–30. doi:10.1159/000322192.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Masuda H, Baggerly KA, Wang Y, Zhang Y, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Meric-Bernstam F, Valero V, Lehmann BD, Pietenpol JA, Hortobagyi GN, Symmans WF, Ueno NT. Differential response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy among 7 triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(19):5533–40. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0799.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Koolen BB, Pengel KE, Wesseling J, Vogel WV, Vrancken Peeters MJ, Vincent AD, Gilhuijs KG, Rodenhuis S, Rutgers EJ, Valdés Olmos RA. Sequential 18F-FDG PET/CT for early prediction of complete pathological response in breast and axilla during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2014;41(1):32–40. doi:10.1007/s00259-013-2515-7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Buzdar AU, Ibrahim NK, Francis D, Booser DJ, Thomas ES, Theriault RL, Pusztai L, Green MC, Arun BK, Giordano SH, Cristofanilli M, Frye DK, Smith TL, Hunt KK, Singletary SE, Sahin AA, Ewer MS, Buchholz TA, Berry D, Hortobagyi GN. Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:3676–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Untch M, Fasching PA, Konecny GE, Hasmüller S, Lebeau A, Kreienberg R, Camara O, Müller V, du Bois A, Kühn T, Stickeler E, Harbeck N, Höss C, Kahlert S, Beck T, Fett W, Mehta KM, von Minckwitz G, Loibl S. Pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus trastuzumab predicts favorable survival in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing breast cancer: results from the TECHNO trial of the AGO and GBG study groups. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(25):3351–7. doi:10.1200/JCO.2010.31.4930.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Houssami N, Macaskill P, von Minckwitz G, Marinovich ML, Mamounas E. Meta-analysis of the association of breast cancer subtype and pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(18):3342–54. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2012.05.023.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. von Minckwitz G. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer-insights from the German experience. Breast Cancer. 2012;19(4):282–8. doi:10.1007/s12282-012-0393-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lips EH, Mulder L, de Ronde JJ, Mandjes IA, Koolen BB, Wessels LF, Rodenhuis S, Wesseling J. Breast cancer subtyping by immunohistochemistry and histological grade outperforms breast cancer intrinsic subtypes in predicting neoadjuvant chemotherapy response. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140(1):63–71. doi:10.1007/s10549-013-2620-0.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Cleator SJ, Makris A, Ashley SE, Lal R, Powles TJ. Good clinical response of breast cancers to neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy is associated with improved overall survival. Ann Oncol. 2005;16(2):267–72.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Zhou B, Yang DQ, Xie F. Biological markers as predictive factors of response to neoadjuvant taxanes and anthracycline chemotherapy in breast carcinoma. Chin Med J (Engl). 2008;121(5):387–91.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Yu Y, Xiang H, He XM, Yang HJ, Zong XY. Predictive factors determining neoadjuvant chemotherapy outcomes in breast cancer: a single center experience. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(4):2401–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moon HG, Im SA, Han W, Oh DY, Han SW, Keam B, Park IA, Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Noh DY. Estrogen receptor status confers a distinct pattern of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: implications for optimal durations of therapy: distinct patterns of response according to ER expression. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(3):1133–40. doi:10.1007/s10549-012-2145-y.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hugh J, Hanson J, Cheang MC, Nielsen TO, Perou CM, Dumontet C, Reed J, Krajewska M, Treilleux I, Rupin M, Magherini E, Mackey J, Martin M, Vogel C. Breast cancer subtypes and response to docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer: use of an immunohistochemical definition in the BCIRG 001 trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(8):1168–76. doi:10.1200/JCO.2008.18.1024.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Chen XS, Wu JY, Huang O, Chen CM, Wu J, Lu JS, Shao ZM, Shen ZZ, Shen KW. Molecular subtype can predict the response and outcome of Chinese locally advanced breast cancer patients treated with preoperative therapy. Oncol Rep. 2010;23(5):1213–20.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA, Gerber B, Eiermann W, Hilfrich J, Huober J, Jackisch C, Kaufmann M, Konecny GE, Denkert C, Nekljudova V, Mehta K, Loibl S. Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(15):1796–804. doi:10.1200/JCO.2011.38.8595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, Bonnefoi H, Cameron D, Gianni L, Valagussa P, Swain SM, Prowell T, Loibl S, Wickerham DL, Bogaerts J, Baselga J, Perou C, Blumenthal G, Blohmer J, Mamounas EP, Bergh J, Semiglazov V, Justice R, Eidtmann H, Paik S, Piccart M, Sridhara R, Fasching PA, Slaets L, Tang S, Gerber B, Geyer CE Jr, Pazdur R, Ditsch N, Rastogi P, Eiermann W, von Minckwitz G. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kucher AN, Ivanova OF, Puzyrev VP, Tsimbalyuk IV, Trotsenko BA. Genetic-demographic characteristics of a contemporary Siberian city Tomsk. Genetika. 1994;30(2):276–81.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, Fitzgibbons PL, Francis G, Goldstein NS, Hayes M, Hicks DG, Lester S, Love R, Mangu PB, McShane L, Miller K, Osborne CK, Paik S, Perlmutter J, Rhodes A, Sasano H, Schwartz JN, Sweep FC, Taube S, Torlakovic EE, Valenstein P, Viale G, Visscher D, Wheeler T, Williams RB, Wittliff JL, Wolff AC. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(7):e48–72. doi:10.1043/1543-2165-134.7.e48.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Caudle AS, Yu TK, Tucker SL, Bedrosian I, Litton JK, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hoffman K, Meric-Bernstam F, Hunt KK, Buchholz TA, Mittendorf EA. Local-regional control according to surrogate markers of breast cancer subtypes and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(3):R83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, Dressler LG, Cowan D, Conway K, Karaca G, Troester MA, Tse CK, Edmiston S, Deming SL, Geradts J, Cheang MC, Nielsen TO, Moorman PG, Earp HS, Millikan RC. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA. 2006;295(21):2492–502.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Redondo CM, Gago-Domínguez M, Ponte SM, Castelo ME, Jiang X, García AA, Fernández MP, Tomé MA, Fraga M, Gude F, Martínez ME, Garzón VM, Carracedo Á, Castelao JE. Breast feeding, parity and breast cancer subtypes in a Spanish cohort. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(7):e40543. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040543.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Tamaki M, Kamio T, Kameoka S, Kojimahara N, Nishikawa T. The relevance of the intrinsic subtype to the clinicopathological features and biomarkers in Japanese breast cancer patients. World J Surg Oncol. 2013;11:293. doi:10.1186/1477-7819-11-293.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Saeed Eyad Fawzi Al, Ghabbban Abdul Rahman Jameel Al, Tunio Mutahir A. The prognostic significance of the luminal A, luminal B, basal and Her 2 Neu subtypes of breast cancer in Saudi women. Open Breast Cancer J. 2013;5:16–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Timovska YO, Pivnyuk VM, Oliynichenko GP, Anikushko MF, Zachartseva LM, Chekhun VF. Relation between pathomorphological response in tumors after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and clinico-morphological and molecular prognostic factors in patients with breast cancer. Exp Oncol. 2009;31(4):231–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ. Strategies for subtypes-dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:1736–47. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdr304.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Park S, Koo JS, Kim MS, Park HS, Lee JS, Lee JS, Kim SI, Park BW. Characteristics and outcomes according to molecular subtypes of breast cancer as classified by a panel of four biomarkers using immunohistochemistry. Breast. 2012;21(1):50–7. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2011.07.008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, Ibrahim N, Cristofanilli M, Anderson K, Hess KR, Stec J, Ayers M, Wagner P, Morandi P, Fan C, Rabiul I, Ross JS, Hortobagyi GN, Pusztai L. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(16):5678–85.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, Gatti L, Moore DT, Collichio F, Ollila DW, Sartor CI, Graham ML, Perou CM. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(8):2329–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Duman BB, Afşar ÇU, Günaldi M, Sahin B, Kara IO, Erkisi M, Erçolak V. Retrospective analysis of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer in Turkish patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2012;13(8):4119–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Straver ME, Rutgers EJ, Rodenhuis S, Linn SC, Loo CE, Wesseling J, Russell NS, Oldenburg HS, Antonini N, Vrancken Peeters MT. The relevance of breast cancer subtypes in the outcome of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17(9):2411–8. doi:10.1245/s10434-010-1008-1.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Stickeler E, Pils D, Klar M, Orlowsk-Volk M, Zur Hausen A, Jäger M, Watermann D, Gitsch G, Zeillinger R, Tempfer CB. Basal-like molecular subtype and HER4 up-regulation and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Oncol Rep. 2011;26(4):1037–45. doi:10.3892/or.2011.1392.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Kang H, Dai Z, Ma X, Bao X, Lin S, Ma H, Liu X, Wang X. Different response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for different molecular subtypes in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Chin Ger J Clin Oncol. 2013;12(4):163–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Yoo C, Ahn JH, Jung KH, Kim SB, Kim HH, Shin HJ, Ahn SH, Son BH, Gong G. Impact of immunohistochemistry-based molecular subtype on chemosensitivity and survival in patients with breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Breast Cancer. 2012;15(2):203–10. doi:10.4048/jbc.2012.15.2.203.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Kawajiri H, Takashima T, Aomatsu N, Kashiwagi S, Noda S, Onoda N, Ishikawa T, Hirakawa K. Prognostic significance of pathological complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Oncol Lett. 2014;7(3):663–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Li J, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Allen PK, Yu TK, Woodward WA, Ueno NT, Lucci A, Krishnamurthy S, Gong Y, Bondy ML, Yang W, Willey JS, Cristofanilli M, Valero V, Buchholz TA. Triple-negative subtype predicts poor overall survival and high locoregional relapse in inflammatory breast cancer. Oncologist. 2011;16(12):1675–83. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0196.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Masuda H, Brewer TM, Liu DD, Iwamoto T, Shen Y, Hsu L, Willey JS, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Chavez-Macgregor M, Fouad TM, Woodward WA, Reuben JM, Valero V, Alvarez RH, Hortobagyi GN, Ueno NT. Long-term treatment efficacy in primary inflammatory breast cancer by hormonal receptor- and HER2-defined subtypes. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(2):384–91. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt525.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Matsubara N, Mukai H, Fujii S, Wada N. Different prognostic significance of Ki-67 change between pre- and post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various subtypes of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;137(1):203–12. doi:10.1007/s10549-012-2344-2346.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Zhou YJ, Ying M, He YJ, Liu YQ, Fan ZQ, Fan T, Li JF, Wang TF, Xie YT, Lu AP, Ouyang T. Analysis of associations between molecular subtypes and responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in primary breast cancer patients. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2013;93(22):1711–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Ooe A, Takahara S, Sumiyoshi K, Yamamoto H, Kawai J, Shiba E. Relationship between intrinsic subtypes and tumor responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Dis. 2013;34(1):9–17. doi:10.3233/BD-130345.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Yoshioka T, Hosoda M, Yamamoto M, Taguchi K, Hatanaka KC, Takakuwa E, Hatanaka Y, Matsuno Y, Yamashita H. Prognostic significance of pathologic complete response and Ki67 expression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2013;. doi:10.1007/s12282-013-0474-2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Liu WQ, Ye JM, Xu L, Liu Q, Zhao JX, Duan XN, Liu YH. A study on the predictive and evaluational value of molecular subtypes and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2013;51(8):706–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Zhang GC, Zhang YF, Xu FP, Qian XK, Guo ZB, Ren CY, Yao M. Axillary lymph node status, adjusted for pathologic complete response in breast and axilla after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, predicts differential disease-free survival in breast cancer. Curr Oncol. 2013;20(3):e180–92. doi:10.3747/co.20.1294.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Chow LW, Tung SY, Ng TY, Im SA, Lee MH, Yip AY, Toi M, Glück S. Concurrent celecoxib with 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel for stages II–III invasive breast cancer: the OOTR-N001 study. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2013;22(3):299–307. doi:10.1517/13543784.2013.766715.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Huober J, von Minckwitz G, Denkert C, Tesch H, Weiss E, Zahm DM, Belau A, Khandan F, Hauschild M, Thomssen C, Högel B, Darb-Esfahani S, Mehta K, Loibl S. Effect of neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy in different biological breast cancer phenotypes: overall results from the GeparTrio study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;124(1):133–40. doi:10.1007/s10549-010-1103-9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Li Q, Jiang Y, Wei W, Yang H, Liu J. Clinical efficacy of including capecitabine in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(1):e53403. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053403.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Tolaney SM, Jeong J, Guo H, Brock J, Morganstern D, Come SE, Golshan M, Bellon J, Winer EP, Krop IE. A phase II study of preoperative capecitabine in women with operable hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Cancer Med. 2014;. doi:10.1002/cam4.164.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Liao Y, Fan Y, Wan Y, Li J, Peng L. Acceptable but limited efficacy of capecitabine-based doublets in the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a pilot study. Chemotherapy. 2013;59(3):207–13. doi:10.1159/000356156.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Jeong JH, Jung SY, Park IH, Lee KS, Kang HS, Kim SW, Kwon Y, Kim EA, Ko KL, Nam BH, Lee S, Ro J. Predictive factors of pathologic complete response and clinical tumor progression after preoperative chemotherapy in patients with stage II and III breast cancer. Invest New Drugs. 2012;30(1):408–16. doi:10.1007/s10637-010-9555-7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Slonimskaya EM, Tarabanovskaya NA, Doroshenko AV, Garbukov EYu, Kokorina YuL. Xeloda in neoadjuvant treatment for operable breast cancer. Siberian J Oncol. 2009;1(31):14–8.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ohzawa H, Sakatani T, Niki T, Yasuda Y, Hozumi Y. Pathological responses and survival of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy including trastuzumab. Breast Cancer. 2012;. doi:10.1007/s12282-012-0424-4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Meyers MO, Klauber-Demore N, Ollila DW, Amos KD, Moore DT, Drobish AA, Burrows EM, Dees EC, Carey LA. Impact of breast cancer molecular subtypes on locoregional recurrence in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18(10):2851–7. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-1665-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Fasching PA, Heusinger K, Haeberle L, Niklos M, Hein A, Bayer CM, Rauh C, Schulz-Wendtland R, Bani MR, Schrauder M, Kahmann L, Lux MP, Strehl JD, Hartmann A, Dimmler A, Beckmann MW, Wachter DL. Ki67, chemotherapy response, and prognosis in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment. BMC Cancer. 2011;11:486. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-11-486.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Ibrahim E, Al-Gahmi AM, Zeenelin AA, Zekri JM, Elkhodary TR, Gaballa HE, Fawzy EE, El sayed ME, Alzahrani MS. Basal vs. luminal A breast cancer subtypes: a matched case-control study using estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2 as surrogate markers. Med Oncol. 2009;26(3):372–8. doi:10.1007/s12032-008-9131-6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Romero A, Prat A, García-Sáenz JA, Del Prado N, Pelayo A, Furió V, Román JM, de la Hoya M, Díaz-Rubio E, Perou CM, Cladés T, Martín M. Assignment of tumor subtype by genomic testing and pathologic-based approximations: implications on patient’s management and therapy selection. Clin Transl Oncol. 2014;16(4):386–94. doi:10.1007/s12094-013-1088-z.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Kawase M, Toyama T, Takahashi S, Sato S, Yoshimoto N, Endo Y, Asano T, Kobayashi S, Fujii Y, Yamashita H. FOXA1 expression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a prognostic marker in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2013;. doi:10.1007/s12282-013-0482-2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Kuroi K, Toi M, Ohno S, Nakamura S, Iwata H, Masuda N, Sato N, Tsuda H, Kurosumi M, Akiyama F. Prognostic significance of subtype and pathologic response in operable breast cancer; a pooled analysis of prospective neoadjuvant studies of JBCRG. Breast Cancer. 2013;. doi:10.1007/s12282-013-0511-1.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Marmé F, Aigner J, Lorenzo Bermejo J, Sinn P, Sohn C, Jäger D, Schneeweiss A. Neoadjuvant epirubicin, gemcitabine and docetaxel for primary breast cancer: long-term survival data and major prognostic factors based on two consecutive neoadjuvant phase I/II trials. Int J Cancer. 2013;133(4):1006–15. doi:10.1002/ijc.28094.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Russian Scientific Foundation, Grant 14-15-00350.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular Oncology and Immunology, Cancer Research Institute of Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, 5 Kooperativny Street, Tomsk, 634050, Russian

    Nataliya Babyshkina, Elena Malinovskaya & Nadejda Cherdyntseva

  2. Department of General Oncology, Cancer Research Institute of Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Tomsk, 634050, Russia

    Stanislav Patalyak, Olga Bragina, Natalia Tarabanovskaya, Artem Doroshenko & Elena Slonimskaya

  3. Department of Pathological Anatomy and Cytology, Cancer Research Institute of Siberian Branch, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Tomsk, 634050, Russia

    Vladimir Perelmuter

  4. Department of Translational Cellular and Molecular Biomedicine, National Research Tomsk State University, Tomsk, 634050, Russia

    Nataliya Babyshkina & Nadejda Cherdyntseva

  5. Department of General Oncology, Siberian State Medical University, Tomsk, 634050, Russia

    Elena Slonimskaya & Nadejda Cherdyntseva

Authors
  1. Nataliya Babyshkina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elena Malinovskaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stanislav Patalyak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Olga Bragina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Natalia Tarabanovskaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Artem Doroshenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Elena Slonimskaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vladimir Perelmuter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Nadejda Cherdyntseva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nataliya Babyshkina.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Babyshkina, N., Malinovskaya, E., Patalyak, S. et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for different molecular breast cancer subtypes: a retrospective study in Russian population. Med Oncol 31, 165 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-014-0165-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-014-0165-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation