Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 124, Issue 2, pp 387–391 | Cite as

Semi-quantitative evaluation of estrogen receptor expression is a strong predictive factor of pathological complete response after anthracycline-based neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in hormonal-sensitive breast cancer

  • Thierry Petit
  • Marc Wilt
  • Michel Velten
  • Jean-François Rodier
  • Jean-Pierre Fricker
  • Patrick Dufour
  • Jean-Pierre Ghnassia
Clinical trial

Abstract

Absence of hormonal receptors (HR) expression is a predictive factor of high pathologic complete response (pCR) rate after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. However, HR-positive tumors are less chemosensitive. In the present study, we evaluated the predictive value of estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) semi-quantitative expression in patients with HR-positive tumors treated uniformly with antracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy without hormonal treatment. Value of HR expression as a predictive factor was then evaluated in a multivariate analysis with tumor grade, Ki67 index and HER2 expression. From January 2000 and December 2006, 177 patients with HR-positive breast ductal invasive carcinoma ≥2 cm in its largest diameter were treated with six cycles of an anthracycline-based neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Tumor grade, ER, PgR, HER2 status and Ki67 index were determined on microbiopsy performed before chemotherapy. A semi-quantitative evaluation of ER and PgR expression by IHC was performed using the Barnes’score. pCR rate was significantly different (P < 0.001) according to the ER expression score. pCR rate was 28% for low score, 9% for medium score and 3% for high score. On the contrary, pCR rate was not significantly different (P = 0.49) according to the PgR expression score. In the multivariate analysis, ER expression score (P = 0.0002) and Ki67 index (P = 0.02) were the only predictive factors of response for HR-positive tumors. pCR after anthracycline-based chemotherapy is significantly correlated with the ER expression score.

Keywords

Breast cancer Neoadjuvant chemotherapy Estrogen receptor Predictive factors 

Notes

Acknowledgment

We thank Mrs Joy Fest for helping in editing the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD et al (2007) Progress and promise: highlights of the international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2007. Ann Oncol 18:1133–1144CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’Collaborative Group (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 365:1687–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Henry NL, Hayes DF (2007) Can biology trump anatomy? Do all node-positive patients with breast cancer need chemotherapy? J Clin Oncol 25:2501–2503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC et al (2006) Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA 295:1658–1667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Allred DC, Mohsin SK (2005) ER expression is not bimodal in breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 124:474–475PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    International Breast Cancer Study Group (2002) Endocrine responsiveness and tailoring adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal lymph node-negative breast cancer: a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:1054–1065Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Albain K, Barlow W, O’Malley F et al. (2004). Concurrent versus sequential chemohormonal therapy versus tamoxifen alone for postmenopausal, node-positive, estrogen and/or progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer: mature outcomes and new biologic correlates on phase III intergroup trial 0100. Breast Cancer Res Treat 88(suppl 1). Abstract 37Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petit T, Wilt M, Velten M et al (2004) Comparative value of tumour grade, hormonal receptors, Ki-67, HER-2 and topoisomerase II alpha status as predictive markers in breast cancer patients treated with neo-adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 40:205–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaufmann M, Hortobagyi GN, Goldhirsch A et al (2006) Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: an update. J Clin Oncol 24:1940–1949CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guarneri V, Broglio K, Kau SW et al (2006) Prognostic value of pathologic complete response after primary chemotherapy in relation to hormone receptors status and other factors. J Clin Oncol 24:1037–1044CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W et al (2006) Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res Treat 100:229–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R et al (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5287–5312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer: the value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19:403–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M et al (1998) Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Modern Pathol 11:155–168Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Penault-Llorca F, André F, Sagan C et al (2009) Ki67 expression and docetaxel efficacy in patients with estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:2809–2815CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Barnes DM, Millis RR, Beex LV et al (1998) Increased use of immunochemistry for oestrogen receptor measurement in mammary carcinoma: the need for quality assurance. Eur J Cancer 34:1677–1682CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Trihia H, Murray S, Price K et al (2003) Ki-67 expression in breast carcinoma: its association with grading systems, clinical parameters, and other prognostic factors—a surrogate marker? Cancer 97:1321–1331CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Allred DC, Swanson PE (2000) Testing for erbB-2 by immunohistochemistry in breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 113:171–175CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hammond MEH, Hayes DF, Dowsett M et al (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancers. J Clin Oncol 28:2784–2795CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Ravdin PM et al (2010) Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol 11:174–183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J et al (2003) Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8418–8423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L et al (2006) Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355:560–569CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cheang MCU, Chia SK, Voduc C et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:736–750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thierry Petit
    • 1
  • Marc Wilt
    • 2
  • Michel Velten
    • 3
  • Jean-François Rodier
    • 4
  • Jean-Pierre Fricker
    • 1
  • Patrick Dufour
    • 1
  • Jean-Pierre Ghnassia
    • 2
  1. 1.Medical Oncology DepartmentCLCC Paul StraussStrasbourg CedexFrance
  2. 2.Pathology DepartmentCLCC Paul StraussStrasbourgFrance
  3. 3.Biostatistics DepartmentCLCC Paul StraussStrasbourgFrance
  4. 4.Surgery DepartmentCLCC Paul StraussStrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations