Differences in prognosis and efficacy of chemotherapy by p53 expression in triple-negative breast cancer
- 230 Downloads
TP53 mutation is the most common mutation in breast cancer, and it is considered a target marker of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). We investigated whether expression of p53 detected by immunochemical staining predicts the chemotherapy response of TNBC.
A total of 11,393 TNBC patients who had between stage I and stage III enrolled in the Korean Breast Cancer Society Registry database from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2015. There were 6,331 ‘p53-positive (+) TNBC’ patients and 5062 ‘p53-negative (−) TNBC’ patients.
In univariate analysis, p53(+) TNBC had a worse prognosis than p53(−) TNBC in patients not receiving chemotherapy (P = 0.003). However, there was no difference in prognosis between p53(+) TNBC and p53(−) TNBC for patients receiving chemotherapy. In multivariate analysis adjusted for age and stage, the risk of p53(+) TNBC was 1.84 times higher than that of p53(−) TNBC in the non-chemotherapy group. However, there was no difference between p53(+) TNBC and p53(−) TNBC in patients receiving chemotherapy. In p53(+) TNBC, the risk was 0.6-fold lower when chemotherapy was administered than when chemotherapy was not administered. However, in p53(−) TNBC, there was no risk reduction effect by chemotherapy.
The prognosis of p53(+) TNBC has worse than p53(−) TNBC, but the risk for survival was significantly reduced with chemotherapy. It suggests that p53(+) TNBC would be more sensitive to chemotherapy than p53(−) TNBC.
KeywordsTriple-negative breast cancer Chemotherapy Prognosis P53 Immunohistochemistry
This article was supported by the Korean Breast Cancer Society. This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (2017R1D1A1B03028103).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study informed consent is not required.
- 6.Ahn SH, Son BH, Kim SW, Kim SI, Jeong J, Ko SS, Han W (2007) Poor outcome of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer at very young age is due to tamoxifen resistance: nationwide survival data in Korea—a report from the Korean Breast Cancer Society. J Clin Oncol 25(17):2360–2368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Synnott NC, Bauer MR, Madden S, Murray A, Klinger R, O’Donovan N, O’Connor D, Gallagher WM, Crown J, Fersht AR et al (2018) Mutant p53 as a therapeutic target for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer: preclinical investigation with the anti-p53 drug, PK11007. Cancer Lett 414:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Abdel-Fattah R, Challen C, Griffiths TR, Robinson MC, Neal DE, Lunec J (1998) Alterations of TP53 in microdissected transitional cell carcinoma of the human urinary bladder: high frequency of TP53 accumulation in the absence of detected mutations is associated with poor prognosis. Br J Cancer 77(12):2230–2238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Coates AS, Millar EK, O’Toole SA, Molloy TJ, Viale G, Goldhirsch A, Regan MM, Gelber RD, Sun Z, Castiglione-Gertsch M et al (2012) Prognostic interaction between expression of p53 and estrogen receptor in patients with node-negative breast cancer: results from IBCSG Trials VIII and IX. Breast Cancer Res 14(6):R143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Lara JF, Thor AD, Dressler LG, Broadwater G, Bleiweiss IJ, Edgerton S, Cowan D, Goldstein LJ, Martino S, Ingle JN et al (2011) p53 Expression in node-positive breast cancer patients: results from the cancer and leukemia group B 9344 Trial (159905). Clin Cancer Res 17(15):5170–5178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Fernandez-Cuesta L, Oakman C, Falagan-Lotsch P, Smoth KS, Quinaux E, Buyse M, Dolci MS, Azambuja ED, Hainaut P, Dell’orto P et al (2012) Prognostic and predictive value of TP53 mutations in node-positive breast cancer patients treated with anthracycline- or anthracycline/taxane-based adjuvant therapy: results from the BIG 02-98 phase III trial. Breast Cancer Res 14(3):R70CrossRefGoogle Scholar