Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 23–34 | Cite as

Recurrence-free survival in breast cancer improved by adjuvant tamoxifen -especially for progesterone receptor positive tumors with a high proliferation

  • Mårten Fernö
  • Bo Baldetorp
  • Pär-Ola Bendahl
  • Åke Borg
  • Sven-Börje Ewers
  • Håkan Olsson
  • Stefan Rydén
  • Helgi Sigurdsson
  • Dick Killander
Report

Summary

Although the beneficial effect on breast cancer of adjuvant tamoxifen (TAM) is well established, in the series studied by our group this effect seems to have been restricted to patients with steroid receptor (especially progesterone receptor (PgR)) positive tumors. However, as some patients with PgR-positive tumors manifested recurrence despite adjuvant TAM treatment, the question arose whether some other biological factor(s) could be used to identify these non-responding cases. The level of the S-phase fraction (SPF), as measured by flow cytometry, has been shown to be a useful prognostic marker, prognosis being better in cases where the SPF is low than in those where it is high. The aim of the present study was to relate the prognosis after adjuvant TAM to SPF among patients with PgR-positive tumors.

In the PgR-positive group as a whole, the effect of TAM on prognosis was more pronounced in the high SPF group than in the low SPF group (p = 0.005) the respective decrease in 3 year recurrence rate was from 19 to 43% and from 17 to 9%. Multivariate analysis of the data for the TAM-treated group showed the level of PgR concentration (low positivevs. high positive), lymph node status, and tumor size to be independent predictive factors, but not the level of SPF (i.e. highvs. low). By contrast, among patients not treated with TAM, the SPF was a strong independent prognostic factor.

To sum up, SPF was a strong independent predictor of outcome only for patients receiving no systemic adjuvant therapy, but not in patients receiving adjuvant TAM. Patients with PgR-positive and high S-phase tumors derived more benefit from TAM than patients with PgR-positive and low SPF tumors.

Key words

breast cancer flow cytometry progesterone receptor prognosis proliferation treatment prediction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group: Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal, cytotoxic, or immune therapy. Lancet 339: 1–15, 71-85, 1992Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rutqvist LE, Cedermark B, Glas U, Johansson H, Nordenskjöld B, Skoog L, Somell A, Theve T, Friberg S, Askergren J: The Stockholm trial on adjuvant tamoxifen in early breast cancer. Correlation between estrogen receptor level and treatment effect. Breast Cancer Res Treat 10: 255–266, 1987Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rose C, Thorpe SM, Andersen KW, Pedersen BV, Mouridsen HT, Blichert-Toft M, Rasmussen BB: Beneficial effect of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in primary breast cancer patients with high oestrogen receptor values. Lancet i: 16–19, 1985Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rydén S, Fernö M, Borg Å, Hafström Lo, Möller T, Norgren A: Prognostic significance of estrogen and progesterone receptors in stage II breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 37: 221–226, 1988Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baum M: Controlled trial of tamoxifen as a single adjuvant agent in the management of early breast cancer. Analysis at eight years by Nolvadex Adjuvant Trial Organisation. Br J Cancer 57: 608–611, 1988Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rydén S, Fernö M, Borg Å, Möller T: Progesterone receptors predict response to adjuvant tamoxifen in premenopausal patients. Fourth Int Meeting Adjuvant Ther Breast Cancer, St Gallen 1992Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    McGuire WL: An update on estrogen and progesterone receptors in prognosis for primary and advanced breast cancer. In: Iacobelli Set al. (eds) Hormones and Cancer. Raven Press, New York, 1980, pp 337–343Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stewart HJ: Adjuvant tamoxifen in the management of operable breast cancer: The Scottish trial. Report from the Breast Cancer Trials Committee, Scottish Cancer Trials Office (MRC) Edingburgh. Lancet ii, 171–175, 1987Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nicholson RI, Campbell FC, Davies P: The endocrinology of antiestrogen action on breast cancer. Rev Endocrine-Related Cancer (suppl.) 13: 39–43, 1983Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ravdin PM, Gren S, Dorr TM, McGuire WL, Fabian C, Pugh RP, Carter RD, Rivkin SE, Borst JR, Belt RJ, Metch B, Osborne CK: Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor levels in estrogen receptor-positive patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with tamoxifen: results of a prospective Southwest Oncology Group Study. J Clin Oncol 10 (8): 1284–1291, 1992Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nicholson RI, Bouzubar N, Walker KJ, McClelland R, Dixon AR, Robertson JFR, Ellis IO, Blamey RW: Hormone sensitivity in breast cancer: Influence of heterogeneity of oestrogen receptor expression and cell proliferation. Eur J Cancer 27 (7): 908–913, 1991Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borg Å, Baldetorp B, Fernö M, Killander D, Olsson H, Rydén S, Sigurdsson H: ERBB2 amplification is associated with tamoxifen resistance in steroid-receptor positive breast cancer. Cancer Letters 81: 137–144, 1994Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Predine J, Spyratos F, Prud'homme JF, Andrieu C, Hacene K, Brunet M, Pallud C, Milgrom E: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay of pS2 in breast cancers, benign tumors, and normal breast tissues. Cancer 69: 2116–2123, 1992Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knabbe E, Lippman ME, Wakefield LM: Evidence that transforming growth factor-Beta is a hormonally regulated negative growth factor in human breast cancer cells. Cell 48: 417–428, 1987Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clark GM, Dressler LG, Owens MA, Pounds G, Oldaker T, McGuire WL: Prediction of relapse or survival in patients with node-negative breast cancer by DNA flow cytometry. N Engl J Med 320: 627–633, 1989Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sigurdsson H, Baldetorp B, Borg Å, Dalberg M, Fernö M, Killander D, Olsson H: Indicators of prognosis in node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 322: 1045–1053, 1990Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kallioniemi O-P, Hietanen T, Mattila J, Lehtinen M, Lauslahti K, Koivula T: Aneuploid DNA content and high S-phase fraction of tumour cells are related to poor prognosis in patients with primary breast cancer. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 23: 277–282, 1987Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hedley DW, Clark GM, Cornelisse CJ, Killander D, Kute T, Merkel D: Consensus review of the clinical utility of DNA cytometry in carcinoma of the breast. Cytometry 14: 482–485, 1993Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Remvikos Y, Beuzeboc P, Zajdela A, Voillemot N, Magdelénat H, Pouillart P: Correlation of pretreatment proliferative activity of breast cancer with the response to cytotoxic chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 81: 1383–1387, 1989Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    O'Reilly SM, Camplejohn RS, Rubens RD, Richards MA: DNA flow cytometry and response to preoperative chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 28: 681–683, 1992Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fernö M, Borg Å, Norgren A: A comparison of two steroid receptor assays in breast cancer: dextran coated charcoal and isoelectric focusing. Anticancer Res 3: 243–246, 1983Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fernö M, Borg Å, Sellberg G: Enzyme immuno assay of the estrogen receptor in breast cancer biopsy samples. A comparison with isoelectric focusing. Acta Radiol Oncol 25: 171–175, 1986Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fernö M, Borg Å, Johansson U: Enzyme immuno assay of progesterone receptor in breast cancer biopsy samples: A comparison with the dextran coated charcoal method. Acta Oncol 28: 19–22, 1989Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fernö M, Borg Å, Johansson U, Norgren A, Olsson H, Rydén S, Sellberg G, Southern Swedish Breast Cancer Study Group: Estrogen and progesterone receptor analysis in more than 4000 human breast cancer samples. A study with special reference to age at diagnosis and stability of analyses. Acta Oncol 29: 129–135, 1990Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Thornthwaite JT, Sugerbaker EV, Temple WJ: Preparation of tissue for DNA flow cytometric analysis. Cytometry 1: 229–237, 1980Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lee GM, Thornthwaite JT, Rasch EM: Picogram per cell determination of DNA by flow cytofluorometry. Analyt Biochem 137: 221–226, 1984Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baldetorp B, Dalberg M, Holst U, Lindgren G: Statistical evaluation of cell kinetic data from DNA flow cytometry (FCM) by the EM algorithm. Cytometry 10: 695–705, 1989Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vindelöv LL, Christensen IB, Nissen NI: Standardization of high resolution flow cytometric DNA analysis by the simultaneous use of chicken and trout red blood cells as internal reference standards. Cytometry 3: 328–331, 1983Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hiddeman W, Schumann J, Andreeff M, Barlogie B, Herman CJ, Leif RC, Mayall BH, Murphy RF, Sandberg AA: Convention on nomenclature for DNA cytometry. Cytometry 5: 445–446, 1984Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Baisch H, Gohde W, Linden WA: Analysis of PCP-data to determine the fraction of cells in various phases of cell cycle. Radiat Environ Biophys 12: 31–39, 1975Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sigurdsson H, Baldetorp B, Borg Å, Dalberg M, Fernö M, Killander D, Olsson H, Ranstam J: Flow cytometry in primary breast cancer: improving the prognostic value of the fraction of cells in the S-phase by optimal categorisation of cut-off levels. Br J Cancer 62: 786–790, 1990Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kaplan EL, Meier P: Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 53: 457–481, 1958Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Savage IR: Contribution to the theory of rank order statistics- two sample case. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 27: 590–615, 1956Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Altman DG: Practical Statistics for Medical Research, pp 386. Chapman & Hall, London, 1991Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Cox DR: Regression models and life-tables. J R Stat Soc (B) 34: 187–220, 1972Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schoenfeld D: Chi-squared goodness-of-fit tests for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika 67:145–153, 1980Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jordan VC, Murphy CS: Endocrine pharmacology of antiestrogens as antitumor agents. Endocrine Rev 11 (4): 578–610, 1990Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sutherland RL, Watts CK, Hall RE, Ruenitz PC: Mechanisms of growth inhibition by nonsteroidal antiestrogens in human breast cancer cells. J Steroid Biochem 27 (4-6): 891–897, 1987Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vicard E, Hijazi A, Muchada E, Chouvet C, Devonec M, Saez S: Flow cytometry analysis of the growth inhibitory effect of 4-hydroxy-tamoxifen on a human breast carcinoma cell line. Anticancer Res 8: 375–380, 1988Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Clark RB, Laidlaw IJ, Jones LJ, Howell A, Anderson E: Effect of tamoxifen on Ki67 labelling index in human breast tumours and its relationship to oestrogen and progesterone receptor status. Br J Cancer 67: 606–611, 1993Google Scholar
  41. 40.
    Nordenskjöld B, Löwhagen T, Westerberg H, Zajicek J:3H-thymidine incorporation into mammary carcinoma cells obtained by needle aspiration before and during endocrine therapy. Acta Cytol 20: 137–143, 1976Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mårten Fernö
    • 1
  • Bo Baldetorp
    • 1
  • Pär-Ola Bendahl
    • 1
  • Åke Borg
    • 1
  • Sven-Börje Ewers
    • 1
  • Håkan Olsson
    • 1
  • Stefan Rydén
    • 2
  • Helgi Sigurdsson
    • 1
  • Dick Killander
    • 1
  1. 1.For the South Sweden Breast Cancer Group: Department of OncologyUniversity HospitalLundSweden
  2. 2.For the South Sweden Breast Cancer Group: Department of SurgeryÄngelholm HospitalÄngelholmSweden

Personalised recommendations