ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Association of breast cancer grade with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy assessed postoperatively
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Thoracic Surgery, Jinan Central Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, People’s Republic of China
Submission date: 2019-06-05
Acceptance date: 2019-06-09
Publication date: 2019-08-29
Pol J Pathol 2019;70(2):91-99
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Currently, breast cancer chemotherapy response can be predicted based on various parameters, with common reporting of tumour grade and Ki67 proliferation index. We analysed their association with pathological complete response (pCR) in a multivariate approach.
The study was carried out in a group of 353 patients, treated by preoperative chemotherapy and prospectively observed. In selected patients, parallel to routing core needle biopsy assessment, gene expression profile of tumour was analysed by oligonucleotide microarrays.
Tumour parameters associated with pCR in univariate analysis were: tumour grade, nuclear grade, mitotic index, Ki67, oestrogen and progesterone receptor (all p < 0.0001), and triple-negative status (p = 0.0032). The highest increase of pCR chance was observed in patients with high-grade tumours and with Ki67 ≥ 20%. In multivariate analysis, only tumour grade and oestrogen receptor status were predictive for pCR independently of other variables, with high grade increasing the odds of pCR 2.42 fold, and high ER decreasing the chance of pCR 0.41 fold. Tumour grading reflects important biological features of breast cancer and is not inferior to proliferation markers, including Ki67. It should be taken into account in decision-making for preoperative chemotherapy in parallel to breast cancer biologic subtypes, because grade 3 tumours exhibit a higher proportion of pCR.
REFERENCES (24)
1.
Chatterjee A, Erban JK. Neoadjuvant therapy for treatment of breast cancer: the way forward, or simply a convenient option for patients? Gland Surg 2017; 6: 119-124.
2.
Asselain B, Barlow W, Bartlett J, et al. Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet Oncol 2018; 19: 27-39.
3.
Bartsch R, Bergen E, Galid A. Current concepts and future directions in neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer. Mag Eur Med Oncol 2018; 11: 199-203.
4.
Cain H, Macpherson IR, Beresford M, et al. Neoadjuvant Therapy in Early Breast Cancer: Treatment Considerations and Common Debates in Practice. Clin Oncol 2017; 29: 642-652.
5.
Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017. Ann Oncol 2017; 28: 1700-1712.
6.
Amin MB, Edge SB, American Joint Committee on Cancer, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. Eighth ed. Springer 2017; 1024.
7.
Ehinger A, Malmström P, Bendahl PO, et al. Histological grade provides significant prognostic information in addition to breast cancer subtypes defined according to St Gallen 2013. Acta Oncol (Madr) 2017; 56: 68-74.
8.
Stuart-Harris R, Caldas C, Pinder SE, Pharoah P. Proliferation markers and survival in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 85 studies in 32,825 patients. Breast 2008; 17 :323-334.
9.
Esserman LJ, Berry D, Cheang MCU, et al. Chemotherapy response and recurrence-free survival in Neoadjuvant breast cancer depends on biomarker profiles: Results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657). Breast Cancer Res Treat 2012; 132: 1049-1062.
10.
Petrelli F, Cabiddu M, Coinu A, et al. Adjuvant dose-dense chemotherapy in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015; 151: 251-259.
11.
Combescure C, Daures JP, Foucher Y. A literature-based approach to evaluate the predictive capacity of a marker using time-dependent summary receiver operating characteristics. Stat Methods Med Res 2016; 25: 674-685.
12.
Li L, Han D, Wang X, et al. Prognostic values of Ki-67 in neoadjuvant setting for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Future Oncol 2017; 13 :1021-1034.
13.
Poulakaki N, Makris G-M, Papanota A-M, et al. Ki-67 Expression as a Factor Predicting Recurrence of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Breast Cancer 2018; 18: 157-167.e6.
14.
Tao M, Chen S, Zhang X, Zhou Q. Ki-67 labeling index is a predictive marker for a pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e9384.
15.
Criscitiello C, Golshan M, Barry WT, et al. Impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and pathological complete response on eligibility for breast-conserving surgery in patients with early breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Eur J Cancer 2018; 97: 1-6.
16.
Zhang G, Xie W, Liu Z, et al. Prognostic function of Ki-67 for pathological complete response rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Tumori 2014; 100: 136-142.
17.
Lips EH, Mulder L, De Ronde JJ, et al. Breast cancer subtyping by immunohistochemistry and histological grade outperforms breast cancer intrinsic subtypes in predicting neoadjuvant chemotherapy response. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 140: 63-71.
18.
Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S, et al. Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 2006; 98: 262-272.
19.
Ignatiadis M, Sotiriou C. Understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade. Pathobiology 2008; 75: 104-111.
20.
Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S, et al. Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res 2008; 10: R65.
21.
Venet D, Dumont JE, Detours V. Most random gene expression signatures are significantly associated with breast cancer outcome. Rigoutsos I (ed. ). PLoS Comput Biol 2011; 7: e1002240.
22.
Dalton L, Page DL. Grading breast cancer on microarray samples: comparison with Nottingham grade, and use of boosting classification. Histopathology 2012; 61: 497-508.
23.
Caudle AS, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hunt KK, et al. Predictors of tumor progression during neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1821-1828.
24.
Jarzab M, Kowal M, Bal W, et al. Ratio of proliferation markers and HSP90 gene expression as a predictor of pathological complete response in breast cancer neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Folia Histochem Cytobiol 2016; 54: 202-209.