p53 as a specific prognostic factor in triple-negative breast cancer.
ABSTRACT A recent suggestion is that the predictive value of a single biomarker may rely on the genetic background on the tumor and that different breast cancer subgroups may have different predictive markers of response to chemotherapy. The prognostic value of p53 in the outcome of adjuvant anthracycline-containing chemotherapy was evaluated according to molecular subclasses defined using the expression of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2.
Subjects were patients (n = 135) with invasive ductal carcinoma treated with adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy between 1994 and 2000 in our hospital. Clinico-pathological features were reviewed by retrospective examination of medical records.
Overall survival rate was not independently predictive by p53 status (P = 0.182). However, in triple-negative cases, there was statistically significant survival difference (P = 0.034) and no statistically significant difference (P = 0.783) in non-triple-negative cases by p53 status. In the Cox proportional hazard analysis, p53 was also strongly predictive for relapse-free survival (P = 0.013) and overall survival (P = 0.049) in triple-negative patients.
p53 status could be a specific prognostic factor in triple-negative breast cancer patients treated by adjuvant anthracycline-based regimen. When p53 is positive in triple-negative breast cancer, we could expect poor survival, prompting aggressive or alternative treatment.
- SourceAvailable from: eur.nl[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: TP53 has been implicated in regulation of the cell cycle, DNA repair, and apoptosis. We studied, in primary breast tumors through direct cDNA sequencing of exons 2-11, whether TP53 gene mutations can predict response in patients with advanced disease to either first-line tamoxifen therapy (202 patients, of whom 55% responded) or up-front (poly)chemotherapy (41 patients, of whom 46% responded). TP53 mutations were detected in 90 of 243 (37%) tumors, and one-fourth of these mutations resulted in a premature termination of the protein. The mutations were observed in 32% (65 of 202) of the primary tumors of tamoxifen-treated patients and in 61% (25 of 41) of the primary tumors of the chemotherapy patients. TP53 mutation was significantly associated with a poor response to tamoxifen [31% versus 66%; odds ratio (OR), 0.22; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.12-0.42; P < 0.0001]. Patients with TP53 gene mutations in codons that directly contact DNA or with mutations in the zinc-binding domain loop L3 showed the lowest response to tamoxifen (18% and 15% response rates, respectively). TP53 mutations were related, although not significantly, to a poor response to up-front chemotherapy (36% versus 63%; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.09-1.24). In multivariate analysis for response including the classical parameters age and menopausal status, disease-free interval, dominant site of relapse, and levels of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor, TP53 mutation was a significant predictor of poor response in the tamoxifen-treated group (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13-0.63; P = 0.0014). TP53-mutated and estrogen receptor-negative (<10 fmol/mg protein) tumors appeared to be the most resistant phenotype. Interestingly, the response of patients with TP53 mutations to chemotherapy after tamoxifen was not worse than that of patients without these mutations (50% versus 42%; OR, 1.35, nonsignificant). The median progression-free survival after systemic treatment was shorter for patients with a TP53 mutation than for patients with wild-type TP53 (6.6 and 0.6 months less for tamoxifen and up-front chemotherapy, respectively). In conclusion, TP53 gene mutation of the primary tumor is helpful in predicting the response of patients with metastatic breast disease to tamoxifen therapy. The type of mutation and its biological function should be considered in the analyses of the predictive value of TP53.Cancer Research 05/2000; 60(8):2155-62. · 8.65 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Our aim was to determine whether biological molecular markers can predict response to neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in patients with early breast cancer. Ninety patients (median age 56 years; range, 28-69 years) with primary operable breast carcinoma were studied. They were treated with four 3-weekly cycles of chemotherapy with mitozantrone, methotrexate (+/- mitomycin C), and tamoxifen prior to surgery. Fine-needle aspiration was used to obtain samples from patients prior to therapy, and the following parameters were assessed: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), p53, Ki67, Bcl-2, and c-erbB-2 measured by immunocytochemistry, and ploidy and S-phase fraction (SPF) by flow cytometry. The tumors of 78% of the subjects responded (complete response, 9%; partial response, 69%) and 22% did not (no change, 20%; progressive disease, 2%). Response rates according to disease stage and patient age were as follows: T1, 74%; T2, 79%; T3/T4, 78%; age </=50 years, 76%; >50, 79% (P = not significant). Response rates for other parameters were as follows: ER-positive, 82%, and -negative, 70%; PgR-positive, 86%, and -negative, 71%; p53-positive, 74%, and -negative, 81%; Bcl-2-positive, 85%, and -negative 61%; c-erbB-2-positive, 57%, and -negative, 93%; Ki67 high, 77%, and low, 81%; SPF high, 77%, and low, 77%; aneuploid, 71%; and diploid, 85%. Only the difference for c-erbB-2 was statistically significant (P = 0.007). A trend for higher response rates to neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy for tumors that were positive for ER, PgR, and Bcl-2 was observed but did not reach statistical significance. Tumors negative for c-erbB-2 had a higher response rate, which was statistically significant. In contrast, Ki67, ploidy, SPF, and p53 failed to predict for response.Clinical Cancer Research 05/1997; 3(4):593-600. · 7.84 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Gene expression analysis identifies several breast cancer subtypes. We examined the relationship of neoadjuvant chemotherapy response to outcome among these breast cancer subtypes. We used immunohistochemical profiles [human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+)/hormone receptor-negative for HER2+/estrogen receptor-negative (ER-), hormone receptor and HER2- for basal-like, hormone receptor-positive for luminal] to subtype a prospectively maintained data set of patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant anthracycline-based (doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide, AC) chemotherapy. We analyzed each subtype for clinical and pathologic response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and examined the relationship of response to distant disease-free survival and overall survival. Of the 107 patients tested, 34 (32%) were basal-like, 11 (10%) were HER2+/ER-, and 62 (58%) were luminal. After neoadjuvant AC, 75% received subsequent chemotherapy and all received endocrine therapy if hormone receptor-positive. The chemotherapy regimen and pretreatment stage did not differ by subtype. Clinical response to AC was higher among the HER2+/ER- (70%) and basal-like (85%) than the luminal subtypes (47%; P < 0.0001). Pathologic complete response occurred in 36% of HER2+/ER-, 27% of basal-like, and 7% of luminal subtypes (P = 0.01). Despite initial chemosensitivity, patients with the basal-like and HER2+/ER- subtypes had worse distant disease-free survival (P = 0.04) and overall survival (P = 0.02) than those with the luminal subtypes. Regardless of subtype, only 2 of 17 patients with pathologic complete response relapsed. The worse outcome among basal-like and HER+/ER- subtypes was due to higher relapse among those with residual disease (P = 0.003). Basal-like and HER2+/ER- subtypes are more sensitive to anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy than luminal breast cancers. Patients that had pathologic complete response to chemotherapy had a good prognosis regardless of subtype. The poorer prognosis of basal-like and HER2+/ER- breast cancers could be explained by a higher likelihood of relapse in those patients in whom pathologic complete response was not achieved.Clinical Cancer Research 04/2007; 13(8):2329-34. · 7.84 Impact Factor