ABSTRACT: Prediction of high probability of survival from standard cancer treatments is fundamental for individualized cancer treatment strategies.
To develop a predictor of response and survival from chemotherapy for newly diagnosed invasive breast cancer.
Prospective multicenter study conducted from June 2000 to March 2010 at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center to develop and test genomic predictors for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were those with newly diagnosed ERBB2 (HER2 or HER2/neu)-negative breast cancer treated with chemotherapy containing sequential taxane and anthracycline-based regimens (then endocrine therapy if estrogen receptor [ER]-positive). Different predictive signatures for resistance and response to preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy (stratified according to ER status) were developed from gene expression microarrays of newly diagnosed breast cancer (310 patients). Breast cancer treatment sensitivity was then predicted using the combination of signatures for (1) sensitivity to endocrine therapy, (2) chemoresistance, and (3) chemosensitivity, with independent validation (198 patients) and comparison with other reported genomic predictors of chemotherapy response.
Distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) if predicted treatment sensitive and absolute risk reduction ([ARR], difference in DRFS between 2 predicted groups) at median follow-up (3 years).
Patients in the independent validation cohort (99% clinical stage II-III) who were predicted to be treatment sensitive (28%) had 56% (95% CI, 31%-78%) probability of excellent pathologic response and DRFS of 92% (95% CI, 85%-100%), with an ARR of 18% (95% CI, 6%-28%). Survival was predicted in ER-positive (30% predicted sensitive; DRFS, 97% [95% CI, 91%-100%]; ARR, 11% [95% CI, 0.1%-21%]) and ER-negative (26% predicted sensitive; DRFS, 83% [95% CI, 68%-100%]; ARR, 26% [95% CI, 4%-48%]) subsets and was significant in multivariate analysis. Other genomic predictors showed paradoxically worse survival for patients predicted to be responsive to chemotherapy.
A genomic predictor combining ER status, predicted chemoresistance, predicted chemosensitivity, and predicted endocrine sensitivity identified patients with high probability of survival following taxane and anthracycline chemotherapy.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 05/2011; 305(18):1873-81. · 30.03 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: This study compared disease-free survival (DFS) obtained with two different regimens of adjuvant therapy in high-risk breast cancer.
Women (who had performance status [PS] of 0 to 1) with operable, histologically confirmed, stage I to III adenocarcinoma of the breast were eligible. Patients had undergone primary surgery with no residual tumor. Treatments were as follows: arm 1 was doxorubicin 60 mg/m(2) plus cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for four cycles (ie, AC-P); and arm 2 was doxorubicin 50 mg/m(2) plus paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) weekly for 12 weeks.
Overall, 1,830 patients were enrolled and 1,801 were treated: arm 1 (n = 906; AC-->P) and arm 2 (n = 895; AP-WP). Overall, patients had a PS of 0 (88%), had estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor-positive disease (52%), had one to three positive nodes (46%), and were postmenopausal (57%); the median age was 52 years. Currently, 1,640 patients (90%) are alive. The 6-year DFS was 79% to 80% in both groups. Disease relapse was the cause of death for 83 patients in arm 1 and in 66 patients of arm 2. Overall 6-year survival rates were 82% and 87% in arms 1 and 2, respectively. Reasons for patients being taken off study treatment included toxicity (13% in arm 1 v 20% in arm 2), progressive disease or recurrence (7% v 5%), and consent withdrawn (9% v 8%), respectively. The most frequent toxicities were hematologic, including neutropenia and leukopenia followed by neuropathy, myalgia, nausea, fatigue, headache, arthralgia, and vomiting.
The results indicate that the AP-WP regimen is an equally effective and tolerable option for the adjuvant treatment of patients with high-risk breast cancer. The substitution of paclitaxel for cyclophosphamide results in comparable effectiveness of the regimen.
Journal of Clinical Oncology 06/2010; 28(18):2958-65. · 18.37 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: Tamoxifen significantly reduces the risk of developing breast cancer in women at increased-risk. The usefulness of tamoxifen has been limited by its side effect profile, especially its propensity to worsen vasomotor symptoms. Hormone therapy (HT) has long been utilized to reduce vasomotor symptoms in peri- and post-menopausal women. The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of hot flashes, weight gain and other side effects associated with taking tamoxifen alone versus tamoxifen in combination with HT in high-risk women. One hundred eighty high-risk women were enrolled into one of two parallel study cohorts to receive tamoxifen alone (93 women) or tamoxifen with HT (87 women). Women were monitored at baseline, 3 months and then yearly for assessments of menopausal symptoms and toxicities associated with tamoxifen alone versus tamoxifen plus HT. We also assessed for differences in menopausal symptoms and toxicities by type of HT (estrogen vs. estrogen and progestin combination). Hot flash scores increased at 3 months and at 1 year compared with baseline in women on tamoxifen alone as well as for women on HT. Women on tamoxifen with estrogen only replacement had the greatest increase in hot flash scores, although this was not significantly different than the increase seen with tamoxifen alone. About 47% of participants on tamoxifen gained weight and there was a strong trend towards less weight gain in women on the combination of tamoxifen and HT, most pronounced for those on tamoxifen with estrogen alone replacement therapy. The addition of HT to tamoxifen therapy does not ameliorate tamoxifen-induced vasomotor symptoms. Tamoxifen associated weight gain, however, may be lessened by the addition of HT.
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 02/2009; 116(3):521-7. · 4.43 Impact Factor