Ki67, chemotherapy response, and prognosis in breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is a surrogate marker for a favorable prognosis in breast cancer patients. Factors capable of predicting a pCR, such as the proliferation marker Ki67, may therefore help improve our understanding of the drug response and its effect on the prognosis. This study investigated the predictive and prognostic value of Ki67 in patients with invasive breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Ki67 was stained routinely from core biopsies in 552 patients directly after the fixation and embedding process. HER2/neu, estrogen and progesterone receptors, and grading were also assessed before treatment. These data were used to construct univariate and multivariate models for predicting pCR and prognosis. The tumors were also classified by molecular phenotype to identify subgroups in which predicting pCR and prognosis with Ki67 might be feasible.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Using a cut-off value of > 13% positively stained cancer cells, Ki67 was found to be an independent predictor for pCR (OR 3.5; 95% CI, 1.4, 10.1) and for overall survival (HR 8.1; 95% CI, 3.3 to 20.4) and distant disease-free survival (HR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.8 to 5.9). The mean Ki67 value was 50.6 ± 23.4% in patients with pCR. Patients without a pCR had an average of 26.7 ± 22.9% positively stained cancer cells.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Ki67 has predictive and prognostic value and is a feasible marker for clinical practice. It independently improved the prediction of treatment response and prognosis in a group of breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment. As mean Ki67 values in patients with a pCR were very high, cut-off values in a high range above which the prognosis may be better than in patients with lower Ki67 values may be hypothesized. Larger studies will be needed in order to investigate these findings further.</p

Characterizing mammographic images by using generic texture features

Introduction Although mammographic density is an established risk factor for breast cancer, its use is limited in clinical practice because of a lack of automated and standardized measurement methods. The aims of this study were to evaluate a variety of automated texture features in mammograms as risk factors for breast cancer and to compare them with the percentage mammographic density (PMD) by using a case-control study design. Methods A case-control study including 864 cases and 418 controls was analyzed automatically. Four hundred seventy features were explored as possible risk factors for breast cancer. These included statistical features, moment-based features, spectral-energy features, and form-based features. An elaborate variable selection process using logistic regression analyses was performed to identify those features that were associated with case-control status. In addition, PMD was assessed and included in the regression model. Results Of the 470 image-analysis features explored, 46 remained in the final logistic regression model. An area under the curve of 0.79, with an odds ratio per standard deviation change of 2.88 (95% CI, 2.28 to 3.65), was obtained with validation data. Adding the PMD did not improve the final model. Conclusions Using texture features to predict the risk of breast cancer appears feasible. PMD did not show any additional value in this study. With regard to the features assessed, most of the analysis tools appeared to reflect mammographic density, although some features did not correlate with PMD. It remains to be investigated in larger case-control studies whether these features can contribute to increased prediction accuracy

Novel Associations between Common Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Risk-Predicting Mammographic Density Measures.

Mammographic density measures adjusted for age and body mass index (BMI) are heritable predictors of breast cancer risk, but few mammographic density-associated genetic variants have been identified. Using data for 10,727 women from two international consortia, we estimated associations between 77 common breast cancer susceptibility variants and absolute dense area, percent dense area and absolute nondense area adjusted for study, age, and BMI using mixed linear modeling. We found strong support for established associations between rs10995190 (in the region of ZNF365), rs2046210 (ESR1), and rs3817198 (LSP1) and adjusted absolute and percent dense areas (all P < 10(-5)). Of 41 recently discovered breast cancer susceptibility variants, associations were found between rs1432679 (EBF1), rs17817449 (MIR1972-2: FTO), rs12710696 (2p24.1), and rs3757318 (ESR1) and adjusted absolute and percent dense areas, respectively. There were associations between rs6001930 (MKL1) and both adjusted absolute dense and nondense areas, and between rs17356907 (NTN4) and adjusted absolute nondense area. Trends in all but two associations were consistent with those for breast cancer risk. Results suggested that 18% of breast cancer susceptibility variants were associated with at least one mammographic density measure. Genetic variants at multiple loci were associated with both breast cancer risk and the mammographic density measures. Further understanding of the underlying mechanisms at these loci could help identify etiologic pathways implicated in how mammographic density predicts breast cancer risk.ABCFS: The Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry (ABCFR; 1992-1995) was supported by the Australian NHMRC, the New South Wales Cancer Council, and the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (Australia), and by grant UM1CA164920 from the USA National Cancer Institute. The Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory at the University of Melbourne has also received generous support from Mr B. Hovey and Dr and Mrs R.W. Brown to whom we are most grateful. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Mammographic Density 5 Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. BBCC: This study was funded in part by the ELAN-Program of the University Hospital Erlangen; Katharina Heusinger was funded by the ELAN program of the University Hospital Erlangen. BBCC was supported in part by the ELAN program of the Medical Faculty, University Hospital Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg. EPIC-Norfolk: This study was funded by research programme grant funding from Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council with additional support from the Stroke Association, British Heart Foundation, Department of Health, Research into Ageing and Academy of Medical Sciences. MCBCS: This study was supported by Public Health Service Grants P50 CA 116201, R01 CA 128931, R01 CA 128931-S01, R01 CA 122340, CCSG P30 CA15083, from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. MCCS: Melissa C. Southey is a National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Research Fellow and a Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium Group Leader. The study was supported by the Cancer Council of Victoria and by the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. MEC: National Cancer Institute: R37CA054281, R01CA063464, R01CA085265, R25CA090956, R01CA132839. MMHS: This work was supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Health and Human Services. (R01 CA128931, R01 CA 128931-S01, R01 CA97396, P50 CA116201, and Cancer Center Support Grant P30 CA15083). Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Mammographic Density 6 NBCS: This study has been supported with grants from Norwegian Research Council (#183621/S10 and #175240/S10), The Norwegian Cancer Society (PK80108002, PK60287003), and The Radium Hospital Foundation as well as S-02036 from South Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. NHS: This study was supported by Public Health Service Grants CA131332, CA087969, CA089393, CA049449, CA98233, CA128931, CA 116201, CA 122340 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services. OOA study was supported by CA122822 and X01 HG005954 from the NIH; Breast Cancer Research Fund; Elizabeth C. Crosby Research Award, Gladys E. Davis Endowed Fund, and the Office of the Vice President for Research at the University of Michigan. Genotyping services for the OOA study were provided by the Center for Inherited Disease Research (CIDR), which is fully funded through a federal contract from the National Institutes of Health to The Johns Hopkins University, contract number HHSN268200782096. OFBCR: This work was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the USA National Cancer Institute. The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. SASBAC: The SASBAC study was supported by Märit and Hans Rausing’s Initiative against Breast Cancer, National Institutes of Health, Susan Komen Foundation and Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A*STAR). Breast Cancer Susceptibility Variants and Mammographic Density 7 SIBS: SIBS was supported by program grant C1287/A10118 and project grants from Cancer Research UK (grant numbers C1287/8459). COGS grant: Collaborative Oncological Gene-environment Study (COGS) that enabled the genotyping for this study. Funding for the BCAC component is provided by grants from the EU FP7 programme (COGS) and from Cancer Research UK. Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A 10710, C12292/A11174, C1281/A12014, C5047/A8384, C5047/A15007, C5047/A10692), the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post- Cancer GWAS initiative (1U19 CA148537, 1U19 CA148065 and 1U19 CA148112 - the GAMEON initiative), the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10-1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available via American Association for Cancer Research at http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2015/04/10/0008-5472.CAN-14-2012.abstract

Assessing interactions between the associations of common genetic susceptibility variants, reproductive history and body mass index with breast cancer risk in the breast cancer association consortium: a combined case-control study.

INTRODUCTION: Several common breast cancer genetic susceptibility variants have recently been identified. We aimed to determine how these variants combine with a subset of other known risk factors to influence breast cancer risk in white women of European ancestry using case-control studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. METHODS: We evaluated two-way interactions between each of age at menarche, ever having had a live birth, number of live births, age at first birth and body mass index (BMI) and each of 12 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (10q26-rs2981582 (FGFR2), 8q24-rs13281615, 11p15-rs3817198 (LSP1), 5q11-rs889312 (MAP3K1), 16q12-rs3803662 (TOX3), 2q35-rs13387042, 5p12-rs10941679 (MRPS30), 17q23-rs6504950 (COX11), 3p24-rs4973768 (SLC4A7), CASP8-rs17468277, TGFB1-rs1982073 and ESR1-rs3020314). Interactions were tested for by fitting logistic regression models including per-allele and linear trend main effects for SNPs and risk factors, respectively, and single-parameter interaction terms for linear departure from independent multiplicative effects. RESULTS: These analyses were applied to data for up to 26,349 invasive breast cancer cases and up to 32,208 controls from 21 case-control studies. No statistical evidence of interaction was observed beyond that expected by chance. Analyses were repeated using data from 11 population-based studies, and results were very similar. CONCLUSIONS: The relative risks for breast cancer associated with the common susceptibility variants identified to date do not appear to vary across women with different reproductive histories or body mass index (BMI). The assumption of multiplicative combined effects for these established genetic and other risk factors in risk prediction models appears justified.RIGHTS : This article is licensed under the BioMed Central licence at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/license which is similar to the 'Creative Commons Attribution Licence'. In brief you may : copy, distribute, and display the work; make derivative works; or make commercial use of the work - under the following conditions: the original author must be given credit; for any reuse or distribution, it must be made clear to others what the license terms of this work are

Polymorphisms in a Putative Enhancer at the 10q21.2 Breast Cancer Risk Locus Regulate NRBF2 Expression.

Genome-wide association studies have identified SNPs near ZNF365 at 10q21.2 that are associated with both breast cancer risk and mammographic density. To identify the most likely causal SNPs, we fine mapped the association signal by genotyping 428 SNPs across the region in 89,050 European and 12,893 Asian case and control subjects from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. We identified four independent sets of correlated, highly trait-associated variants (iCHAVs), three of which were located within ZNF365. The most strongly risk-associated SNP, rs10995201 in iCHAV1, showed clear evidence of association with both estrogen receptor (ER)-positive (OR = 0.85 [0.82-0.88]) and ER-negative (OR = 0.87 [0.82-0.91]) disease, and was also the SNP most strongly associated with percent mammographic density. iCHAV2 (lead SNP, chr10: 64,258,684:D) and iCHAV3 (lead SNP, rs7922449) were also associated with ER-positive (OR = 0.93 [0.91-0.95] and OR = 1.06 [1.03-1.09]) and ER-negative (OR = 0.95 [0.91-0.98] and OR = 1.08 [1.04-1.13]) disease. There was weaker evidence for iCHAV4, located 5' of ADO, associated only with ER-positive breast cancer (OR = 0.93 [0.90-0.96]). We found 12, 17, 18, and 2 candidate causal SNPs for breast cancer in iCHAVs 1-4, respectively. Chromosome conformation capture analysis showed that iCHAV2 interacts with the ZNF365 and NRBF2 (more than 600 kb away) promoters in normal and cancerous breast epithelial cells. Luciferase assays did not identify SNPs that affect transactivation of ZNF365, but identified a protective haplotype in iCHAV2, associated with silencing of the NRBF2 promoter, implicating this gene in the etiology of breast cancer.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2015.05.002

Pain perception and detailed visual pain mapping in breast cancer survivors

International audienceChronic pain and neural irritation after breast surgery and radiation are still relevant sequelae of the treatment. Pain quantification and localization in patient groups are difficult to standardize. In order to quantify and localize pain in a group of breast cancer patients, a Java-based program was developed to visualize the frequency of pain in “pain maps.” A questionnaire with structured questions on the perception of pain included pictograms of a body to mark possible pain areas. A group of 343 breast cancer survivors completed the questionnaires. The image information was digitalized and processed using a Java applet. Gray-scale summation pictures with numbers from “0,” indicating black (100% pain), to “255,” indicating white (0% pain), were generated. The visualization of pain by creating pain maps revealed the location of pain in breast cancer survivors on pictograms of the body. Analyzing the total number of pixels, in which pain was stated, made it possible to compare pain areas in several subgroups, showing that patients after mastectomy versus breast-conserving therapy (3,011 vs. 2,224 pixels), and patients with lymphedema versus patients without lymphedema (3,010 vs. 2,239 pixels), have larger pain areas. This study presents a method of visualizing pain areas and assigning them to a pictogram of the body in a sample of breast cancer patients. The method is easy to use and could help generate pain maps in several types of disease

Comprehensive characterization of endometriosis patients and disease patterns in a large clinical cohort

Purpose!#!In many diseases, it is possible to classify a heterogeneous group into subgroups relative to tumor biology, genetic variations, or clinical and pathological features. No such classification is available for endometriosis. In our retrospective case-case analysis we defined subgroups of endometriosis patients relative to the type and location of the endometriosis lesion and relative to basic patient characteristics.!##!Methods!#!From June 2013 to July 2017, a total of 1576 patients with endometriosis diagnosed at surgery were included in this study. The patients' history and clinical data were documented using a web-based remote data entry system. To build subgroups, all possible combinations of endometriosis locations/types (peritoneal; ovarian endometriosis; deeply infiltrating endometriosis; adenomyosis) were used. Due to the variation in group sizes, they were combined into five substantial larger groups.!##!Results!#!Age, pregnancy rate, and live birth rate were identified as characteristics that significantly differed between the five patient groups that were defined. No significant differences were noted in relation to body mass index, length of menstrual cycle, age at menarche, reason for presentation, or educational level.!##!Conclusion!#!This study describes basic patient characteristics in relation to common clinical subgroups in a large clinical cohort of endometriosis patients. Epidemiological information about different clinical groups may be helpful in identifying groups with specific clinical courses, potentially suggesting novel approaches to early detection and to surgical and systemic treatment

Endometriosis as a risk factor for ovarian or endometrial cancer — results of a hospitalbased case–control study

Background: No screening programs are available for ovarian or endometrial cancer. One reason for this is the low incidence of the conditions, resulting in low positive predictive values for tests, which are not very specific. One way of addressing this problem might be to use risk factors to define subpopulations with a higher incidence. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which a medical history of endometriosis can serve as a risk factor for ovarian or endometrial cancer. Methods: In a hospital-based case–control analysis, the cases represented patients with endometrial or ovarian cancer who were participating in studies aimed at assessing the risk for these diseases. The controls were women between the age of 40 and 85 who were invited to take part via a newspaper advertisement. A total of 289 cases and 1016 controls were included. Using logistic regression models, it was tested whether self-reported endometriosis is a predictor of case–control status in addition to age, body mass index (BMI), number of pregnancies and previous oral contraceptive (OC) use. Results: Endometriosis was reported in 2.1 % of the controls (n = 21) and 4.8 % of the cases (n = 14). Endometriosis was a relevant predictor for case–control status in addition to other predictive factors (OR 2.63; 95 % CI, 1.28 to 5.41). Conclusion: This case–control study found that self-reported endometriosis may be a risk factor for endometrial or ovarian cancer in women between 40 and 85 years. There have been very few studies addressing this issue, and incorporating it into a clinical prediction model would require a more precise characterization of the risk factor of endometriosis