Trastuzumab (Herceptin (R)): Monoclonal antibody in the treatment of HER2/neu-overexpressing breast cancer in the metastatic and (neo)adjuvant situation

Trastuzumab (Herceptin (R)) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that specifically targets HER2/neu (human epidermal growth factor receptor-2) breast cancer cells, which are overexpressed in about 25-30% of breast carcinomas. After phase I and II trials, several phase III studies of trastuzumab alone or in combination with various chemotherapies were conducted. Patients with HER2/neu overexpression levels of 3+ determined by immunohistochemical assay or gene amplification (fluorescence in situ hybridization) derive most clinical benefit from trastuzumab. Taking into consideration efficacy and side effect profile, the combination of trastuzumab and paclitaxel showed an improvement of all clinical parameters, including overall survival, for the first time in the history of palliative breast cancer therapy. The application of trastuzumab has meanwhile become an established part of systemic therapy of metastastic breast cancer, and excellent data of its application in the adjuvant setting now exist (NSABP-B31, NCCTG-N9831, HERA), with significantly better relapse-free survival in the treatment arms with trastuzumab. Ongoing trials investigate the role of trastuzumab in the neoadjuvant setting. Trastuzumab is generally well tolerated. Cardiotoxicity is the main concern, thus monitoring of cardiac function is recommended

Predictive value of CA 125 and CA 72-4 in ovarian borderline tumors

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the prognostic value of cancer antigen (CA) 125 and CA 72-4 in patients with ovarian borderline tumor (BOT). Methods: All women diagnosed and treated for BOT at our institution between 1981 and 2008 were included into this retrospective study (n=101). Preoperatively collected serum samples were analyzed for CA 125 (Architect, Abbott and Elecsys, Roche) and CA 724 (Elecsys, Roche) with reference to clinical data and compared to healthy women (n=109) and ovarian cancer patients (n=130). Results: With a median of 34.7 U/mL (range 18.1-385.0 U/mL) for CA 125 and 2.3 U/mL (range 0.2-277.0 U/mL) for CA 72-4, serum tumor markers in BOT patients were significantly elevated as compared to healthy women with a median CA 125 of 13.5 U/mL (range 4.0-49.7 U/mL) and median CA 72-4 of 0.8 U/mL (range 0.2-20.6 U/mL). In addition, there was a significant difference compared with ovarian cancer patients who showed a median CA 125 of 401.5 U/mL (range 12.5-35,813 U/mL), but no difference was observed for CA 72-4 (median 3.9 U/mL, range 0.3-10,068 U/mL). Patients with a pT1a tumor stage had significantly lower values of CA 125 but not of CA 72-4 compared with individuals with higher tumor stages (median CA 125 29.9 U/mL for pT1a vs. 50.9 U/mL for) pT1a; p=0.014). There was a trend for increased concentrations of CA 125 but not of CA 72-4 in the presence of ascites, endometriosis or peritoneal implants at primary diagnosis. With respect to the prognostic value of CA 125 or CA 72-4, CA 125 was significantly higher at primary diagnosis in patients who later developed recurrence (251.0 U/mL vs. 34.65 U/mL, p=0.012). Conclusions: Serum CA 125 and CA 72-4 concentrations in BOT patients differ from healthy controls and patients with ovarian cancer. CA 125, but not CA 724, at primary diagnosis correlates with tumor stage and tends to be increased in the presence of ascites, endometriosis or peritoneal implants. Moreover, CA 125 at primary diagnosis appears to have prognostic value for recurrence. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009; 47:537-42

The diagnostic accuracy of two human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) testing systems in combination with CA125 in the differential diagnosis of ovarian masses

Background: Cancer antigen 125 (CA125) is the best known single tumor marker for ovarian cancer (OC). We investigated whether the additional information of the human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) improves diagnostic accuracy. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed preoperative sera of 109 healthy women, 285 patients with benign ovarian masses (cystadenoma: n = 78, leimyoma: n = 66, endometriosis: n = 52, functional ovarian cysts: n = 79, other: n = 10), 16 low malignant potential (LMP) ovarian tumors and 125 OC (stage 1: 22, II: 15, III: 78, IV: 10). CA 125 was analyzed using the ARCHITECT system, HE4 using the ARCHITECT(a) system and EIA(e) technology additionally. Results: The lowest concentrations of CA125 and HE4 were observed in healthy individuals, followed by patients with benign adnexal masses and patients with LMP tumors and OC. The area under the curve (AUC) for the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses of CA 125 alone was not significantly different to HE4 alone in premenopausal (CA 125: 86.7, HE4(a): 82.6, HE4(e): 81.6% p > 0.05) but significantly different in postmenopausal {[}CA125: 93.4 vs. HE4(a): 88.3 p = 0.023 and vs. HE4(e): 87.8% p=0.012] patients. For stage I OC, HE4 as a single marker was superior to CA 125, which was the best single marker in stage H-IV. The combination of CA 125 and HE4 using risk of malignancy algorithm (ROMA) gained the highest sensitivity at 95% specificity for the differential diagnosis of adnexal masses {[}CA 125: 70.9, HE4(a): 67.4, HE4(e): 66.0, ROMA(a): 76.6 and ROMA(e): 74.5%], especially in stage I OC {[}CA 125: 27.3, HE4(a): 40.9, HE4(e): 40.9, ROMA(a): 45.5 and ROMA(e): 45.5%]. Conclusions: CA 125 is still the best single marker in the diagnosis of OC. HE4 alone and even more the combined analysis of CA 125 and HE4 using ROMA improve the diagnostic accuracy of adnexal masses, especially in early OC

Glycodelin A is a prognostic marker to predict poor outcome in advanced stage ovarian cancer patients

Background Glycodelin is a cell surface glycoprotein offering a unique gender specific carbohydrate configuration. Sialylated carbohydrate structures, which are unusual for mammals, characterize Glycodelin isolated from amniotic fluid (Glycodelin A, GdA). Glycodelin in general exerts multiple, partly opposing functions ranging from immunosuppression to cell differentiation. As these markedly influence tumorigenesis, this study aimed to clarify whether expression of different Glycodelin isoforms is related to clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of ovarian cancer patients. Further the use of Glycodelin as a serum marker in benign and malignant ovarian diseases was evaluated. Methods Ovarian cancer specimens (n = 152) were stained for Glycodelin with carbohydrate and peptide specific antibodies. Associations between Glycodelin expression and histological grading, FIGO stage as well as patient’s prognosis were examined. Glycodelin was correlated to expression of gonadotropin receptors and mucin-1, which are discussed as ovarian cancer tissue markers. In addition, Glycodelin serum concentrations were analyzed in patients suffering from benign (n = 73) or malignant (n = 38) ovarian neoplasias. Results Glycodelin A was found to be an independent prognostic marker for poor prognosis in advanced ovarian cancer patients. GdA staining correlated with gonadotropin receptor (FSHR and LHCGR) and with hCG expression. Gd expression showed a positive correlation with a tumour-associated epitope of mucin 1 (TA-MUC1). Further, compared to ovarian cancer, serum Gd was increased in patients with benign ovarian tumors. Conclusion Glycodelin A might be related to tumor aggressiveness and poor clinical outcome in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Glycodelin serum levels found in patients suffering from benign ovarian tumors, might contribute to a more global attenuation during progression of these precursor lesions

Steroid hormone receptor expression in ovarian cancer: progesterone receptor B as prognostic marker for patient survival

Background: There is partially conflicting evidence on the influence of the steroid hormones estrogen (E) and progesterone (P) on the development of ovarian cancer (OC). The aim of this study was to assess the expression of the receptor isoforms ER-alpha/-beta and PR-A/-B in OC tissue and to analyze its impact on clinical and pathological features and patient outcome. Methods: 155 OC patients were included who had been diagnosed and treated between 1990 and 2002. Patient characteristics, histology and follow-up data were available. ER-alpha/-beta and PR-A/-B expression were determined by immunohistochemistry. Results: OC tissue was positive for ER-alpha/-beta in ER-alpha/-beta and 60.1% and PR-A/-B in 36.2% and 33.8%, respectively. We identified significant differences in ER beta expression related to the histological subtype (p=0.041), stage (p=0.002) and grade (p=0.011) as well as PR-A and tumor stage (p=0.03). Interestingly, median receptor expression for ER-alpha and PR-A/-B was significantly higher in G1 vs. G2 OC. Kaplan Meier analysis revealed a good prognosis for ER-alpha positive (p=0.039) and PR-B positive (<0.001) OC. In contrast, ER-beta negative OC had a favorable outcome (p=0.049). Besides tumor grade and stage, Cox-regression analysis showed PR-B to be an independent prognostic marker for patient survival (p=0.009, 95% CI 0.251-0.823, HR 0.455). Conclusion: ER-alpha/-beta and PR-A/-B are frequently expressed in OC with a certain variability relating to histological subtype, grade and stage. Univariate analysis indicated a favorable outcome for ER-alpha positive and PR-B positive OC, while multivariate analysis showed PR-B to be the only independent prognostic marker for patient survival. In conclusion, ER and PR receptors may be useful targets for a more individualized OC therapy

The G-Protein-Coupled Estrogen Receptor (GPER/GPR30) in Ovarian Granulosa Cell Tumors

Ovarian granulosa cell tumors (GCTs) are thought to arise from cells of the ovarian follicle and comprise a rare entity of ovarian masses. We recently identified the G-protein-coupled estrogen receptor (GPER/GPR30) to be present in granulosa cells, to be regulated by gonadotropins in epithelial ovarian cancer and to be differentially expressed throughout folliculogenesis. Thus, supposing a possible role of GPER in GCTs, this study aimed to analyze GPER in GCTs. GPER immunoreactivity in GCTs (n = 26; n (primary diagnosis) = 15, n (recurrence) = 11) was studied and correlated with the main clinicopathological variables. Positive GPER staining was identified in 53.8% (14/26) of GCTs and there was no significant relation of GPER with tumor size or lymph node status. Those cases presenting with strong GPER intensity at primary diagnosis showed a significant reduced overall survival (p = 0.002). Due to the fact that GPER is regulated by estrogens, as well as gonadotropins, GPER may also be affected by endocrine therapies applied to GCT patients. Moreover, with our data supposing GPER to be associated with GCT prognosis, GPER might be considered as a possible confounder when assessing the efficacy of hormone-based therapeutic approaches in GCTs

KRAS, BRAF genotyping reveals genetic heterogeneity of ovarian borderline tumors and associated implants

Background: Patients diagnosed for a serous ovarian borderline tumor (s-BOT) typically present with an excellent clinical outcome. However there have been controversies concerning the prognostic impact of so-called implants, an extra ovarian spread occurring alongside the s-BOT in certain cases. It remains obscure whether these implants actually resemble metastasis owning the same genetic pattern as the ovarian primary or whether they develop independently. Methods: The current study, in the aim of further clarifying the genetic origin of implants, assessed BRAF/KRAS hot spot mutations and the p53/p16(INK4a) immunophenotype of s-BOTs and corresponding implants (n = 49) of 15 patients by pyro-sequencing and immunostaining, respectively. Results: A significant proportion of both s-BOTs and implants showed KRAS or BRAF mutation and though p16(INK4a) was found to be abundantly expressed, p53 immunoreactivity was rather low. When genotypes of BRAF/KRAS mutated s-BOTs and corresponding implants were compared no patient presented with a fully matching mutation profile of s-BOTs and all corresponding implants. Conclusions: The current study reveals genetic heterogeneity of s-BOTs and implants, as none of the markers examined showed constant reciprocity. Hence, our findings may assist to explain the different clinical presentation of s-BOTs and implants and might encourage to applying more individualized follow up protocols

Immunosuppressive Glycodelin A is an independent marker for poor prognosis in endometrial cancer

Background: Knowledge on immunosuppressive factors in the pathogenesis of endometrial cancer is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess Glycodelin (Gd) and its immunosuppressive isoform Glycodelin A (GdA) in endometrial cancer tissue and to analyze its impact on clinical and pathological features and patient outcome. Methods: 292 patients diagnosed and treated for endometrial cancer were included. Patient characteristics, histology and follow-up data were available. Gd and GdA was determined by immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization was performed for Gd mRNA. Results: Endometrial cancer shows intermediate (52.2%) or high (20.6%) expression for Gd in 72.8%, and GdA in 71.6% (intermediate 62.6%, high 9.\%) of all cases. The glycosylation dependent staining of GdA is tumour specific and correlates with the peptide-specific Gd staining though neither of the two is associated with estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor or clinic-pathological features. Also Gd protein positively correlates with Gd mRNA as quantified by in situ hybridization. Gd positive cases have a favourable prognosis (p = 0.039), while GdA positive patients have a poor outcome (p = 0.003). Cox-regression analysis proofed GdA to be an independent prognostic marker for patient survival (p = 0.002), besides tumour stage, grade and the concomitant diagnosis of hypertension. Conclusion: Gd and GdA are commonly expressed in endometrial cancer tissue and seem to be of relevance in tumourigenesis. They differ not only in glycosylation but also in their biological activity, since only GdA holds prognostic significance for a poor overall survival in endometrial cancer patients. This finding might be explained by GdAs immunosuppressive capacity

KRAS, BRAF genotyping reveals genetic heterogeneity of ovarian borderline tumors and associated implants

Background: Patients diagnosed for a serous ovarian borderline tumor (s-BOT) typically present with an excellent clinical outcome. However there have been controversies concerning the prognostic impact of so-called implants, an extra ovarian spread occurring alongside the s-BOT in certain cases. It remains obscure whether these implants actually resemble metastasis owning the same genetic pattern as the ovarian primary or whether they develop independently. Methods: The current study, in the aim of further clarifying the genetic origin of implants, assessed BRAF/KRAS hot spot mutations and the p53/p16(INK4a) immunophenotype of s-BOTs and corresponding implants (n = 49) of 15 patients by pyro-sequencing and immunostaining, respectively. Results: A significant proportion of both s-BOTs and implants showed KRAS or BRAF mutation and though p16(INK4a) was found to be abundantly expressed, p53 immunoreactivity was rather low. When genotypes of BRAF/KRAS mutated s-BOTs and corresponding implants were compared no patient presented with a fully matching mutation profile of s-BOTs and all corresponding implants. Conclusions: The current study reveals genetic heterogeneity of s-BOTs and implants, as none of the markers examined showed constant reciprocity. Hence, our findings may assist to explain the different clinical presentation of s-BOTs and implants and might encourage to applying more individualized follow up protocols

Immunosuppressive Glycodelin A is an independent marker for poor prognosis in endometrial cancer

Background: Knowledge on immunosuppressive factors in the pathogenesis of endometrial cancer is scarce. The aim of this study was to assess Glycodelin (Gd) and its immunosuppressive isoform Glycodelin A (GdA) in endometrial cancer tissue and to analyze its impact on clinical and pathological features and patient outcome. Methods: 292 patients diagnosed and treated for endometrial cancer were included. Patient characteristics, histology and follow-up data were available. Gd and GdA was determined by immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization was performed for Gd mRNA. Results: Endometrial cancer shows intermediate (52.2%) or high (20.6%) expression for Gd in 72.8%, and GdA in 71.6% (intermediate 62.6%, high 9.\%) of all cases. The glycosylation dependent staining of GdA is tumour specific and correlates with the peptide-specific Gd staining though neither of the two is associated with estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor or clinic-pathological features. Also Gd protein positively correlates with Gd mRNA as quantified by in situ hybridization. Gd positive cases have a favourable prognosis (p = 0.039), while GdA positive patients have a poor outcome (p = 0.003). Cox-regression analysis proofed GdA to be an independent prognostic marker for patient survival (p = 0.002), besides tumour stage, grade and the concomitant diagnosis of hypertension. Conclusion: Gd and GdA are commonly expressed in endometrial cancer tissue and seem to be of relevance in tumourigenesis. They differ not only in glycosylation but also in their biological activity, since only GdA holds prognostic significance for a poor overall survival in endometrial cancer patients. This finding might be explained by GdAs immunosuppressive capacity