In situ aromatase expression in primary tumor is associated with estrogen receptor expression but is not predictive of response to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>New, third-generation aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have proven comparable or superior to the anti-estrogen tamoxifen for treatment of estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) positive breast cancer. AIs suppress total body and intratumoral estrogen levels. It is unclear whether <it>in situ </it>carcinoma cell aromatization is the primary source of estrogen production for tumor growth and whether the aromatase expression is predictive of response to endocrine therapy. Due to methodological difficulties in the determination of the aromatase protein, COX-2, an enzyme involved in the synthesis of aromatase, has been suggested as a surrogate marker for aromatase expression.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Primary tumor material was retrospectively collected from 88 patients who participated in a randomized clinical trial comparing the AI letrozole to the anti-estrogen tamoxifen for first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer. Semi-quantitative immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis was performed for ER, PR, COX-2 and aromatase using Tissue Microarrays (TMAs). Aromatase was also analyzed using whole sections (WS). Kappa analysis was applied to compare association of protein expression levels. Univariate Wilcoxon analysis and the Cox-analysis were performed to evaluate time to progression (TTP) in relation to marker expression.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Aromatase expression was associated with ER, but not with PR or COX-2 expression in carcinoma cells. Measurements of aromatase in WS were not comparable to results from TMAs. Expression of COX-2 and aromatase did not predict response to endocrine therapy. Aromatase in combination with high PR expression may select letrozole treated patients with a longer TTP.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>TMAs are not suitable for IHC analysis of <it>in situ </it>aromatase expression and we did not find COX-2 expression in carcinoma cells to be a surrogate marker for aromatase. <it>In situ </it>aromatase expression in tumor cells is associated with ER expression and may thus point towards good prognosis. Aromatase expression in cancer cells is not predictive of response to endocrine therapy, indicating that <it>in situ </it>estrogen synthesis may not be the major source of intratumoral estrogen. However, aromatase expression in combination with high PR expression may select letrozole treated patients with longer TTP.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Sub-study of trial P025 for advanced breast cancer.</p

Endocrine therapy for breast cancer: a model of hormonal manipulation

Oestrogen receptor (ER) is the driving transcription factor in 70% of breast cancer. Endocrine therapies targeting the ER represent one of the most successful anticancer strategies to date. In the clinic, novel targeted agents are now being exploited in combination with established endocrine therapies to maximise efficacy. However, clinicians must balance this gain against the risk to patients of increased side effects with combination therapies. This article provides a succinct outline of the principles of hormonal manipulation in breast cancer, alongside the key evidence that underpins current clinical practice. As the role of endocrine therapy in breast cancer continues to expand, the challenge is to interpret the data and select the optimal strategy for a given clinical scenario

20-Year Risks of Breast-Cancer Recurrence after Stopping Endocrine Therapy at 5 Years

The administration of endocrine therapy for 5 years substantially reduces recurrence rates during and after treatment in women with early-stage, estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. Extending such therapy beyond 5 years offers further protection but has additional side effects. Obtaining data on the absolute risk of subsequent distant recurrence if therapy stops at 5 years could help determine whether to extend treatment

Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials

Background Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for early breast cancer can make breast-conserving surgery more feasible and might be more likely to eradicate micrometastatic disease than might the same chemotherapy given after surgery. We investigated the long-term benefits and risks of NACT and the influence of tumour characteristics on outcome with a collaborative meta-analysis of individual patient data from relevant randomised trials. Methods We obtained information about prerandomisation tumour characteristics, clinical tumour response, surgery, recurrence, and mortality for 4756 women in ten randomised trials in early breast cancer that began before 2005 and compared NACT with the same chemotherapy given postoperatively. Primary outcomes were tumour response, extent of local therapy, local and distant recurrence, breast cancer death, and overall mortality. Analyses by intention-to-treat used standard regression (for response and frequency of breast-conserving therapy) and log-rank methods (for recurrence and mortality). Findings Patients entered the trials from 1983 to 2002 and median follow-up was 9 years (IQR 5–14), with the last follow-up in 2013. Most chemotherapy was anthracycline based (3838 [81%] of 4756 women). More than two thirds (1349 [69%] of 1947) of women allocated NACT had a complete or partial clinical response. Patients allocated NACT had an increased frequency of breast-conserving therapy (1504 [65%] of 2320 treated with NACT vs 1135 [49%] of 2318 treated with adjuvant chemotherapy). NACT was associated with more frequent local recurrence than was adjuvant chemotherapy: the 15 year local recurrence was 21·4% for NACT versus 15·9% for adjuvant chemotherapy (5·5% increase [95% CI 2·4–8·6]; rate ratio 1·37 [95% CI 1·17–1·61]; p=0·0001). No significant difference between NACT and adjuvant chemotherapy was noted for distant recurrence (15 year risk 38·2% for NACT vs 38·0% for adjuvant chemotherapy; rate ratio 1·02 [95% CI 0·92–1·14]; p=0·66), breast cancer mortality (34·4% vs 33·7%; 1·06 [0·95–1·18]; p=0·31), or death from any cause (40·9% vs 41·2%; 1·04 [0·94–1·15]; p=0·45). Interpretation Tumours downsized by NACT might have higher local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy than might tumours of the same dimensions in women who have not received NACT. Strategies to mitigate the increased local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy in tumours downsized by NACT should be considered—eg, careful tumour localisation, detailed pathological assessment, and appropriate radiotherapy

Meta-analyses of visceral versus non-visceral metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer treated by endocrine monotherapies

AbstractEndocrine therapy (ET) is recommended as first-line therapy for the majority of patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor 2-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC); however, the efficacy of ET in patients with visceral metastases (VM) versus patients whose disease is limited to non-visceral metastases (non-VM) is debated. Meta-analyses including available data from randomised controlled trials of first- and second-line endocrine monotherapies for patients with HR+ ABC were performed to address this question. In one and two-stage meta-analyses, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), clinical benefit rate (CBR) and duration of clinical benefit (DoCB) outcomes were analysed. In the first-line meta-analysis (seven trials; n = 1988) tamoxifen and fulvestrant significantly improved PFS, OS and CBR for patients with non-VM versus those whose disease included VM. The most substantial hazard ratios were observed for fulvestrant 500 mg; 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45−0.70) and 0.55 (95% CI 0.42−0.72) for PFS and OS, respectively. In the second-line meta-analysis (seven trials; n = 2324), all ET combined was more effective (in terms of PFS, OS and DoCB) for non-VM versus VM. In both meta-analyses, patients with non-liver VM had better clinical outcomes than patients with liver VM for all types of ET. Patients whose disease included non-VM sites had better clinical outcomes with endocrine monotherapy compared with patients whose disease included VM. These findings may facilitate better informed treatment decision-making.</jats:p