4.7 Article

BRCA1-like profile predicts benefit of tandem high dose epirubicin-cyclophospamide-thiotepa in high risk breast cancer patients randomized in the WSG-AM01 trial

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 139, Issue 4, Pages 882-889

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/ijc.30078

Keywords

BRCA1; alkylating chemotherapy; predictive biomarker; copy number profiling

Categories

Funding

  1. A Sister's Hope

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BRCA1 is an important protein in the repair of DNA double strand breaks (DSBs), which are induced by alkylating chemotherapy. A BRCA1-like DNA copy number signature derived from tumors with a BRCA1 mutation is indicative for impaired BRCA1 function and associated with good outcome after high dose (HD) and tandem HD DSB inducing chemotherapy. We investigated whether BRCA1-like status was a predictive biomarker in the WSG AM 01 trial. WSG AM 01 randomized high-risk breast cancer patients to induction (2 x epirubicin-cyclophosphamide) followed by tandem HD chemotherapy with epirubicin, cyclophosphamide and thiotepa versus dose dense chemotherapy (4 x epirubicin-cyclophospamide followed by 3 x cyclophosphamide-methotrexate-5-fluorouracil). We generated copy number profiles for 143 tumors and classified them as being BRCA1-like or non-BRCA1-like. Twenty-six out of 143 patients were BRCA1-like. BRCA1-like status was associated with high grade and triple negative tumors. With regard to event-free-survival, the primary endpoint of the trial, patients with a BRCA1-like tumor had a hazard rate of 0.2, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.07-0.63, p = 0.006. In the interaction analysis, the combination of BRCA1-like status and HD chemotherapy had a hazard rate of 0.19, 95% CI: 0.067-0.54, p = 0.003. Similar results were observed for overall survival. These findings suggest that BRCA1-like status is a predictor for benefit of tandem HD chemotherapy with epirubicin-thiotepa-cyclophosphamide.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available