4.2 Article

Evaluation of HER-2/neu amplification and other biological markers as predictors of response to neoadjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy in primary breast cancer - The role of anthrocycline dose intensity

Journal

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.coc.0000204405.96572.f9

Keywords

anthracyclines; breast cancer; HER-2/neu; neoadjuvant chemotherapy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: The value of HER-2/neu status as a predictor of response to anthracycline-based chemotherapy is still a matter of debate. We evaluated the contribution of HER-2/neu gene amplification and other biologic markers in predicting response to different doses of neoadjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Methods: Clinical and pathologic records of 115 primary breast cancer patients were reviewed. Forty-eight and 67 patients received high (doxorubicin >= 20 mg/m(2)/wk; epirubicin >= 30 mg/m(2)/wk) and moderate-low anthracycline dose intensity regimens, respectively. Pathologic diagnosis, hormonal receptor status (HR), Ki67, and HER-2/neu status were assessed on tumor samples before neoadjuvant chemotherapy. HER-2/neu was determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Results: HER-2/neu amplification was observed in 29/115 (25%) tumors, 18 from moderate-low-dose and 11 from high-dose group. In the univariate analysis, a high Ki67 index (>= 20%) and positive clinical axillary nodes were predictive of an objective tumor response (P = 0.033 and 0.001, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, Ki67 was the only factor predictive of response (OR = 3.08, 95% CI = 1.1-8.5, P = 0.03). HER-2/neu status was not a factor in predicting objective response to different anthracycline dose intensities. The same finding was observed with regards to HR and Ki67. Conclusions: In our series, no significant dose-response relationship was found according to HER-2/neu status.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available