4.7 Article

Change in the hormone receptor status following administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on the long-term outcome in patients with primary breast cancer

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 101, Issue 9, Pages 1529-1536

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605360

Keywords

breast cancer; endocrine therapy; hormone receptor status change; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; prognosis

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare [H21-4-4]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of change in the hormone receptor (HR) status ( HR status conversion) on the long-term outcomes of breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). METHODS: We investigated 368 patients for the HR status of their lesions before and after NAC. On the basis of the HR status and the use/non-use of endocrine therapy ( ET), the patients were categorised into four groups: Group A, 184 ET-administered patients with HR-positive both before and after NAC; Group B, 47 ET-administered patients with HR status conversion; Group C, 12 ET-naive patients with HR status conversion; Group D, 125 patients with HR-negative both before and after NAC. RESULTS: Disease-free survival in Group B was similar to that in Group A ( hazard ratio, 1.16; P = 0.652), but that in Group C was significantly lesser than that in Group A ( hazard ratio, 6.88; P<0.001). A similar pattern of results was obtained for overall survival. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the HR status of tumours is a predictive factor for disease-free and overall survival and that ET appears to be suitable for patients with HR status conversion. Therefore, both the CNB and surgical specimens should be monitored for HR status. British Journal of Cancer ( 2009) 101, 1529-1536. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605360 www.bjcancer.com Published online 6 October 2009 (C) 2009 Cancer Research UK

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