4.7 Article

Cyclophosphamide Dose Intensification May Circumvent Anthracycline Resistance of p53 Mutant Breast Cancers

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 246-252

出版社

ALPHAMED PRESS
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2009-0243

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The predictive value of p53 for the efficacy of front-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimens has been a matter of significant controversy. Anthracyclines are usually combined with widely different doses of alkylating agents, which may significantly modulate tumor response to these combinations. We analyzed three series of de novo stage II-III breast cancer patients treated front line with anthracycline-based regimens of various cyclophosphamide dose intensities: 65 patients with estrogen receptor (ER)(-) tumors treated with anthracyclines alone (Institut Jules Bordet, Brussels), 51 unselected breast cancer patients treated with intermediate doses of cyclophosphamide (MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX), and 128 others treated with a dose-dense anthracycline-cyclophosphamide combination (St. Louis, Paris). After chemotherapy and surgery, pathologic complete response (pCR) was evaluated. p53 status was determined by a yeast functional assay on the pretreatment tumor sample. In a multivariate analysis of the pooled results, a lack of ER expression and high-dose cyclophosphamide administration were associated with a higher likelihood of pCR. A sharp statistical interaction was detected between p53 status and cyclophosphamide dose intensity. Indeed, when restricting our analysis to patients with ER- tumors, we confirmed that a mutant p53 status was associated with anthracycline resistance, but found that p53 inactivation was required for response to the dose-intense alkylating regimen. The latter allowed very high levels of pCR in triple-negative tumors. Thus, our data strongly suggest that cyclophosphamide dose intensification in ER- p53-mutated breast cancer patients could significantly improve their response. The Oncologist 2010; 15: 246-252

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据