Display options
Cite
Nakashoji A, Matsui A, Nagayama A, et al. Clinical predictors of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Oncol Lett. 2017;14(4):4135-4141doi: 10.3892/ol.2017.6692.
Nakashoji, A., Matsui, A., Nagayama, A., Iwata, Y., Sasahara, M., & Murata, Y. (2017). Clinical predictors of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Oncology letters, 14(4), 4135-4141. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.6692
Nakashoji, Ayako, et al. "Clinical predictors of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer." Oncology letters vol. 14,4 (2017): 4135-4141. doi: https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2017.6692
Nakashoji A, Matsui A, Nagayama A, Iwata Y, Sasahara M, Murata Y. Clinical predictors of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer. Oncol Lett. 2017 Oct;14(4):4135-4141. doi: 10.3892/ol.2017.6692. Epub 2017 Aug 01. PMID: 28943920; PMCID: PMC5604131.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Oncol Lett. 2017 Oct;14(4):4135-4141. doi: 10.3892/ol.2017.6692. Epub 2017 Aug 01.

Clinical predictors of pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer.

Oncology letters

Ayako Nakashoji, Akira Matsui, Aiko Nagayama, Yuko Iwata, Manami Sasahara, Yuya Murata

Affiliations

  1. Department of Breast Surgery, National Hospital Organization Tokyo Medical Center, Tokyo 152-8902, Japan.
  2. Department of Clinical Examination, National Hospital Organization Tokyo Medical Center, Tokyo 152-8902, Japan.

PMID: 28943920 PMCID: PMC5604131 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2017.6692

Abstract

The response of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to chemotherapy is heterogeneous; particular subtype classifications based on mRNA gene expression analysis have been demonstrated to be associated with a pathological complete response (pCR). The aim of the present study was to investigate additional clinical and pathological characteristics associated with pCR status. The pathological and clinical characteristics of 40 TNBC patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery were retrospectively analyzed by dividing the cases into two groups according to the response to treatment: pCR (n=12) and non-pCR (n=28). Clinically, patients in the pCR group presented tumors with a significantly less advanced Tumor-Node-Metastasis stage (P=0.030) and mammographic calcification was less common (17 vs. 58%; P=0.034). Pathologically, whereas all cases in the pCR group (12/12, 100%) were of the histological type 'invasive ductal carcinoma, not otherwise specified' (IDC-NOS), the non-pCR group consisted of a lower proportion of IDC-NOS cases (20/28, 71%) and more cases of special histological types, including mucinous, metaplastic, medullary and apocrine carcinomas (P=0.079). The positive rates of androgen receptor (AR) and forkhead-box A1 (FOXA1) tended to be lower in the pCR group (AR, 0 vs. 29%, P=0.079; FOXA1, 8 vs. 29%, P=0.233). The Ki-67 score was significantly higher in the pCR group than in the non-pCR group (P=0.041). The results suggest that patients with TNBC who present with clinically less advanced tumors and less frequent mammographic calcification are more likely to respond to chemotherapy. From a pathological standpoint, IDC-NOS type, negative AR status and higher Ki-67 scores may be associated with chemotherapy sensitivity.

Keywords: androgen receptor; mammographic calcifications; neoadjuvant chemotherapy; pathological complete response; triple-negative breast cancer

References

  1. J Cancer Res Ther. 2014 Jul-Sep;10(3):506-11 - PubMed
  2. J Clin Invest. 2011 Jul;121(7):2750-67 - PubMed
  3. Radiographics. 2013 Oct;33(6):1569-88 - PubMed
  4. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Apr;132(3):793-805 - PubMed
  5. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Apr 15;13(8):2329-34 - PubMed
  6. Oncotarget. 2015 Sep 29;6(29):26560-74 - PubMed
  7. Mol Clin Oncol. 2015 Sep;3(5):1117-1122 - PubMed
  8. Clin Cancer Res. 2013 Oct 1;19(19):5533-40 - PubMed
  9. Anticancer Res. 2014 Mar;34(3):1261-7 - PubMed
  10. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 11;9(2):e88853 - PubMed
  11. Tumour Biol. 1991;12(2):82-90 - PubMed
  12. Cancer Res. 2009 May 15;69(10 ):4116-24 - PubMed
  13. PLoS One. 2016 Jun 16;11(6):e0157368 - PubMed
  14. J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 10;26(8):1275-81 - PubMed
  15. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jan 10;27(2):220-6 - PubMed
  16. Oncotarget. 2016 Jul 12;7(28):44288-44298 - PubMed
  17. Ann Oncol. 2013 Nov;24(11):2786-93 - PubMed
  18. J Clin Oncol. 2012 May 20;30(15):1796-804 - PubMed
  19. Br J Cancer. 2016 Jan 12;114(1):14-20 - PubMed
  20. Eur Radiol. 2015 Feb;25(2):419-27 - PubMed
  21. Cancer. 2007 May 1;109(9):1721-8 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Oncol. 2014 Sep 20;32(27):2959-66 - PubMed
  23. J Clin Oncol. 2013 Nov 1;31(31):3997-4013 - PubMed
  24. Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Aug 15;11(16):5678-85 - PubMed
  25. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014 Dec;148(3):525-34 - PubMed
  26. Cancer. 1994 Apr 15;73(8):2181-5 - PubMed
  27. Cancer Sci. 2014 Nov;105(11):1377-83 - PubMed

Publication Types