Dataset Information

Estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor as predictive biomarkers of response to endocrine therapy: a prospectively powered pathology study in the Tamoxifen and Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The Tamoxifen and Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational (TEAM) trial included a prospectively planned pathology substudy testing the predictive value of progesterone receptor (PgR) expression for outcome of estrogen receptor-positive (ER-positive) early breast cancer treated with exemestane versus tamoxifen.

Patients and methods

Pathology blocks from 4,781 TEAM patients randomly assigned to exemestane versus tamoxifen followed by exemestane for 5 years of total therapy were collected centrally, and tissue microarrays were constructed from samples from 4,598 patients. Quantitative analysis of hormone receptors (ER and PgR) was performed by using image analysis and immunohistochemistry, and the results were linked to outcome data from the main TEAM trial and analyzed relative to disease-free survival and treatment.

Results

Of 4,325 eligible ER-positive patients, 23% were PgR-poor (Allred < 4) and 77% were PgR- rich (Allred ≥ 5). No treatment-by-marker effect for PgR was observed for exemestane versus tamoxifen (PgR-rich hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.05; PgR-poor HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.19; P = .88 for interaction). Both PgR and ER expression were associated with patient prognosis in univariate (PgR HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.65; P < .001; ER HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.86; P = .002), and multivariate analyses (P < .001 and P = .001, respectively). A trend toward a treatment-by-marker effect for ER-rich patients was observed.

Conclusion

Preferential exemestane versus tamoxifen treatment benefit was not predicted by PgR expression; conversely, patients with ER-rich tumors may derive additional benefit from exemestane. Quantitative analysis of ER and PgR expression provides highly significant information on risk of early relapse (within 1 to 3 years) during treatment.

SUBMITTER: Bartlett JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3082973 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The clinical significance of progesterone receptor (PgR) expression in estrogen receptor-negative (ER-) breast cancer is controversial. Herein, we systemically investigate the clinicopathologic features, molecular essence, and endocrine responsiveness of ER-/PgR+/HER2- phenotype.Four study cohorts were included. The first and second cohorts were from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (n?=?67,932) and Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (n?=?2,338), respectively, for clinicopathologic and survival analysis. The third and fourth cohorts were from two independent publicly available microarray datasets including 837 operable cases and 483 cases undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, respectively, for clinicopathologic and gene-expression analysis. Characterized genes defining subgroups within the ER-/PgR+/HER2- phenotype were determined and further validated.Clinicopathologic features and survival outcomes of the ER-/PgR+ phenotype fell in between the ER+/PgR+ and ER-/PgR- phenotypes, but were more similar to ER-/PgR-. Among the ER-/PgR+ phenotype, 30% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17-42%, pooled by a fixed-effects method) were luminal-like and 59% (95% CI 45-72%, pooled by a fixed-effects method) were basal-like. We further refined the characterized genes for subtypes within the ER-/PgR+ phenotype and developed an immunohistochemistry-based method that could determine the molecular essence of ER-/PgR+ using three markers, TFF1, CK5, and EGFR. Either PAM50-defined or immunohistochemistry-defined basal-like ER-/PgR+ cases have a lower endocrine therapy sensitivity score compared with luminal-like ER-/PgR+ cases (P <0.0001 by Mann-Whitney test for each study set and P <0.0001 for pooled standardized mean difference in meta-analysis). Immunohistochemistry-defined basal-like ER-/PgR+ cases might not benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy (log-rank P?=?0.61 for sufficient versus insufficient endocrine therapy).The majority of ER-/PgR+/HER2- phenotype breast cancers are basal-like and associated with a lower endocrine therapy sensitivity score. Additional studies are needed to validate these findings.

Project description:Estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-negative, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (ER+PR-HER2-) breast cancer comprise a special type of breast cancer that constitutes ~10% of all breast cancer patients. ER+PR-HER2- tumor benefits less from endocrine therapy, while its genomic features remain elusive. In this study, we systematically assessed the multiomic landscape and endocrine responsiveness of ER+PR-HER2- breast cancer. Methods: This study incorporated five cohorts. The first and second cohorts were from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (n=130,856) and Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (n=1,055) for analyzing survival outcomes and endocrine responsiveness. The third cohort was from The Cancer Genome Atlas (n=630) for multiomic analysis and endocrine-resistant subgroup exploration. The fourth cohort, from the MD Anderson database (n=92), was employed to assist gene selection. The fifth cohort was a prospective observational cohort from Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (n=245) that was utilized to validate the gene-defined subgroup by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Results: Clinically, ER+PR-HER2- tumors showed lower endocrine responsiveness than did ER+PR+HER2- tumors. Genomically, copy number loss or promoter methylation of PR genes occurred in 75% of ER+PR-HER2- tumors, collectively explaining PR loss. ER+PR-HER2- tumors had higher TP53 (30.3% vs. 17.0%) and lower PIK3CA mutation rates (25.8% vs. 42.7%) and exhibited more ZNF703 (21.5% vs. 13.6%) and RPS6KB1 (18.5% vs. 7.8%) amplification events than ER+PR+HER2- tumors. Among ER+PR-HER2- tumors, nearly 20% were of the PAM50-defined non-luminal-like subgroup and manifested lower endocrine sensitivity scores and enriched biosynthesis, metabolism and DNA replication pathways. We further identified the non-luminal-like subgroup using three IHC markers, GATA3, CK5, and EGFR. These IHC-defined non-luminal-like (GATA3-negative, CK5-positive and/or EGFR-positive) tumors received limited benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy. Conclusion: ER+PR-HER2- breast cancer consists of clinically and genomically distinct groups that may require different treatment strategies. The non-luminal-like subgroup was associated with reduced benefit from endocrine therapy.

Project description:PurposeTo describe estradiol (E2), estrone (E1), and estrone sulfate (E1S) levels during the first year of monthly triptorelin plus exemestane or tamoxifen and to assess possible suboptimal suppression while receiving exemestane plus triptorelin.Patients and methodsPremenopausal patients with early breast cancer on the Suppression of Ovarian Function Trial who selected triptorelin as the ovarian suppression method and were randomly assigned to exemestane plus triptorelin or tamoxifen plus triptorelin were enrolled until the target population of 120 patients was reached. Blood sampling time points were 0, 3, 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 48 months. Serum estrogens were measured with a highly sensitive and specific assay. This preplanned 12-month analysis evaluated E2, E1, E1S, follicle-stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone levels in all patients and the proportion of patients with E2 levels greater than 2.72 pg/mL at any time point during treatment with exemestane plus triptorelin.ResultsOne hundred sixteen patients (exemestane, n = 86; tamoxifen, n = 30; median age, 44 years; median E2, 51 pg/mL; 55% prior chemotherapy) started triptorelin and had one or more samples drawn. With exemestane plus triptorelin, median reductions from baseline E2, E1, and E1S levels were consistently ≥ 95%, resulting in significantly lower levels than with tamoxifen plus triptorelin at all time points. Among patients on exemestane plus triptorelin, 25%, 24%, and 17% had an E2 level greater than 2.72 pg/mL at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Baseline factors related to on-treatment E2 level greater than 2.72 pg/mL were no prior chemotherapy (P = .06), higher body mass index (P = .05), and lower follicle-stimulating hormone and luteinizing hormone (each P < .01).ConclusionDuring the first year, most patients on exemestane plus triptorelin had E2 levels below the defined threshold of 2.72 pg/mL, consistent with levels reported in postmenopausal patients on aromatase inhibitors, but at each time point, at least 17% of patients had levels greater than the threshold.