83
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Immunohistochemistry of primary breast cancer is routinely used to guide changes in therapy at the time of relapse. Retrospective reviews suggest that the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) receptor may differ between the primary and loco-regional recurrence or distant metastases. The Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS) was a large, multicentre, prospective study to examine changes in ER, PR and HER2.

          Methods

          Matched primary and recurrent breast cancer tissue samples were prospectively collected from 205 women attending 20 institutions. Central laboratory immunohistochemical analysis of core biopsies and tissue microarrays of ER and PR using the Allred and Quickscore methods and HER2 (confirmed by fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) for HER2 2+) were performed.

          Results

          From 205 consenting women, 18 (8.8%) did not have recurrent disease on biopsy, 35 were ineligible, 13 had insufficient paired tissue and 2 were excluded for safety reasons. Paired samples from 137 women, mean age 62.6 years (range 27-87 years), 83/137 (60.6%) postmenopausal with a median 92.2 months (range 5-327 months) from primary to recurrence and 88 (64.2%) as locoregional recurrence were successfully analysed. A switch in receptor status, in either direction, by Allred score, was identified for ER in 14 patients (10.2%; P = 0.983 Wilcoxon sign rank test), PR in 34 (24.8%; P = 0.003 Wilcoxon sign rank test) and HER2 in 4 (2.9%; P = 0.074 Wilcoxon sign rank test). There was no difference between locoregional or distant recurrence in the proportion who switched. The switch in receptor status led to a change in the subsequent treatment plan for 24 patients (17.5%).

          Conclusions

          This prospective study confirms retrospective evidence that the management of relapsed breast cancer should include confirmatory tissue sampling and identify switches of ER, PR or HER2 which change therapeutic management for one in six patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prognostic impact of discordance between triple-receptor measurements in primary and recurrent breast cancer.

          We evaluated discordance in expression measurements for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 between primary and recurrent tumors in patients with recurrent breast cancer and its effect on prognosis. A total of 789 patients with recurrent breast cancer were studied. ER, PR, and HER2 status were determined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and/or FISH. Repeat markers for ER, PR, and HER2 were available in 28.9%, 27.6%, and 70.0%, respectively. Primary and recurrent tumors were classified as triple receptor-negative breast cancer (TNBC) or receptor-positive breast cancer (RPBC, i.e. expressing at least one receptor). Discordance was correlated with clinical/pathological parameters. Discordance for ER, PR, and HER2 was 18.4%, 40.3%, and 13.6%, respectively. Patients with concordant RPBC had significantly better post-recurrence survival (PRS) than discordant cases; patients with discordant receptor status had similarly unfavorable survival as patients with concordant TNBC. IHC scores for ER and PR showed weak concordance between primary and recurrent tumors. Concordance of HER2-FISH scores was higher. Concordance of quantitative hormone receptor measurements between primary and recurrent tumors is modest consistent with suboptimal reproducibility of measurement methods, particularly for IHC. Discordant cases have poor survival probably due to inappropriate use of targeted therapies. However, biological change in clinical phenotype cannot be completely excluded.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Does confirmatory tumor biopsy alter the management of breast cancer patients with distant metastases?

            Background: Decisions about systemic treatment of women with metastatic breast cancer are often based on estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), and Her2 status of the primary tumor. This study prospectively investigated concordance in receptor status between primary tumor and distant metastases and assessed the impact of any discordance on patient management. Materials and methods: Biopsies of suspected metastatic lesions were obtained from patients and analyzed for ER/PgR and Her2. Receptor status was compared for metastases and primary tumors. Questionnaires were completed by the oncologist before and after biopsy to determine whether the biopsy results changed the treatment plan. Results: Forty women were enrolled; 35 of them underwent biopsy, yielding 29 samples sufficient for analysis; 3/29 biopsies (10%) showed benign disease. Changes in hormone receptor status were observed in 40% (P = 0.003) and in Her2 status in 8% of women. Biopsy results led to a change of management in 20% of patients (P = 0.002). Conclusions: This prospective study demonstrates the presence of substantial discordance in receptor status between primary tumor and metastases, which led to altered management in 20% of cases. Tissue confirmation should be considered in patients with clinical or radiological suspicion of metastatic recurrence.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Loss of estrogen receptor in recurrent breast cancer is associated with poor response to endocrine therapy.

              Up to 30% to 40% of metastases from hormone receptor-positive primary breast cancer do not respond to endocrine therapy. We studied how often hormone receptor status changes between primary and recurrent tumors and whether such a change might explain unresponsiveness to endocrine therapy. Primary breast cancer samples and matched asynchronous recurrences were studied from 50 patients who had not received any adjuvant therapy. Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) status was determined immunohistochemically from histologically representative formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor samples. ER status was ascertained by mRNA in situ hybridization. Thirty-five (70%) of 50 primary tumors were positive for ER and 30 (60%) for PR. Hormone receptor status of the recurrent tumor differed from that of the primary tumor in 18 cases (36%). Discordant cases were due to the loss of ER (n = 6), loss of PR (n = 6), or loss of both receptors (n = 6). Receptor-negative primary tumors were always accompanied by receptor-negative recurrences. Among 27 patients with ER-positive primary tumors, loss of ER was a significant predictor (P = .0085) of poor response to subsequent endocrine therapy. Only one of eight patients (12.5%) with lost ER expression responded to tamoxifen therapy, whereas the response rate was 74% (14 of 19) for patients whose recurrent tumors retained ER expression. Loss of ER expression in recurrent breast cancer should be considered as a cause for poor response to endocrine therapy in primarily ER-positive patients. We conclude that analysis of recurrent tumor samples may improve the predictive value of ER and PR assays.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Breast Cancer Res
                Breast Cancer Research : BCR
                BioMed Central
                1465-5411
                1465-542X
                2010
                8 November 2010
                : 12
                : 6
                : R92
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery and Molecular Oncology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK
                [2 ]Department of Surgical Oncology, MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Houston, TX 77030, USA
                [3 ]Department of Pathology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK
                [4 ]AstraZeneca, 15 Stanhope Gate, London, W1K 1LN, UK
                [5 ]Department of Surgery, Royal Bournemouth Hospital, Castle Lane East, Bournemouth, Dorset, BH24 4AX, UK
                [6 ]Department of Oncology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK
                Article
                bcr2771
                10.1186/bcr2771
                3046433
                21059212
                f8038396-6d61-494a-b5cc-31ed42e16419
                Copyright ©2010 Thompson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 1 June 2010
                : 27 July 2010
                : 8 November 2010
                Categories
                Research Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                Oncology & Radiotherapy

                Comments

                Comment on this article