Clinical Cancer Research Targets Metabolism
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Colleoni, M.
Right arrow Articles by Goldhirsch, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Colleoni, M.
Right arrow Articles by Goldhirsch, A.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 10, 6622-6628, October 1, 2004
© 2004 American Association for Cancer Research


Molecular Oncology, Markers, Clinical Correlates

Chemotherapy Is More Effective in Patients with Breast Cancer Not Expressing Steroid Hormone Receptors

A Study of Preoperative Treatment

Marco Colleoni1, Giuseppe Viale3, David Zahrieh4, Giancarlo Pruneri3, Oreste Gentilini4, Paolo Veronesi2, Richard D. Gelber3, Giuseppe Curigliano1, Rosalba Torrisi1, Alberto Luini2, Mattia Intra2, Viviana Galimberti2, Giuseppe Renne3, Franco Nolè1, Giulia Peruzzotti1 and Aron Goldhirsch1

1 Department of Medicine and 2 Division of Senology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy; 3 Division of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology and University of Milan School of Medicine, Milan, Italy; and 4 International Breast Cancer Study Group Statistical Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Frontier Science and Technology Research Foundation, Boston, Massachusetts


    ABSTRACT
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Purpose: The purpose of this research was to identify factors predicting response to preoperative chemotherapy.

Experimental Design: In a large volume laboratory using standard immunohistochemical methods, we reviewed the pretreatment biopsies and histologic specimens at final surgery of 399 patients with large or locally advanced breast cancer (cT2-T4, N0–2, M0) who were treated with preoperative chemotherapy. The incidence of pathological complete remission and the incidence of node-negative status at final surgery were assessed with respect to initial pathological and clinical findings. Menopausal status, estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status [absent (0% of the cells positive) versus expressed], clinical tumor size, histologic grade, Ki-67, Her-2/neu expression, and type and route of chemotherapy were considered.

Results: High rates of pathological complete remission were associated with absence of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor expression (P < 0.0001), and grade 3 (P = 0.001). Significant predictors of node-negative status at surgery were absence of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor expression (P < 0.0001), clinical tumor size <5 cm (P < 0.001), and use of infusional regimens (P = 0.003). The chance of obtaining pathological complete remission or node-negative status for patients with endocrine nonresponsive tumors compared with those having some estrogen receptor or progesterone receptor expression was 4.22 (95% confidence interval, 2.20–8.09, 33.3% versus 7.5%) and 3.47 (95% confidence interval, 2.09–5.76, 42.9% versus 21.7%), respectively. Despite the significantly higher incidence of pathological complete remission and node-negative status achieved by preoperative chemotherapy for patients with estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor absent disease, the disease-free survival was significantly worse for this cohort compared with the low/positive expression cohort (4-year disease-free survival %: 41% versus 74%; hazard ratio 3.22; 95% confidence interval, 2.28–4.54; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions: Response to preoperative chemotherapy is significantly higher for patients with endocrine nonresponsive tumors. New chemotherapy regimens or combinations should be explored in this cohort of patients with poor outcome. For patients with endocrine responsive disease, the role of preoperative endocrine therapies should be studied.


    INTRODUCTION
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Experimental data support the hypothesis that chemotherapy given before surgery for breast cancer may improve patient outcome (1, 2, 3, 4) , yet the most effective timing and sequencing for systemic chemotherapy in operable breast cancer is still unclear. Outside clinical trials, such treatment is indicated only for patients with locally advanced disease or those in whom a reduction of primary tumor size may allow breast conservation. In fact, the only demonstrated benefit of preoperative chemotherapy in terms of treatment effects is the achievement of tumor shrinkage sufficient to allow breast saving surgery in some of the patients (i.e., dependent also on breast size, tumor size, and conditions allowing radiation therapy to the conserved breast). Several randomized trials comparing primary chemotherapy with traditional adjuvant treatment have been published, and no clear advantage in disease-free survival or overall survival was observed (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12) . Despite these unsatisfactory results, not a single trial led to an observation of a trend indicating that primary chemotherapy was detrimental. Surgical complications were not more prevalent, and the positive aspect was that more patients could be offered breast-conserving surgery after primary systemic treatment.

Preoperative chemotherapy might be advantageous for patients with breast cancer in several ways in addition to allowing breast conservation surgery in some of the patients. The response to the primary treatment may be used as a prognostic marker, because it was demonstrated to be associated with a longer disease-free survival compared with no response (9) . Not only the response but also the type and degree of response (pathological complete remission) predict overall outcome in terms of disease-free survival (9) . Finally, observed patterns of change for various biological features after exposure to primary treatment might also serve as a surrogate for qualitative and quantitative prediction of response.

Several strategies can be considered to improve results of preoperative chemotherapy. On one hand, the introduction of new drugs in preoperative chemotherapy regimens might provide some benefit as indicated recently in randomized trials (13 , 14) . A second useful strategy to improve knowledge about treatment effects is the early identification of features, which are associated with response or resistance to primary therapy. Identifying these features is a crucial step in the development of the most effective multimodal approaches, using a sequence of local and systemic treatments and identifying cohorts of patients most likely to benefit from preoperative chemotherapy.

To seek information on the predictive value of biological and clinical features we evaluated the course of disease in 399 patients with large operable primary breast cancer who had preoperative diagnosis and surgery performed at the European Institute of Oncology.


    PATIENTS AND METHODS
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Patients.
Prospectively collected data from 399 consecutive patients with clinical stage T2-T4d, N0–2 treated with preoperative chemotherapy from 1994 through 2002 were analyzed. Eligibility criteria for preoperative chemotherapy included no previous chemotherapy/hormonotherapy, performance status 0–2 (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale), measurable lesions, age between 18 and 70 years, white blood cells ≥4,000/mm3; platelets ≥100,000/mm3, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, {gamma}-GT ≤2.5 x upper limit of normal, and bilirubin ≤3 mg/100 mL.

Patients with cardiac disease (congestive heart failure and history of myocardial infarction within the previous 3 months), severe vascular disease, or uncontrolled concomitant infections were excluded. Patients had baseline liver and renal function tests, electrolyte studies, and complete blood count done within 2 weeks of inclusion in the study. Also, bilateral mammography and ultrasound, chest X-ray, abdominal ultrasound, bone scan, serum CA 15.3 determination, and electrocardiography were performed within 2 weeks from the treatment start.

Each patient gave a written informed consent.

Treatment.
Patients were treated with preoperative chemotherapy given in 3-week cycles. After each cycle disease was evaluated by clinical measurement of the two largest diameters. Surgery was planned in patients with clinically progressing disease. After three cycles, patients also had mammography and ultrasound breast examination to assess response. Patients with stable disease received surgery, and those with partial remission or complete remission were candidates to receive three more cycles of therapy, for a maximum of six cycles. The following regimens were used during the conduct of the study: (1) anthracycline containing regimens: ECF: E = Epirubicin 25 mg/m2 i.v., days 1 and 2; C = Cisplatinum 60 mg/m2 i.v. day 1; F = Fluorouracil 200 mg/m2/day as continuous infusion days 1 to 21; AC/EC: A = doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 or E = epirubicin 90 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, C = cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2 i.v. day 1; (2) Taxane containing regimens: AT/ET: A = doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 or E = epirubicin 90 mg/m2 i.v. day 1, T = taxotere 75 mg/m2 i.v. day 1; (3) Navelbine containing regimens: ViFuP: Vi = Vinorelbine (Navelbine) 20 mg total dose i.v. days 1 and 3; Fu = Fluorouracil 200 mg/m2/day as continuous infusion days 1 to 21; P = (cis)Platinum 60 mg/m2 i.v. day 1; FLN: F = Fluorouracil 350 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 to 3; L = Lederfolin 100 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 to 3; N = navelbine 20 to 25 mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 3. For regimens including continuous infusion FU, the insertion of a central venous catheter (Dome Port, Bard) was required, and infusion was provided by a Portable Elastomeric Infusion System (Baxter). Patients were instructed to change their own infusion bag every week.

Toxicity and Dose Modifications.
Toxicity was evaluated according to National Cancer Institute of Cancer—Clinical Trials Group criteria by clinical and laboratory evaluations at day 21 of each cycle. If creatinine/blood urea nitrogen was up to 1.5, the upper normal value cisplatin was omitted. In case of constipation, mucositis, or diarrhea (grade >2), the next cycle of chemotherapy was postponed by 1 or 2 weeks until recovery and then administered at 75% of the dose. The treatment was postponed by 1 week if the blood count on day 21 showed a neutrophil count <1,000/mm3 and/or platelet count <100,000 mm3. If on day 28 the neutrophil count was >1,000/mm3 and platelet count >100,000 mm3, the treatment was readministered. Otherwise, treatment was postponed by another week. If after 2 weeks of treatment delay (on day 35) hematologic recovery (neutrophils >1,000 mm3 and platelets >100,000/mm3) was not obtained, treatment was discontinued.

Response Criteria.
Responses were evaluated according to both radiologic (breast ultrasound plus mammography) and clinical evaluation and graded according to standard WHO criteria. Pathological complete remissions were evaluated according to Sataloff et al. criteria (15) . A pathological complete remission was defined as a total or near total disappearance of the tumor. In particular, absence of invasive cancer or presence of isolated foci of invasive cancer both qualified for pathological complete remission. Axillary lymph nodes were also assessed independent of the primary tumor for the degree of pathological response according to the 5th Tumor-Node-Metastasis Staging System (16)

Pathology and Immunohistochemistry.
This is a single institution study. All of the included patients had pathological evaluation performed at the European Institute of Oncology. The original receptor status determinations, performed before the study conduction, were used. Surgical specimens were extensively sampled for the evaluation of residual tumor after primary chemotherapy. In case of lack of macroscopic evidence of tumor the quadrantectomy specimens were entirely blocked in paraffin and examined histologically, as were the tumor-bearing quadrants of the mastectomies. In the latter cases, the other quadrants were also thoroughly evaluated with the examination of at least three tissue blocks.

Immunostaining experiments for the localization of estrogen and progesterone receptors, Her-2/neu protein, and Ki-67 antigen were performed on consecutive tissue sections of the tru-cut biopsies obtained before primary treatment and from the residual tumor after surgery, as reported previously (17) . The following primary antibodies were used: the monoclonal antibody to estrogen receptor (Dako, at 1:100 dilution), the monoclonal antibody to progesterone receptor (Dako, 1:800), the MIB-1 monoclonal antibody to the Ki-67 antigen (Immunotech, Marseille, France, 1:1200), and the polyclonal antiserum (Dako, 1:3,200) to the Her-2/neu protein.

The immunostained slides were evaluated independently by two of the authors. Only nuclear reactivity was taken into account for estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and Ki-67 antigen, whereas only an intense and complete membrane staining >10% of the tumor cells was taken as evidence of Her-2/neu overexpression (3+). The results were recorded as the percentage of immunoreactive cells over at least 2,000 neoplastic cells. The median value of Ki-67 labeling index for the cohort of patients included in the study was used as a cutoff in distinguishing tumors with low (<25%) and high (≥25%) proliferative fraction. Steroid hormone receptors status was classified as absent (estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor 0% of the cells positive), low (estrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor ≥1% <10% of the cells), or positive (estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor ≥10% of the cells).

Statistical Methods.
The primary endpoints were achieving a pathological complete remission and node-negative status at final surgery. In addition, we evaluated the impact of estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status and of the degree of response (pathological complete remission and node-negative status) on disease-free survival. We used logistic regression to model the probability of achieving a pathological complete remission first in univariate analyses and then in multiple regression analyses to identify the baseline factors that predicted a pathological complete remission. Similar analyses were performed for modeling nodal status to identify factors that predict node-negative status. Odds ratios, 95% confidence intervals (CI), and Ps were estimated. The Wald test was used to evaluate significance of individual coefficients, and the likelihood ratio test was used to assess a factor with more than two levels (e.g., tumor size). Factors included in the multiple regression analyses were menopausal status, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status, pathological grade, Ki-67, Her-2/neu, and treatment regimen. In addition, we explored all of the logistic regression models that included two baseline factors and the two-way interaction between those factors. Associations between categorical variables were assessed by a Fisher’s exact test. Disease-free survival was calculated from the date of first treatment until breast cancer recurrence or a new breast cancer primary or death without recurrence, whichever occurred first. Results are available at a median follow-up of 3.8 years. Assessment of disease-free survival according to estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status, pathological complete remission status, and nodal status were summarized using the 4-year disease-free survival percentage and the hazard ratio with the respective 95% CI. Cox multiple regression analysis was performed to assess factors predicting disease-free survival. P < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant. No adjustment was made for performing multiple tests, and all of the probability values were two sided.


    RESULTS
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Of the 399 patients with response data, 15.7% had a pathological complete remission, 51.3% had objective clinical remission (complete remission + partial remission), 31.3% had stable disease, and 1.5% had progressive disease. As a result of the univariate analysis (Table 1)Citation , the factors that were significantly associated with pathological complete remission were estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status (P < 0.0001), grade (P < 0.0001), Ki-67 (P = 0.0001), and infusional regimens (P = 0.01). Within the estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor absent cohort, 33.3% achieved a pathological complete remission compared with 7.4% and 7.6% within the estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor low and positive cohorts, respectively. The pathological complete remission percentage for patients with grade 3 tumors was 25.7% compared with 7.6% with grades 1 and 2. For patients with Ki-67 ≥ 25%, 22.3% achieved a pathological complete remission compared with 8.1% with Ki-67 < 25%. For patients that received infusional therapy, 19.5% had a pathological complete remission versus 10.1% for patients that received no infusional therapy. Differences in pathological complete remission rate according to whether or not an anthracycline was used were not statistically significant.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 1 Pathological complete remissions and nodal status at definitive surgery according to baseline factors

 
For the multivariate analysis, using logistic regression to model the probability of achieving a pathological complete remission, we combined the estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-positive and estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-low cohorts into one group. None of the two-way interactions were statistically significant.

Using a stepwise selection routine at the 0.05 significance level on all factors from the univariate analysis, estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor (P < 0.0001) and grade (P = 0.001) were the two factors that remained statistically significant in the model to predict pathological complete remission. Patients within the estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor absent cohort were 4.22 times (95% CI, 2.20–8.09, P < 0.0001) more likely to achieve a pathological complete remission than patients within the estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-positive or-low cohort, and patients with grade 3 tumors were 3.36 times (95% CI, 1.62–7.01, P = 0.001) more likely to achieve a pathological complete remission compared with patients with grade 1 or 2 tumors.

A total of 388 (97%) patients had pathological examination of axillary lymph nodes. Of these 388 patients, 28.6% had node-negative disease at the time of final surgery. As shown in Table 2Citation a significant correlation between node-negative status and pathological complete remission was detected (P < 0.0001). As indicated in Table 1Citation , the factors that were significantly associated with nodal status were estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor status (P < 0.0001), clinical tumor size (P = 0.001), and use of infusional regimens (P = 0.003).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 2 Correlation between pathological complete remission and nodal status

 
Using logistic regression to model the probability of being node-negative at final surgery, none of the two-way interaction terms were statistically significant. The three factors that showed a significant association with nodal status in the univariate analysis were also the only three factors that were statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. Patients within the estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-absent cohort were 3.47 times (95% CI, 2.09–5.76, P < 0.0001) more likely to have node-negative disease at final surgery than patients within the estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor-positive or -low cohort, and patients with T2 tumors were 4.0 times (95% CI, 2.02–7.87, P < 0001) more likely to have node-negative disease than patients with T4 tumors, and patients who received infusional therapy were 2.14 times (95% CI, 1.29–3.57, P = 0.003) more likely to have node-negative disease than patient treated with no infusional therapy.

We also evaluated the correlation between Her-2/neu overexpression and response to anthracycline-containing chemotherapy. A slight increased pathological complete remission rate was observed for tumors overexpressing Her-2/neu (33 patients) versus those not overexpressing Her-2/neu (115 patients), although this was not statistically significant (27.3% versus 16.5%, P = 0.21). In regimens not containing anthracyclines, the pathological complete remission rate was similar for Her-2/neu overexpressing tumors (18 patients) and for tumors not overexpressing Her-2/neu (39 patients, 11.1% versus 10.3%, P = 0.99). The interaction between Her-2/neu and chemotherapy regimen was not statistically significant (P = 0.82). Eighty-seven percent of the 336 patients who did not have a pathological complete remission were assessable for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor at both baseline and final surgery. The changes in estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor category are shown in Table 3Citation . Estrogen receptor status changed for 9% of the patients (both pre- and post-menopausal), whereas progesterone receptor status changed for 26% of premenopausal patients and 30% of postmenopausal patients. In the present study no significant correlation between modification in the expression of biological features and clinical response was detected, in particular for Ki-67 expression (data not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
Table 3 Changes in ER and PgR expression during chemotherapy (from baseline to final surgery) according to menopausal status

 
Despite the significantly higher incidence of pathological complete remission and node-negative status achieved by preoperative chemotherapy for patients with estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor-absent disease, the disease-free survival was significantly worse for this cohort compared with the low/positive expression cohort (4-year disease-free survival: 41% versus 74%, hazard ratio, 3.22; 95% CI, 2.28–4.54; P < 0.0001; Fig. 1Citation .). Patients who achieve pathological complete remission had a nonstatistically significant worse disease-free survival (57%) than patients who did not achieve pathological complete remission (64%; hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.83–2.00; P = 0.26), possibly due to the higher proportion of receptor absent disease in the pathological complete remission group. Patients who achieve node-negative disease at final surgery had significantly better disease-free survival than patients with node-positive disease (4-year disease-free survival %: 77% versus 60%; hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.31–0.82; P = 0.005). In the Cox multiple regression analyses, the receptor status of the primary tumor was the most significant predictor of disease-free survival.



View larger version (21K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 1. Kaplan-Meier plot of DFS according to ER/PgR status of the primary tumor. Results are reported at 3.8 years of median follow-up. DFS, disease-free survival; HR, hazards ratio; ER, estrogen receptor; PgR, progesterone receptor.

 

    DISCUSSION
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The most relevant factors for the estimation of risk of recurrence in patients with early breast cancer after radical surgery are nodal status, number of nodes involved, presence of vessel invasion, tumor size, grade, and age (18 , 19) . Determination of steroid hormone receptor expression in the primary tumor is a factor that is mainly used to predict endocrine responsiveness. Specifically for patients with node-negative disease, pathological tumor size, grade, and age are factors considered important for such risk assessment, thus influencing choice among different treatment options, together with the status of endocrine responsiveness. Regrettably, the success of adjuvant treatment can only be postulated when patients remain free of disease after several years. Conversely to the method used to choose an adjuvant systemic therapy regimen, the selection of preoperative therapy does not commonly take into account biological characteristics of the tumor. In fact, very few features were tested as predictors of preoperative treatment response indicators, including diameter of the tumor (20) and in very few patients MIB-1 increased expression (17 , 21) or proliferative index (22 , 23) . A large experience on factors predicting response in the preoperative setting was published recently and is based on a retrospective analysis of the National Surgical Adjuvant breast and Bowel Project B-18 study (24) . The evaluation was performed on 493 patients [fine needle aspiration cytology of 450 patients and/or sections of core biopsy (Tru-cut) in only 61 cases]. In this trial in which steroid hormone receptors were not determined in either patients with fine needle aspiration cytology or those with Tru-cut, the poor nuclear grade significantly predicted a pathological complete remission. Similar results were obtained by using nuclear and histologic grade on core biopsy material in our series.

Change in the expression of biological features after exposure to the systemic treatment and their possible correlation with clinical response was studied in small cohorts of patients receiving primary chemotherapy. Published trials on patients treated with preoperative chemotherapy or chemoendocrine therapies showed a positive association between Ki-67 reduction with treatment and response (25, 26, 27) . In the present study no significant correlation between modifications of the expression of biological features and clinical response was detected. A slight change in steroid hormone expression, in particular progesterone receptor expression, was observed. A possible explanation for the changes in estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor expression might be related to tissue sampling issues as indicated in a small study from Lee et al. (28) . It is noteworthy, however, that premenopausal-aged women were likely to achieve an endocrine effect with chemotherapy through ovarian function suppression (29) . Also, postmenopausal-aged women may obtain some additional endocrine effect from suppression of adrenals (30) due to cytotoxics and steroids. These endocrine actions of chemotherapy might be the reason for the observed changes in the expression of steroid hormone receptors.

The relationship between steroid hormone receptor expression and response to chemotherapy has received little attention in the past. Two decades have passed since this relationship was debated with the presentation of conflicting reports in the metastatic setting (31 , 32) . Limited data are available on the relationship between number of cells expressing hormone receptors and response to chemotherapy in the preoperative setting. This might be explained by the heterogeneity of examinations, methods, and especially cut-offs used in the various studies. The results of initial immunohistochemical assessment of p53, Her-2/neu, glutathione S-transferase, Ki-67, pS2, and estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor in baseline core biopsy samples of 134 patients from the Bordeaux randomized trial showed that estrogen receptor-negative status (defined at immunohistochemical evaluation as estrogen receptor <10% of the cells) and high Ki-67 were correlated with clinical tumor response (21) . Interestingly, when the analysis was conducted with the dextran-coated charcoal method, less estrogen receptor-positive tumors were detected compared with immunohistochemistry (46% versus 67%), and no significant correlation was detected between response and estrogen receptor status. A more recently published trial showed a significantly higher pathological response rate for estrogen receptor-negative tumors (defined as <10% of the cells) compared with estrogen receptor-positive tumors (25) . The largest experience on hormone receptor expression predicting response in the preoperative setting was published recently and is based on an analysis of the National Surgical Adjuvant breast and Bowel Project B-27 study (13) . Overall, estrogen receptor-negative tumors had higher pathological response rates than did estrogen receptor-positive tumors (16.7% versus 8.3%, respectively, P = 0.001). A test of estrogen receptor status by treatment interaction was not significant (P = 0.69), indicating that estrogen receptor status had little effect on the ability of preoperative docetaxel to improve pathological response. In the trials described above, analyses were performed based on a so-called "receptor-negative grouping," which combines receptor-absent disease with that expressing low receptor levels. In the present study, which represents the largest available analysis conducted by the same team of pathologists on pretreatment biopsies, we demonstrated a different pattern of response to chemotherapy for endocrine nonresponsive disease (defined as steroid hormone receptor absent tumor). Some clinical studies (33) and gene expression profiling (34 , 35) already provide empirical data that receptor-absent breast cancer is a distinct entity from that with even low levels of receptor expression.

In the present study both the pathological complete remission rate and the frequency of node-negative status at final surgery were significantly higher after preoperative chemotherapy for patients whose tumors did not express estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor, compared with the receptor-expressing cohort. This emphasizes the chemoresponsiveness of tumors that do not express any estrogen receptor or progesterone receptor. Despite the high pathological complete remission rate and node-negative status, the disease-free survival at 3.8 years of median follow-up was significantly worse for the receptor-absent compared with the receptor-present groups. The responsiveness of tumors expressing some receptors to endocrine therapies (e.g., ovarian function suppression, tamoxifen, and aromatase inhibitors) might explain the different outcome observed. In fact, after surgery patients with endocrine unresponsive disease generally did not received additional systemic therapy, whereas those with endocrine-responsive disease received additional endocrine treatment postoperatively. These findings provide substantial additional evidence to support the hypothesis that steroid hormone receptor status of the primary tumor defines distinct biological entities that require a differentiated approach to treatment and clinical trial investigation. Separate analyses according to steroid hormone receptor status must be prospectively planned for future clinical trials and conducted for current and past studies whether or not these were prospectively included in the protocol.

The efficacy of systemic therapy for early breast cancer depends on features of the treatment as well as the tumor and the patient. The introduction of taxanes provided encouraging results in recent trials in the preoperative setting. Smith et al. (14) reported higher pathological complete remission rate on patients with large or locally advanced breast cancer who, after four cycles of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone, received four courses of taxotere versus four additional courses of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (34% versus 16%, respectively, P = 0.04). In the National Surgical Adjuvant breast and Bowel Project B-27 the addition of 4 cycles of taxotere after 4 cycles of AC significantly improved pathological complete remission from 13.7% to 26.1% (13) . Whereas no information on response and endocrine responsiveness is available for the former trial, in the National Surgical Adjuvant breast and Bowel Project trial the results across all of the age groups are not informative concerning chemosensitivity of the use of taxanes for estrogen receptor-positive disease. Fifty-six percent of the patients were ≤49 years old, and 30% were in the 50 to 59 age group. It is likely that more than two thirds of the patients were premenopausal, and differential endocrine effects of the chemotherapy regimens contributed to the finding in the estrogen receptor-positive cohort. Furthermore, because tamoxifen was given concurrently with chemotherapy, the tamoxifen duration was either 24 weeks or 12 weeks according to treatment assignment making comparisons for the receptor-positive cohort quite problematic. In addition, mixing estrogen receptor absent and estrogen receptor-low tumors together in the category labeled as estrogen receptor-negative attenuates the chemosensitivity that might have been observed in the truly endocrine unresponsive cohort.

In conclusion, the present study indicates the importance of preoperative chemotherapy for patients with estrogen receptor- and progesterone receptor-absent tumors, as well as the poor outcome in terms of disease-free survival for this patient population. Additional studies using database analyses or prospective trials are required to confirm the value and limitations of primary chemotherapy in endocrine nonresponsive tumors. If confirmed, future selection of preoperative treatment should be based on tumor characteristics such as estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status, and the current practice of many laboratories to report receptor status as merely positive or negative should change to a more quantitative reporting of routine receptor determinations to identify the estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor-absent cohort.


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank the patients and physicians at the European Institute of Oncology. We also thank the International Breast Cancer Study Group Statistical Center for their invaluable contribution to this research.


    FOOTNOTES
 
Grant support: The Statistical Center is partially funded by the United States National Cancer Institute (CA-75362).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Requests for reprints: Marco Colleoni, Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, European Institute of Oncology, Via Ripamonti 435, 20141, Milan Italy. Phone: 39-02-57489439; Fax: 39-02-574829212; E-mail: marco.colleoni{at}ieo.it

Received 2/26/04; revised 6/15/04; accepted 7/ 1/04.


    REFERENCES
 Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Fisher B, Gunduz N, Saffer EA. Influence of the interval between primary tumor removal and chemotherapy on kinetics and growth of metastasis. Cancer Res 1983;43:1488-92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Fisher B, Gunduz N, Coyle J, Rudock C, Saffer E. Presence of a growth-stimulating factor in serum following primary tumor removal in mice. Cancer Res 1989;49:1996-2001.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Kurebayashi J, Nukatsuka M, Fujioka A, et al Postsurgical oral administration of uracil and tegafur inhibits progression of micrometastasis of human breast cancer cells in nude mice. Clin Cancer Res 1997;3:653-9.[Abstract]
  4. van Putten LM. Optimal timing of adjuvant chemotherapy in mouse models. Prog Clin Biol Res 1985;201:15-21.[Medline]
  5. Mauriac L, MacGrogan G, Avril A, et al Neoadjuvant chemo-therapy for operable breast carcinoma larger than 3 cm: A unicentre randomized trial with a 124-month median follow-up. Institut Bergonie Bordeaux Groupe Sein (IBBGS). Ann Oncol 1999;10:47-52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Semiglazov VF, Topuzov EE, Bavli JL, et al Primary (neoad-juvant) chemotherapy and radiotherapy compared with primary radio-therapy alone in stage IIb-IIIa breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1994;5:591-5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Scholl SM, Pierga JY, Asselain B, et al Breast tumour response to primary chemotherapy predicts local and distant control as well as survival. Eur J Cancer 1995;31A:1969-75.
  8. Powles TJ, Hickish TF, Makris A, et al Randomized trial of chemoendocrine therapy started before or after surgery for treatment of primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:547-52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N, et al Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998;16:2672-85.[Abstract]
  10. Ragaz J, Baird R, Rebbeck P, et al Preoperative (neoadjuvant-PRE) versus postoperative (Poverall survivalT) adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) for stage I-II breast cancer (SI-II BC): Long term analysis of British Columbia randomized trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997;16:499
  11. Jakesz R. Comparison of pre- vs. postoperative chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: four-year results of Austrian Breast & Colorectal Cancer Study Group Trial 7. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 2001;20:125
  12. van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julie JP, et al Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: Results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10902. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:4224-37.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Bear HD, Anderson S, Brown A, et al The effect on tumor response of adding sequential preoperative docetaxel to preoperative doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide: preliminary results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:4165-74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW, et al Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: Significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:1456-66.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ, et al Pathological response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 1995;180:297-304.[Medline]
  16. Sobin LH, Wittekind C. . TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours, UICC 2002p. 221-40. Wiley-Liss New York
  17. Colleoni M, Minchella I, Mazzarol G, et al Response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with tumors not expressing estrogen and progesteron receptors. Ann Oncol 2000;11:1-3.[Free Full Text]
  18. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Senn HJ. Meeting highlights: International Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer. Seventh International Conference on Adjuvant Therapy of Primary Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3817-27.[Free Full Text]
  19. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ. Meeting Highlights: Updated International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3357-65.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, et al Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol 1997;15:2483-93.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. MacGrogan G, Mauriac L, Durand M, et al Primary chemo-therapy in breast invasive carcinoma: Predictive value of the immuno-histochemical detection of hormonal receptors, p53, c-erbB-2, MiB1, pS2 and GST pi. Br J Cancer 1996;74:1458-65.[Medline]
  22. Gardin G, Alama A, Rosso R, et al Relationship of variations in tumor cell kinetics induced by primary chemotherapy to tumor regression and prognosis in locally advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1994;32:311-8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Collecchi P, Baldini E, Giannessi P, et al Primary chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer (LABC): effects on tumour proliferative activity, bcl-2 expression and the relationship between tumour regression and biological markers. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:1701-4.
  24. Fisher ER, Wang J, Bryant J, Fisher B, Mamounas E, Wolmark N. Pathobiology of preoperative chemotherapy findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) Protocol B-18. Cancer (Phila) 2002;95:681-95.
  25. Faneyte IF, Schrama JG, Peterse JL, Remijnse PL, Rodenhuis S, van de Vijver MJ. Breast cancer response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Predictive markers and relation with outcome. Br J Cancer 2003;88:406-12.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Ellis PA, Smith IE, Detre S, et al Reduced apoptosis and proliferation and increased Bcl-2 in residual breast cancer following preoperative chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998;48:107-16.[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Chang J, Powles TJ, Allred DC, et al Predictive markers for clinical outcome following primary chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998;17:384
  28. Lee SH, Chung MA, Quddus MR, Steinhoff MM, Cady B. The effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on estrogen and progesterone receptor expression and hormone receptor status in breast cancer. Am J Surg 2003;186:348-50.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Pagani O, O’Neill A, Castiglione M, et al Prognostic impact of amenorrhoea after adjuvant chemotherapy in premenopausal breast cancer patients with axillary node involvement: results of the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) trial VI. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:632-40.
  30. Rose DP, Davis TE. Effects of adjuvant chemohormonal therapy on the ovarian and adrenal function of breast cancer patients. Cancer Res 1980;40:4043-7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Kiang DT, Frenning DH, Goldman AI, Ascensao VF, Kennedy BJ. Estrogen receptors and responses to chemotherapy and hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1978;299:1330-4.[Abstract]
  32. Lippman ME, Allegra JC. Lack of estrogen receptor associated with an increased response rate to cytotoxic chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer?. Recent Results Cancer Res 1980;71:155-61.[Medline]
  33. Colleoni M, Gelber S, Coates AS, et al International Breast Cancer Study Group. Influence of endocrine-related factors on response to perioperative chemotherapy for patients with node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:4141-9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001;98:10869-74.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. Gruvberger S, Ringner M, Chen Y, et al Estrogen receptor status in breast cancer is associated with remarkably distinct gene expression patterns. Cancer Res 2001;61:5979-84.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
G. Frasci, P. Comella, M. Rinaldo, G. Iodice, M. Di Bonito, M. D'Aiuto, A. Petrillo, S. Lastoria, C. Siani, G. Comella, et al.
Preoperative weekly cisplatin-epirubicin-paclitaxel with G-CSF support in triple-negative large operable breast cancer
Ann. Onc., July 1, 2009; 20(7): 1185 - 1192.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
C. H. Barrios, C. Sampaio, J. Vinholes, and R. Caponero
What is the role of chemotherapy in estrogen receptor-positive, advanced breast cancer?
Ann. Onc., July 1, 2009; 20(7): 1157 - 1162.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
V. Guarneri, F. Piacentini, G. Ficarra, A. Frassoldati, R. D'Amico, S. Giovannelli, A. Maiorana, G. Jovic, and P. Conte
A prognostic model based on nodal status and Ki-67 predicts the risk of recurrence and death in breast cancer patients with residual disease after preoperative chemotherapy
Ann. Onc., July 1, 2009; 20(7): 1193 - 1198.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
T. Tanei, K. Morimoto, K. Shimazu, S. J. Kim, Y. Tanji, T. Taguchi, Y. Tamaki, and S. Noguchi
Association of Breast Cancer Stem Cells Identified by Aldehyde Dehydrogenase 1 Expression with Resistance to Sequential Paclitaxel and Epirubicin-Based Chemotherapy for Breast Cancers
Clin. Cancer Res., June 15, 2009; 15(12): 4234 - 4241.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anticancer ResHome page
L. MIGLIETTA, P. VANELLA, L. CANOBBIO, M. A. PARODI, P. GUGLIELMINI, and F. BOCCARDO
Clinical and Pathological Response to Primary Chemotherapy in Patients with Locally Advanced Breast Cancer Grouped According to Hormonal Receptors, Her2 Status, Grading and Ki-67 Proliferation Index
Anticancer Res, May 1, 2009; 29(5): 1621 - 1625.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anticancer ResHome page
J. HORIGUCHI, T. OYAMA, Y. KOIBUCHI, T. YOKOE, D. TAKATA, F. IKEDA, H. NAGAOKA, N. ROKUTANDA, R. NAGAOKA, Y. ISHIKAWA, et al.
Neoadjuvant Weekly Paclitaxel with and without Trastuzumab in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer
Anticancer Res, February 1, 2009; 29(2): 517 - 524.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
M. Dowsett and A. K. Dunbier
Emerging Biomarkers and New Understanding of Traditional Markers in Personalized Therapy for Breast Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2008; 14(24): 8019 - 8026.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The OncologistHome page
A. Berruti, M. P. Brizzi, D. Generali, M. Ardine, L. Dogliotti, P. Bruzzi, and A. Bottini
Presurgical Systemic Treatment of Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer: Facts and Open Questions
Oncologist, November 1, 2008; 13(11): 1137 - 1148.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The OncologistHome page
C.-S. Huang, S.-H. Kuo, H.-C. Lien, S.-Y. Yang, S.-L. You, C.-Y. Shen, C.-H. Lin, Y.-S. Lu, and K.-J. Chang
The CYP19 TTTA Repeat Polymorphism Is Related to the Prognosis of Premenopausal Stage I-II and Operable Stage III Breast Cancers
Oncologist, July 1, 2008; 13(7): 751 - 760.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
O. Gluz, U. A. Nitz, N. Harbeck, E. Ting, R. Kates, A. Herr, W. Lindemann, C. Jackisch, W. E. Berdel, H. Kirchner, et al.
Triple-negative high-risk breast cancer derives particular benefit from dose intensification of adjuvant chemotherapy: results of WSG AM-01 trial
Ann. Onc., May 1, 2008; 19(5): 861 - 870.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
M. Colleoni, G. Viale, D. Zahrieh, L. Bottiglieri, R. D. Gelber, P. Veronesi, A. Balduzzi, R. Torrisi, A. Luini, M. Intra, et al.
Expression of ER, PgR, HER1, HER2, and response: a study of preoperative chemotherapy
Ann. Onc., March 1, 2008; 19(3): 465 - 472.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Jpn J Clin OncolHome page
S.-C. Chen, H.-K. Chang, Y.-C. Lin, S. Hsueh, Y.-C. Cheung, W.-M. Leung, C.-S. Tsai, Y.-F. Lo, H.-P. Tsai, S.-C. Shen, et al.
High Pathologic Complete Response in HER 2-positive Locally Advanced Breast Cancer after Primary Systemic Chemotherapy with Weekly Docetaxel and Epirubicin
Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol., February 12, 2008; (2008) hym172v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
P. Rastogi, S. J. Anderson, H. D. Bear, C. E. Geyer, M. S. Kahlenberg, A. Robidoux, R. G. Margolese, J. L. Hoehn, V. G. Vogel, S. R. Dakhil, et al.
Preoperative Chemotherapy: Updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27
J. Clin. Oncol., February 10, 2008; 26(5): 778 - 785.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
M. Kaufmann, G. von Minckwitz, H. D. Bear, A. Buzdar, P. McGale, H. Bonnefoi, M. Colleoni, C. Denkert, W. Eiermann, R. Jackesz, et al.
Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant (primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives 2006
Ann. Onc., December 1, 2007; 18(12): 1927 - 1934.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
The International Breast Cancer Study Group
Effects of a treatment gap during adjuvant chemotherapy in node-positive breast cancer: results of International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Trials 13-93 and 14-93
Ann. Onc., July 1, 2007; 18(7): 1177 - 1184.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
U. Veronesi, P. Maisonneuve, N. Rotmensz, B. Bonanni, P. Boyle, G. Viale, A. Costa, V. Sacchini, R. Travaglini, G. D'Aiuto, et al.
Tamoxifen for the Prevention of Breast Cancer: Late Results of the Italian Randomized Tamoxifen Prevention Trial Among Women With Hysterectomy
J Natl Cancer Inst, May 2, 2007; 99(9): 727 - 737.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
S. Paik, G. Tang, S. Shak, C. Kim, J. Baker, W. Kim, M. Cronin, F. L. Baehner, D. Watson, J. Bryant, et al.
Gene Expression and Benefit of Chemotherapy in Women With Node-Negative, Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer
J. Clin. Oncol., August 10, 2006; 24(23): 3726 - 3734.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
A. Bottini, D. Generali, M. P. Brizzi, S. B. Fox, A. Bersiga, S. Bonardi, G. Allevi, S. Aguggini, G. Bodini, M. Milani, et al.
Randomized Phase II Trial of Letrozole and Letrozole Plus Low-Dose Metronomic Oral Cyclophosphamide As Primary Systemic Treatment in Elderly Breast Cancer Patients
J. Clin. Oncol., August 1, 2006; 24(22): 3623 - 3628.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
The OncologistHome page
I. Sachelarie, M. L. Grossbard, M. Chadha, S. Feldman, M. Ghesani, and R. H. Blum
Primary Systemic Therapy of Breast Cancer
Oncologist, June 1, 2006; 11(6): 574 - 589.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
H. D. Bear, S. Anderson, R. E. Smith, C. E. Geyer Jr, E. P. Mamounas, B. Fisher, A. M. Brown, A. Robidoux, R. Margolese, M. S. Kahlenberg, et al.
Sequential Preoperative or Postoperative Docetaxel Added to Preoperative Doxorubicin Plus Cyclophosphamide for Operable Breast Cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-27
J. Clin. Oncol., May 1, 2006; 24(13): 2019 - 2027.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JAMAHome page
D. A. Berry, C. Cirrincione, I. C. Henderson, M. L. Citron, D. R. Budman, L. J. Goldstein, S. Martino, E. A. Perez, H. B. Muss, L. Norton, et al.
Estrogen-Receptor Status and Outcomes of Modern Chemotherapy for Patients With Node-Positive Breast Cancer
JAMA, April 12, 2006; 295(14): 1658 - 1667.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
V. Guarneri, K. Broglio, S.-W. Kau, M. Cristofanilli, A. U. Buzdar, V. Valero, T. Buchholz, F. Meric, L. Middleton, G. N. Hortobagyi, et al.
Prognostic Value of Pathologic Complete Response After Primary Chemotherapy in Relation to Hormone Receptor Status and Other Factors
J. Clin. Oncol., March 1, 2006; 24(7): 1037 - 1044.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
M. Colleoni, L. Orlando, G. Sanna, A. Rocca, P. Maisonneuve, G. Peruzzotti, R. Ghisini, M. T. Sandri, L. Zorzino, F. Nole, et al.
Metronomic low-dose oral cyclophosphamide and methotrexate plus or minus thalidomide in metastatic breast cancer: antitumor activity and biological effects
Ann. Onc., February 1, 2006; 17(2): 232 - 238.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
A. Goldhirsch, J. H. Glick, R. D. Gelber, A. S. Coates, B. Thurlimann, H.-J. Senn, and and Panel Members
Meeting Highlights: International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2005
Ann. Onc., October 1, 2005; 16(10): 1569 - 1583.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
R. Demicheli, R. Miceli, A. Moliterni, M. Zambetti, W. J. M. Hrushesky, M. W. Retsky, P. Valagussa, and G. Bonadonna
Breast cancer recurrence dynamics following adjuvant CMF is consistent with tumor dormancy and mastectomy-driven acceleration of the metastatic process
Ann. Onc., September 1, 2005; 16(9): 1449 - 1457.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Ann OncolHome page
H. Bonnefoi
'Small' randomised neo-adjuvant chemotherapy trials in breast cancer reporting on pathological response: more harm than good?
Ann. Onc., September 1, 2005; 16(9): 1407 - 1410.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Colleoni, M.
Right arrow Articles by Goldhirsch, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Colleoni, M.
Right arrow Articles by Goldhirsch, A.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online