Originally published as JCO Early Release 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.1024 on February 9 2009

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Save to my personal folders Download to citation manager Rights & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hugh, J. Articles by Vogel, C. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hugh, J. Articles by Vogel, C. Social Bookmarking                            What's this?

Breast Cancer Subtypes and Response to Docetaxel in Node-Positive Breast Cancer: Use of an Immunohistochemical Definition in the BCIRG 001 Trial

From the University of Alberta; Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta; Genetic Pathology Evaluation Centre, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, British Columbia Cancer Agency, and University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center and Departments of Genetics and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC; L'Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, U590; Hospices Civils de Lyon; Université Lyon; Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon; Cancer International Research Group; Sanofi-aventis, Paris, France; Burnham Institute for Medical Research, La Jolla, CA; Hospital Universitario San Carlos, Madrid, Spain; and Lynn Cancer Center, Boca Raton, FL.

Corresponding author: Judith Hugh, MD, Department of Lab Medicine and Pathology, University of Alberta Hospital, 8440 112th St, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2B7; e-mail: judith.hugh{at}capitalhealth.ca.

Purpose To investigate the prognostic and predictive significance of subtyping node-positive early breast cancer by immunohistochemistry in a clinical trial of a docetaxel-containing regimen.

Methods Pathologic data from a central laboratory were available for 1,350 patients (91%) from the BCIRG 001 trial of docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (TAC) versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FAC) for operable node-positive breast cancer. Patients were classified by tumor characteristics as (1) triple negative (estrogen receptor [ER]–negative, progesterone receptor [PR]–negative, HER2/neu [HER2]–negative), (2) HER2 (HER2-positive, ER-negative, PR-negative), (3) luminal B (ER-positive and/or PR-positive and either HER2-positive and/or Ki67^high), and (4) luminal A (ER-positive and/or PR-positive and not HER2-positive or Ki67^high), and assessed for prognostic significance and response to adjuvant chemotherapy.

Results Patients were subdivided into triple negative (14.5%), HER2 (8.5%), luminal B (61.1%), and luminal A (15.9%). Three-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates (P values with luminal B as referent) were 67% (P < .0001), 68% (P = .0008), 82% (referent luminal B), and 91% (P = .0027), respectively, with hazard ratios of 2.22, 2.12, and 0.46. Improved 3-year DFS with TAC was found in the luminal B group (P = .025) and a combined ER-positive/HER2-negative group treated with tamoxifen (P = .041), with a marginal trend in the triple negatives (P = .051) and HER2 (P = .068) subtypes. No DFS advantage was seen in the luminal A population.

Conclusion A simple immunopanel can divide breast cancers into biologic subtypes with strong prognostic effects. TAC significantly complements endocrine therapy in patients with luminal B subtype and, in the absence of targeted therapy, is effective in the triple-negative population.

Supported by Grants No. P50-CA58223 and U01 CA114722-01 (to C.M.P.).

Authors' disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Montemurro and M. Aglietta Hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer: controversies in the use of adjuvant chemotherapy Endocr. Relat. Cancer, December 1, 2009; 16(4): 1091 - 1102. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. Gluz, C. Liedtke, N. Gottschalk, L. Pusztai, U. Nitz, and N. Harbeck Triple-negative breast cancer--current status and future directions Ann. Onc., December 1, 2009; 20(12): 1913 - 1927. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. C. Panasci Breast Cancer Subtypes and Response to Docetaxel in Node-Positive Breast Cancer: Use of an Immunohistochemical Definition in the BCIRG 001 Trial J. Clin. Oncol., September 10, 2009; 27(26): e111 - e111. [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Hugh, J. Hanson, M. Cheang, T. Nielsen, C. Perou, C. Dumontet, J. Reed, M. Krajewska, I. Treilleux, M. Rupin, et al. Reply to L.C. Panasci J. Clin. Oncol., September 10, 2009; 27(26): e112 - e113. [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Rodenhuis, I. A. M. Mandjes, J. Wesseling, M. J. van de Vijver, M.-J. T. D. F. Vrancken Peeters, G. S. Sonke, and S. C. Linn A simple system for grading the response of breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy Ann. Onc., August 28, 2009; (2009) mdp348v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Hugh, J. Hanson, M. Cheang, T. Nielsen, C. Perou, C. Dumontet, J. Reed, M. Krajewska, I. Treilleux, M. Rupin, et al. Reply to R.S. Mehta et al J. Clin. Oncol., June 20, 2009; 27(18): 3068 - 3069. [Full Text] [PDF]