Search

Introduction: Gene amplification of CCND1 is observed in a subgroup of breast cancers with poor prognosis, whereas overexpression of the protein cyclin D 1 has been linked to both worse and better clinical outcome. CCND1 amplification and protein overexpression have also been associated with resistance to treatment with tamoxifen or even to a potentially detrimental effect of tamoxifen.Methods: To clarify these challenging and partly contrasting treatment predictive and prognostic links for cyclin D 1 we analysed a large cohort of postmenopausal breast cancer patients randomised to receive either adjuvant anastrozole or tamoxifen, as part of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial. The CCND1 amplification status and protein expression of cyclin D 1 were assessed by chromogenic in situ hybridisation and immunohistochemistry, respectively, in 1,155 postmenopausal, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer patients included in the TransATAC substudy.Results: Amplification of CCND1 was observed in 8.7% of the tumours and was associated with increased risk of disease recurrence (hazard ratio = 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 2.41) after adjustment for other clinicopathological parameters. In contrast, nuclear expression of cyclin D 1 protein was associated with decreased recurrence rate (hazard ratio = 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.92). The intensity of nuclear or cytoplasmic expression was not of prognostic value. There was no significant interaction between cyclin D 1 status and treatment efficacy, ruling out any major detrimental effect of tamoxifen in CCND1-amplified postmenopausal breast cancer.Conclusions: In summary, CCND1 amplification and low nuclear expression of cyclin D 1 predicted poor clinical outcome in postmenopausal breast cancer patients treated with either anastrozole or tamoxifen., Lund University Research Funds, Malmö University Hospital, South Swedish and South-East Swedish Breast Cancer groups and Breakthrough Breast Cancer Unit, AstraZeneca, Roche, Cancerfonden, Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse, Vetenskapsrådet, Depto. de Estadística y Ciencia de los Datos, Fac. de Estudios Estadísticos, TRUE, pub

Estrogen receptor (ER) positive primary breast cancers have a wide range of clinical outcomes. Prediction of the likely course of the disease aids treatment decision-making. In the translational arm of the ATAC (anastrozole or tamoxifen alone or combined) trial (TransATAC) we have assessed individual and multiparameter biomarkers for their prediction of overall and distant recurrence. None of the biomarkers identified differential benefit for anastrozole versus tamoxifen. Each of ER, PgR, HER2 and Ki67 was associated with risk of recurrence. A combination of these to create a single predictor IHC4 was as informative as the 21-gene recurrence score (RS). Integration of each of these molecular profiles with classical clinicopathologic variables provided the most accurate prediction of outcome, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, AstraZeneca, Depto. de Estadística y Ciencia de los Datos, Fac. de Estudios Estadísticos, TRUE, pub

Purpose We recently reported that the mRNA-based, 21-gene Genomic Health recurrence score (GHI-RS) provided additional prognostic information regarding distant recurrence beyond that obtained from classical clinicopathologic factors (age, nodal status, tumor size, grade, endocrine treatment) in women with early breast cancer, confirming earlier reports. The aim of this article is to determine how much of this information is contained in standard immunohistochemical (IHC) markers. Patients and Methods The primary cohort comprised 1,125 estrogen receptor–positive (ER-positive) patients from the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, had the GHI-RS computed, and had adequate tissue for the four IHC measurements: ER, progesterone receptor (PgR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), and Ki-67. Distant recurrence was the primary end point, and proportional hazards models were used with sample splitting to control for overfitting. A prognostic model that used classical variables and the four IHC markers (IHC4 score) was created and assessed in a separate cohort of 786 patients. Results All four IHC markers provided independent prognostic information in the presence of classical variables. In sample-splitting analyses, the information in the IHC4 score was found to be similar to that in the GHI-RS, and little additional prognostic value was seen in the combined use of both scores. The prognostic value of the IHC4 score was further validated in the second separate cohort. Conclusion This study suggests that the amount of prognostic information contained in four widely performed IHC assays is similar to that in the GHI-RS. Additional studies are needed to determine the general applicability of the IHC4 score., Royal Marsden National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, Cancer Research United Kingdom Program Grant, Breakthrough Breast Cancer, AstraZeneca, Depto. de Estadística y Ciencia de los Datos, Fac. de Estudios Estadísticos, TRUE, pub

Aims: The nuclear proliferation marker Ki67 assayed by immunohistochemistry has multiple potential uses in breast cancer, but an unacceptable level of interlaboratory variability has hampered its clinical utility. The International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group has undertaken a systematic programme to determine whether Ki67 measurement can be analytically validated and standardised among laboratories. This study addresses whether acceptable scoring reproducibility can be achieved on excision whole sections. Methods and results: Adjacent sections from 30 primary ER+ breast cancers were centrally stained for Ki67 and sections were circulated among 23 pathologists in 12 countries. All pathologists scored Ki67 by two methods: (i) global: four fields of 100 tumour cells each were selected to reflect observed heterogeneity in nuclear staining; (ii) hot-spot: the field with highest apparent Ki67 index was selected and up to 500 cells scored. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the global method [confidence interval (CI) = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.799–0.93] marginally met the prespecified success criterion (lower 95% CI ≥ 0.8), while the ICC for the hot-spot method (0.83; 95% CI = 0.74–0.90) did not. Visually, interobserver concordance in location of selected hot-spots varies between cases. The median times for scoring were 9 and 6 min for global and hot-spot methods, respectively. Conclusions: The global scoring method demonstrates adequate reproducibility to warrant next steps towards evaluation for technical and clinical validity in appropriate cohorts of cases. The time taken for scoring by either method is practical using counting software we are making publicly available. Establishment of external quality assessment schemes is likely to improve the reproducibility between laboratories further.

Pathological analysis of the nuclear proliferation biomarker Ki67 has multiple potential roles in breast and other cancers. However, clinical utility of the immunohistochemical (IHC) assay for Ki67 immunohistochemistry has been hampered by unacceptable between-laboratory analytical variability. The International Ki67 Working Group has conducted a series of studies aiming to decrease this variability and improve the evaluation of Ki67. This study tries to assess whether acceptable performance can be achieved on prestained core-cut biopsies using a standardized scoring method. Sections from 30 primary ER+ breast cancer core biopsies were centrally stained for Ki67 and circulated among 22 laboratories in 11 countries. Each laboratory scored Ki67 using three methods: (1) global (4 fields of 100 cells each); (2) weighted global (same as global but weighted by estimated percentages of total area); and (3) hot-spot (single field of 500 cells). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), a measure of interlaboratory agreement, for the unweighted global method (0.87; 95% credible interval (CI): 0.81-0.93) met the prespecified success criterion for scoring reproducibility, whereas that for the weighted global (0.87; 95% CI: 0.7999-0.93) and hot-spot methods (0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.92) marginally failed to do so. The unweighted global assessment of Ki67 IHC analysis on core biopsies met the prespecified criterion of success for scoring reproducibility. A few cases still showed large scoring discrepancies. Establishment of external quality assessment schemes is likely to improve the agreement between laboratories further. Additional evaluations are needed to assess staining variability and clinical validity in appropriate cohorts of samples.

Background: Trastuzumab treatment improves survival of HER2-positive primary breast cancer. HER2 staining intensity varies widely in HER2-positive tumours. Patients and methods: We investigated whether differences in immunohistochemical (IHC) staining intensity for HER2 in HER2-positive tumors (IHC 3+ or FISH ratio ≥2.0) was associated with prognosis or benefit from trastuzumab treatment in patients randomized to 1 year or no trastuzumab in the HERceptin Adjuvant (HERA) trial. Median follow-up was 2 years. The nested case-control analysis, included 425 patients (cases) with a disease-free survival (DFS) event and two matched controls (no DFS event) per case. Tissue sections stained for HER2 were assessed for HER2 staining intensity by image analysis. Results: HER2 staining intensity varied widely and correlated with HER2 gene copy number (Spearman, r = 0.498, P < 0.001) or less closely with HER2/CEP17 FISH ratio (r = 0.396, P < 0.001). We found no significant difference in DFS in the observation arm according to staining intensity (odds ratio [OR] change per 10 unit change in intensity: 1.015, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.930-1.108) and no impact of staining intensity on benefit derived from 1-year trastuzumab (OR: 1.017, 95% CI 0.925-1.120). Conclusions: Variability in HER2 staining in HER2-positive tumours has no role in clinical management with adjuvant trastuzumab. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology All rights reserved., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Introduction: Gene amplification of CCND1 is observed in a subgroup of breast cancers with poor prognosis, whereas overexpression of the protein cyclin D-1 has been linked to both worse and better clinical outcome. CCND1 amplification and protein overexpression have also been associated with resistance to treatment with tamoxifen or even to a potentially detrimental effect of tamoxifen. Methods: To clarify these challenging and partly contrasting treatment predictive and prognostic links for cyclin D-1 we analysed a large cohort of postmenopausal breast cancer patients randomised to receive either adjuvant anastrozole or tamoxifen, as part of the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) trial. The CCND1 amplification status and protein expression of cyclin D-1 were assessed by chromogenic in situ hybridisation and immunohistochemistry, respectively, in 1,155 postmenopausal, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer patients included in the TransATAC substudy. Results: Amplification of CCND1 was observed in 8.7% of the tumours and was associated with increased risk of disease recurrence (hazard ratio = 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 1.08 to 2.41) after adjustment for other clinicopathological parameters. In contrast, nuclear expression of cyclin D-1 protein was associated with decreased recurrence rate (hazard ratio = 0.6; 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.92). The intensity of nuclear or cytoplasmic expression was not of prognostic value. There was no significant interaction between cyclin D-1 status and treatment efficacy, ruling out any major detrimental effect of tamoxifen in CCND1-amplified postmenopausal breast cancer. Conclusions: In summary, CCND1 amplification and low nuclear expression of cyclin D-1 predicted poor clinical outcome in postmenopausal breast cancer patients treated with either anastrozole or tamoxifen.