Biomarkers Changes after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: A Seven-Year Single Institution Experience
Rattachement africain : it. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
The adoption of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) for breast cancer (BC) is increasing. The need to repeat the biomarkers on a residual tumor after NACT is still a matter of debate. We verified estrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), Ki67 and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status changes impact in a retrospective monocentric series of 265 BCs undergoing NACT. All biomarkers changed with an overall tendency toward a reduced expression. Changes in PR and Ki67 were statistically significant (p = 0.001). Ki67 changed in 114/265 (43.0%) cases, PR in 44/265 (16.6%), ER in 31/265 (11.7%) and HER2 in 26/265 (9.8%). Overall, intrinsic subtype changed in 72/265 (27.2%) cases after NACT, and 10/265 (3.8%) cases switched to a different adjuvant therapy accordingly. Luminal subtypes changed most frequently (66/175; 31.7%) but with less impact on therapy (5/175; 2.8%). Only 3 of 58 triple-negative BCs (5.2%) changed their intrinsic subtype, but all of them switched treatment. No correlation was found between intrinsic subtype changes and clinicopathological features. To conclude, biomarkers changes with prognostic implications occurred in all BC intrinsic subtypes, albeit they impacted therapy mostly in HER2 negative and/or hormone receptors negative BCs. Biomarkers retesting after NACT is important to improve both tailored adjuvant therapies and prognostication of patients.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Biomarkers Changes after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: A Seven-Year Single Institution Experience
- Date Crossref
- 30/11/2021
- Éditeur
- MDPI AG
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.