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

被引:190
|
作者
Thompson, Alastair M. [1 ,2 ]
Jordan, Lee B. [3 ]
Quinlan, Philip [1 ]
Anderson, Elizabeth [4 ]
Skene, Anthony [5 ]
Dewar, John A. [6 ]
Purdie, Colin A. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Dundee, Ninewells Hosp & Med Sch, Dept Surg & Mol Oncol, Dundee DD1 9SY, Scotland
[2] Univ Texas Houston, MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Surg Oncol, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Univ Dundee, Ninewells Hosp & Med Sch, Dept Pathol, Dundee DD1 9SY, Scotland
[4] AstraZeneca, London W1K 1LN, England
[5] Royal Bournemouth Hosp, Dept Surg, Bournemouth BH24 4AX, Dorset, England
[6] Univ Dundee, Ninewells Hosp & Med Sch, Dept Oncol, Dundee DD1 9SY, Scotland
关键词
ESTROGEN-RECEPTOR STATUS; PROGESTERONE-RECEPTOR; PRIMARY TUMORS; HER-2; STATUS; EXPRESSION; METASTASES; DISCORDANCE; BIOPSY; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; MICROARRAYS;
D O I
10.1186/bcr2771
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS)
    Alastair M Thompson
    Lee B Jordan
    Philip Quinlan
    Elizabeth Anderson
    Anthony Skene
    John A Dewar
    Colin A Purdie
    Breast Cancer Research, 12
  • [2] Differences in the Receptor Status between Primary and Recurrent Breast Cancer - The Frequency of and the Reasons for Discordance
    Heitz, Florian
    Barinoff, Jana
    du Bois, Ondra
    Hils, Rita
    Fisseler-Eckhoff, Annette
    Harter, Philipp
    Heitz, Julia
    Willenbrock, Klaus
    Traut, Alexander
    du Bois, Andreas
    ONCOLOGY, 2013, 84 (06) : 319 - 325
  • [3] Study of Biomarker Discordance between Primary and Recurrent Sites and its Clinical Implications in Metastatic Breast Cancer : A Single Institutional Study from India
    Shanthala, S.
    Amirtham, Usha
    Gopal, Champaka
    Suma, M. N.
    Jacob, Linu
    Babu, Govinda
    SOUTH ASIAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2024, 13 (02) : 90 - 98
  • [4] Discordance of biomarker status in recurrent breast cancer
    Soomro, Rufina
    Beg, Mirza Arshad
    Rahman, Syed Sheeraz Ur
    JOURNAL OF THE PAKISTAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 64 (02) : 163 - 165
  • [5] Prognostic Impact of Discordance in Hormone Receptor Status Between Primary and Recurrent Sites in Patients With Recurrent Breast Cancer
    Shiino, Sho
    Kinoshita, Takayuki
    Yoshida, Masayuki
    Jimbo, Kenjiro
    Asaga, Sota
    Takayama, Shin
    Tsuda, Hitoshi
    CLINICAL BREAST CANCER, 2016, 16 (04) : E133 - E140
  • [6] An evaluation of the impact of technical bias on the concordance rate between primary and recurrent tumors in breast cancer
    Perez-Fidalgo, Jose A.
    Eroles, Pilar
    Ferrer, Jaime
    Bosch, Ana
    Burgues, Octavio
    Martinez, Francisco
    Bermejo, Begona
    Lluch, Ana
    Gonzalez-Angulo, Ana M.
    BREAST, 2013, 22 (05) : 974 - 979
  • [7] Evaluations of Biomarker Status Changes between Primary and Recurrent Tumor Tissue Samples in Breast Cancer Patients
    Thi Hoa Nguyen
    Van Hung Nguyen
    Thanh Long Nguyen
    Cai Qiuyin
    Thi Huyen Phung
    BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, 2019, 2019
  • [8] Biomarker heterogeneity between primary breast cancer and synchronous axillary lymph node metastases
    Xi, Xun
    Huang, Xing-Wei
    Yuan, Huo-Zhong
    He, Chun
    Ni, Jun
    Yang, Fu-Lan
    ONCOLOGY LETTERS, 2020, 20 (05)
  • [9] Comparative study of receptor discordance between primary and corresponding metastatic lesions in breast cancer
    Erdem, Gokmen U.
    Altundag, Kadri
    Ozdemir, Nuriye Y.
    Sahin, Suleyman
    Demirci, Nebi S.
    Karatas, Fatih
    Bozkaya, Yakup
    Aytekin, Aydin
    Tasdemir, Vildan
    Aslan, Alma C.
    Sever, Ali R.
    Zengin, Nurullah
    JOURNAL OF BUON, 2017, 22 (02): : 365 - 376
  • [10] Prognostic implications of receptor discordance between primary and recurrent breast cancer
    Matsumoto, Akiko
    Jinno, Hiromitsu
    Murata, Takeshi
    Seki, Tomoko
    Takahashi, Maiko
    Hayashida, Tetsu
    Kameyama, Kaori
    Kitagawa, Yuko
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2015, 20 (04) : 701 - 708