Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

618 Background: This study was undertaken to identify protein expression patterns able to predict response and resistance to chemo-endocrine therapy in elderly BC patients enrolled in a randomised phase II study. METHODS: 114 women with T2-4 N0-1, estrogen receptor positive BC were randomly assigned to 6 months of primary Letrozole (L) (2,5 mg/daily) or L plus oral "metronomic" cyclophosphamide (50 mg/daily) (LC). Expression of 24 markers was assessed before treatment on TMAs. Markers were involved in signalling and angiogenic/hypoxia pathways as follow; erbB2, T regulatory cells, caspase3, BNIP3, phosphorylated ERaplha, CCDN1, mTor, Hif-1α, phd1, phd2, phd3, CA9, COX2, p38, p44, EGFr, PI3k, pAkt, CD31, VEGF, Ki67, p53, bcl2, herb2. Principal factor (PF) analysis attempts to identify underlying factors that explain the correlation patterns within a set of observed variables; here, PF analysis was used to reduce the marker expression data by identifying a small number of PFs that explained most of the variance observed. These PFs were introduced in a multivariate logistic regression (MLR) to study basal protein expression profiles with response to chemo-endocrine treatment. Clinical variables such as treatment, age, tumor size, nodal status, grading and histotype were also included in MLR. RESULTS: 91 out of 113 evaluable patients (80.5%) attained a disease response, 48 patients a complete response (CR) (42.5%) whereas 22 did not respond (19.5%). The first 12 extracted PFs from PF analysis explained 80% of the expression data variance; these were considered in a MLR together with clinical variables. The 4(th) PF, mainly representing Hif-1α and p44 expression, and at lower degree EGFr expression, was the only independent predictor of disease response (OD=0.22, p=0.003). The 6(th) PF, mainly representing phosphorylated ERalpha expression, was the only independent factor associated with CR (OD=2.036, p=0.023). There was no interaction between these PFs and treatment randomisation. CONCLUSION: The activated form of ERalpha is with complete response, whereas Hif-1α and p44 were able to discriminate patients resistant to chemo-endocrine treatment. In this latter cohort, specific target therapies can be recommended. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Type

Journal article

Journal

J Clin Oncol

Publication Date

20/06/2006

Volume

24