Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 165, Issue 3, pp 611–621 | Cite as

Prognostic impact of the inclusion of uPA/PAI-1 for adjuvant treatment decision-making in ER+/Her2− pN0 early breast cancers

  • Marie VialaEmail author
  • Marie Alexandre
  • Simon Thezenas
  • Pierre-Jean Lamy
  • Aurélie Maran-Gonzalez
  • Marian Gutowski
  • Pierre-Emmanuel Colombo
  • Gilles Romieu
  • William Jacot
  • Severine Guiu
Clinical trial

Abstract

Purpose

Intermediate-risk early breast cancer (EBC) is a heterogeneous group in which adjuvant chemotherapy decision proves to be difficult. Clinical and pathological criteria are sometimes insufficient to determine the best therapeutic options, and validated biomarkers such as uPA/PAI-1, are needed to contribute to the decision-making. The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of an unselected ER+/HER2− pN0 EBC cohort of patients in whom the routine clinical decision process included a prospective uPA/PAI-1 determination.

Method

This monocentric retrospective study included 520 patients who underwent curative surgery in our institute between 2006 and 2011. Adjuvant therapeutic strategy was decided based on clinical–pathological data, altogether with a routine prospective determination of uPA/PAI-1 tumor levels using fresh, extemporaneously sampled tissue. We evaluated the correlation between uPA/PAI-1 levels, clinical-pathological variables, and the patient’s outcome (relapse-free survival, RFS, and overall survival, OS).

Result

Median follow-up was 5.4 years. The 5- and 10-year RFS rates were ,respectively, 95 and 89%, and the five-year OS rate was 96.3%. Forty percent of tumors had low uPA/PAI-1 levels. Seventy-five percent of patients with low uPA/PAI-1 levels did not receive chemotherapy, when 25% did. Sixty percent of patients with high uPA and/or PAI-1 levels received chemotherapy, while 40% did not. No statistical significant correlation was found between the uPA/PAI-1 levels and RFS or OS.

Conclusion

The personalization of the patients’ treatment using uPA/PAI-1 tumor levels allows the reversion of the well-known poor prognostic impact of high uPA/PAI-1 levels and strongly supports the use of this biomarker in clinical practice.

Keywords

uPA/PAI-Adjuvant chemotherapy Breast cancer Tailoring 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Hélène de Forges, Ph.D., for editorial assistance.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10549_2017_4373_MOESM1_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136:E359–E386. doi: 10.1002/ijc.29210 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harbeck N, Kates RE, Look MP et al (2002) Enhanced benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients classified high-risk according to urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (n = 3424). Cancer Res 62:4617–4622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mengele K, Napieralski R, Magdolen V et al (2010) Characteristics of the level-of-evidence-1 disease forecast cancer biomarkers uPA and its inhibitor PAI-1. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 10:947–962. doi: 10.1586/erm.10.73 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allemani C, Minicozzi P, Berrino F et al (2013) Predictions of survival up to 10 years after diagnosis for European women with breast cancer in 2000–2002. Int J Cancer 132:2404–2412. doi: 10.1002/ijc.27895 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A et al (2015) Tailoring therapies—improving the management of early breast cancer: St gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2015. Ann Oncol 26:1533–1546. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv221 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lamy PJ, Saadoun H, Thezenas S et al (2012) uPA-PAI-1 et paramètres clinicopathologiques classiques dans la prise en charge individualisée des cancers primaires du sein. Cancer Sein Surdiagnostic Surtraitement. Springer, Paris, pp 279–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marrone M, Stewart A, Dotson WD (2015) Clinical utility of gene-expression profiling in women with early breast cancer: an overview of systematic reviews. Genet Med 17:519–532. doi: 10.1038/gim.2014.140 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R et al (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:5287–5312. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.2364 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Duffy MJ, McGowan PM, Harbeck N et al (2014) uPA and PAI-1 as biomarkers in breast cancer: validated for clinical use in level-of-evidence-1 studies. Breast Cancer Res BCR 16:428. doi: 10.1186/s13058-014-0428-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harbeck N, Schmitt M, Meisner C et al (2013) Ten-year analysis of the prospective multicentre Chemo-N0 trial validates American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)-recommended biomarkers uPA and PAI-1 for therapy decision making in node-negative breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 49(8):1825–1835. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.01.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jänicke F, Prechtl A, Thomssen C et al (2001) Randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial in high-risk, lymph node-negative breast cancer patients identified by urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:913–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Look MP, van Putten WLJ, Duffy MJ et al (2002) Pooled analysis of prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator and its inhibitor PAI-1 in 8377 breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:116–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harbeck N, Alt U, Berger U et al (2001) Prognostic impact of proteolytic factors (urokinase-type plasminogen activator, plasminogen activator inhibitor 1, and cathepsins B, D, and L) in primary breast cancer reflects effects of adjuvant systemic therapy. Clin Cancer Res 7:2757–2764PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kolben T, Augustin D, Armbrust R et al (2016) Impact of guideline-based use of uPA/PAI-1 on patient outcome in intermediate-risk early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 155:109–115. doi: 10.1007/s10549-015-3653-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Denduluri N, Somerfield MR, Eisen A et al (2016) Selection of optimal adjuvant chemotherapy regimens for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative and adjuvant targeted therapy for HER2-positive breast cancers: an American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline adaptation of the cancer care ontario clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol 34:2416–2427. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.67.0182 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Manders P, Tjan-Heijnen VCG, Span PN et al (2003) The complex between urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its type-1 inhibitor (PAI-1) independently predicts response to first-line endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer. Thromb Haemost. doi: 10.1160/TH03-07-0467 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Borstnar S, Sadikov A, Mozina B, Cufer T (2010) High levels of uPA and PAI-1 predict a good response to anthracyclines. Breast Cancer Res Treat 121:615–624. doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0691-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pritchard KI (2010) High levels of uPA and PAI-1 predict a good response to anthracyclines. Breast Cancer Res Treat 121:625–626. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-0795-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Saadoun H, Lamy P-J, Thezenas S et al (2014) Prognostic impact of the inclusion of uPA/PAI-1 tumor levels in the current adjuvant treatment decision-making for early breast cancer. Future Oncol Lond Engl 10:195–209. doi: 10.2217/fon.13.177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roché H, Fumoleau P, Spielmann M et al (2006) Sequential adjuvant epirubicin-based and docetaxel chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer patients: the FNCLCC PACS 01 Trial. J Clin Oncol 24:5664–5671. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.07.3916 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD et al (2009) Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol 20:1319–1329. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdp322 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boyages J, Chua B, Taylor R et al (2002) Use of the St Gallen classification for patients with node-negative breast cancer may lead to overuse of adjuvant chemotherapy. Br J Surg 89:789–796. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2002.02113.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sundquist M, Thorstenson S, Brudin L et al (2002) Incidence and prognosis in early onset breast cancer. Breast Edinb Scotl 11:30–35. doi: 10.1054/brst.2001.0358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Group TBIG (BIG) 1–98 C (2005) A comparison of letrozole and tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:2747–2757. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052258 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Drukker CA, Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, Retèl VP et al (2013) A prospective evaluation of a breast cancer prognosis signature in the observational RASTER study. Int J Cancer 133:929–936. doi: 10.1002/ijc.28082 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cardoso F, van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J et al (2016) 70-Gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med 375(8):717–729. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602253 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gligorov J, Pivot XB, Jacot W et al (2015) Prospective clinical utility study of the use of the 21-gene assay in adjuvant clinical decision making in women with estrogen receptor-positive early invasive breast cancer: results from the SWITCH study. Oncologist 20:873–879. doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0467 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie Viala
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marie Alexandre
    • 1
  • Simon Thezenas
    • 1
  • Pierre-Jean Lamy
    • 2
  • Aurélie Maran-Gonzalez
    • 1
  • Marian Gutowski
    • 1
  • Pierre-Emmanuel Colombo
    • 1
    • 3
  • Gilles Romieu
    • 1
  • William Jacot
    • 1
    • 3
  • Severine Guiu
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Institut Régional du Cancer de Montpellier - Val d’AurelleMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Institut Médical d’Analyse Génomique, Labosud et Unité de Recherche Clinique, Clinique Beau SoleilMontpellierFrance
  3. 3.INSERM U1194–IRCM (Institut de Recherche en Cancérologie de Montpellier)MontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations