Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 151, Issue 3, pp 577–587 | Cite as

Effects of conventional neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer on tumor angiogenesis

  • Ginés Luengo-Gil
  • Enrique González-Billalabeitia
  • Asunción Chaves-Benito
  • Elena García Martínez
  • Elisa García Garre
  • Vicente Vicente
  • Francisco Ayala de la Peña
Clinical Trial

Abstract

The effects of breast cancer conventional chemotherapy on tumor angiogenesis need to be further characterized. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an ideal model to evaluate the results of chemotherapy, allowing intra-patient direct comparison of antitumor and antiangiogenic effects. We sought to analyze the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on tumor angiogenesis and its clinical significance in breast cancer. Breast cancer patients (n = 108) treated with neoadjuvant sequential anthracyclines and taxanes were studied. Pre- and post-chemotherapy microvessel density (MVD) and mean vessel size (MVS) were analyzed after CD34 immunohistochemistry and correlated with tumor expression of pro- and antiangiogenic factors (VEGFA, THBS1, HIF1A, CTGF, and PDGFA) by qRT-PCR. Angiogenic measures at diagnosis varied among breast cancer subtypes. Pre-treatment higher MVS was associated with triple-negative subtype and more advanced disease. Higher MVS was correlated with higher VEGFA (p = 0.003), while higher MVD was correlated with lower antiangiogenic factors expression (THBS1, p < 0.0001; CTGF, p = 0.001). Increased angiogenesis at diagnosis (high MVS and glomeruloid microvascular proliferation) and higher VEGFA expression were associated with tumor recurrence (p = 0.048 and 0.009, respectively). Chemotherapy-induced angiogenic response (defined as decreased MVD) was present in 35.2 % of patients. This response correlated with an increase in antiangiogenic factors (THBS1) without changes in VEGFA expression, and it was associated with tumor downstaging, but not with clinical response, pathologic complete response, or prognosis. Global effects of chemotherapy mainly consisted in an increased expression of antiangiogenic factors (THBS1, CTGF), with significant changes neither of tumor VEGFA nor of MVS. Conventionally scheduled neoadjuvant chemotherapy exerts antiangiogenic effects, through an increase in antiangiogenic factors, THBS1 and CTGF, but the expression of VEGFA is maintained after treatment. Better markers of angiogenic response and a better understanding of the cooperation of chemotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy in the neoadjuvant clinical scenario are needed.

Keywords

Breast cancer Angiogenesis VEGF THBS1 Neoadjuvant chemotherapy MVD 

Abbreviations

CT

Chemotherapy

MVD

Microvessel density

MVS

Mean vessel size

AR

Angiogenic response

pCR

Pathologic complete response

HR

Hormone receptor

Notes

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge technical assistance provided by Rosario Martínez-Marín, Miriam Lencina Guardiola (BiobancMur, Nodo 1, IMIB-Arrixaca), Dr. Fara Sáez-Belmonte (SAI-University of Murcia), Lorena Velázquez-Olmos (CRH), and José Antonio López Oliva (HMM).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they do not have a financial relationship with the organization that sponsored the research. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This work was funded by Fundación Salud 2000 (Ayuda Merck Serono de Investigación en Oncología 2012) and by Instituto de Salud Carlos III (PI/1202877).

Supplementary material

10549_2015_3421_MOESM1_ESM.doc (124 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 124 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Schneider BP, Gray RJ, Radovich M et al (2013) Prognostic and predictive value of tumor vascular endothelial growth factor gene amplification in metastatic breast cancer treated with paclitaxel with and without bevacizumab; results from ECOG 2100 trial. Clin Cancer Res 19:1281–1289CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Miles DW, Diéras V, Cortés J et al (2013) First-line bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: pooled and subgroup analyses of data from 2447 patients. Ann Oncol 24:2773–2780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sledge GW (2015) Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in breast cancer: game over? J Clin Oncol 33:133–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bear HD, Tang G, Rastogi P et al (2012) Bevacizumab added to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 366:310–320CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Von Minckwitz G, Eidtmann H, Rezai M et al (2012) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and bevacizumab for HER2-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 366:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grant DS, Williams TL, Zahaczewsky M, Dicker AP (2003) Comparison of antiangiogenic activities using paclitaxel (taxol) and docetaxel (taxotere). Int J Cancer 104:121–129CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tonini G, Schiavon G, Silletta M et al (2007) Antiangiogenic properties of metronomic chemotherapy in breast cancer. Future Oncol 3:183–190CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tas F, Duranyildiz D, Soydinc HO et al (2008) Effect of maximum-tolerated doses and low-dose metronomic chemotherapy on serum vascular endothelial growth factor and thrombospondin-1 levels in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 61:721–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Makris A, Powles TJ, Kakolyris S et al (1999) Reduction in angiogenesis after neoadjuvant chemoendocrine therapy in patients with operable breast carcinoma. Cancer 85:1996–2000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Baena-Cañada JM, Palomo González MJ, Arriola Arellano E et al (2008) Evolution of angiogenesis following anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Med Clin 130:721–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Honkoop AH, van Diest PJ, de Jong JS et al (1998) Prognostic role of clinical, pathological and biological characteristics in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 77:621–626CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Honkoop AH, Pinedo HM, De Jong JS et al (1997) Effects of chemotherapy on pathologic and biologic characteristics of locally advanced breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 107:211–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wedam SB, Low JA, Yang SX et al (2006) Antiangiogenic and antitumor effects of bevacizumab in patients with inflammatory and locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:769–777CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yang SX, Steinberg SM, Nguyen D et al (2008) Gene expression profile and angiogenic marker correlates with response to neoadjuvant bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 14:5893–5899CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bottini A, Berruti A, Bersiga A et al (2002) Changes in microvessel density as assessed by CD34 antibodies after primary chemotherapy in human breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 8:1816–1821PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beresford MJ, Harris AL, Ah-See M et al (2006) The relationship of the neo-angiogenic marker, endoglin, with response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 95:1683–1688CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Miller KD, Soule SE, Calley C et al (2005) Randomized phase II trial of the anti-angiogenic potential of doxorubicin and docetaxel; primary chemotherapy as Biomarker Discovery Laboratory. Breast Cancer Res Treat 89:187–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Akslen LA, Straume O, Geisler S et al (2011) Glomeruloid microvascular proliferation is associated with lack of response to chemotherapy in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 105:9–12CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2(-Delta Delta C(T)) Method. Methods 25:402–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Holm S (1979) A simple sequentially rejective multiple tests procedure. Scand J Stat 6:65–70Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Uzzan B, Nicolas P, Cucherat M, Perret G-Y (2004) Microvessel density as a prognostic factor in women with breast cancer: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis. Cancer Res 64:2941–2955CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mikalsen LTG, Dhakal HP, Bruland ØS et al (2013) The clinical impact of mean vessel size and solidity in breast carcinoma patients. PLoS One 8:e75954CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yee KO, Connolly CM, Duquette M et al (2009) The effect of thrombospondin-1 on breast cancer metastasis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 114:85–96CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nagy JA, Chang S-H, Dvorak AM, Dvorak HF (2009) Why are tumour blood vessels abnormal and why is it important to know? Br J Cancer 100:865–869CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Guidi AJ, Berry DA, Broadwater G et al (2002) Association of angiogenesis and disease outcome in node-positive breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and fluorouracil: a Cancer and Leukemia Group B correlative science study from protocols 8541/8869. J Clin Oncol 20:732–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Goel HL, Mercurio AM (2013) VEGF targets the tumour cell. Nat Rev Cancer 13:871–882CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Van den Eynden GG, Van der Auwera I, Van Laere SJ et al (2007) Comparison of molecular determinants of angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in lymph node metastases and in primary tumours of patients with breast cancer. J Pathol 213:56–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maae E, Olsen DA, Steffensen KD et al (2012) Prognostic impact of placenta growth factor and vascular endothelial growth factor a in patients with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133:257–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Linderholm B, Grankvist K, Wilking N et al (2000) Correlation of vascular endothelial growth factor content with recurrences, survival, and first relapse site in primary node-positive breast carcinoma after adjuvant treatment. J Clin Oncol 18:1423–1431PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bender RJ, Mac Gabhann F (2013) Expression of VEGF and semaphorin genes define subgroups of triple negative breast cancer. PLoS One 8:e61788CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vasudev NS, Goh V, Juttla JK et al (2013) Changes in tumour vessel density upon treatment with anti-angiogenic agents: relationship with response and resistance to therapy. Br J Cancer 109:1230–1242CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hlatky L, Hahnfeldt P, Folkman J (2002) Clinical application of antiangiogenic therapy: microvessel density, what it does and doesn’t tell us. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:883–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ebos JML, Mastri M, Lee CR et al (2014) Neoadjuvant antiangiogenic therapy reveals contrasts in primary and metastatic tumor efficacy. EMBO Mol Med 6:1561–1576CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Chung AS, Kowanetz M, Wu X et al (2012) Differential drug class-specific metastatic effects following treatment with a panel of angiogenesis inhibitors. J Pathol 227:404–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Colleoni M, Orlando L, Sanna G et al (2006) Metronomic low-dose oral cyclophosphamide and methotrexate plus or minus thalidomide in metastatic breast cancer: antitumor activity and biological effects. Ann Oncol 17:232–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mele T, Generali D, Fox S et al (2010) Anti-angiogenic effect of tamoxifen combined with epirubicin in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 123:795–804CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lawler PR, Lawler J (2012) Molecular basis for the regulation of angiogenesis by thrombospondin-1 and -2. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med 2:a006627CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Baar J, Silverman P, Lyons J et al (2009) A vasculature-targeting regimen of preoperative docetaxel with or without bevacizumab for locally advanced breast cancer: impact on angiogenic biomarkers. Clin Cancer Res 15:3583–3590CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Jacobs TW, Siziopikou KP, Prioleau JE et al (1998) Do prognostic marker studies on core needle biopsy specimens of breast carcinoma accurately reflect the marker status of the tumor? Mod Pathol 11:259–264PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ryden L, Boiesen P, Jonsson P-E (2004) Assessment of microvessel density in core needle biopsy specimen in breast cancer. Anticancer Res 24:371–376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Jain RK (2014) Antiangiogenesis strategies revisited: from starving tumors to alleviating hypoxia. Cancer Cell 26:605–622CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Vasudev NS, Reynolds AR (2014) Anti-angiogenic therapy for cancer: current progress, unresolved questions and future directions. Angiogenesis 17:471–494CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ginés Luengo-Gil
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Enrique González-Billalabeitia
    • 1
    • 5
  • Asunción Chaves-Benito
    • 2
  • Elena García Martínez
    • 1
  • Elisa García Garre
    • 1
  • Vicente Vicente
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • Francisco Ayala de la Peña
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Hematology and Medical OncologyUniversity Hospital Morales MeseguerMurciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of PathologyUniversity Hospital Morales MeseguerMurciaSpain
  3. 3.Centro Regional de HemodonaciónMurciaSpain
  4. 4.University of MurciaMurciaSpain
  5. 5.IMIB-ArrixacaMurciaSpain

Personalised recommendations