Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Chimiothérapie néo-adjuvante. Expérience du centre Jean-Perrin. Importance de la tumeur résiduelle et de la rémission histologique complète

  • Conference paper
Cancer du sein

  • 243 Accesses

Conclusion

La réponse histologique complète ou, en son absence, le résidu tumoral quantifié par l’index NPI, ainsi que les NPI modifiés, peuvent être appliqués dans le cadre d’un traitement néo-adjuvant et offrent l’avantage de pouvoir « quantifier » la maladie résiduelle, en reliant le paramètre mammaire au paramètre ganglionnaire. Sans prétendre résumer à lui seul les facteurs pronostiques classiques utilisés pour fixer le traitement adjuvant, il constitue un socle majeur sur lequel pourra s’appuyer l’oncologue pour sa prescription adjuvante, aidé par d’autres facteurs comme les récepteurs hormonaux, l’oncogène HER2-neu, etc.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Références

  1. Belembaogo E, Feillel V, Chollet P et al. (1992) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in 126 operable breast cancers. European Journal of Cancer 28(4/5): 896–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Brambilla C et al. (1998) Primary chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: eight-year experience at the Milan Cancer Institute.J Clin Oncol 16: 93–100

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Chevallier B, Roche H, Olivier JP et al. (1993) Inflammatory breast cancer. Pilot study of intensive induction chemotherapy (FEC-HD) results in a high histologic response rate. American Journal of Clinical Oncology 16(3): 223–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Chevallier B, Chollet P, Merrouche Y et al. (1995) Lenograstim prevents morbidity from intensive induction chemotherapy in the treatment of inflammatory breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 13(7): 1564–71

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chollet P, Charrier S, Brain E et al. (1997) Clinical and pathological response to primary chemotherapy in inoperable breast cancer. European Journal of Cancer 33(6): 862–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Curé H, Charrier S, Ferrière JP et al. (1997) Chimiothérapie première dans les cancers du sein opérables supérieurs à 3 cm: résultats de 3 protocoles. Bulletin du Cancer 84(1): 31–4

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Van Praagh I, Curé H, Leduc B et al. (2002) Efficacy of primary chemotherapy regimen combining Vinorelbine, Epirubicine and Methotrexate (VEM) as neoadjuvant treatment in 89 patients with operable breast cancer. The Oncologist 7(5): 418–23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ et al. (1995) J Am Coll Surg 180(3): 297–306

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Van Praagh I, Amat S, Leduc B et al. (2002) Induction chemotherapy in operable breast cancer by NET regimen: multicentric phase II trial. Annals of Oncology 13(5): 43-abst.153

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mouret-Reynier MA, Abrial C, Ferrière JP et al. (2004) Neoadjuvant FEC 100 for operable breast cancer: Eight-year experience at Centre Jean-Perrin. Clinical Breast Cancer (accepted)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brain E, Garrino C, Misset JL et al. (1997) Long-term prognostic and predictive factors in 107 stage II/III breast cancer patients treated with anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Br J Cancer 75: 1360–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N et al. (1998) Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16: 2672–85

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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: 621–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Smith TL et al. (1999) Clinical course of breast cancer patients with complete pathologic primary tumor and axillary lymph node response to doxorubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 17: 460–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pierga JY, Mouret E, Dieras V et al. (2000) Prognostic value of persistent node involvement after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer. Br J Cancer 83: 1480–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Buzdar AU et al. (1998) Residual metastatic axillary lymph nodes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy predict disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Am J Surg 176: 502–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sataloff DM, Mason BA, Prestipino AJ et al. (1995) Pathologic response to induction chemotherapy in locally advanced carcinoma of the breast: a determinant of outcome. J Am Coll Surg 180: 297–306

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Brambilla C et al. (1998) Primary chemotherapy in operable breast cancer: eight-year experience at the Milan Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol 16: 93–100

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Chollet P, Amat S, Cure H et al. (2002) Prognostic significance of a complete pathological response after induction chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. Br J Cancer 86: 1041–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Chevallier B, Roche H, Olivier JP et al. (1993) Inflammatory breast cancer. Pilot study of intensive induction chemotherapy (FEC-HD) results in a high histologic response rate. Am J Clin Oncol 16: 223–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cody HS 3rd (2001) Clinical aspects of sentinel node biopsy. Breast Cancer Res 3(2):104–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen LF, Breslin TM, Kuerer HM et al. (2000) Identification and evaluation of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in patients with breast carcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Am J Surg Pathol 24: 1266–72

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Julian TB, Patel N, Dusi D et al. (2001) Sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Am J Surg 182: 407–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Bloom HJ, Field JR (1971) Impact of tumor grade and host resistance on survival of women with breast cancer. Cancer 28: 1580–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Contesso G, Mouriesse H, Friedman S et al. (1987) The importance of histologic grade in long-term prognosis of breast cancer: a study of 1,010 patients, uniformly treated at the Institut Gustave-Roussy. J Clin Oncol 5: 1378–86

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Davis BW, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A et al. (1986) Prognostic significance of tumor grade in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer with axillary lymph node metastasis. Cancer 15;58: 2662–70

    Google Scholar 

  27. Charpin C, Bacquie N, Bouvier C et al. (1995) Comparison of the prognostic significance of current and modified histological grades in breast carcinomas. Anticancer Res 15: 2611–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19: 403–10

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Latinovic L, Heinze G, Birner P et al. (2001) Prognostic relevance of three histological grading methods in breast cancer. Int J Oncol 19: 1271–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Le Doussal V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Friedman S et al. (1989) Prognostic value of histologic grade nuclear components of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR). An improved score modification based on a multivariate analysis of 1262 invasive ductal breast carcinomas. Cancer 1;64: 1914–21

    Google Scholar 

  31. Simpson JF, Gray R, Dressler LG et al. (2000) Prognostic value of histologic grade and proliferative activity in axillary node-positive breast cancer: results from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Companion Study, EST 4189. J Clin Oncol 18: 2059–69

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Sainsbury JR, Anderson TJ, Morgan DA (2000) ABC of breast diseases: breast cancer. BMJ 23; 321(7263): 745–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Amat S, Penault-Llorca F, Cure H et al. (2002) Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grading: a pleiotropic marker of chemosensitivity in invasive ductal breast carcinomas treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Int J Oncol 20: 791–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Fleming RY, Asmar L, Buzdar AU et al. (1997) Effectiveness of mastectomy by response to induction chemotherapy for control in inflammatory breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 4: 452–61

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lenert JT, Vlastos G, Mirza NQ et al. (1999) Primary tumor response to induction chemotherapy as a predictor of histological status of axillary nodes in operable breast cancer patients. Ann Surg Oncol 6: 762–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Machiavelli MR, Romero AO, Perez JE et al. (1998) Prognostic significance of pathological response of primary tumor and metastatic axillary lymph nodes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast carcinoma. Cancer J Sci Am 4: 125–31

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Curé H, Amat S, Penault-Llorca F et al. (2002) Prognostic value of residual node involvement in operable breast cancer after induction chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 76: 37–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Fisher B, Wolmark N, Redmond C (1981) Findings from NSABP Protocol No. B-04: comparison of radical mastectomy with alternative treatments. II. The clinical and biologic significance of medial-central breast cancers. Cancer 15;48: 1863–72

    Google Scholar 

  39. McGuire WL, Abeloff MD, Fisher B et al. (1989) Adjuvant therapy in nodenegative breast cancer. A panel discussion. Breast Cancer Res Treat 13: 97–115

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO (1992) The Nottingham Prognostic Index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 22: 207–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Balslev I, Axelsson CK, Zedeler K et al. (1994) The Nottingham Prognostic Index applied to 9,149 patients from the studies of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Breast Cancer Res Treat 32: 281–90

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. D’Eredita G, Giardina C, Martellotta M et al. (2001) Prognostic factors in breast cancer: the predictive value of the Nottingham Prognostic Index in patients with a long-term follow-up that were treated in a single institution. Eur J Cancer 37: 591–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Fredriksson I, Liljegren G, Arnesson LG et al. (2002) Local recurrence in the breast after conservative surgery—a study of prognosis and prognostic factors in 391 women. Eur J Cancer 38: 1860–70

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Malmstrom P, Bendahl PO, Boiesen P et al. (2001) S-phase fraction and urokinase plasminogen activator are better markers for distant recurrences than Nottingham Prognostic Index and histologic grade in a prospective study of premenopausal lymph node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1;19: 2010–9

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sauerbrei W, Hubner K, Schmoor C, Schumacher M (1997) Validation of existing and development of new prognostic classification schemes in node negative breast cancer. German Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast Cancer Res Treat 42: 149–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Sundquist M, Thorstenson S, Brudin L, Nordenskjold B (1999) Applying the Nottingham Prognostic Index to a Swedish breast cancer population. South East Swedish Breast Cancer Study Group. Breast Cancer Res Treat 53: 1–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Genestie C, Zafrani B, Asselain B et al. (1998) Comparison of the prognostic value of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson and Nottingham histological grades in a series of 825 cases of breast cancer: major importance of the mitotic count as a component of both grading systems. Anticancer Res 18: 571–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Chollet P, Amat S, Belembaogo E et al. (2003) Is Nottingham prognostic index useful after induction chemotherapy in operable breast cancer? Br J Cancer 89: 1185–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre Jean Perrin, 58, rue Montalembert, BP 392, 63011, Clermont-Ferrand Cedex 1

    P. Chollet, H. Curé, S. Amat, M. -A. Mouret-Reynier & F. Penault-Llorca

  2. INSERM U484, Rue Montalembert, BP 184, 63005, Clermont-Ferrand Cedex

    P. Chollet, H. Curé, S. Amat, M. -A. Mouret-Reynier & F. Penault-Llorca

Authors
  1. P. Chollet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Curé
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Amat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. -A. Mouret-Reynier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. F. Penault-Llorca
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag France, Paris

About this paper

Cite this paper

Chollet, P., Curé, H., Amat, S., Mouret-Reynier, M.A., Penault-Llorca, F. (2006). Chimiothérapie néo-adjuvante. Expérience du centre Jean-Perrin. Importance de la tumeur résiduelle et de la rémission histologique complète. In: Cancer du sein. Springer, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1007/2-287-31109-2_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/2-287-31109-2_16

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Paris

  • Print ISBN: 978-2-287-25174-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-2-287-31109-3

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation