Search

CONTEXT AND AIMS:Breast cancer prognosis and predictive biomarkers development would allow sparing some patients from chemotherapy or identifying patients for whom chemotherapy would be indicated. In this context, in 2009, the French National Cancer Institute, a National Health and Science Agency dedicated to cancer, in collaboration with the French society of senology and breast pathology (SFSPM) published a report on the assessment of the prognostic and the predictive clinical validity of tissular biomarkers, uPA/PAI-1, Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®), in breast cancer management. They concluded that only the uPA/PAI-1 prognosis value reached the highest level of evidence (LOE I according to Hayes 1998 classification). In 2012, it was decided to update this report since new data have emerged and because information disparities among clinicians have been identified. This article aims to present the main conclusions together with the levels of evidence associated with those conclusions.METHODS:The updating process was based on literature published since 2009 appraisal and on multidisciplinary and independent experts' opinion. The levels of evidence (LOE) used are those of the classification defined by Simon in 2009 (updated Hayes 1998 classification): LOE IA and LOE IB: high level of evidence; LOE IIB and LOE IIC: intermediate level of evidence; LOE IIIC and LOE IV-VD: low level of evidence.CONCLUSIONS:Among patients without lymph-node involvement, uPA/PAI-1, invasion process biomarkers, reach the highest level of evidence for 10 years recurrence free survival prognosis (LOE IA according to Simon). The predictive value to anthracyclins chemotherapy remains to be confirmed. Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®) prognosis and predictive value do not reach the LOE I level. This updating' process confirms the 2009 levels of evidence for all the three biomarkers prognosis value. Besides, concerning Oncotype DX™ and MammaPrint(®), new data do not allow to conclude neither to their complementary clinical information to other clinicopathological existing biomarkers nor to a favorable cost-efficiency ratio in therapeutic decision making and this because of the methodological weakness and uncertainty that are identified in the selected studies. Practically, beyond the prognosis and predictive biomarkers validity, the clinical utility of a new biomarker for chemotherapy indication depends on its clinical added information with regard to validated biomarkers (HR, HER2 and Ki67) and to clinicopathological parameters. Since they are the sole validated biomarkers of the invasion process, uPA/PAI-1 could complete clinical information of other clinicopathological factors and consequently could confer an added clinical value. However, data concerning the impact of this information on chemotherapy clinical indication are lacking.Copyright © 2014. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS., IntroductionDans le cancer du sein, le développement des marqueurs biologiques pronostiques ou prédictifs a pour objectif de mieux identifier les patientes pour lesquelles un traitement par chimiothérapie pourrait être évité ou a contrario indiqué. Dans ce contexte, en 2009, l’Institut national du cancer (INCa), agence sanitaire et scientifique de l’État chargée de coordonner les actions de lutte contre le cancer, avait publié en partenariat avec la Société française de sénologie et de pathologie mammaire un rapport sur l’état des connaissances relatives aux biomarqueurs uPA/PAI-1, Oncotype DX™ et MammaPrint® dans la prise en charge du cancer du sein. Ce rapport avait montré que seule la valeur pronostique d’uPA/PAI-1 atteignait le plus haut niveau de preuve (LOE I selon la grille de Hayes 1998). En 2012, devant la parution de nouvelles publications et la divergence des messages diffusés sur les signatures moléculaires, il a été décidé d’actualiser le rapport de 2009. Cet article présente les principales conclusions accompagnées de leurs niveaux de preuve.MéthodeLe processus de mise à jour s’est appuyé sur l’analyse des données publiées depuis la recherche bibliographique de 2009, complétée par l’avis d’un groupe de travail multidisciplinaire indépendant. Les niveaux de preuve employés sont ceux de la classification définie par Simon en 2009 (grille de Hayes 1998 après mise à jour) : LOE IA et LOE IB : niveau de preuve élevé ; LOE IIB and LOE IIC : niveau de preuve intermédiaire ; LOE IIIC and LOE IV-VD : niveau de preuve faible.ConclusionsChez les patientes sans envahissement ganglionnaire (pN0), uPA/PAI-1, marqueurs d’invasion, ont un niveau de preuve élevé (LOE IA selon Simon) pour la valeur pronostique de la survie sans récidive à 10 ans. Il reste à confirmer leur valeur prédictive de réponse aux anthracyclines. Pour Oncotype DX™ et MammaPrint®, les valeurs pronostique et prédictive n’ont pas atteint à ce jour le niveau de preuve LOE I. Ce travail confirme les niveaux de preuve précédemment établis dans le rapport de 2009. Par ailleurs, les données ne permettent pas de conclure à une valeur ajoutée de Oncotype DX™ et MammaPrint® par rapport aux outils existants. Les données médico-économiques ne permettent pas de statuer sur le rapport coût/efficacité des stratégies utilisant ces tests dans la décision thérapeutique compte tenu d’un niveau de qualité insuffisant pour la plupart des études et d’une forte incertitude mise en évidence par les quelques études bien menées. En pratique, au-delà des niveaux de preuve attribuables à la valeur pronostique et prédictive d’un biomarqueur, l’utilité clinique d’un nouveau marqueur dans l’aide à la prescription d’une chimiothérapie repose sur sa valeur ajoutée par rapport aux marqueurs validés (RH, HER2 et les marqueurs de prolifération comme Ki67) et aux critères anatomo-cliniques. Puisqu’ils sont les seuls marqueurs validés à témoigner du processus d’invasion, uPA/PAI-1 peuvent apporter une information complémentaire et donc avoir une valeur ajoutée par rapport aux marqueurs existants. Les données de la littérature manquent pour apprécier le poids de cette valeur ajoutée dans la décision de prescrire ou non une chimiothérapie.

The nuclear estrogen receptors (ER) are the major targets for endocrine treatment of hormone-dependent breast cancers. Hormone therapy blocked endogenous estrogen activation of ER, either by competitive inhibition of endogenous estrogens (selective estrogen receptor modulators – SERM or selective estrogen receptor down regulators – SERD) or by inhibition of estrogen synthesis (aromatase inhibitors) from adrenal androgens in post-menopausal women. The efficacy of these treatments has been shown on large series of breast cancer patients. However de novo or acquired resistance to treatment occurs. The better knowledge of the mechanism of action of such treatment may help to better understand them, and also for the determinism of adverse side effects of the different class of molecules.

Considering both the clinical and molecular heterogeneity of breast cancers, one can easily conceive that all tumours are not equally sensitive to the different chemotherapy agents or regimens used. Thus, the identification of predictive markers of chemosensitivity should be considered as a research priority and we analyse here this question in two parts: (1) identification of predictive markers of general chemosensitivity, which means that a tumour is sensitive to any chemotherapy; (2) identification of predictive markers of specific chemotherapy which means that a tumour is sensitive to a specific cytostatic class or to a specific regimen. We will address these two aspects and will summarise ongoing trials and recently published data. These studies suggest the predictive value of biological markers either considered as single molecular markers (hormone receptors, HER2, TOPO2alpha, p53) or as multiple markers combined in so-called "signatures".

The detection of overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) in some breast cancer tumors has led to the development of a targeted treatment that is tumor selective, effective at extending life expectancy in the patients with advanced or early breast cancers. Trastuzumab (Herceptin), a humanized monoclonal antibody to HER2 is indicated for patients whose tumor demonstrates an amplified copy number for the HER2 oncogene and/or overexpresses the HER2 oncoprotein. Despite a high level of efficacy in combination with chemotherapy, trastuzumab as single agent has limited effectiveness (up to 30% response rates) and patients who respond to trastuzumab will relapse despite continued treatment. The mechanism of trastuzumab action is not fully understood but has been related to cell cycle inhibition. As to mechanisms of resistance, little is known but many preclinical data raised different hypothesis. Thus, the co-expression of growth factor receptors (EGFR family, IGF-1 R), and the activation of PI3K-Akt pathway, mainly by loss of PTEN function may be responsible for the resistance phenotype. It would be interesting to identify the mechanisms of trastuzumab resistance in breast tumors in order to reverse or prevent it. The characterization of these mechanisms would also provide novel strategies for alternative treatments.

The " Standards, Options and Recommendations " (SOR) project, started in 1993, is a collaboration between the Federation of French Cancer Centres (FNCLCC), the 20 French cancer centres, and specialists from French public universities, general hospitals and private clinics. The main objective is the development of clinical practice guidelines to improve the quality of health care and the outcome of cancer patients. The methodology is based on a literature review and critical appraisal by a multidisciplinary group of experts, with feedback from specialists in cancer care delivery. Objectives : To update the Standards, Options and Recommendations clinical practice guidelines for the management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast (DCIS). Methods : The working group identified the questions requiring up-dating from the previous guideline. Medline(r) and Embase(r) were searched using specific search strategies from year 1996 to year 2003. In addition several Internet sites were searched in October 2002. Results : Clinical guidelines have been defined for the management of diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and treatment of recurrence of DCIS. The issue of hormone replacement therapy has also been addressed in the context of DCIS.

Estrogen is the main hormone involved in the development and growth of hormone-dependent breast cancer. Endocrine adjuvant treatment in recent years focused primarily on the use of SERMs, mainly tamoxifen. Tamoxifen actions are complex. It acts by competitive antagonism of estrogen at its receptor site. It has beneficial agonistic effects in preventing bone demineralization in postmenopausal women, but a detrimental agonistic effect by increasing the risk of uterine cancer and of thrombo-embolism. However, the situation is changing rapidly with the introduction of recent aromatase inhibitors, which display high specificity towards aromatase. They suppress plasma estrogen levels in postmenopausal women by inhibiting or inactivating aromatase, the enzyme responsible of the synthesis of estrogens from androgenic substrates. A complete estrogen deprivation in target tissues may eventually induce osteoporosis. Unlike tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors have no partial agonistic action. During the last 20 years, adjuvant tamoxifen treatment for 5 years was the "gold standard" endocrine treatment in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancers. A 25% reduction risk of deaths was observed. Recently, the results of clinical trials comparing aromatase inhibitors to tamoxifen in post menopausal women with hormone-dependent breast cancer showed a benefit in favor of aromatase inhibitors in reducing the risk of recurrence. These trials were either comparative (for anastrozole) or sequential (for anastrozole, letrozole and exemestane). The issues of long term adverse effects (bone) and hormone treatment sequence remain to be addressed.

The erbB receptor family is part of the receptor tyrosine kinase superfamily and consists of four members erbB. The erbB receptor family has been shown to play an important role in both the development of the normal breast and the pathogenesis and progression of breast cancer. Receptor overexpression has also been shown to be a negative prognostic indicator and to correlate with both tumor invasiveness and a lack of responsiveness to standard treatment, both chemotherapy and hormonotherapy. The targeting of EGFR mainly resides in two approaches: tyrosine kinase inhibition and monoclonal antibodies blocking ligand fixation. Many experimental data support the potential role of targeting EGFR in breast cancer. Particularly tyrosine kinase inhibitors demonstrates activity as single agent or in association with hormonotherapy, chemotherapy and trastuzumab. The association of Iressa with hormonotherapy points out that theses agents may prevent or differ hormonoresistance. Moreover studies in situ carcinoma suggest that tyrosine kinase inhibitors may play a role in chemoprevention. So, targeting EGFR may be indicated in a large spectrum of breast tumors from early to advanced stages, hormone negative or positive breast tumors. However the complexity of erbB network requires the targeting of multiple molecular sites within the network and the characterization of tumor profiles in order to optimally select patients for these therapies.