Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer

Profiles of molecular subtypes and clinical responses to anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer at Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Surabaya

  • Hadian Rahman ,
  • Iskandar Ali ,
  • Dwi Hari Susilo ,

Abstract

Link of Video Abstract: https://youtu.be/p3fI1xefgYg

 

Introduction: Breast cancer is a genetically and clinically heterogeneous disease with multiple subtypes. The molecular subtype of breast cancer is one of the significant predictors of chemotherapy response. Until now, anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) is still one of the recommendations in the management of locally advanced breast cancer (LABC).

Methods: Between January 2017 and December 2021, a descriptive study was performed on 130 LABC patients receiving anthracycline-based NACT at Dr. Soetomo General Hospital Surabaya. Information on demographics, stage, chemotherapy regimen, number of cycles, histology, and immunohistochemistry testing was gathered from the patient's medical record. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) positive was +3, high Ki-67 ≥ 20%, and 1% were the cut-off values for positive hormone receptors (HR) status for both estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR).

Results: Out of the 130 patients, we found Luminal A subtype in 11 patients (8.5%), luminal B 83 patients (63.8%), HER2-enriched 14 patients (10.8%), and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) 22 patients (16.9%). The clinical response of anthracycline-based NACT in the Luminal A subtype was 81.8%, Luminal B was 71.1%, HER2-enriched was 92.9%, and TNBC was 45.5%.

Conclusion: The Luminal B subtype is the most common molecular subtype in LABC patients at Dr. Soetomo General Hospital Surabaya. In contrast, the HER2-enriched subtype had the highest clinical response to anthracycline-based NACT.

References

  1. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Breast - Global Cancer Observatory. Globocan. 2020;419:1–2.
  2. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Indonesia - Global Cancer Observatory. Globocan. 2020;858:1–2.
  3. Admoun C, Mayrovitz H. The Etiology of Breast Cancer. In: Mayrovitz HN. editor. Breast Cancer. Brisbane (AU): Exon Publications. Online first 22 Jun 2022. 2022. doi:https://doi.org/10.36255/exon-publications-breast-cancer-etiology
  4. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2019-2020. Atlanta Am Cancer Soc Inc. 2020;1–43. doi:10.1007/174_2016_83
  5. Ryspayeva D, Lyashenko A, Dosenko I, Kostryba O, Koshyk O, Krotevych M, et al. Predictive factors of pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. 2020;25(1):168–75.
  6. Manuaba I, Azamris, Pieter J, Lukitto P, Reksoprawiro S, Aryandono T. Panduan Penatalaksanaan Kanker Solid PERABOI 2010. Manuaba I, editor. Jakarta: Sagung Seto; 2010.
  7. Cardoso F, Costa A, Senkus E, Aapro M, André F, Barrios CH, et al. 3rd ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 3). Ann Oncol. 2017;28(1):16–33. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdw544
  8. Gradishar WJ, Abraham J, Aft R, Agnese D, Allison KH, Blair SL, et al. NCCN Guidelines Version 3.2019 Breast Cancer NCCN Guidelines Panel Disclosures. 2019;
  9. Haque W, Verma V, Hatch S, Klimberg VS, Butler EB, Teh BS. Response rates and pathologic complete response by breast cancer molecular subtype following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;0(0):0. doi:10.1007/s10549-018-4801-3
  10. Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thürlimann B, Panel HS. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer : highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013. 2013;(March):2206–23. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdt303
  11. American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene FL, Schilsky RL, Gaspar LE, Washington MK, editors. United States: American College of Surgeons; 2018. 589–638 p.
  12. Vries E De, Schwartz LH, Litie S, Ford R, Gwyther S, Mandrekar S, et al. ScienceDirect RECIST 1 . 1 d Update and clarification : From the RECIST committee. 2016;(March):1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2016.03.081
  13. Azhar Y, Agustina H, Abdurachman M, Achmad D. Breast Cancer in West Java : Where Do We Stand and Go ? 2020;14(September):91–6.
  14. Gondhowiardjo S, Soediro R, Jayalie VF, Djoerban Z, Siregar NC, Poetiray EDC, et al. Multicenter Management of Breast Cancer in Indonesia : Ten Years of Experience Manajemen Multisenter Kanker Payudara di Indonesia : 2020;8(2). doi:10.23886/ejki.8.11020.Abstract
  15. Anwar SL, Harahap WA, Cahyono R, Avanti WS, Budiman HY, Aryandono T. Pre-treatment neutrophil-lymphocyte and platelet-lymphocyte ratios as additional markers for breast cancer progression : A retrospective cohort study. Ann Med Surg. 2021;63(1):102144. doi:10.1016/j.amsu.2021.01.092
  16. Hartaningsih NMD, Sudarsa IW. Kanker payudara pada wanita usia muda di bagian bedah onkologi rumah sakit pusat Sanglah Denpasar tahun 2002 - 2012. 2013;
  17. Loibl S, Jackisch C, Lederer B, Untch M, Paepke S, Kümmel S, et al. Outcome after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in young breast cancer patients: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from eight prospectively randomized controlled trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;152(2):377–87. doi:10.1007/s10549-015-3479-z
  18. Instalasi PDBK dan JKN. Profil Kanker Timja Payudara RS Kanker Dharmais. 2020.
  19. Asri R, Pontoh V, Merung M. Neutrofil Darah Tepi pada Pasien Kanker Payudara Stadium Lanjut Sebelum dan Sesudah Dilakukan Tindakan. J BIOMEDIK. 2019;11(1). doi:10.35790/jbm.11.1.2019.23213
  20. Sinaga ES, Ahmad RA, Shivalli S, Hutajulu SH. Age at diagnosis predicted survival outcome of female patients with breast cancer at a tertiary hospital in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. 2018;8688:1–9. doi:10.11604/pamj.2018.31.163.17284
  21. Kaufmann M, Von Minckwitz G, Mamounas EP, Cameron D, Carey LA, Cristofanilli M, et al. Recommendations from an international consensus conference on the current status and future of neoadjuvant systemic therapy in primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19(5):1508–16. doi:10.1245/s10434-011-2108-2
  22. Rehman B, Shakeel O, Rehman S, Khanum N, Naheed R, Abubakar M, et al. Predictive factors involved in determining response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in high grade serous ovarian cancer and impact of response on 5 years disease free survival and overall survival. Pakistan J Med Heal Sci. 2020;14(3):638–43. doi:10.31487/j.COR.2020.08.05
  23. Yao L, Liu Y, Li Z, Ouyang T, Li J, Wang T, et al. chemotherapy in breast cancer. 2011;(December 2010):1326–31. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq612
  24. Purnawaty A, Hamdani W, Ganda ID. Relationship of Grade, Intrinsic Subtype and Clinical Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer. Int J Sci Basic Appl Res. 2018;4531:34–42.
  25. Jin M, Kim JY, Sung JH, Kim TH, Kang DK, Han SH, et al. Predictive Factors for Non-Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer. J Breast Dis. 2020;8(1):43–50. doi:10.14449/jbd.2020.8.1.43
  26. Karam D, Kumar S, Sudarsan R, Prasad M. Reintroducing FAC regimen as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Clinically Node Positive Locally Advanced Breast Cancer. Oncology. 2017;6(4):233–4.
  27. Stamatovic L, Susnjar S, Gavrilovic D, Minic I, Ursulovic T, Dzodic R. The influence of breast cancer subtypes on the response to anthracycline neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer patients. J BUON. 2018;23(5):1273–80. doi:10.1016/s0960-9776(17)30266-7
  28. Gradishar WJ, Moran MS, Abraham J, Abramson V. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast Cancer. 2023;Version 4.
  29. Hermansyah D, Azdi Albar Z, Joko Purwanto D, Sari L, Putri RI. CD 105 As Prognostic Factors in Advanced Stage Breast Cancer Patients. Bali Med J. 2017;6(1). doi:10.15562/bmj.v6i1.554

How to Cite

Rahman, H., Ali, I. ., & Susilo, D. H. . (2023). Profiles of molecular subtypes and clinical responses to anthracycline-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy in locally advanced breast cancer at Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Surabaya. Bali Medical Journal, 13(1), 226–230. https://doi.org/10.15562/bmj.v13i1.4912

HTML
0

Total
0

Share

Search Panel