Ki-67 Change in Anthracyline-containing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Breast Cancer

Abstract

Objective

Anthracycline-containing regimens are irreplaceable in neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for breast cancer (BC) at present. However, 30% of early breast cancer (EBC) patients are resistant to anthracycline-containing chemotherapy, leading to poor prognosis and higher mortality. Ki-67 is associated with the prognosis and response to therapy, and it changes after NAC.

Methods

A total of 105 BC patients who received anthracycline-containing NAC were enrolled. Then, the optimal model of Ki-67 was selected, and its predictive efficacy was analyzed. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) was used to determine the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) status and Ki-67 level. Fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) was used to verify the HER-2 when the IHC score was 2+.

Results

The post-NAC Ki67 level after treatment with anthracycline drugs was lower than pre-NAC Ki-67 (19.6%±23.3% vs. 45.6%±23.1%, P<0.001). Furthermore, patients with the Ki-67 decrease had a border line higher pathological complete response (pCR) rate (17.2% vs. 0.0%, P=0.068), and a higher overall response rate (ORR) (73.6% vs. 27.8%, P<0.001), when compared to patients without the Ki-67 decrease. The ΔKi-67 and ΔKi-67% were valuable markers for the prediction of both the pCR rate and ORR. The area under the curve (AUC) for ΔKi-67 on pCR and ORR was 0.809 (0.698–0.921) and 0.755 (0.655–0.855), respectively, while the AUC for ΔKi-67% on pCR and ORR was 0.857 (0.742–0.972) and 0.720 (0.618–0.822), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression model 1 revealed that ΔKi-67 was an independent predictor for both pCR [odds ratio (OR)=61.030, 95% confidence interval (CI)=4.709–790.965; P=0.002] and ORR (OR=10.001, 95% CI: 3.044–32.858; P<0.001). Multivariate logistic regression model 2 revealed that ΔKi-67% was also an independent predictor for both pCR (OR=408.922, 95% CI=8.908–18771.224; P=0.002) and ORR (OR=5.419, 95% CI=1.842–15.943; P=0.002).

Conclusions

The present study results suggest that ΔKi67 and ΔKi67% are candidate predictors for anthracycline-containing NAC response, and that they may provide various information for further systematic therapy after surgery in clinical practice.

Keywords

breast cancer / change in Ki-67 / neoadjuvant chemotherapy / anthracycline, response

References

[1]	Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, et al. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021,71(1):7–33
[2]	Kennecke H, Yerushalmi R, Woods R, et al. Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol, 2010,28(20):3271–3277
[3]	Berman AT, Thukral AD, Hwang WT, et al. Incidence and patterns of distant metastases for patients with early-stage breast cancer after breast conservation treatment. Clin Breast Cancer, 2013,13(2):88–94
[4]	Perez EA. Impact, mechanisms, and novel chemotherapy strategies for overcoming resistance to anthracyclines and taxanes in metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2009,114(2):195–201
[5]	Wind NS, Holen I. Multidrug resistance in breast cancer: from in vitro models to clinical studies. Int J Breast Cancer, 2011,2011967419
[6]	Shah AN, Gradishar WJ. Adjuvant Anthracyclines in Breast Cancer: What Is Their Role? Oncologist, 2018,23(10):1153–1161
[7]	Moreno-Aspitia A, Perez EA. Anthracycline- and/or taxane-resistant breast cancer: results of a literature review to determine the clinical challenges and current treatment trends. Clin Ther, 2009,31(8):1619–1640
[8]	Koual M, Tomkiewicz C, Cano-Sancho G, et al. Environmental chemicals, breast cancer progression and drug resistance. Environ Health, 2020,19(1):117
[9]	Wolmark N, Wang J, Mamounas E, et al. Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr, 2001,(30):96–102
[10]	Early Breast Cancer Triallists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Long-term outcomes for neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: meta-analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet Oncol, 2018,19(1):27–39
[11]	Kaufmann M, Von Minckwitz G, Mamounas EP, 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):1508–1516
[12]	Berruti A, Amoroso V, Gallo F, et al. Pathologic complete response as a potential surrogate for the clinical outcome in patients with breast cancer after neoadjuvant therapy: a meta-regression of 29 randomized prospective studies. J Clin Oncol, 2014,32(34):3883–3891
[13]	Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet, 2014,384(9938):164–172
[14]	Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Ravdin PM, et al. Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol, 2010,11(2):174–183
[15]	Davey MG, Hynes SO, Kerin MJ, et al. Ki-67 as a Prognostic Biomarker in Invasive Breast Cancer. Cancers, 2021,13(17)
[16]	Chen X, He C, Han D, et al. The predictive value of Ki-67 before neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Future Oncol, 2017,13(9):843–857
[17]	Keam B, Im SA, Lee KH, et al. Ki-67 can be used for further classification of triple negative breast cancer into two subtypes with different response and prognosis. Breast Cancer Res, 2011,13(2):R22
[18]	Song Z, Li C, Zhou D, et al. Changes in Ki-67 in Residual Tumor and Outcome of Primary Inflammatory Breast Cancer Treated With Trimodality Therapy. Clin Breast Cancer, 2022,22(5):e655–e663
[19]	ács B, Zámbó V, Vízkeleti L, et al. Ki-67 as a controversial predictive and prognostic marker in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Diagn Pathol, 2017,12(1):20
[20]	Ingolf JB, Russalina M, Simona M, et al. Can ki-67 play a role in prediction of breast cancer patients’ response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy? Biomed Res Int, 2014,2014628217
[21]	Von Minckwitz G, Schmitt WD, Loibl S, et al. Ki67 measured after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res, 2013,19(16):4521–4531
[22]	Moazed V, Jafari E, Kalantari Khandani B, et al. Prognostic Significance of Reduction in Ki67 Index After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Breast Cancer in Kerman Between 2009 And 2014. Iran J Pathol, 2018,13(1):71–77
[23]	Allison KH, Hammond MEH, Dowsett M, et al. Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol, 2020,38(12):1346–1366
[24]	Wolff AC, Hammond MEH, Allison KH, et al. Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Focused Update. J Clin Oncol, 2018,36(20):2105–2122
[25]	Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’hern R, et al. Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2011,103(22):1656–1664
[26]	Tan S, Fu X, Xu S, et al. Quantification of Ki67 Change as a Valid Prognostic Indicator of Luminal B Type Breast Cancer After Neoadjuvant Therapy. Pathol Oncol Res, 2021,271609972
[27]	Mazouni C, Peintinger F, Wan-Kau S, et al. Residual ductal carcinoma in situ in patients with complete eradication of invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy does not adversely affect patient outcome. J Clin Oncol, 2007,25(19):2650–2655
[28]	Amin MB, Greene FL, Edge SB, et al. The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin, 2017,67(2):93–99
[29]	Yoshioka T, Hosoda M, Yamamoto M, et al. Prognostic significance of pathologic complete response and Ki67 expression after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Breast Cancer, 2015,22(2):185–191
[30]	Ellis MJ, Suman VJ, Hoog J, et al. Ki67 Proliferation Index as a Tool for Chemotherapy Decisions During and After Neoadjuvant Aromatase Inhibitor Treatment of Breast Cancer: Results From the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z1031 Trial (Alliance). J Clin Oncol, 2017,35(10):1061–1069
[31]	Fisher B, Brown AM, Dimitrov NV, et al. Two months of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide with and without interval reinduction therapy compared with 6 months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in positive-node breast cancer patients with tamoxifennonresponsive tumors: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-15. J Clin Oncol, 1990,8(9):1483–1496
[32]	Virani SA, Dent S, Brezden-Masley C, et al. Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for Evaluation and Management of Cardiovascular Complications of Cancer Therapy. Can J Cardiol, 2016,32(7):831–841
[33]	Korde LA, Somerfield MR, Carey LA, et al. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Endocrine Therapy, and Targeted Therapy for Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol, 2021,39(13):1485–1505
[34]	Li L, Han D, Wang X, et al. Prognostic values of Ki-67 in neoadjuvant setting for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Future Oncol, 2017,13(11):1021–1034
[35]	Cabrera-Galeana P, Mu?oz-Monta?o W, Lara-Medina F, et al. Ki67 Changes Identify Worse Outcomes in Residual Breast Cancer Tumors After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Oncologist, 2018,23(6):670–678
[36]	Jones RL, Salter J, A’hern R, et al. Relationship between oestrogen receptor status and proliferation in predicting response and long-term outcome to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2010,119(2):315–323
[37]	Denkert C, Loibl S, Müller BM, et al. Ki67 levels as predictive and prognostic parameters in pretherapeutic breast cancer core biopsies: a translational investigation in the neoadjuvant GeparTrio trial. Ann Oncol, 2013,24(11):2786–2793
[38]	De Azambuja E, Cardoso F, De Castro G, Jr., et al. Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer, 2007,96(10):1504–1513
[39]	Pistelli M, Merloni F, Crocetti S, et al. Prognostic Impact of Ki-67 Change in Locally Advanced and Early Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Single Institution Experience. J Oncol, 2021,20215548252
[40]	Montagna E, Bagnardi V, Viale G, et al. Changes in PgR and Ki-67 in residual tumour and outcome of breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Ann Oncol, 2015,26(2):307–313
[41]	Ianza A, Giudici F, Pinello C, et al. ΔKi67 proliferation index as independent predictive and prognostic factor of outcome in luminal breast cancer: data from neoadjuvant letrozole-based treatment. Tumour Biol, 2020,42(6):1010428320925301
[42]	Zhu X, Chen L, Huang B, et al. The prognostic and predictive potential of Ki-67 in triple-negative breast cancer. Sci Rep, 2020,10(1):225
[43]	Spyratos F, Ferrero-Poüs M, Trassard M, et al. Correlation between MIB-1 and other proliferation markers: clinical implications of the MIB-1 cutoff value. Cancer, 2002,94(8):2151–2159