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] SiegelRL, MillerKD, FuchsHE, et al.. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(1): 7-33

[2] KenneckeH, YerushalmiR, WoodsR, et al.. Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol, 2010, 28(20): 3271-3277

[3] BermanAT, ThukralAD, HwangWT, 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] PerezEA. 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] ShahAN, GradisharWJ. Adjuvant Anthracyclines in Breast Cancer: What Is Their Role?. Oncologist, 2018, 23(10): 1153-1161

[7] Moreno-AspitiaA, PerezEA. 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] KoualM, TomkiewiczC, Cano-SanchoG, 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] KaufmannM, Von MinckwitzG, MamounasEP, 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] BerrutiA, AmorosoV, GalloF, 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] CortazarP, ZhangL, UntchM, et al.. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet, 2014, 384(9938): 164-172

[14] YerushalmiR, WoodsR, RavdinPM, et al.. Ki67 in breast cancer: prognostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol, 2010, 11(2): 174-183

[15] Cancers, 2021, 13(17

[16] ChenX, HeC, HanD, 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] KeamB, ImSA, LeeKH, 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] SongZ, LiC, ZhouD, 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] ÁcsB, ZámbóV, VízkeletiL, 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 MinckwitzG, SchmittWD, LoiblS, et al.. Ki67 measured after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res, 2013, 19(16): 4521-4531

[22] MoazedV, JafariE, KalantariK, 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] AllisonKH, HammondMEH, DowsettM, et al.. Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Testing in Breast Cancer: ASCO/CAP Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol, 2020, 38(12): 1346-1366

[24] WolffAC, HammondMEH, AllisonKH, 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] DowsettM, NielsenTO, A’hernR, 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] MazouniC, PeintingerF, Wan-KauS, 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] AminMB, GreeneFL, EdgeSB, 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] YoshiokaT, HosodaM, YamamotoM, 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] EllisMJ, SumanVJ, HoogJ, 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] FisherB, BrownAM, DimitrovNV, 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] ViraniSA, DentS, Brezden-MasleyC, 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] KordeLA, SomerfieldMR, CareyLA, et al.. Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Endocrine Therapy, and Targeted Therapy for Breast Cancer: ASCO Guideline. J Clin Oncol, 2021, 39(13): 1485-1505

[34] LiL, HanD, WangX, 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-GaleanaP, Muñoz-MontañoW, Lara-MedinaF, et al.. Ki67 Changes Identify Worse Outcomes in Residual Breast Cancer Tumors After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Oncologist, 2018, 23(6): 670-678

[36] JonesRL, SalterJ, A’hernR, 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] DenkertC, LoiblS, MüllerBM, 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 AzambujaE, CardosoF, De CastroGJr., 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] MontagnaE, BagnardiV, VialeG, 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] IanzaA, GiudiciF, PinelloC, 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] ZhuX, ChenL, HuangB, et al.. The prognostic and predictive potential of Ki-67 in triple-negative breast cancer. Sci Rep, 2020, 10(1): 225

[43] SpyratosF, Ferrero-PoüsM, TrassardM, et al.. Correlation between MIB-1 and other proliferation markers: clinical implications of the MIB-1 cutoff value. Cancer, 2002, 94(8): 2151-2159