Tumour epidermal growth factor receptor, erbB-2 and cathepsin D in node-negative invasive breast cancer: their impact on the selection of patients for systemic adjuvant therapy.
K S Tonkin, J W McKay, L W Stitt, S Tokmakejian, D S Haines
{"title":"Tumour epidermal growth factor receptor, erbB-2 and cathepsin D in node-negative invasive breast cancer: their impact on the selection of patients for systemic adjuvant therapy.","authors":"K S Tonkin, J W McKay, L W Stitt, S Tokmakejian, D S Haines","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the feasibility and the economic impact of tumour EGFR, erbB-2 and cathepsin-D measurements in women with node-negative breast cancer.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Consecutive tumour samples received at a regional steroid receptor laboratory from patients with node-negative breast cancer were evaluated with commercially available kits to determine EGFR, erbB-2 and cathepsin-D levels.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>All node-negative patients whose tumours were submitted to the steroid receptor laboratory from November 1992 to March 1994 were included (n = 142). A control group of concurrent node-negative breast cancer patients from the London Regional Cancer Centre (LRCC) database were also evaluated to determine the representativeness of our sample.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measure: </strong>To determine the proportion of patients who were positive for the 3 newer prognostic factors relative to their risk of relapse.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found 75 positive values in 69 patients (48.6%). We demonstrated that each factor identified a different high-risk subgroup. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) positivity (> 10 fmol/mg protein) was found in 16.3% of patients, with 19.9% of patients positive for erbB-2 (> 250 units/mg protein) and 17.3% positive for cathepsin D (> 70 pmol/mg protein). Between 10% and 23.2% more node-negative patients currently seen in a regional cancer centre could be offered systemic adjuvant chemotherapy based on a single positive new factor.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These tumour evaluations are straightforward using material already available in a regional steroid receptor laboratory or on tumour tissue available to pathologists. The economic impact is minimal; the 1995 cost of performing all 3 evaluations is Can$425-616 (US$304-440) per patient treated depending on the number of assays per run. Prospective clinical trials incorporating tumour EGFR, erbB-2 and cathepsin D are feasible and economically viable.</p>","PeriodicalId":79570,"journal":{"name":"Cancer prevention & control : CPC = Prevention & controle en cancerologie : PCC","volume":"3 2","pages":"131-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer prevention & control : CPC = Prevention & controle en cancerologie : PCC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To determine the feasibility and the economic impact of tumour EGFR, erbB-2 and cathepsin-D measurements in women with node-negative breast cancer.
Design: Consecutive tumour samples received at a regional steroid receptor laboratory from patients with node-negative breast cancer were evaluated with commercially available kits to determine EGFR, erbB-2 and cathepsin-D levels.
Setting: All node-negative patients whose tumours were submitted to the steroid receptor laboratory from November 1992 to March 1994 were included (n = 142). A control group of concurrent node-negative breast cancer patients from the London Regional Cancer Centre (LRCC) database were also evaluated to determine the representativeness of our sample.
Main outcome measure: To determine the proportion of patients who were positive for the 3 newer prognostic factors relative to their risk of relapse.
Results: We found 75 positive values in 69 patients (48.6%). We demonstrated that each factor identified a different high-risk subgroup. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) positivity (> 10 fmol/mg protein) was found in 16.3% of patients, with 19.9% of patients positive for erbB-2 (> 250 units/mg protein) and 17.3% positive for cathepsin D (> 70 pmol/mg protein). Between 10% and 23.2% more node-negative patients currently seen in a regional cancer centre could be offered systemic adjuvant chemotherapy based on a single positive new factor.
Conclusions: These tumour evaluations are straightforward using material already available in a regional steroid receptor laboratory or on tumour tissue available to pathologists. The economic impact is minimal; the 1995 cost of performing all 3 evaluations is Can$425-616 (US$304-440) per patient treated depending on the number of assays per run. Prospective clinical trials incorporating tumour EGFR, erbB-2 and cathepsin D are feasible and economically viable.