PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gary M Clark

Publications and source records attributed to Gary M Clark.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Molecular heterogeneity of inflammatory breast cancer: a hyperproliferative phenotype.

PURPOSE: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is associated with very poor prognosis. The aims of this study are (a) to prospectively identify differential gene expression patterns associated with IBC and (b) to confirm these pathways using tissue arrays. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: For gene expression analysis, IBC (n=14) was clinically defined as rapid-onset cancer associated with erythema and skin changes, whereas non-IBC patients (n=20) had stage III breast cancers, and cDNA analysis was carried out using the Affymetrix (Santa Clara, CA) HG-U133A microarrays. Tissue arrays were constructed from paraffin-embedded material, and the molecular phenotype of 75 IBC was compared with results from>2,000 non-IBC. RESULTS: Gene expression analyses indicated that IBC has higher expression of genes associated with increased metabolic rate, lipid signaling, and cell turnover relative to non-IBC tumors. Consistent with the expression analysis, IBC had statistically higher Ki-67 (93% versus 11%; P<0.001). BAX expression, reflecting increased apoptosis and cell turnover, was significantly uniformly higher in almost all IBC (98% versus 66%; P<0.05), whereas the expression of Bcl-2 was not significantly different. IBC tumors were more likely to be steroid hormone receptor negative (estrogen receptor, 49% versus 30%; P=0.002; progesterone receptor, 68% versus 42%; P=0.001). The expression of tyrosine kinases was not significantly different. E-cadherin was found to be expressed in 87% of IBC, whereas the expression p53 was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: This study is one of the largest molecular analyses of IBC. Both IBC and non-IBC are genetically heterogeneous with consistent differences in the molecular phenotype of IBC.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2006

REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK).

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodologic problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, pre-planned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗
PubMed2006

Effects of smoking on the pharmacokinetics of erlotinib.

PURPOSE: To compare the pharmacokinetic variables of erlotinib in current smokers with nonsmokers after receiving a single oral 150 or 300 mg dose of erlotinib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This was a single-center, open-label pharmacokinetic study in healthy male subjects. Subjects were enrolled into two treatment cohorts based on smoking status (current smokers and nonsmokers). The pharmacokinetic profile for erlotinib and its metabolite, OSI-420, was determined for each subject following each treatment. RESULTS: Current smokers achieved significantly less erlotinib exposure following a single 150 or 300 mg dose than nonsmokers. Following the 150 mg dose, the geometric mean erlotinib AUC(0-infinity) in smokers was 2.8-fold lower than in nonsmokers and similar to that of nonsmokers at the 300 mg dose. C(max) in smokers was two-thirds of that in nonsmokers, and C(24h) in smokers was 8.3-fold lower than in nonsmokers. The median C(24h) of smokers at the 300 mg dose was slightly less than the C(24h) of smokers at the 150 mg dose. The median C(max) was greater in smokers at the 300 mg dose than in nonsmokers at the 150 mg dose. CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the pharmacokinetics of erlotinib is different in current smokers and nonsmokers. The observation that AUC(0-infinity) and C(24h) were significantly decreased in smokers compared with nonsmokers, and a smaller decrease in C(max) was observed, is consistent with increased metabolic clearance of erlotinib in current smokers.

Adult↗
PubMed2006

Smoking history and epidermal growth factor receptor expression as predictors of survival benefit from erlotinib for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer in the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group study BR.21.

BACKGROUND: Erlotinib is an oral, reversible inhibitor of the HER1/epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase. A survival advantage for erlotinib compared with placebo was demonstrated in the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group study BR.21, a randomized double-blind study of 731 patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this retrospective, exploratory investigation, univariate and multivariate analyses of survival of the 311 patients with available EGFR status by immunohistochemistry and known smoking history were performed to determine which factor might be more important for predicting clinical outcome. RESULTS: A marginally significant interaction was observed between smoking history and treatment (P = 0.054). The hazard ratios (HRs) were 0.42 among never-smokers and 0.87 for smokers, indicating that erlotinib was beneficial in both subsets but more effective in patients who had never smoked. The HRs for patients with EGFR-positive and EGFR-negative tumors were 0.65 and 0.83, respectively; however, the interaction between EGFR status and treatment was not significant in univariate or multivariate analyses. Patients with EGFR-positive tumors who never smoked had the greatest survival benefit from erlotinib relative to placebo (HR, 0.28; P = 0.0007). CONCLUSION: These data suggest that never-smokers and patients with EGFR-positive tumors might experience an enhanced benefit from erlotinib compared with placebo but that smoking history might be more predictive of survival benefit than EGFR expression. Subset analyses of ever-smokers revealed significant survival advantages for men and patients with squamous cell histology. Male ever-smokers with squamous cell non-small-cell lung cancer derived a significant survival benefit from erlotinib (HR, 0.66; P = 0.015) despite a very low tumor response rate.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Breast tumors that overexpress nuclear metastasis-associated 1 (MTA1) protein have high recurrence risks but enhanced responses to systemic therapies.

Nuclear metastasis-associated 1(MTA1) protein is an estrogen receptor co-repressor that regulates transcription via chromatin remodeling, and MTA1 messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) levels are elevated in several kinds of locally advanced and metastatic tumors relative to non-metastatic tumors. Previous studies in our laboratory mapped MTA1 into a region showing significantly lower LOH (loss of heterozygosity) in primary breast cancers with metastases compared to node-negative tumors, suggesting that epigenetic alterations of MTA1 affect metastatic potential. The present study examined immunohistochemical expression of the MTA1 protein in treated and untreated primary human breast cancers to study the relationship between MTA1 expression and clinical outcome. Node-negative tumors that overexpress MTA1 protein had recurrence risks similar to node-positive tumors. In multivariate analysis of untreated node-negative tumors, highest expression of MTA1 was associated with increased relapse risk (hazard ratio (HR)=2.72, p=0.0003 for multivariate analysis). Tamoxifen and/or anthracylcene-based chemotherapies eliminated all MTA1 associations with clinical outcome, suggesting MTA1 overexpression predicts early disease relapse, but sensitizes breast tumors to systemic therapies.

Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols↗
PubMed2005

Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK).

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often, initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodologic problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗
PubMed2005

Hazard rates of recurrence following diagnosis of primary breast cancer.

We calculated hazard rates for recurrence in patients with primary breast cancer (stage I, II; no adjuvant therapy). Previous publications have indicated a peak in hazard rates for recurrence (or death) at approximately 2-3 years after diagnosis of primary breast cancer. However, there have been conflicting reports concerning the presence of a second peak at 5-7 years after diagnosis. In this study, we estimated hazard functions by the Nelson-Aalen method and fit by cubic-linear and cubic-cubic-linear models to test for the presence of one or two peaks, respectively. We identified two peaks in hazard of recurrence, one at 2 years and another at 5 years. The 5-year peak, though statistically significant, represents very small differences in patient outcome. This additional peak may be an artifact of interval censoring due to a tendency to follow-up patients at specific bench-mark time points.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

Morphologic and immunophenotypic markers as surrogate endpoints of tamoxifen effect for prevention of breast cancer.

Prevention trials using incidence or mortality as endpoints require a large number of participants and long follow-up. Trials using biomarkers as endpoints would potentially require fewer participants, less time, and significantly less resources to test promising new agents for breast cancer prevention. To test this idea, a randomized trial of tamoxifen for 1 year versus observation for 1 year was conducted to determine whether tamoxifen can cause regression of hyperplastic breast tissue, whether it changes the biomarker phenotype of premalignant disease or normal breast epithelium, and if biomarkers can be used as early surrogate indicators of response to tamoxifen. Women were identified by having an abnormal mammogram and ductal hyperplasia diagnosed by core needle biopsy. Image-directed needle biopsy was repeated in the same site of the breast after 1 year. Approximately 3000 women were screened, and 265 were eligible. Sixty-three women were randomized and paired biopsies from 45 subjects were available for analysis. There was no evidence of substantial regression of hyperplasia--fewer samples showed hyperplasia at 1 year follow-up, but this was seen in both untreated and tamoxifen-treated women. There were trends for reductions in ER and PgR and trends for increases in bcl-2 in normal and hyperplastic tissue in the tamoxifen-treated arm, though these changes did not reach statistical significance. Proliferation, determined by Ki67 staining, was not significantly changed. Clinical trials of this type are difficult to carry out and modifications in trial design are needed to make this process more efficient.

Antineoplastic Agents, Hormonal↗
PubMed2005

REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK).

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumour markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons that multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodologic problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumour marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalisability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumour marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomised trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, pre-planned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines suggest helpful presentations of data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗
PubMed2005

REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK).

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons why multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodological problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostics in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines provide helpful suggestions on how to present data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗
PubMed2005

REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK).

Despite years of research and hundreds of reports on tumor markers in oncology, the number of markers that have emerged as clinically useful is pitifully small. Often initially reported studies of a marker show great promise, but subsequent studies on the same or related markers yield inconsistent conclusions or stand in direct contradiction to the promising results. It is imperative that we attempt to understand the reasons why multiple studies of the same marker lead to differing conclusions. A variety of methodological problems have been cited to explain these discrepancies. Unfortunately, many tumor marker studies have not been reported in a rigorous fashion, and published articles often lack sufficient information to allow adequate assessment of the quality of the study or the generalizability of study results. The development of guidelines for the reporting of tumor marker studies was a major recommendation of the National Cancer Institute-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (NCI-EORTC) First International Meeting on Cancer Diagnostic in 2000. As for the successful CONSORT initiative for randomized trials and for the STARD statement for diagnostic studies, we suggest guidelines to provide relevant information about the study design, preplanned hypotheses, patient and specimen characteristics, assay methods, and statistical analysis methods. In addition, the guidelines provide helpful suggestions on how to present data and important elements to include in discussions. The goal of these guidelines is to encourage transparent and complete reporting so that the relevant information will be available to others to help them to judge the usefulness of the data and understand the context in which the conclusions apply.

Biomarkers, Tumor↗
PubMed2004

Determinants of tumor response and survival with erlotinib in patients with non--small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Erlotinib is a highly specific epidermal growth factor receptor (HER1/EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor. This phase II study of erlotinib in patients with HER1/EGFR-expressing non-small-cell lung cancer previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy evaluated tumor response, survival, and symptom improvement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-seven patients received an oral, continuous daily dose of 150 mg of erlotinib. Assessments of objective response used WHO and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30, supplemented with a lung cancer module, Quality of Life Questionnaire LC13, was used to measure health-related quality of life. Additional analyses were performed to identify predictors of response and survival. RESULTS: The objective response rate was 12.3% (95% CI, 5.1% to 23.7%). Responses were observed regardless of type or number of prior chemotherapy regimens. Median survival time was 8.4 months (95% CI, 4.8 to 13.9 months), and the 1-year survival rate was 40% (95% CI, 28% to 54%). Erlotinib therapy was associated with tumor-related symptom improvement. The drug was well tolerated; drug-related cutaneous rash and diarrhea were observed in 75% and 56% of patients, respectively. One patient experienced toxicity consisting of severe grade 3 rash and diarrhea. Time since diagnosis and good performance status were significant predictors of survival in a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, whereas HER1/EGFR staining intensity was not. Additionally, survival correlated with the occurrence and severity of rash. CONCLUSION: Erlotinib was active and well tolerated in this patient population, and further clinical development is clearly warranted. Cutaneous rash seems to be a surrogate marker of clinical benefit, but this finding should be confirmed in ongoing and future studies.

Administration, Oral↗
PubMed2004

Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clinical outcome.

INTRODUCTION: Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) comprises approximately 10% of breast cancers and appears to have a distinct biology. Because it is less common than infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC), few data have been reported that address the biologic features of ILC in the context of their clinical outcome. In the present study we undertook an extensive comparison of ILC and IDC using a large database to provide a more complete and reliable assessment of their biologic phenotypes and clinical behaviors. METHODS: The clinical and biological features of 4140 patients with ILC were compared with those of 45,169 patients with IDC (not otherwise specified). The median follow-up period was 87 months. RESULTS: In comparison with IDC, ILC was significantly more likely to occur in older patients, to be larger in size, to be estrogen and progesterone receptor positive, to have lower S-phase fraction, to be diploid, and to be HER-2, p53, and epidermal growth factor receptor negative. It was more common for ILC than for IDC to metastasize to the gastrointestinal tract and ovary. The incidence of contralateral breast cancer was higher for ILC patients than for IDC patients (20.9% versus 11.2%; P < 0.0001). Breast preservation was modestly less frequent in ILC patients than in IDC patients. The 5-year disease-free survival was 85.7% for ILC and 83.5% for IDC (P = 0.13). The 5-year overall survival was 85.6% for ILC and 84.1% for IDC (P = 0.64). CONCLUSION: Despite the fact that the biologic phenotype of ILC is quite favorable, these patients do not have better clinical outcomes than do patients with IDC. At present, management decisions should be based on individual patient and tumor biologic characteristics, and not on lobular histology.

Adult↗
PubMed2004

Progesterone receptor by immunohistochemistry and clinical outcome in breast cancer: a validation study.

Progesterone receptor is a surrogate marker of estrogen receptor activity in breast cancer and its utility in helping predict clinical outcome has been established using biochemical assays. However, most laboratories worldwide have switched to immunohistochemistry to assess progesterone receptor, but unfortunately no validated immunohistochemical assay exists for progesterone receptor. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an immunohistochemical assay for progesterone receptor in breast cancer. The assay was based on monoclonal antibody 1294 (DakoCytomation) and slides were scored microscopically using the 'Allred score' on a scale of 0-8. The assay was compared to ligand-binding assay in 1235 breast cancers, and a subset (n=362) that received only hormonal therapy was used to define a cutoff for progesterone receptor-positive. Clinical utility was validated in an independent set of samples (n=423) from a clinical trial randomizing premenopausal breast cancer patients to tamoxifen+oophorectomy vs observation following surgery. A cutoff of >2 (corresponding to >1% positive cells) dichotomized patients with significantly better or worse clinical outcome (P=0.0014). Progesterone receptor by immunohistochemistry provided significantly better results than progesterone receptor by ligand-binding assay in predicting clinical outcome. In the clinical trial, a positive result in univariate analyses was associated with significantly improved disease-free and overall survival both in untreated (hazard ratios/P=0.656/0.060 and 0.479/0.005, respectively) and hormonally treated patients (hazard ratios/P=0.529/0.017 and 0.451/0.007, respectively). Positive progesterone receptor remained significant for improved disease-free and overall survival (hazard ratios/P=0.666/0.038 and 0.549/0.007, respectively) in multivariate analyses including the standard variables of tumor size, nodal status, treatment, histological grade, and HER-2/neu status. Estrogen and progesterone receptors are codependent variables and progesterone receptor was a weaker predictor of response to endocrine therapy than estrogen receptor when both were included in multivariate analysis. This is the first comprehensive study assessing the clinical usefulness of progesterone receptor by immunohistochemistry in archival tissue in breast cancer. Progesterone receptor assessed by immunohistochemistry provides useful information about clinical outcome and it is better than progesterone receptor measured by ligand-binding assay.

Binding, Competitive↗
PubMed2003

Progesterone receptor status significantly improves outcome prediction over estrogen receptor status alone for adjuvant endocrine therapy in two large breast cancer databases.

PURPOSE: To determine whether progesterone receptor (PgR) status provides additional value to estrogen receptor (ER) status and improves prediction of benefit from endocrine treatment among patients with primary breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical outcomes of patients in two large databases were analyzed as a function of steroid receptor status. The first database (PP), contained 3,739 patients who did not receive any systemic adjuvant therapy and 1,688 patients who received adjuvant endocrine therapy but no chemotherapy. The second database (SPORE), contained 10,444 patients who received adjuvant endocrine therapy but no chemotherapy. Biochemical ER and PgR assays were identically performed in two different central laboratories. RESULTS: In univariate and multivariate analyses, the prognostic significance of PgR status among systemically untreated patients is modest. Among endocrine-treated patients, however, multivariate analyses, including lymph-node involvement, tumor size, and age, demonstrate that PgR status is independently associated with disease-free and overall survival. For recurrence, the reduction in relative risk (RR) was 25% for ER-positive/PgR-negative patients and 53% for ER-positive/PgR-positive patients, compared with ER-negative/PgR-negative patients (P <.0001, PP patients). Patients with ER-positive/PgR-negative tumors have a reduction in RR of death of 30% (SPORE patients) and 38% (PP patients), compared with patients with ER-negative/PgR-negative tumors (P <.0001). For ER-positive/PgR-positive tumors, the reduction of the risk of death was greater than 46% in SPORE patients and 58% in PP patients, indicating that ER-positive/PgR-positive patients derive more benefit from endocrine therapy (P <.0001). CONCLUSION: When accurately measured, PgR status is an independent predictive factor for benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy. Therefore, PgR status should be taken into account when discussing RR reductions expected from endocrine treatment with individual patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Estrogen receptor beta protein in human breast cancer: correlation with clinical tumor parameters.

The recent discovery of a second estrogen receptor (ER), designated ERbeta, raises pressing questions about its role in estrogen regulation of human breast cancer cells and its significance for the prediction of recurrence and treatment responses in clinical breast cancer. Most of what we know about ERbeta expression comes from studies examining a limited number of samples at the RNA level. We have now generated a monoclonal antibody useful for the detection of ERbeta at the protein level in archival, formalin-fixed breast tumors and have examined its expression using immunohistochemistry in a pilot series of 242 breast cancer patients. Coexpression of ERbeta and ERalpha was found in the majority of the tumors, with 76% of the tumors expressing ERbeta as determined by immunohistochemistry. ERalpha, but not ERbeta, was strongly associated with progesterone receptor expression, suggesting that ERalpha is the predominant regulator of this estrogen-induced gene in breast tumors. Although ERalpha expression was positively correlated with low tumor grade, diploidy, and low S-phase fraction, all biological parameters of a good prognostic profile, ERbeta trended toward an association only with aneuploidy; no association with tumor grade or S-phase fraction was seen for ERbeta. We found that ERbeta expression does cause false positive readings for ERalpha. These results suggest that ERbeta expression is not a surrogate for ERalpha in clinical breast tumors and, as such, could be a useful biomarker in its own right.

Antibodies, Monoclonal↗
PubMed2003

Role of the estrogen receptor coactivator AIB1 (SRC-3) and HER-2/neu in tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: AIB1 (SRC-3) is an estrogen receptor (ER) coactivator that, when overexpressed in cultured cells, can reduce the antagonist activity of tamoxifen-bound ERs. Signaling through the HER-2 receptor pathway activates AIB1 by phosphorylation. To determine whether high AIB1 expression alone or together with HER-2 reduces the effectiveness of tamoxifen in breast cancer patients, we quantified expression of AIB1 and HER-2 in tumors from breast cancer patients with long-term clinical follow-up who received either no adjuvant therapy or adjuvant tamoxifen therapy after breast cancer surgery. METHODS: AIB1 and HER-2 protein levels in tumors from 316 breast cancer patients were determined using western blot analysis. Molecular variables (e.g., expression of AIB1, ER, progesterone receptor, p53, Bcl-2), tumor characteristics, and patient outcome were assessed using Spearman rank correlation. Disease-free survival (DFS) curves were derived from Kaplan-Meier estimates, and the curves were compared by log-rank tests. The effect of AIB1 on DFS adjusted for other prognostic factors was assessed by multivariable analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: High AIB1 expression in patients not receiving adjuvant tamoxifen therapy was associated with better prognosis and longer DFS (P =.018, log-rank test). In contrast, for patients who did receive tamoxifen therapy, high AIB1 expression was associated with worse DFS (P =.049, log-rank test), which is indicative of tamoxifen resistance. The test for interaction between AIB1 expression and tamoxifen therapy was statistically significant (P =.004). When expression of AIB1 and HER-2 were considered together, patients whose tumors expressed high levels of both AIB1 and HER-2 had worse outcomes with tamoxifen therapy than all other patients combined (P =.002, log-rank test). CONCLUSIONS: The antitumor activity of tamoxifen in patients with breast cancer may be determined, in part, by tumor levels of AIB1 and HER-2. Thus, AIB1 may be an important diagnostic and therapeutic target.

Acetyltransferases↗