Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) is not related to response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

Prognostic Significance of Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor-1 in Breast Cancer, with Special Emphasis on Locoregional Recurrence-Free Survival

The independent prognostic value of protease uPA and its inhibitor PAI-1 for survival in breast cancer patients is firmly established. However, there is very little data on the prognostic value of serine proteases and their inhibitors for locoregional recurrence in breast cancer. The prognostic value of PAI-1 for local control in a group of 766 patients treated at our institute with either breast conserving treatment or modified radical mastectomy was evaluated. The locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) of patients with PAI-1 values above the median value was significantly worse than that of patients with PAI-1 values below the median value (log-rank; p=0.0078). In multivariate analysis PAI-1 levels proved to be of independent statistical significance for LRFS (p=0.0401, relative risk 2.28, 95% confidence interval 1.04–5.02). The independent prognostic value of PAI-1 for metastasis-free survival and overall survival was also confirmed. In addition, our data suggest that PAI-1 antigen levels in tumor tissue might be of prognostic value for survival after locoregional recurrence (log-rank; p=0.0618). According to our findings, PAI-1 levels could be used as a biological marker that could facilitate the identifation of patients with a higher risk of local relapse already at the time of primary treatment. These patients should then be offered more aggressive treatment.

Prognostic and Predictive value of the Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator (uPA) and Its Inhibitors PAI-1 and PAI-2 in Operable Breast Cancer

The present study on the prognostic and predictive value of serine proteases was conducted in 460 early breast cancer patients mostly treated with some kind of adjuvant systemic therapy: 156 received chemotherapy, 141 hormone therapy and 111 a combination of both. Already in univariate analysis PAI-1 was the only proteolytic factor with a significant impact on DFS, which was retained in multivariate analysis (p=0.020); PAI-2 showed borderline significance in univariate analysis (p=0.0503) and uPA did not present as a significant prognostic factor for DFS in our patient series. In a separate univariate analysis of DFS on patient subgroups defined by adjuvant systemic therapy, a higher risk of relapse associated with higher uPA and PAI-1 levels was found in the subgroup of patients who did not receive any treatment; this difference did not reach the level of significance, probably due to the small number (n=52) of patients in this group (HR 1.37; p=0.71 and HR 2.14; p=0.321, respectively). A higher risk of relapse was also found in the subgroup of patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 1.44; p=0.381 and HR 2.48; p=0.003, respectively). In contrast, the bad prognostic impact of high uPA and PAI-1 levels was lost in the subgroup of patients treated with adjuvant hormone therapy (HR 0.79; p=0.693 and HR 0.26; p=0.204, respectively). The same observations were made for the uPA/PAI-1 combination. Our study confirmed the prognostic value of serine proteases in early breast cancer. In addition, it pointed to a possible predictive value of these tumor markers for response to adjuvant hormone therapy with tamoxifen, which should be confirmed in further studies.

uPA and PAI-1 in breast cancer: review of their clinical utility and current validation in the prospective NNBC-3 trial

The plasminogen activator system is a complex system with multiple interactions and members participating in fibrinolysis, cell migration, angiogenesis, wound healing, embryogenesis, tumor cell dissemination, and metastasis in a variety of solid tumors. Increased levels of uPA and/or PAI-1 in primary tumor tissues of breast cancer patients correlate with tumor aggressiveness and poor clinical outcome. Patients with high tumor tissue antigen content of uPA and/or PAI-1 have a worse probability of disease-free and overall survival than patients with low levels of both of the biomarkers, serving as prognostic markers. The clinical utility of uPA and PAI-1 has been proven on the highest level of evidence (LOE-I). Next to being clinically useful prognostic factors allowing estimates of the course of disease in early breast cancer, uPA and PAI-1 may also serve as predictive factors predicting response to systemic therapy. Node-negative primary breast cancer patients with high uPA/PAI-1 levels benefit significantly from adjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of the ongoing NNBC-3 trial is to determine the benefits of a sequential anthracycline-docetaxel regimen in high-risk node-negative breast cancer patients compared to the current standard of anthracycline-based chemotherapy. At present, uPA and PAI-1 provide the unique opportunity to allow validated and clinically relevant risk assessment of breast cancer patients, over and above that provided by established risk factors. Therefore, in the evidence-based, annually updated AGO guidelines for breast cancer management, the German Working Group for Gynecological Oncology (AGO) has recommended both biomarkers as risk-group-classification markers for routine clinical decision making in node-negative breast cancer, next to established clinical and histomorphological factors.

Prognosis and Management of Patients With Node-Negative Invasive Breast Carcinoma That Is 1 cm or Smaller in Size (stage 1; T1a,bN0M0): A Review of the Literature

Purpose

Mammographic screening has led to an increase in the number of small, node-negative breast cancers being diagnosed. Node-negative breast cancers that are ≤ 1 cm are stage T1a,bN0M0. Controversy surrounds the prognosis of these patients with locoregional therapy only and the need for adjuvant systemic therapy.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive review of the literature describing outcome and prognostic factors in stage T1a,bN0M0 breast cancer. We also reviewed current guidelines for systemic therapy in these patients.

Results

Early studies reported 10-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rates higher than 90% without adjuvant systemic therapy, but some more recent data suggest inferior outcomes. High tumor grade is the most consistent factor associated with poor prognosis. Other adverse prognostic factors are younger age, lymphovascular invasion (LVI), high Ki-67, and larger tumors within the T1a,b subgroup. Patients with high-grade tumors and/or LVI may have 10-year RFS rates of less than 75% in the absence of systemic therapy. The prognostic significance of hormone receptor status is unclear. Current guidelines for the systemic management of early-stage breast cancer differ when applied to stage T1a,bN0M0, reflecting the controversial nature of the issue.

Conclusion

Adjuvant systemic therapy is advisable for most patients with stage T1a,bN0M0 breast cancer who have grade 3 tumors and/or LVI. Other T1a,bN0M0 cases should be considered for systemic therapy based on clinicopathologic factors with known prognostic significance and assessment of the risk-benefit ratio. More reliable tools are needed to assess the prognosis of patients with stage T1a,bN0M0 breast cancer and their potential to benefit from specific therapeutic agents.

Urokinase-Type Plasminogen Activator and Its Inhibitor Type 1 Predict Disease Outcome and Therapy Response in Primary Breast Cancer

Combined determination of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor, activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1), supports risk-adapted individualized therapy concepts, particularly in node-negative breast cancer. The prognostic impact of both factors in primary breast cancer was substantiated by a pooled analysis of > 8000 patients with breast cancer and a multicenter prospective randomized therapy trial in node-negative breast cancer; findings achieved the highest level of evidence for tumor biomarkers. Patients with node-negative breast cancer with low antigen levels of uPA and PAI-1 in their primary tumor tissue have a very good prognosis and therefore may be spared the burden of adjuvant chemotherapy, whereas those with elevated uPA/PAI-1 antigen levels carry an increased risk of disease recurrence. Recent retrospective analysis of > 3000 patients indicated that patients with breast cancer with high uPA/PAI-1 values derive a significantly greater benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy than patients with low uPA/PAI-1 levels. Similarly, in the multicenter prospective Chemo N0 trial, administration of cyclophosphamide/methotrexate/5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy led to a substantial reduction in risk of disease recurrence in patients with high uPA/PAI-1. However, benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy appears to be independent of a patient's uPA/PAI-1 status. In metastatic breast cancer, retrospective studies showed that elevated uPA or PAI-1 present in the primary tumor tissue are associated with a poor response to later palliative endocrine therapy. These findings suggest that high levels of uPA and/or PAI-1 do reflect an aggressive phenotype that may be overcome or suppressed by early systemic therapy in the adjuvant setting but may be too advanced for response to palliative therapy at a later stage.

Predictive impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator: plasminogen activator inhibitor type-1 complex on the efficacy of adjuvant systemic therapy in primary breast cancer

One of the most thoroughly studied systems in relation to its prognostic relevance in patients with breast cancer, is the plasminogen activation system. This system comprises of, among others, the urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its main inhibitor (PAI-1). In this study we investigated whether the uPA:PAI-1 complex is associated with the responsiveness of patients with primary breast cancer to adjuvant systemic therapy. Quantitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays were used to assess the levels of uPA, PAI-1, and uPA:PAI-1 complex in 1119 tumors of patients with primary invasive breast cancer. These patients were followed for a median follow-up time of 59 months (range, 2-267 months) after the primary diagnosis. Correlations with well-known clinicopathological factors, and univariate and multivariate survival analyses were performed. High uPA:PAI-1 complex levels were correlated with an adverse histological grade, and inversely associated with negative estrogen and progesterone receptor status. High tumor levels of uPA:PAI-1 complex predicted an early relapse in the univariate relapse-free survival analysis (P < 0.001). The multivariate analysis showed that high uPA:PAI-1 complex levels were associated with a decreased relapse-free survival time (P = 0.033), independently of age, tumor size, number of lymph nodes affected, progesterone receptor status, uPA, adjuvant endocrine, and chemotherapy. More important, it was demonstrated that there is a larger benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with higher versus lower tumor levels of uPA:PAI-1 complex. The results of this study imply that the expression of uPA:PAI-1 complex independently predicts the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with primary breast cancer.

Clinical relevance of invasion factors urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 for individualized therapy decisions in primary breast cancer is greatest when used in combination

PURPOSE

A strong prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1) as individual factors is well established in breast cancer. The improvement in clinical risk assessment gained by combining these factors is evaluated here.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

uPA and PAI-1 levels were prospectively measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in tumor tissue extracts of 761 patients with primary breast cancer.

RESULTS

In the clinically important subgroup of node-negative patients without adjuvant systemic therapy (n = 269; median follow-up, 60 months), the clinical value of testing both uPA and PAI-1 is demonstrated. The criterion either or both high identifies with high sensitivity the patients at high relapse risk while keeping more than half in the low-risk group. uPA/PAI-1 is the strongest predictor of disease-free survival and overall survival; patients with high uPA/PAI-1 have an increased relapse risk (P <.001; relative risk, 4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.5 to 9.1), in particular for early relapse. Even within risk groups stratified by established criteria (nodal or menopausal status, tumor size, grade, or steroid hormone receptors), uPA/PAI-1 provides significant risk group discrimination. In the whole collective, the significant interaction between uPA/PAI-1 and adjuvant systemic therapy suggests a benefit from adjuvant therapy in high-risk patients as defined by uPA/PAI-1.

CONCLUSION

The clinical relevance of the two tumor-invasion factors uPA and PAI-1 is greatest when they are used in combination. The particular combination of uPA and PAI-1 (both low v either or both high) is superior to either factor alone and supports risk-adapted individualized therapy decisions.

Biological markers as indicators of response to primary and adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer

Interest in translational studies on breast cancer is presently devoted to identify biological predictors of treatment response. In patients with operable breast cancer, subjected to primary and adjuvant chemotherapy, we analyzed the predictivity on objective clinical response and relapse-free survival of biological markers related to different cellular aspects and functions. Tumour proliferative rate (evaluated as the (3)H-thymidine-labelling index, TLI), oestrogen and progesterone receptors (ER and PgR, evaluated by the dextran-coated-charcoal method), nuclear DNA ploidy and the immunocytochemical expression of p53, bcl-2 and bax proteins were determined before primary treatment, at the time of diagnosis, and after primary chemotherapy, at surgery. Objective clinical response was significantly related only to pre-treatment p53 expression or PgR status, with a higher rate for tumours not expressing than for those expressing p53 (94% vs. 72%), as well as for PgR-negative (PgR(-)) than for PgR-positive (PgR(+)) tumours (86% vs. 68%). In the overall series, 8-year clinical outcome was significantly related only to post-treatment steroid receptors. In particular, higher 8-year relapse-free survival rate was observed for patients with ER(-) or PgR(-) than for those with ER(+) (64% vs. 38%) or PgR(+) (53% vs. 37%) tumours. Such findings held true even within the sub-set of patients who received adjuvant post-operative chemotherapy, i.e., those with node-positive (N(+)) or ER(-)/node-negative (N(-)) tumours, among whom also rapid proliferation or the presence of apoptosis-favouring markers (bcl-2(-) or bax(+), singly and in association) on surgical specimens identified a sub-set of women who benefited from systemic treatment. The different biological markers were variously indicative of clinical outcome, with a predictivity on tumour shrinkage for p53 and PgR, detected before primary chemotherapy, and on long-term follow-up for ER, PgR and, to a lesser extent, TLI and apoptosis-modulating markers. Int. J. Cancer (Pred. Oncol.) 84:580-586, 1999.

Primary chemotherapy or hormonotherapy for patients with breast cancer

Scientific rationale for primary treatment of breast cancer relies on experimental data showing that the incidence and growth of disease correlate with the primary tumour mass and tumoral angiogenesis. Although the strategy may be applied to both chemotherapy and hormonotherapy, only the first was extensively explored for patients with locally advanced breast cancer in order to improve survival and to avoid mastectomy through the achievement of a downstaging of the tumour. Encouraging results obtained in this clinically advanced setting combined with renewed interest for tumoral angiogenesis brought clinicians to apply this strategy to smaller tumours. Despite high clinical and radiological response rates, only pathologic information, carefully assessed in both the primary and axillae lymph nodes, stands out as the major source of prognostic information on patients' outcome. Recent developments in chemotherapy (dose-intensity, new drugs) do not seem to influence these results, indicating the possible limitations of recent developments in chemotherapy. Of 6 published randomized trials comparing primary vs adjuvant chemotherapy, none showed any significant impact of primary chemotherapy on survival, with a trend towards delayed/less distant recurrences in patients treated by primary chemotherapy in some. Some recent reports suggest that local relapse rate might be increased after conservative treatment following induction chemotherapy in subgroups analyse and this should cause oncologists to revise and define the role for conservative surgery after primary medical treatment without calling into question the global strategy. Through sequential samplings, neoadjuvant medical treatment provides indeed the opportunity (a) to identify molecular mechanisms associated with pathologic response and (b) to study the possibility to guide the choices for induction treatment and patient populations submitted to primary medical treatment.

Invasion marker PAI-1 remains a strong prognostic factor after long-term follow-up both for primary breast cancer and following first relapse

In 1991, our group was the first to report the prognostic strength of plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (PAI-1) in primary breast cancer. The prognostic impact of invasion markers PAI-1 and urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in breast cancer has since been independently confirmed. We now report on the prognostic impact of PAI-1 and uPA after long-term median follow-up of 77 months for our cohort (n = 316). Levels of uPA, PAI-1, and cathepsin D were determined in tumor tissue extracts by immunoenzymatic methods. S-phase fraction (SPF) was measured flowcytometrically in paraffin sections. Using log-rank statistics, optimized cutoffs were found for PAI-1 (14 ng/mg), uPA (3 ng/mg), cathepsin D (41 pmol/mg), and SPF (6%). In all patients, various factors (PAI-1, uPA, nodal status, SPF, cathepsin D, grading, tumor size, hormone receptor status) showed significant univariate impact on DFS. In Cox analysis, only nodal status (p < 0.001, RR: 3.1) and PAI-1 (p < 0.001, RR: 2.7) remained significant. In node-negative patients (n = 147), PAI-1, uPA, and SPF had significant univariate impact on DFS, whereas in Cox analysis, only PAI-1 was significant. PAI-1 was also significant for DFS within subgroups defined by established factors. In CART analysis, uPA enhanced the prognostic value of PAT-1 and nodal status for determination of a very-low-risk subgroup. For OS, only lymph node status and PAI-1 were significant in multivariate analysis. PAI-1 levels in the primary tumor were also a significant prognostic marker for survival after first relapse in both univariate and multivariate analysis.

Prognosis and prediction of response in breast cancer: the current role of the main biological markers

In the medical literature there are frequently conflicting reports on the utility of biological tumour markers available in the clinical management of breast cancer. In this review we analyse current information on the relationships between the most widely investigated breast cancer biological markers including oestrogen and progesterone receptors, p53, Bcl-2, c-erbB-2, cyclin expression, proliferative activity, DNA ploidy and the urokinase plasminogen activation system, as well as their relevance to prognosis and response to clinical treatment. By biological prognostic indicator, we mean a marker that correlates with survival and disease-free survival; the term predictor marker indicates a marker that is capable of predicting tumour sensitivity or resistance to various therapies. Similarly to other authors' experiences, our analysis suggests that oestrogen receptors are weak prognostic indicators and good predictors of response to endocrine therapy. Furthermore, there are consistent data suggesting that proliferation indices are good indicators of prognosis, and that they are directly related to response to chemotherapy and closely related to response to hormonotherapy. On the contrary, there is no evidence or conflicting data for all of the other biological markers. These should be considered in the context of randomized trials in order to precisely define their prognostic and predictive roles. p53 and c-erbB-2 seem to be the most promising factors, but their use in routine practice still needs validation.