The effects of breast cancer conventional chemotherapy on tumor angiogenesis need to be further characterized. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an ideal model to evaluate the results of chemotherapy, allowing intra-patient direct comparison of antitumor and antiangiogenic effects. We sought to analyze the effect of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on tumor angiogenesis and its clinical significance in breast cancer. Breast cancer patients (n = 108) treated with neoadjuvant sequential anthracyclines and taxanes were studied. Pre- and post-chemotherapy microvessel density (MVD) and mean vessel size (MVS) were analyzed after CD34 immunohistochemistry and correlated with tumor expression of pro- and antiangiogenic factors (VEGFA, THBS1, HIF1A, CTGF, and PDGFA) by qRT-PCR. Angiogenic measures at diagnosis varied among breast cancer subtypes. Pre-treatment higher MVS was associated with triple-negative subtype and more advanced disease. Higher MVS was correlated with higher VEGFA (p = 0.003), while higher MVD was correlated with lower antiangiogenic factors expression (THBS1, p < 0.0001; CTGF, p = 0.001). Increased angiogenesis at diagnosis (high MVS and glomeruloid microvascular proliferation) and higher VEGFA expression were associated with tumor recurrence (p = 0.048 and 0.009, respectively). Chemotherapy-induced angiogenic response (defined as decreased MVD) was present in 35.2 % of patients. This response correlated with an increase in antiangiogenic factors (THBS1) without changes in VEGFA expression, and it was associated with tumor downstaging, but not with clinical response, pathologic complete response, or prognosis. Global effects of chemotherapy mainly consisted in an increased expression of antiangiogenic factors (THBS1, CTGF), with significant changes neither of tumor VEGFA nor of MVS. Conventionally scheduled neoadjuvant chemotherapy exerts antiangiogenic effects, through an increase in antiangiogenic factors, THBS1 and CTGF, but the expression of VEGFA is maintained after treatment. Better markers of angiogenic response and a better understanding of the cooperation of chemotherapy and antiangiogenic therapy in the neoadjuvant clinical scenario are needed.
The prognostic impact of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has been previously evaluated in early and metastatic mixed breast cancer cohorts or without considering other relevant prognostic factors. Our aim was to determine whether NLR prognostic and predictive value in MBC was dependent on other clinical variables. We studied a consecutive retrospective cohort of patients with MBC from a single centre, with any type of first line systemic treatment. The association of NLR at diagnosis of metastasis with progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated using Cox univariate and multivariate proportional hazard models. In the full cohort, that included 263 MBC patients, a higher than the median (>2.32) NLR was significantly associated with OS in the univariate analysis (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.00–1.83), but the association was non-significant (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80–1.56) when other clinical covariates (performance status, stage at diagnosis, CNS involvement, visceral disease and visceral crisis) were included in the multivariate analysis. No significant association was observed for PFS. In conclusion, MBC patients with higher baseline NLR had worse overall survival, but the prognostic impact of NLR is likely derived from its association with other relevant clinical prognostic factors.
Our results did not support sEMP as a marker of response to chemotherapy. However, our exploratory analysis suggests that in patients with metastatic breast cancer, the decrease of sEMP levels after chemotherapy is associated with better overall and disease free survival and might be superior to VEGFA levels as an angiogenesis-related prognostic marker.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.