• Radiation Oncology Journal
• /
• 제28권2호
• /
• pp.71-78
• /
• 2010

목 적: 국소 진행성 유방암으로 선행 항암화학요법 후 수술과 방사선치료를 시행한 환자를 대상으로 치료 결과와 예후에 영향을 미치는 인자를 알아보고자 하였다. 대상 및 방법: 1995년 4월부터 2006년 11월까지 삼성서울병원에서 유방암으로 선행 항암화학요법을 받은 환자는 총 159명이었다. 이중에서 진단 당시 종양의 크기가 5.0 cm를 초과하거나 액와림프절 전이가 의심된 유방암 환자로 항암화학요법 후 근치적 수술을 시행하고 방사선치료가 시행된 105명을 대상으로 하였다. 선행 항암화학요법은 2명을 제외한 모든 환자에서 anthracycline을 기반으로 하는 복합항암요법을 사용하였다. 치료 전 임상적 병기는 T1 3명(3%), T2 26명(25%), T3 39명(37%), T4 37명(35%)이었고 액와림프절 전이가 의심되는 사람이 98명(93%)이었다. 선행 항암화학요법을 시작한 날을 기준으로 추적 조사하였고 중앙추적조사기간은 41개월(7~142개월)이었다. 결 과: 전체 환자의 5년 국소제어율은 82.1%, 원격전이제어율은 69.9%, 무병생존율은 66.1%, 전체생존율은 77.1%이었다. 무병생존율과 전체생존율에 영향을 미치는 인자를 알아보기 위해 단변량분석을 시행하였을 때 임상적 원발병소 병기, 병리학적 원발병소 병기, 병리학적 림프절 병기 그리고 병리학적 TNM 병기가 공통적으로 통계적으로 유의한 인자들이었다. 다변량 분석을 시행하였을 때 호르몬치료 유무만 생존율과 연관된 의미 있는 인자였다. 결 론: 본 연구를 통하여 삼성서울병원에서 국소 진행성 유방암으로 선행 항암화학요법이 시행된 환자의 치료 성적이 지금까지 보고된 다른 선행 항암화학요법 치료 결과와 비교할 때 비슷하거나 나은 결과를 보여주었다. 또한, 호르몬치료를 시행한 경우에만 생존율이 의미 있게 좋았고 임상적 병기나 병리학적 병기가 낮은 경우 생존율이 좋은 경향을 보였다.

• Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
• /
• 제16권11호
• /
• pp.4603-4608
• /
• 2015

Background: To determine the potential value of serum tumor markers in predicting pCR (pathological complete response) during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively monitored the pro-, mid-, and post-neoadjuvant treatment serum tumor marker concentrations in patients with locally advanced breast cancer (stage II-III) who accepted pre-surgical chemotherapy or chemotherapy in combination with targeted therapy at Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center between September 2011 and January 2014 and investigated the association of serum tumor marker levels with therapeutic effect. Core needle biopsy samples were assessed using immunohistochemistry (IHC) prior to neoadjuvant treatment to determine hormone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2(HER2), and proliferation index Ki67 values. In our study, therapeutic response was evaluated by pCR, defined as the disappearance of all invasive cancer cells from excised tissue (including primary lesion and axillary lymph nodes) after completion of chemotherapy. Analysis of variance of repeated measures and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were employed for statistical analysis of the data. Results: A total of 348 patients were recruited in our study after excluding patients with incomplete clinical information. Of these, 106 patients were observed to have acquired pCR status after treatment completion, accounting for approximately 30.5% of study individuals. In addition, 147patients were determined to be Her-2 positive, among whom the pCR rate was 45.6% (69 patients). General linear model analysis (repeated measures analysis of variance) showed that the concentration of cancer antigen (CA) 15-3 increased after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in both pCR and non-pCR groups, and that there were significant differences between the two groups (P=0.008). The areas under the ROC curves (AUCs) of pre-, mid-, and post-treatment CA15-3 concentrations demonstrated low-level predictive value (AUC=0.594, 0.644, 0.621, respectively). No significant differences in carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) or CA12-5 serum levels were observed between the pCR and non-pCR groups (P=0.196 and 0.693, respectively). No efficient AUC of CEA or CA12-5 concentrations were observed to predict patient response toward neoadjuvant treatment (both less than 0.7), nor were differences between the two groups observed at different time points. We then analyzed the Her-2 positive subset of our cohort. Significant differences in CEA concentrations were identified between the pCR and non-pCR groups (P=0.039), but not in CA15-3 or CA12-5 levels (p=0.092 and 0.89, respectively). None of the ROC curves showed underlying prognostic value, as the AUCs of these three markers were less than 0.7. The ROC-AUCs for the CA12-5 concentrations of inter-and post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the estrogen receptor negative HER2 positive subgroup were 0.735 and 0.767, respectively. However, the specificity and sensitivity values were at odds with each other which meant that improving either the sensitivity or specificity would impair the efficiency of the other. Conclusions: Serum tumor markers CA15-3, CA12-5, and CEA might have little clinical significance in predicting neoadjuvant treatment response in locally advanced breast cancer.