Abstract
Introduction
The presence of disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow of breast cancer patients has proven to be an independent prognostic factor. The aim of this study was to investigate the status of tumor cell dissemination after primary systemic therapy in relation to therapy response.
Methods
Bone marrow aspirates were obtained from 120 patients after completion of primary systemic therapy. Disseminated tumor cells were detected by immunocytochemistry using the APAAP method. Bone marrow status was correlated with clinicopathological factors as well as tumor response to primary systemic therapy.
Results
Sixty out of 120 patients had disseminated tumor cells in their bone marrow aspirates (50%). Response rates were 18% for pathologic complete remission, 52% for partial remission, 28% for no change and 3% for progression. Despite complete remission, 36% of these patients were bone marrow positive. In the partial remission group, the positivity rate was 48%. About 61% of patients with stable disease had disseminated tumor cells in their bone marrow. A trend to higher positivity rates was observed in the poor responder group compared to responders (61% vs. 38%, P = 0.1).
Conclusion
Primary systemic therapy does not completely eradicate disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow of breast cancer patients. The biological role of persistent disseminated tumor cells needs to be further investigated to optimize current and future therapeutic strategies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Neoadjuvant or primary systemic therapy (PST) has become an accepted alternative to traditional adjuvant therapy as studies have confirmed that its effect on long-term survival is similar to that of adjuvant chemotherapy [1–3]. Large clinical trials have reported complete clinical remission rates of 30–60% depending on the type of chemotherapy [4–7]. While initially the treatment of choice for locally advanced tumors (T3, T4), the use of PST in patients with smaller T1 and T2 tumors has been the focus of intense discussions (NIH and St.Gallen Consensus Panels). One major advantage of PST is that it offers the opportunity to assess first-hand the clinical chemosensitivity of the individual tumor, allowing for further risk-stratification and early identification of chemo-resistant cancers. The effect of both adjuvant and PST on long-term survival has been attributed to its ability to eradicate microdisseminated tumor cells that could potentially develop into distant metastases. Disseminated isolated tumor cells, that do not qualify as clinically apparent metastases have been detected in different tissues of patients with breast cancer and most other cancers [8–10]. About 35–40% of breast cancer patients without distant metastases have disseminated tumor cells (DTC) in their bone marrow (BM) at the time of primary therapy. Numerous studies show that patients with positive tumor cell detection in the BM have a worse prognosis when compared to patients with a negative BM-aspirate [11–13], findings that have recently been confirmed by metanalysis [14]. It remains unclear how PST influences tumor cell dissemination or metastatic potential of disseminated tumor cells. However, as the effect of PST on microdisseminated tumor cells is considered crucial for the long-term benefit of such therapies, we look at its effect on the incidence of cytokeratin positive cells in breast cancer patients.
Patients and methods
All patients receiving PST at our institution were eligible for this study. Patients with locoregional relapse or distant metastases were excluded. About 120 patients agreed to participate in the study and were included in the final analysis. All patients gave informed written consent. After completion of PST patients underwent BM aspiration under general anesthesia at the time of surgery. Histological diagnosis of breast carcinoma was established prior to chemotherapy by high speed microbiopsy. Clinical tumor size and nodal status were assessed by palpation, sonography and mammography before chemotherapy or hormone therapy. The absence of distant metastases was confirmed by sonographic and radiographic examinations. Both patients treated with endocrine therapy and chemotherapy were included in current trials and received standardized treatment. Patients in the chemotherapy group mostly received taxane containing chemotherapies, most commonly four cycles of epirubicine/cyclosphosphamide followed by four cycles of a taxane over a total of 24 weeks. Before starting each cycle, clinical examination, breast palpation, breast-sonography and mammography was performed. Three to four weeks after completion of the final cycle of PST, surgery and BM aspiration was performed. About 15–20 ml of BM was aspirated from the anterior iliac crest ipsilateral to the afflicted breast under general anesthesia before start of the surgical procedure. Unilateral aspiration was chosen because during follow-up visits, aspirations are performed under local anesthesia. After preparation of cytospins, immunocytochemical staining and automated detection of enriched disseminated tumor cells was performed. Detailed laboratory protocols controls are described elsewhere [15]. Leukocytes from healthy blood donors were used as negative controls. The presence of one or more pancytokeratin positive cells per cytospin, based on the criteria established by the International Society for Cellular Therapy was evaluated as positive [16]. All final pathology reports were reviewed. Pathologic assessment included the surgical breast specimen as well as removed axillary lymphnodes. Only patients with no remaining tumor were considered to have pathological complete response (pCR). For stratification and statistical evaluation, the patients were divided in four groups (PD: progressive disease, NC: no change, PR: partial remission and CR: complete remission) based on their response to PST. CR was defined as pathologic complete disappearance of any tumorous tissue and limited to this group. Patients with clinical complete remission who were found to have residual cancer on histology were included in the partial remission group. PR was defined as a decrease in tumor size of at least 50%, NC as stable tumor size to a reduction in tumor size of less than 50%. Progressive disease was defined as an increase in tumor sizes of more than 25%. The relationship between BM status and categorial or dichotomous clinicopathological factors in the four subgroups was analyzed by chi-squared test. Statistical analysis was performed by SPSS (Version 11.5). P-values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
Results
Basic patient characteristics of the study population are outlined in Table 1. After completion of primary systemic therapy and at the time of surgery, 60 of 120 (50%) patients had a positive BM, i.e. detectable tumor cells by immunocytochemistry. The number of detected cells ranged from 1 to 100 cells per 2 × 106 mononuclear cells (mean: 2.4 cells per 2 × 106 mononuclear cells for all patients, 4.9 cells for DCT-positive patients.). Figure 1 shows a cytokeratin-positive disseminated tumor cell of a patient after PST. Presence of disseminated tumor cells was not correlated to any of the clinicopathological factors including tumor size, nodal status, grading, histology, hormone receptor or HER2 status (Table 1). No difference of positivity rates in BM was seen between different treatment groups (endocrine versus taxane based versus anthracycline based therapy) (P = 0.553). Table 2
The majority of patients (n = 62, 52%) showed a partial remission of the primary tumor. Complete remission, defined as the absence of detectable malignant tissue at the primary site was observed in 22 (18%) cases. In 33 (28%) cases the tumor size remained unchanged and 3 (3%) patients showed progression during PST.
A trend towards a higher positivity rate in patients with a poor response to PST (progressive disease/stable disease) compared to those with partial and complete remission was seen but did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.11). The positivity rates in patients with NC or PD were 61% and 69%, respectively. In contrast, positive BM findings were seen in 48% and 36% of patients with PR and CR, respectively.
Discussion
PST is thought to become a more common form of treatment for primary breast cancer in the future. One key aspect of PST is the correlation between tumor response and prognosis [17, 18]. Patients who underwent PST and showed a complete pathologic remission generally have a better prognosis than those with incomplete or even no response [19]. Other prognostic factors for breast cancer patients who underwent PST are well known from the adjuvant setting and include grading, tumor size as well as nodal status before and after therapy. This study looks at another established prognostic factor in breast cancer: the presence of CK-positive cells thought to be disseminated tumor cells (DTC) in the BM of patients who underwent PST. Numerous studies have shown that patients with positive tumor cell detection in the BM have a worse prognosis when compared to patients with a negative aspirate. Numerous single center studies ranging from 350 to over 800 patients with a median follow-up of up to 12 years have shown the prognostic significance of DTCs [20–24]. A recent pooled analysis including more than 4,700 patients confirmed these findings [14]. Further studies have shown that while adjuvant systemic therapy reduces the number of CK-positive patients, neither adjuvant chemotherapy nor adjuvant endocrine therapy can completely eliminate the presence of CK positive cells from the BM [25–28]. In fact, patients with a persistence of CK positive cells after chemotherapy have a worse prognosis than those who were able to clear all CK-positive cells from their BM [29]. Because of these findings, identification and characterization of disseminated tumor cells have become important areas of research. Particularly characterization of disseminated cells after conventional adjuvant or primary systemic therapy could identify patients who are likely to benefit from novel therapeutic concepts such as specific antibody-based therapies against target cell-surface antigens. Examples for such treatment-modalities in different stages of development or clinical application are antibody-therapies against HER2, Ep-CAM (17-1A) and uPA-R surface antigens [30].
Our study shows that the rate of CK positive cells in patients after similar chemotherapy but without prior removal of the tumor is surprisingly high. In fact, patients included in our study showed a slightly higher rate of disseminated cells in the BM as would be expected in similar patients before initiation of either surgical and/or systemic treatment.
Different explanations are possible: First, contrary to the adjuvant situation it is not clear if disseminated tumor cells detected after treatment survived chemotherapy or if they are new cells. During PST, tumor cell shedding could conceivably continue until the final removal of the tumor, creating a constant source of passive shedding or active dissemination. It has been technically difficult to routinely describe the exact nature of individual cytokeratin positive cells in the BM of breast cancer patients. While some of them appear to be viable disseminated tumor cells, others could be necrotic or apoptotic cells. These could be the result of passive cell shedding by the primary tumor, rather than the result of an active pre-metastatic process. As such, we would indeed expect a higher rate of “shedded”, but clinically insignificant cells in the bone marrow of patients who underwent systemic chemotherapy prior to tumor removal. Another explanation is the concept of tumor cell dormancy. The success of chemotherapy in both primary or adjuvant settings aimed at proliferating cell populations, may be limited by the fact that many of the residual tumor cells present in bone marrow could be nonproliferative or dormant [31]. Finally, DTCs might differ from the local tumor population more than previously thought. Klein et al. found that the genomic characteristics of disseminated tumor cells differ widely from primary tumor cells of the same patient. In fact, disseminated single tumor cells in bone marrow may evolve independently from the primary tumor altogether [32] and as such could respond differently to chemotherapy.
We find an interesting though not statistically significant correlation between tumor response and presence of DTC’s. Such a correlation, if confirmed in a larger patient population, would point towards a negative prognostic impact of persistent DTC’s after chemotherapy as already confirmed in the adjuvant setting and would further strengthen the concept of DTC-monitoring as a marker for systemic residual disease.
References
Bonadonna G, Valagussa P, Brambilla C, Ferrari L, Moliterni A, Terenziani M, Zambetti M (1998) Primary chemotherapy in operable breast cancer. Eight year experience at the Milan Cancer Institute. J Clin Oncol 16:93–100
Fisher B, Bryant J, Wolmark N (1998) Effect of pre-operative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 16:2672–2685
Van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ, Julien JP, Tubiana-Hulin M, Vandervelden C, Duchateau L (2001) Preoperative chemotherapy in primary operable breast cancer: results from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 10902. J Clin Oncol 19(22):4224–4237
von Minckwitz G, Raab G, Schütte M et al (2003) Dose-dense versus sequential Adriamycin/docetaxel combination as preoperative chemotherapy (pCHT) in operable breast cancer (T2–3, N0–2, M0): Primary endpoint analysis of the GEPARDUO study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 21:43a, (abstr 168)
NSABP: The effect on primary tumor response of adding sequential Taxotere to Adriamycin and cyclophosphamide: Preliminary results of the NSABP Protocol B-27. Breast Cancer Res Treat 69:210, (abstr 5) 2001 (updated with personal communication 2002, 2003)
Cunningham JD, Weiss SE, Ahmed S, Bratton JM, Bleiweiss IJ, Tartter PI, Brower ST (1998) The efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared to postoperative therapy in the treatment of locally advanced breast cancer. Cancer Invest 16:80–86
Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E, Wieand S, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, Cruz AB Jr, Fisher ER, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, DeCillis A, Hoehn JL, Lees AW, Dimitrov NV (1997) Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol 15:2483–2493
Braun S, Rosenberg R, Thorban S et al (2001) Implications of occult metastatic cells for systemic cancer treatment in patients with breast of gastrointestinal cancer. Semin Surg Oncol 20(4):334–346
Waldmann V, Deichmann M, Jackel A (2001) Disseminated melanoma cells in blood and bone marrow. Significance and detection by potential tumor markers. Hautarzt 52(4):298–303
Heiss MM, Simon EH, Beyer BC et al (2002) Minimal residual disease in gastric cancer: evidence of an independent prognostic relevance ofurokinase receptor expression by disseminated tumor cells in the bone marrow. J Clin Oncol 20(8):2005–2016
Mansi JL., Easton D, Berger U et al (1991) Bone marrow micrometastases in primary breast cancer: prognostic significance after 6 years’ follow-up. Eur J Cancer 27:1552–1555
Braun S, Pantel K, Muller P et al (2000) Cytokeratin-positive cells in the bone marrow and survival of patients with stage I, II, or III breast cancer. N Engl J Med 342:525–533
Solomayer EF, Diel IJ, Salanti G et al (2001) Time independence of the prognostic impact of tumor cell detection in the bone marrow of primary breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 7:4102–4108
Braun S, Vogl FD, Naume B, Janni W, Osborne MP, Coombes RC, Schlimok G, Diel IJ, Gerber B, Gebauer G, Pierga JY, Marth C, Oruzio D, Wiedswang G, Solomayer EF, Kundt G, Strobl B, Fehm T, Wong GY, Bliss J, Vincent-Salomon A, Pantel K (2005) A pooled analysis of bone marrow micrometastasis in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005 Aug 25, 353(8):793–802
Becker S, Becker-Pergola G, Fehm T, Emig R, Wallwiener D, Solomayer EF (2005) Image Analysis Systems for the detection of disseminated breast cancer cells on bone marrow cytospins. J Clin Lab Anal 19:115–119
Borgen E, Naume B, Nesland JM, Kvalheim G, Beiske K, Fodstad O et al (1999) Standardization of the immunological detection of cancer cells in bone marrow and blood: establishment of objective criteria for the evaluation of immunostained cells. Cytotherapy 5:377–388
Smith IE, Lipton L (2001) Preoperative/neoadjuvant medical therapy for early breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2(9):561–570
Scholl SM, Beuzeboc P, Harris AL, Pierga JY, Asselain B, Palangie T, Dorval T, Jouve M, Dieras V, Pouillart P (1998) Is primary chemotherapy useful for all patients with primary invasive breast cancer ? Recent Res Cancer Res 152:217–226
Smith IC, Heys SD, Hutcheon AW, Miller ID, Payne S, Gilbert FJ, Ah-See AK, Eremin O, Walker LG, Sarkar TK, Eggleton SP, Ogston KN (2002) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: significantly enhanced response with docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 20(6):1456–1466
Funke I, Schraut W (1998) Meta-analyses of studies on bone marrow micrometastases: an independent prognostic impact remains to be substantiated. J Clin Oncol 16:557–566
Braun S, Pantel K, Muller P, Janni W, Hepp F, Kentenich CR, Gastroph S, Wischnik A, Dimpfl T, Kindermann G, Riethmuller G, Schlimok G (2000) Cytokeratin-positive cells in the bone marrow and survival of patients with stage I, II, or III breast cancer. N Engl J Med 342:525–533
Mansi JL, Gogas H, Bliss JM, Gazet JC, Berger U, Coombes RC (1999) Outcome of primary breast cancer patients with micrometastases: a long-term follow-up study. Lancet 354:197–202
Diel IJ, Kaufmann M, Solomayer E-F, Wallwiener D, Gollan C,Goerner R, Kaul S, Costa SD, von Minckwitz G, Holle R, Bastert R (1997) Prognostische Bedeutung des Tumorzellnachweises im Knochenmark im Vergleich zum Nodalstatus beim primären Mammakarzinom. Geburtsh u Frauenheilk 57:333–341
Naume B, Wiedswang G, Borgen E, Kvalheim G, Karesen R, Qvist H, Janbu J, Harbitz T, Nesland JM (2004) The prognostic value of isolated tumor cells in bone marrow in breast cancer patients: evaluation of morphological categories and the number of clinically significant cells. Clin Cancer Res 10(9):3091–3097
Becker S, Becker-Pergola G, Wallwiener D, Solomayer EF, Fehm T (2005) Detection of cytokeratin-positive cells in the bone marrow of breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant therapy.Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005 Dec 1:1–6
Thurm H, Ebel S, Kentenich C, Hemsen A, Riethdorf S, Coith C, Wallwiener D, Braun S, Oberhoff C, Janicke F, Pantel K (2003) Rare expression of epithelial cell adhesion molecule on residual micrometastatic breast cancer cells after adjuvant chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 9(7):2598–2604
Braun S, Kentenich C, Janni W, Hepp F, de Waal J, Willgeroth F, Sommer H, Pantel K (2000) Lack of effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on the elimination of single dormant tumor cells in bone marrow of high-risk breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol Jan 18(1):80–86
Slade MJ, Singh A, Smith BM, Tripuraneni G, Hall E, Peckitt C, Fox S, Graham H, Luchtenborg M, Sinnett HD, Cross NC, Coombes RC (2005) Persistence of bone marrow micrometastases in patients receiving adjuvant therapy for breast cancer: results at 4 years.Int J Cancer 2005 Mar 10, 114(1):94–100
Janni W, Rack B, Schindlbeck C, Strobl B, Rjosk D, Braun S, Sommer H, Pantel K, Gerber B, Friese K (2005) The persistence of isolated tumor cells in bone marrow from patients with breast carcinoma predicts an increased risk for recurrence.Cancer. 2005 Mar 1, 103(5):884–891
Roggel F, Hocke S, Lindemann K, Sinz S, Welk A, Bosl M, Pabst M, Nusser N, Braun S, Schmitt M, Harbeck N (2003) Minimal residual disease in breast cancer and gynecological malignancies: phenotype and clinical relevance. Recent Res Cancer Res 162:89–100
Pantel K, Schlimok G, Braun S, Kutter D, Lindemann F, Schaller G, Funke I, Izbicki JR, Riehtmüller G (1993) Differential expression of proliferation-associated molecules in individual micrometastatic carcinoma cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:1419–1424
Schmidt-Kittler O, Ragg T, Daskalakis A, Granzow M, Ahr A, Blankenstein TJF, Kaufmann M, Diebold J, Arnholdt H, Müller P, Bischoff J, Harich D, Schlimok G, Rietmüller G, Eils R, Klein CA (2003) From latent disseminated cells to overt metastases: genetic analyis of systemic breast cancer progression. PNAS 100:7737–7742
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Becker, S., Solomayer, E., Becker-Pergola, G. et al. Primary systemic therapy does not eradicate disseminated tumor cells in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 106, 239–243 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9484-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9484-5