TLE3 as a candidate biomarker of response to taxane therapy.

INTRODUCTION: The addition of taxanes (Ts) to chemotherapeutic regimens has not demonstrated a consistent benefit in early-stage breast cancer. To date, no clinically relevant biomarkers that predict T response have been identified. METHODS: A dataset of immunohistochemistry stains in 411 patients was mined to identify potential markers of response. TLE3 emerged as a candidate marker for T response. To test the association with T sensitivity, an independent 'triple-negative' (TN) validation cohort was stained with anti-TLE3 antibody. RESULTS: TLE3 staining was associated with improved 5-year disease-free interval (DFI) in the overall cohort (n = 441, P < 0.004), in patients treated with cyclophosphamide (C), methotrexate, and 5-fluorouracil (n = 72, P < 0.02), and in those treated with regimens containing doxorubicin (A) and a T (n = 65, P < 0.04). However, no association was shown with outcome in untreated patients (n = 203, P = 0.49) or those treated with a regimen containing A only (n = 66, P = 0.97). In the TN cohort, TLE3 staining was significantly associated with improved 5-year DFI in all patients (n = 81, P < 0.015), in patients treated with AC + T (n = 45, P < 0.02), but not in patients treated with AC (n = 17, P = 0.81). TLE3 was independent of tumor size, nodal status, and grade by bivariable analysis in both cohorts. CONCLUSION: TLE3 staining is associated with improved DFI in T-treated patients in two independent cohorts. Since the validation study was performed in a TN cohort, TLE3 is not serving as a surrogate for estrogen receptor or HER2 expression. TLE3 should be studied in large clinical trial cohorts to establish its role in T chemotherapy selection.

Lymphedema secondary to postmastectomy radiation: incidence and risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) has proven benefits for certain patients with breast cancer; however, one of its complications is lymphedema. This study examines the incidence of and risk factors associated with lymphedema secondary to PMRT. METHODS: The charts of patients treated with mastectomy at Roswell Park Cancer Institute between January 1, 1995, and April 20, 2001, who received PMRT were reviewed. Univariate analysis of patient, disease, and treatment variables was conducted. Multivariate analysis was performed on variables found to be significant in univariate analysis. RESULTS: One hundred five patients received PMRT. The incidence of lymphedema was 27%. Patient age, body mass index, disease stage, positive lymph nodes, nodes resected, postoperative infection, duration of drainage, chemotherapy, and hormonal therapy were not associated with lymphedema. Total dose (P =.032), posterior axillary boost (P =.047), overlap technique (P =.037), radiotherapy before 1999 (P =.028), and radiotherapy at Roswell Park Cancer Institute (P =.028) were significantly associated with lymphedema. Increased lymphedema was noted with supraclavicular, internal mammary, mastectomy scar boost, and chest wall tangential photon beam radiation, but the associations were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The high incidence and debilitating effects of lymphedema must be weighed against the benefits of PMRT. Efforts to prevent lymphedema should be emphasized.