METHODS: The cytotoxic effect of hydromethanolic extract of A. crispa and its solvents partitions (ethyl acetate and aqueous extracts) against breast cancer cells were evaluated by using MTT assay. The cells were treated with concentration of extracts ranging from 15.63 μg/mL- 1000 μg/mL for 72 h. The quantification of phenolic and flavonoid contents of the extracts were carried out to determine the relationship between of phytochemical compounds responsible for cytotoxic and antioxidative activities. The antioxidant capacity was measured by DPPH and ABTS free radical scavenging assay and expressed as milligram (mg) Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity per 1 g (g) of tested extract.
RESULTS: The hydromethanolic and ethyl acetate extracts showed moderate cytotoxic effect against MCF-7 with IC50 values of 57.35 ± 19.33 μg/mL, and 54.98 ± 14.10 μg/mL, respectively but aqueous extract was inactive against MCF-7. For MDA-MB-231, hydromethanolic, ethyl acetate and aqueous extracts exhibited weak cytotoxic effects against MDA-MB-231 with IC50 values more than 100 μg/mL. The plant revealed high total phenolic content, total flavonoid and antioxidant capacity.
CONCLUSION: The response of different type of breast cancer cell lines towards A. crispa extract and its partitions varied. Accordingly, hydromethanolic and ethyl acetate extracts appear to be more cytotoxic to oestrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer than oestrogen receptor (ER) negative breast cancer. However, aqueous extract appears to have poor activity to both types of breast cancer. Besides that, hydromethanolic and ethyl acetate extracts exhibit higher TPC, TFC and antioxidant capacity compared to aqueous extract. Synergistic effect of anticancer and antioxidant bioactives compounds of A. crispa plausibly contributed to the cytotoxic effects of the extract.
METHODS: We built two models, for ER+ (ModelER+) and ER- tumors (ModelER-), respectively, in 281,330 women (51% postmenopausal at recruitment) from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition cohort. Discrimination (C-statistic) and calibration (the agreement between predicted and observed tumor risks) were assessed both internally and externally in 82,319 postmenopausal women from the Women's Health Initiative study. We performed decision curve analysis to compare ModelER+ and the Gail model (ModelGail) regarding their applicability in risk assessment for chemoprevention.
RESULTS: Parity, number of full-term pregnancies, age at first full-term pregnancy and body height were only associated with ER+ tumors. Menopausal status, age at menarche and at menopause, hormone replacement therapy, postmenopausal body mass index, and alcohol intake were homogeneously associated with ER+ and ER- tumors. Internal validation yielded a C-statistic of 0.64 for ModelER+ and 0.59 for ModelER-. External validation reduced the C-statistic of ModelER+ (0.59) and ModelGail (0.57). In external evaluation of calibration, ModelER+ outperformed the ModelGail: the former led to a 9% overestimation of the risk of ER+ tumors, while the latter yielded a 22% underestimation of the overall BC risk. Compared with the treat-all strategy, ModelER+ produced equal or higher net benefits irrespective of the benefit-to-harm ratio of chemoprevention, while ModelGail did not produce higher net benefits unless the benefit-to-harm ratio was below 50. The clinical applicability, i.e. the area defined by the net benefit curve and the treat-all and treat-none strategies, was 12.7 × 10- 6 for ModelER+ and 3.0 × 10- 6 for ModelGail.
CONCLUSIONS: Modeling heterogeneous epidemiological risk factors might yield little improvement in BC risk prediction. Nevertheless, a model specifically predictive of ER+ tumor risk could be more applicable than an omnibus model in risk assessment for chemoprevention.
METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with T3-4, N2 M0 breast cancer diagnosed between January 2005 and December 2008 and who received at least one cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy were eligible for this study. Thirty-four patients were identified from the Chemotherapy Daycare Records and their medical records were reviewed retrospectively. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen administered was at the discretion of the treating oncologist. Breast tumour size and nodal status was assessed at diagnosis, at each cycle and before surgery.
RESULTS: All 34 patients had invasive ductal cancer. The median age was 52 years (range 27-69). 65% had T4 disease and 76% were clinically lymph node positive at diagnosis. The median size of the breast tumour at presentation was 80 mm (range 42-200 mm). Estrogen and progesterone receptor positivity was seen in less than 40% and HER2 positivity, by immunohistochemistry, in 27%. The majority (85%) of patients had anthracycline based chemotherapy, without taxanes. The overall response rate (clinical CR+PR) was 67.6% and pathological complete responses were apparent in two (5.9%). 17.6% of patients defaulted part of their planned treatment. Recurrent disease was seen in 44.1% and the median time to relapse was 11.3 months. The three year disease free and overall survival rates were 52.5% and 58% respectively.
CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer in a Malaysian setting confers response and pCR rates comparable to published clinical trials. Patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy are at risk of defaulting part of their treatment and therefore their concerns need to be identified proactively and addressed in order to improve outcomes.
METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional study using 100 samples of archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue blocks of invasive ductal carcinoma and stained them with immunohistochemistry for PITX2, ER, PR and HER2. All HER2 with scoring of 2+ were confirmed with chromogenic in-situ hybridization (CISH).
RESULTS: PITX2 protein was expressed in 53% of invasive ductal carcinoma and lack of PITX2 expression in 47%. Univariate analysis revealed a significant association between PITX2 expression with PR (p=0.001), ER (p=0.006), gland formation (p=0.044) and marginal association with molecular subtypes of breast carcinoma (p=0.051). Combined ER and PR expression with PITX2 was also significantly associated (p=0.003) especially in double positive cases. Multivariate analysis showed the most significant association between PITX2 and PR (RR 4.105, 95% CI 1.765-9.547, p=0.001).
CONCLUSION: PITX2 is another potential prognostic marker in breast carcinoma adding significant information to established prognostic factors of ER and PR. The expression of PITX2 together with PR may carry a very good prognosis.
METHODS: Clinicopathological data were retrieved from the archived formal pathology reports for surgical specimens diagnosed as invasive ductal carcinoma, NOS. Microvessels were immunohistochemically stained with anti-CD34 antibody and quantified as microvessel density.
RESULTS: At least 50% of 94 cases of invasive breast ductal carcinoma in the study were advanced stage. The majority had poor prognosis factors such as tumor size larger than 50mm (48.9%), positive lymph node metastasis (60.6%), and tumor grade III (52.1%). Higher percentages of estrogen and progesterone receptor negative cases were recorded (46.8% and 46.8% respectively). Her-2 overexpression cases and triple negative breast cancers constituted 24.5% and 22.3% respectively. Significantly higher microvessel density was observed in the younger patient age group (p=0.012). There were no significant associations between microvessel density and other clinicopathological factors (p>0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Majority of the breast cancer patients of this institution had advanced stage disease with poorer prognostic factors as compared to other local and western studies. Breast cancer in younger patients might be more proangiogenic.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: We evaluated cytoplasmic expression of MMP-13 based on staining index using immunohistochemistry (IHC) in epithelial cells, stromal fibroblasts of IDC (n=90) and benign epithelial breast (n=90) lesions. Correlation between IHC and tumor size, lymph node status, distance metastasis, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and Her-2/neu was assessed.
RESULTS: MMP-13 expression was 45% and 38.8% in malignant epithelial cells and peritumoral fibroblasts, respectively. Only low level of MMP-13 expression was seen in benign breast lesions (8.8% in epithelial component and 2.2% in stromal fibroblasts), while high level of MMP-13 expression was noted in malignant tumors, mainly grade II or III. Cytoplasmic MMP-13 expressions in epithelial tumor cells was correlated significantly with peritumoral fibroblasts. MMP-13 expression was directly correlated with distant metastasis and tumor stage in epithelial tumoral cells and was inversely correlated with progesterone expression in both tumoral and stromal cells.
CONCLUSION: This study showed that MMP-13 was a moderator for tumor invasion and metastasis and could be an independent predictor of poor prognosis in breast cancer. The role of MMP-13 in predicting the risk of malignant transformation in benign lesions should be further investigated.