Journal List > J Lung Cancer > v.8(1) > 1050703

Yoo, Shim, and Kang: The Prognostic and Predictive Value of EGFR and HER-2 in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer Patients Who Are Treated with Cisplatin and Paclitaxel

Abstract

Purpose

Although both platinum-based drugs and third-generation drugs are commonly used as first-line therapy for patients with advanced, unresectable non-small cell lung cancer, their effectiveness and clinical outcomes vary. We investigated whether epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and HER-2 were correlated with the chemoresponse and survival after treatment with a cisplatin plus paclitaxel regimen.

Materials and Methods

Forty-nine tumors were analyzed by chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) for EGFR and HER-2 gene amplification.

Results

Twenty-eight patients (57%) achieved a partial response (PR), 13 (27%) showed stable disease (SD) and 8 (16%) had progressive disease (PD). EGFR and HER-2 amplification was identified in 43% and 57% of the tumors, respectively. EGFR amplification revealed no association with either a chemoresponse or survival, whereas HER-2 was amplified more frequently in the patients with PD (88% vs. 54%, respectively, p=0.06) and in the patients with shorter survival (12 months vs. 20 months respectively, p=0.027).

Conclusion

The evaluation of HER-2 gene amplification is a promising approach for identifying those patients who are most likely to benefit from combination chemotherapy with cisplatin and paclitaxel.

References

1. Jemal A, Chu KC, Tarone RE. Recent trends in lung cancer mortality in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93:277–283.
crossref
2. Brundage MD, Davies D, Mackillop WJ. Prognostic factors in nonsmall cell lung cancer: a decade of progress. Chest. 2002; 122:1037–1057.
3. Suzuki S, Dobashi Y, Sakurai H, Nishikawa K, Hanawa M, Ooi A. Protein overexpression and gene amplification of epidermal growth factor receptor in nonsmall cell lung carcinomas: an immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization study. Cancer. 2005; 103:1265–1273.
4. Toschi L, Cappuzzo F. Understanding the new genetics of responsiveness to epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Oncologist. 2007; 12:211–220.
crossref
5. Hirsch FR, Varella-Garcia M, Cappuzzo F, et al. Combination of EGFR gene copy number and protein expression predicts outcome for advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer patients treated with gefitinib. Ann Oncol. 2007; 18:752–760.
crossref
6. Coussens L, Yang-Feng TL, Liao YC, et al. Tyrosine kinase receptor with extensive homology to EGF receptors shares chromosomal location with neu oncogene. Science. 1985; 230:1132–1139.
7. Mé nard S, Valagussa P, Pilotti S, et al. Response to cyclo-hosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in lymph nodepositive breast cancer according to HER2 overexpression and other tumor biologic variables. J Clin Oncol. 2001; 19:329–335.
8. Meden H, Marx D, Roegglen T, Schauer A, Kuhn W. Overexpression of the oncogene c-erbB-2 (HER2/neu) and response to chemotherapy in patients with ovarian cancer. Int J Gynecol Pathol. 1998; 17:61–65.
crossref
9. Tsai CM, Levitzki A, Wu LH, et al. Enhancement of chemosensitivity by tyrphostin AG825 in high-p185 (neu) expressing nonsmall cell lung cancer cells. Cancer Res. 1996; 56:1086–1074.
10. Greatens TM, Niehans GA, Rubins JB, et al. Do molecular markers predict survival in nonsmall-cell lung cancer? Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998; 157:1093–1097.
crossref
11. Sobin LH, Fleming ID. TNM classification of malignant tumors, fifth edition (1997). Union internationale contre le cancer and the American joint committee on cancer. Cancer. 1997; 80:1803–1804.
12. Therasse P, Arbuck SG, Eisenhauer EA, et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000; 92:205–216.
13. Tanner M, Gancberg D, Di Leo A, et al. Chromogenic in situ hybridization: a practical alternative for fluorescence in situ hybridization to detect HER-2/neu oncogene amplification in archival breast cancer samples. Am J Pathol. 2000; 157:1467–1472.
14. Baselga J, Seidman AD, Rosen PP, Norton L. HER2 overexpression and paclitaxel sensitivity in breast cancer: therapeutic implications. Oncology (Williston Park). 1997; 11:43–48.
15. Schneider S, Uchida K, Brabender J, et al. Downregulation of TS, DPD, ERCC1, GST-Pi, EGFR, and HER2 gene expression after neoadjuvant three-modality treatment in patients with esophageal cancer. J Am Coll Surg. 2005; 200:336–344.
crossref
16. Jä nne PA, Gurubhagavatula S, Yeap BY, et al. Outcomes of patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer treated with gefitinib (ZD1839, “Iressa”) on an expanded access study. Lung Cancer. 2004; 44:221–230.
crossref
17. Lynch TJ, Bell DW, Sordella R, et al. Activating mutations in the epidermal growth factor receptor underlying responsiveness if nonsmall-cell lung cancer to gefitinib. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:2129–2139.
18. Cappuzzo F. Should every lung cancer patients be tested for EGFR mutation? Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2006; 10:789–791.
19. Tsutsui S, Kataoka A, Ohno S, Murakami S, Kinoshita J, Hachitanda Y. Prognostic and predictive value of epidermal growth factor receptor in recurrent breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2002; 8:3454–3460.
20. Hancock MC, Langton BC, Chan T, et al. A monoclonal antibody against the c-erbB-2 protein enhances the cytotoxicity of cis-diaminedichloroplatinum against human breast and ovarian tumor cell lines. Cancer Res. 1991; 51:4575–4580.
21. Tsai CM, Yu D, Chang KT, et al. Enhanced chemoresistance by elevation of p185neu levels in HER-2/neu-transfected human lung cancer cells. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995; 87:682–684.
crossref
22. Selvaggi G, Scagliotti GV, Torri V, et al. HER-2/neu overexpression in patients with radically resected nonsmall cell lung carcinoma: impact on longterm survival. Cancer. 2002; 94:2669–2674.
23. Harpole DH Jr, Marks JR, Richards WG, Herndon JE 2nd, Sugarbaker DJ. Localized adenocarcinoma of the lung: oncogene expression of erbB-2 and p53 in 150 patients. Clin Cancer Res. 1995; 1:659–664.
24. Pfeiffer P, Clausen PP, Andersen K, Rose C. Lack of prognostic significance of epidermal growth factor receptor and the oncoprotein p185HER–2 in patients with systemically untreated nonsmall-cell lung cancer: an immunohistochemical study on cryosections. Br J Cancer. 1996; 74:86–91.
crossref
25. Tsai CM, Chang KT, Perng RP, et al. Correlation of intrinsic chemoresistance of nonsmall-cell lung cancer cell lines with HER-2/neu gene expression but not with ras gene mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993; 85:897–901.
crossref
26. Pastorino U, Andreola S, Tagliabue E, et al. Immunocytochemical markers in stage I lung cancer: relevance to prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 1997; 15:2858–2865.
crossref

Fig. 1.
EGFR (A) and HER-2 (B) gene amplification by chromogenic in situ hybridization. A typical gene amplification appears as a cluster of multiple individual gene copies (CISH, ×400). EGFR: epidermal growth factor receptor.
jlc-8-13f1.tif

Tables

Table 1.
Clinicopathologic Features and Their Relationship with Tumor Response to Chemotherapy
Variables No. (%) Responder (%) Non-responder (%) p value
Age (years)        
  Mean 59.5±9.5     0.114
  <60 23 (47) 12 (52) 11 (48)  
  ≥60 26 (53) 16 (62) 10 (38)  
Gender       0.138
  Male 30 (61) 19 (63) 11 (37)  
  Female 19 (39) 9 (48) 10 (52)  
Smoking       0.148
  Never-smoker 14 (29) 6 (42) 8 (58)  
  Current or ex-smoker 35 (71) 22 (63) 13 (37)  
T       0.291
  T2, T3 21 (43) 12 (57) 9 (43)  
  T4 28 (57) 16 (57) 12 (43)  
N       0.894
  N0 3 (6) 2 (67) 1 (33)  
  N1∼3 46 (94) 26 (57) 20 (43)  
Stage       0.114
  IIIB 15 (31) 11 (73) 4 (27)  
  IV 34 (69) 17 (50) 17 (50)  
Histology       0.053
  Squamous cell carcinoma 20 (41) 16 (80) 4 (20)  
  Adenocarcinoma 24 (49) 9 (38) 15 (62)  
  Large cell carcinoma 5 (10) 3 (60) 2 (40)  
Differentiation       0.462
  Well differentiated 4 (8) 3 (75) 1 (25)  
  Moderately differentiated 23 (47) 10 (43) 13 (57)  
  Poorly differentiated 22 (45) 15 (68) 7 (32)  
Total 49 28 (57) 21 (43)  
Table 2.
Association between Clinicopathologic Variables and Gene Amplification of EGFR and HER-2
Variables EGFR HER-2
  Amplified (%) p value Amplified (%) p value
Age (years)   0.876   0.646
  <60 (n=23) 11 (48)   14 (61)  
  ≥60 (n=26) 10 (38)   14 (54)  
Gender   0.956   0.62
  Male (n=30) 13 (43)   18 (60)  
  Female (n=19) 8 (42)   10 (53)  
Smoking   0.943   0.533
  Never-smoker (n=14) 6 (43)   7 (50)  
  Current or ex-smoker (n=35) 15 (43)   21 (60)  
T   0.227   0.529
  T2, T3 (n=21) 10 (48)   11 (52)  
  T4 (n=28) 11 (39)   17 (61)  
N   0.276   0.4
  N0 (n=3) 1 (33)   2 (67)  
  N1∼3 (n=46) 20 (43)   26 (57)  
Stage   0.718   0.112
  IIIB (n=15) 6 (40)   6 (40)  
  IV (n=34) 15 (44)   22 (65)  
Histology   0.575   0.8
  Squamous cell carcinoma (n=20) 8 (40)   11 (55)  
  Adenocarcinoma (n=24) 11 (46)   14 (58)  
  Large cell carcinoma (n=5) 2 (40)   3 (60)  
Differentiation   0.102   0.135
  Well differentiated (n=4) 2 (50)   2 (50)  
  Moderately differentiated (n=23) 7 (30)   11 (48)  
  Poorly differentiated (n=22) 12 (55)   15 (68)  
Tumor response   0.204   0.06
  Partial response (n=28) 13 (46)   15 (54)  
  Stable disease (n=13) 5 (38)   6 (46)  
  Progressive disease (n=8) 3 (38)   7 (88)  
Total 21 (43)   28 (57)  
Table 3.
Association between Clinicopatholgic Variables and Median Survival
Variables Median survival ±SD (months) 95% CI p value
Age (years)     0.269
  <60 17±4.372 8.098∼25.235  
  ≥60 14±2.214 9.496∼18.174  
Gender     0.361
  Male 14±1.881 10.314∼17.686  
  Female 20±3.119 13.888∼26.112  
Smoking     0.227
  Never-smoker 18±3.165 11.796∼24.204  
  Current or ex-smoker 15±2.098 10.887∼19.113  
T     0.16
  T2 12±2.980 6.158∼17.842  
  T3 14±3.879 6.396∼21.604  
  T4 20±2.980 14.158∼25.842  
N     0.889
  N0 20±9.798 0.796∼39.204  
  N1 12±3.286 5.559∼18.441  
  N2 14±4.866 4.463∼23.537  
  N3 15±2.882 9.350∼20.650  
Stage     0.058
  IIIB 16±4.508 6.163∼23.837  
  IV 12±2.325 10.443∼19.557  
Histology     0.036
  Squamous cell carcinoma 18±4.837 8.519∼27.481  
  Adenocarcinoma 14±2.078 9.927∼18.073  
  Large cell carcinoma 8±0.816 6.400∼9.600  
Differentiation     0.366
  Well differentiated 24±14.697 0.000∼52.806  
  Moderately differentiated 16±2.695 10.717∼21.283  
  Poorly differentiated 14±4.297 5.578∼22.422  
Tumor response     0.013
  Partial response 20±8.490 3.359∼36.641  
  Stable disease 15±1.708 11.653∼18.347  
  Progressive disease 10±3.933 2.292∼17.708  
EGFR     0.438
  Not-amplified 13±2.735 7.639∼18.361  
  Amplified 15±2.950 9.218∼20.782  
HER-2     0.027
  Not-amplified 20±4.218 11.732∼28.268  
  Amplified 12±2.851 6.412∼17.588  

SD: standard deviation, CI: confidence interval, EGFR: epidermal growth factor receptor

Table 4.
Univariate and Multivariate Analyses of Cox Proportional Hazard Model
Variables Level Hazard ratio 95% CI p value
a) Univariate analysis        
   Age (in years) ≥60 vs. <60 0.988 0.950∼1.029 0.565
   Smoking Current or ex-smoker vs. Never-smoker 1.298 0.565∼2.983 0.539
   Stage IV vs. IIIB 1.137 0.581∼2.214 0.708
   Histology Non-squamous vs. Squamous 1.714 0.943∼3.114 0.077
   Tumor response PR or SD vs. PD 0.323 0.129∼0.809 0.016
   EGFR Amplified vs. Not amplified 0.996 0.781∼1.269 0.971
   HER-2 Amplified vs. Not amplified 1.718 0.888∼2.326 0.108
b) Multivariate analysis        
   Age (in years) ≥60 vs <60 0.994 0.952∼1.038 0.792
   Smoking Current or ex-smoker vs. Never-smoker 1.837 0.667∼5.133 0.246
   Stage IV vs. IIIB 1.018 0.283∼1.438 0.279
   Histology Non-squamous vs. Squamous 2.036 0.977∼4.242 0.058
   Tumor response PR or SD vs. PD 0.332 0.129∼0.809 0.031
   EGFR Amplified vs. Not amplified 1.084 0.827∼1.419 0.56
   HER-2 Amplified vs. Not amplified 1.744 0.810∼3.756 0.155

CI: confidence interval, PR: partial response, SD: stable disease, PD: progressive disease, EGFR: epidermal growth factor receptor

TOOLS
Similar articles