Chang Shu Wang

INTRODUCTION: Matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2 is very active at degrading extracellular matrix. It is under the influence of an activator, membrane type 1 MMP (MMP-14), and the tissue inhibitor of metalloproteases (TIMP)-2. We hypothesized that the individual expression of these three markers or their balance may help to predict breast cancer prognosis. METHODS: MMP-2, MMP-14 and TIMP-2 expression has been evaluated by 35S mRNA in situ hybridization on paraffin material of 539 breast cancers without distant metastasis at diagnosis and with a median follow-up of 9.2 years. RESULTS: MMP-2 and MMP-14 mRNA was detected primarily in reactive stromal cells whereas TIMP-2 mRNA was expressed by both stromal and cancer cells. Of the three molecules, an adjusted Cox model revealed that high MMP-14 mRNA (> or = 10% cells) alone predicted a significantly shorter overall survival (p = 0.031) when adjusted for clinical factors (tumor size and number of involved lymph nodes). Prognostic significance was lost when further adjusted for Her-2/neu and urokinase-type plasminogen activator (p = 0.284). Furthermore, when all three components were analyzed together, the survival was worst for patients with high MMP-2/high MMP-14/low TIMP-2 (5 year survival = 60%) and best with low MMP-2/low MMP-14/high TIMP-2 (5 year survival = 74%), but the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.3285). CONCLUSION: Of the MMP-14/TIMP-2/MMP-2 complex, MMP-14 was the factor most significantly associated with the outcome of breast cancer and was an independent factor of poor overall survival when adjusted for clinical prognostic factors, but not for certain ancillary markers.

PURPOSE: We evaluated the benefits and sequencing of androgen suppression (AS) administered with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) in T2-T3 prostate cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 1990 and 1999, 481 patients were entered in 2 successive, prospective, randomized studies, including 161 in the study 1 and 325 in study 2. Eligible patients had clinical stages T2-T3 prostate cancer. In the first study (L-101) subjects were randomly allocated among EBRT alone (group 1), EBRT preceded by 3 months of AS (group 2), and neoadjuvant, concomitant and adjuvant AS for a total of 10 months (group 3). In the second study (L-200) we analyzed neoadjuvant and concomitant AS (total 5 months) vs neoadjuvant, concomitant and short course adjuvant (total 10 months) AS with EBRT. In each study we used a total AS (a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist plus an antiandrogen) and a standard dose of radiation therapy at that time. Patient characteristics were well balanced in regard to age, stage, prostate specific antigen and Gleason score. No biochemical evidence of disease (BNED) was defined as an end point according to the Vancouver rule. RESULTS: In the study 1 at a median followup of 5 years 7-year biochemical-free survival rates were 42%, 66% and 69% in groups 1 to 3, respectively. BNED was significantly different between groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.009) and between groups 1 and 3 (p = 0.003) but not between groups 2 and 3 (p = 0.6). Multivariate analysis using a Cox proportional hazards model showed an HR of 6.1 for Gleason score (p = 0.001), 1.4 for PSA (p = 0.002), 0.5 for group 1 vs group 2 (p = 0.01) and 0.35 for group 1 vs group 3 (p = 0.008). In study 2 BNED at 4 years was 65%. There was no significant difference between arms 1 and 2 (p = 0.55). CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of study 1 shows a benefit of using a short course of neoadjuvant AS with EBRT vs EBRT alone for localized T2-T3 prostate cancers. Moreover, in each study adding a short course of adjuvant AS after neoadjuvant 1 provided no more advantage in these patients.