Skip to content


Volume 11 Supplement 3

Controversies in Breast Cancer 2009

  • Short communication
  • Open Access

Tailored targeted therapy for all: a realistic and worthwhile objective?

Breast Cancer Research200911 (Suppl 3) :S7

  • Published:


  • Breast Cancer
  • Trastuzumab
  • Lapatinib
  • BRCA1 Mutation Carrier
  • PARP Inhibitor


Tailored therapy has become a term popularly used (and misused) with respect to cancer therapy. Everybody spots the difference between having a full tailormade suit or dress versus simply cutting the last 5 cm off the legs of some readymade trousers to fit your length. In parallel, tailormade therapy should not be confused with implementing simple prognostic or predictive factors. These parameters, in general, do not define direct biological targets, but rather biological parameters revealing a variable statistical correlation to outcome [1]. Taking the analogy of clothes manufacturing, the definition of tailored therapy (made for you) should implement targeted therapies based on identification of individual therapeutic targets such as HER2 in the tumour tissue [2], providing a target exclusive to this tumour for therapeutic attack [3].

In theory, a similar discussion should be applied not only to "targeted" therapy but to anticancer strategies in general, including options like cytotoxic therapy as well. On the one hand, parameters such as the histological grade as well as gene expression profiles revealed by microarrays provide moderate statistical correlates to outcome [4] but do not define biological targets. In contrast, a parameter such as topoisomerase II may be considered borderline in this respect. The fact that this enzyme is a direct target of anthracyclines, and amplification of its gene has been related to improved sensitivity to anthracycline therapy [5, 6], suggests anthracycline-based chemotherapy to be a tailormade therapy for topoisomerase-II-amplified tumours. On the other hand, topoisomerase II overexpression is not mandatory for anthracycline response, and evidence regarding its predictive role remains conflicting [7].

In the present article we will briefly go through the potential for tailormade treatment in breast cancer. As may be seen, most breast cancer patients already receive some form of tailored therapy, and recent evidence suggests novel highly innovative tailored approaches to be on their way into the clinic.

Breast cancer taxonomy

It is conventional wisdom that breast cancers may be separated into two categories - so-called oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumours versus ER-negative tumours. What remains more controversial is the exact definition of receptor positivity; should we consider 1% or 10% of cells expressing positive staining as the lower limit, and should staining intensity be taken into account [8]?

Breast cancers have more recently been separated into five distinct classes based on gene expression profiles (Figure 1): the luminal A and luminal B classes, the HER2 and basal classes, and, finally, so-called normal breast-like tumours [9]. The different tumour categories express distinct gene expression profiles; in addition, the different classes reveal different prognoses [9, 10]. While the different classes do not predict responsiveness to anthracycline-based or mitomycin-based chemotherapy [11], tumours belonging to the different classes may be subject to different targeted, or tailored, therapeutic approaches. The following discussion on targeted therapy will therefore be based on this classification.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Classes of breast cancer based on gene expression profiles. Gene expression pattern of 85 experiment samples representing 78 carcinomas, three benign tumours and four normal tissues. Basal, basal-like cell class; HER2, HER2 class; Nor, normal cell-like class; LUM B A, luminal B and luminal A classes, respectively. Note: in the initial work light blue was termed luminal C class while yellow was luminal B - these two classes together now are grouped as luminal B. Adapted from [9].

Luminal A and luminal B tumours

While revealing certain differences regarding gene expression profiles, the luminal A and luminal B classes together harbour tumours expressing the ER. It is now well established that antihormonal therapy (either with use of anti-oestrogens or through oestrogen suppression) works by depriving tumour cells of ligand ER activation; therefore the fact that endocrine therapy may work only among tumours expressing the ER [12] reveals endocrine therapy based on ER assessment actually to be the first as well as the most used tailored therapy in oncology. The fact that many ER-positive tumours do not benefit from endocrine therapy [13] resembles what is observed with respect to other targeted therapies as well [3], and may be due to potential disturbances in other genes involved in complex downstream pathways [1416].

In conclusion, endocrine therapy fulfils the definition of a tailormade therapy: depriving ER-positive breast cancer cells of their oestrogen ligand stimulation has dramatic effects on cell growth [17], and contemporary adjuvant therapy for ER-positive breast cancer reduces the relapse rate by >30% [12]. In general, tumours belonging to the luminal A class express the ER to a higher level as compared with tumours belonging to the luminal B class, and indirect evidence suggests tamoxifen to be more effective among luminal A tumours as compared with luminal B tumours [10]. Interestingly, recent evidence has suggested HER2 may play a role to endocrine resistance in some ER-positive tumours not amplified for the HER2 gene (see below). The fragile side of tailored endocrine therapy, like all other anticancer therapeutics, lies in the fact that we (in contrast to the tailor) do not understand all measures to be taken to create the perfect fit; we do not understand the mechanism of therapy resistance. This lack of knowledge is illustrated by the fact that the majority of ER-positive breast cancers are not cured in the adjuvant setting, as well as the fact that endocrine treatment of metastatic disease (like all other therapeutic manoeuvres in this setting) remains palliative.

HER2 class tumours

These tumours in general are characterized by over-expression of a variable number of genes located on the same amplicon as HER2. Tailored therapy for these patients should be separated into two topics: the role of HER2 targeting, and the potential predictive role of the HER2 class (or amplification of certain genes within this class) as predictive factors for chemotherapy sensitivity.

Proof of concept for the therapeutic benefit of targeting HER2 with trastuzumab was revealed in metastatic disease [18]. While response rates were modest and of limited duration, implementation of trastuzumab in concert with chemotherapy provided dramatic benefits in the adjuvant setting [3, 19]. Notably, effective anti-HER2 therapy is not limited to trastuzumab; such effects may be achieved with different tyrosine kinase inhibitors preventing HER2 activation [20, 21]. Interestingly, recent evidence now suggests that lapatinib and trastuzumab administered in concert may improve outcome as compared with lapatinib monotherapy in cases of trastuzumab failure [22]; there is also evidence that lapatinib may improve efficacy of aromatase inhibition for patients harbouring ER-positive tumours nonamplified for HER2 failing tamoxifen treatment [23]. Interestingly, treatment with aromatase inhibitors has been shown to upregulate HER2 expression in HER2 nonamplified tumours [24]. While the mechanisms of resistance to endocrine therapy remains complex [25], these data suggest a possibility to circumvent this resistance, at least in some patients. The biological characterization of these mechanisms and the potential for upfront identification of patients benefiting from combined treatment, however, remain to be elucidated.

A second issue relates to chemotherapy regimen selection. There are several studies revealing a dose-response benefit for anthracyclines in HER2-overexpressing tumours not detected among tumours expressing HER2 at normal levels [2628]. This effect has been related to co-amplification of topoisomerase II [5, 6, 29], located on the HER2 amplicon. These results, however, have not been consistently reproduced [7]. HER2 and topoisomerase II are located on chromosome 17, which in addition harbours several other genes involved in processes like DNA repair and apoptosis. Trisomy of this chromosome occurs in many breast cancers, and some studies have actually suggested chromosome 17 trisomy to be a better predictor of anthracycline sensitivity as compared with HER2 or topoisomerase II amplification [30, 31].

In conclusion, tailored therapy targeting HER2 is an established treatment option in breast cancer, and recent evidence suggests an extended role for such strategies in the future. While much evidence suggests a correlation between HER2 amplification and sensitivity to anthracylines, we lack a complete understanding of the mechanisms involved.

Basal-like tumours

The basal-like tumours are characterized by a particular gene expression profile, in general lacking expression of the ER as well as the progesterone receptor and HER2. While the term triple-negative breast cancer has come into common use, it should not be used synonymously with the term basal-like breast cancer. Tumours of the basal-like class may account for about 60 to 80% of all triple-negative tumours only [32, 33], the residual in general belonging to the so-called normal breast-like class.

Gene expression profiles suggest most tumours arising in BRCA1 mutation carriers to belong to the basal class [10]. While probably around 10% of all basal-like tumours arise in BRCA1 mutation carriers [34], there is evidence suggesting that many more basal-like tumours may harbour disturbances in the BRCA1 pathway [35]. In contrast, no distinct gene expression profile for BRCA2 mutated tumours has been identified. BRCA1 as well as BRCA2 mutated tumours harbour defects in homologous repair, one of the key DNA repair pathways in response to double-strand DNA breaks [36]. This leads to development of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors preventing DNA repair through alternative pathways [37]. These drugs should therefore work selectively against tumour cells harbouring these defects. Indeed, use of PARP inhibitors as monotherapy has revealed objective responses in metastatic breast carcinomas [38] as well as in ovarian carcinomas [39]. In addition, when metastatic breast cancer patients were treated with a gemcitabine/carboplatin regimen with or without a PARP inhibitor [40], addition of the inhibitor improved the clinical benefit rate as well as improving progression-free survival and overall survival. Most interestingly, the patients in this study were not enrolled subject to BRCA1/BRCA2 testing but based on a triple-negative status. These findings add support to the hypothesis that many basal tumours harbour defects in the BRCA1 pathway of homologous repair, and suggest an extended potential for PARP inhibitors.

In conclusion, use of PARP inhibitors is at an early stage; however, the results obtained are encouraging with respect to monotherapy as well as an adjuvant in concert with chemotherapy. The findings that such drugs may work in triple-negative tumours on a wider scale suggest a therapeutic potential beyond use in tumours with defined BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations, although further research in this area is warranted.

Normal breast-like class

The incidence of these tumours varies across different studies [10], and we lack a clear understanding of their biology. Notably, tumours of this class seem to carry a poor prognosis not much different from tumours belonging to the luminal B class as well as the basal-like cell class [9], indicating their normal-like gene profile not to be a good prognostic sign. Based on the results obtained with PARP inhibition among triple-negative tumours [40], one may speculate whether some of these tumours may actually harbour defects in homologous DNA repair - a subject to be explored in future studies.


Starting out as a nonselective therapy a century ago [41], following the identification of the ER as a predictive marker, endocrine therapy in breast cancer has been the ultimate targeted, or tailored, cancer therapy for three decades. Over the past decade, tailored therapy with use of anti-HER2 strategies has revolutionized treatment for approximately one-fifth of breast cancer patients. With the introduction of the PARP inhibitors, we are now in the process of tailoring treatment for patients carrying BRCA1 and BRCA2 defect tumours - and probably also for many additional patients carrying triple-negative tumours. Although much more research in this area is warranted, the results achieved up to now suggest tailored therapy for most, if not all, breast cancer patients in need of systemic treatment may become a realistic approach in the near future.



oestrogen receptor


poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase.



This article has been published as part of Breast Cancer Research Volume 11 Suppl 3 2009: Controversies in Breast Cancer 2009. The full contents of the supplement are available online at

Authors’ Affiliations

Section of Oncology, Institute of Medicine, University of Bergen and Department of Oncology, Haukeland University Hospital, Jonas Lies vei 26, N-5021 Bergen, Norway


  1. Lønning PE, Knappskog S, Staalesen V, Chrisanthar R, Lillehaug JR: Breast cancer prognostication and prediction in the postgenomic era. Ann Oncol. 2007, 18: 1293-1306. 10.1093/annonc/mdm013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL: Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987, 235: 177-182. 10.1126/science.3798106.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, Suman VJ, Geyer CE, Davidson NE, Tan-Chiu E, Martino S, Paik S, Kaufman PA, Swain SM, Pisansky TM, Fehrenbacher L, Kutteh LA, Vogel VG, Visscher DW, Yothers G, Jenkins RB, Brown AM, Dakhil SR, Mamounas EP, Lingle WL, Klein PM, Ingle JN, Wolmark N: Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005, 353: 1673-1684. 10.1056/NEJMoa052122.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Lønning PE, Sørlie T, Børresen-Dale A-L: Genomics in breast cancer - therapeutic implications?. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005, 2: 26-33. 10.1038/ncponc0072.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Knoop AS, Knudsen H, Balslev E, Rasmussen BB, Overgaard J, Nielsen KV, Schonau A, Gunnarsdottir K, Olsen KE, Mouridsen H, Ejlertsen B: Retrospective analysis of topoisomerase IIa amplifications and deletions as predictive markers in primary breast cancer patients randomly assigned to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil: Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group. J Clin Oncol. 2005, 23: 7483-7490. 10.1200/JCO.2005.11.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Tanner M, Isola J, Wiklund T, Erikstein B, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P, Malmstrom P, Wilking N, Nilsson J, Bergh J: Topoisomerase II alpha gene amplification predicts favorable treatment response to tailored and dose-escalated anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy in HER-2/neu-amplified breast cancer: Scandinavian Breast Group Trial 9401. J Clin Oncol. 2006, 24: 2428-2436. 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.9264.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Tubbs R, Barlow WE, Budd GT, Swain E, Porter P, Gown A, Yeh IT, Sledge G, Shapiro C, Ingle J, Haskell C, Albain KS, Livingston R, Hayes DF: Outcome of patients with early-stage breast cancer treated with doxorubicin-based adjuvant chemotherapy as a function of HER2 and TOP2A status. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 3881-3886. 10.1200/JCO.2008.20.1566.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Allred DC: Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999, 17: 1474-1481.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, Hastie T, Eisen MB, vandeRijn M, Jeffrey SS, Thorsen T, Quist H, Matese JC, Brown PO, Botstein D, Lønning PE, Borresen-Dale AL: Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001, 98: 10869-10874. 10.1073/pnas.191367098.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Sørlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron JS, Nobel A, Deng S, Johnsen H, Pesich R, Geisler S, Demeter J, Perou CM, Lønning PE, Brown PO, Borresen-Dale AL, Botstein D: Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003, 100: 8418-8423. 10.1073/pnas.0932692100.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Sørlie T, Perou CM, Fan C, Geisler S, Aas T, Tibshirani R, Nobel A, Hastie T, Anker G, Akslen LA, Brown PO, Botstein D, Børresen-Dale A-L, Lønning PE: Differential sensitivity to doxorubicin and mitomycin among breast cancers belonging to the intrinsic subtypes identified by gene expression profiling. Mol Cancer Ther. 2006, 5: 2914-2918. 10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-06-0126.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Abe O, Abe R, Enomoto K, Kikuchi K, Koyama H, Masuda H, Nomura Y, Sakai K, Sugimachi K, Tominaga T, Uchino J, Yoshida M, Haybittle JL, Davies C, Harvey VJ, Holdaway TM, Kay RG, Mason BH, Forbes JF, Wilcken N, Gnant M, Jakesz R, Ploner M, Yosef HMA, Focan C, Lobelle JP, Peek U, Oates GD, Powell J, Durand M, et al: Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005, 365: 1687-1717. 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66544-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Geisler J, Lønning P: Resistance to endocrine therapy of breast cancer: recent advances and tomorrows challenges. Clin Breast Cancer. 2001, 1: 297-308. 10.3816/CBC.2001.n.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Lønning PE: Genes causing inherited cancer as beacons identifying the mechanisms of chemoresistance. Trends Mol Med. 2004, 10: 113-118. 10.1016/j.molmed.2004.01.005.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Normanno N, Bianco C, De Luca A, Maiello MR, Salomon DS: Target-based agents against ErbB receptors and their ligands: a novel approach to cancer treatment. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2003, 10: 1-21. 10.1677/erc.0.0100001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Arpino G, Wiechmann L, Osborne CK, Schiff R: Crosstalk between the estrogen receptor and the HER tyrosine kinase receptor family: molecular mechanism and clinical implications for endocrine therapy resistance. Endocrine Rev. 2008, 29: 217-233. 10.1210/er.2006-0045.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Brodie A, Jelovac D, Sabnis G, Long B, Macedo L, Goloubeva O: Model systems: mechanisms involved in the loss of sensitivity to letrozole. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2005, 95: 41-48. 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.04.026.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cobleigh MA, Vogel CL, Tripathy D, Robert NJ, Scholl S, Fehrenbacher L, Wolter JM, Paton V, Shak S, Lieberman G, Slamon DJ: Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol. 1999, 17: 2639-2648.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, Goldhirsch A, Untch M, Smith I, Gianni L, Baselga J, Bell R, Jackisch C, Cameron D, Dowsett M, Barrios CH, Steger G, Huang CS, Andersson M, Inbar M, Lichinitser M, Lang I, Nitz U, Iwata H, Thomssen C, Lohrisch C, Suter TM, Ruschoff J, Suto T, Greatorex V, Ward C, Straehle C, McFadden E, et al: Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005, 353: 1659-1672. 10.1056/NEJMoa052306.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Dhillon S, Wagstaff AJ: Lapatinib. Drugs. 2007, 67: 2101-2108. 10.2165/00003495-200767140-00008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Wong KK, Fracasso PM, Bukowski RM, Lynch TJ, Munster PN, Shapiro GI, Jaenne PA, Eder JP, Naughton MJ, Ellis MJ, Jones SF, Mekhail T, Zacharchuk C, Vermette J, Abbas R, Quinn S, Powell C, Burris HA: A phase I study with neratinib (HKI-272), an irreversible pan ErbB receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with solid tumors. Clin Cancer Res. 2009, 15: 2552-2558. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1978.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. O'Shaugnessy J, Blackwell KL, Burstein H, Storniolo AM, Sledge G, Baselga J, Koehler M, Laabs S, Florance A, Roychowdhury D: A randomized study of lapatinib alone or in combination with trastuzumab in heavily pretreated HER2+ metastatic breast cancer progressing on trastuzumab therapy [abstract 1015]. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26 (Suppl 15s, Part I): 44s-Google Scholar
  23. Johnston S, Pegram M, Press M, Pippen J, Pivot X, Gomez H, Florance A, O'Rourke L, Maltzman J: Lapatinib combined with letrozole vs. letrozole alone for front line postmenopausal hormone receptor positive (HR plus) metastatic breast cancer (MBC): first results from the EGF30008 trial. Cancer Res. 2009, 69: 74S-75S.Google Scholar
  24. Hauglid Flaageng M, Haugan Moi L, Dixon JM, Geisler J, Miller W, Lien EA, Lønning PE, Mellgren G, et al: Nuclear receptor coactivators and HER-2/neu are upregulated in breast cancer patients during neoadjuvant treatment with aromatase inhibitors. Br J Cancer. 2009, 101: 1253-1260. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6605324.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller WR, Larionov A, Renshaw L, Anderson TJ, Walker JR, Krause A, Sing T, Evans DB, Dixon JM: Gene expression profiles differentiating between breast cancers clinically responsive or resistant to letrozole. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 1382-1387. 10.1200/JCO.2008.16.8849.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Muss HB, Thor AD, Berry DA, Kute T, Liu ET, Koerner F, Cirrincione CT, DR , Budman DR, Wood WC, Barcos M, Henderson IC: c-erB-2 expression and response to adjuvant therapy in women with node-positive early Breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994, 330: 1260-1266. 10.1056/NEJM199405053301802.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Paik SM, Bryant J, Park CH, Fisher B, TanChiu E, Hyams D, Fisher ER, Lippman ME, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N: erbB-2 and response to doxorubicin in patients with axillary lymph node-positive, hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998, 90: 1361-1370. 10.1093/jnci/90.18.1361.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Petit T, Borel C, Ghnassia J-P, Rodier J-F, Escande A, Mors R, Haegelé P: Chemotherapy response of breast cancer depends on HER-status and antracycline dose intensity in the neoadjuvant setting. Clin Cancer Res. 2001, 7: 1577-1581.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Slamon D, Eiermann W, Robert N, Pienkowski T, Martin M, Pawlicki M, Chan A, Smylie M, Liu M, Falkson C, Pinter T, Fornander T, Shiftan T, Valero V, Von Minckwitz G, Mackey J, Tabah-Fisch J, Buyse M, Lindsay MA, Riva A, Bee V, Pegram M, Press M, Crown J: Phase III randomized trial comparing doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (AC (R) T) with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel and trastuzumab (AC (R) TH) with docetaxel, carboplatin and trastuzumab (TCH) in HER2 positive early breast cancer patients: BCIRG 006 study [abstract 1]. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005, 94: S5-Google Scholar
  30. Reinholz MM, Bruzek AK, Visscher DW, Lingle WL, Schroeder MJ, Perez EA, Jenkins R: Breast cancer and aneusomy 17: implications for carcinogenesis and therapeutic response. Lancet Oncol. 2009, 10: 267-277. 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70063-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Bartlett J, Munro AJ, Dunn J, Hiller L, Twelves C, Cameron D, Thomas J, Campell F, Provenzano E, Pharoah P, Caldas C, Earl H, Poole CJ: Chromosome 17 polysomy (Ch17) as a predictor of anthracycline response: emerging evidence from the UK NEAT adjuvant breast cancer trial. San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 11. 2008, 1, DecemberGoogle Scholar
  32. Cheang MCU, Voduc D, Bajdik C, Leung S, McKinney S, Chia SK, Perou CM, Nielsen TO: Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value then triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2008, 14: 1368-1376. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1658.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rakha EA, Elsheikh SE, Aleskandarany MA, Habashi HO, Green AR, Powe DG, El Sayed ME, Benhasouna A, Brunet JS, Akslen LA, Evans AJ, Blamey R, Reis JS, Foulkes WD, Ellis IO: Triple-negative breast cancer: distinguishing between basal and nonbasal subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2009, 15: 2302-2310. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-2132.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Young SR, Pilarski RT, Donenberg T, Shapiro C, Hammond LS, Miller J, Brooks KA, Cohen S, Tenenholz B, Desai D, Zandvakili I, Royer R, Li S, Narod SA: The prevalence of BRCA1 mutations among young women with triple-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2009, March: 9-Google Scholar
  35. Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A: Hallmarks of 'BRCAness' in sporadic cancers. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004, 4: 814-819. 10.1038/nrc1457.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A: Targeting the DNA repair defect of BRCA tumours. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2005, 5: 388-393. 10.1016/j.coph.2005.03.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Martin SA, Lord CJ, Ashworth A: DNA repair deficiency as a therapeutic target in cancer. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 2008, 18: 80-86. 10.1016/j.gde.2008.01.016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Tutt A, Robson M, JE G, Domchek S, Audeh MW, Weitzel JN, Friedlander ML, Carmichael J: Phase II trial of the oral PARP inhibitor olaparib in BRCA-deficient advanced breast cancer [abstract CRA501]. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27 (Suppl 18S): 803s-Google Scholar
  39. Audeh MW, Penson RT, Friedlander ML, Powell B, Bell-McGuinn KM, Scott CG, Weitzel JN, Carmichael J, Tutt A: Phase II trial of the oral PARP inhibitor Olaparib (AZD2281) in BRCA-deficient advanced ovarian cancer [abstract 5500]. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27 (Suppl 15S): 277s-Google Scholar
  40. O'Shaugnessy J, Osborne C, Pippen J, Yoffe M, Patt D, Monaghan G, Rocha C, Ossovskaya V, Sherman B, Bradley C: Efficacy of BSI-201, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP1) inhibitor, in combination with gemcitabine/carboplatin (G/C) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): results of a randomized phase II trial [abstract 3]. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27 (Suppl 18S, Part II): 793S-Google Scholar
  41. Beatson GT: On the treatment of inoperable cases of carcinoma of the mamma. Suggestions for a new method of treatment with illustrative cases. Lancet. 1896, 2: 104-107. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)72307-0.View ArticleGoogle Scholar


© BioMed Central Ltd 2009