Doxorubicin is one of the most commonly used chemotherapeutic agents for adjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer. In the studies focused on finding biomarkers to predict the response of the patients and tumors to the drugs used, the Twist transcription factor has been suggested as a candidate biomarker for predicting chemo-resistance of breast tumors. In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between TWIST transcription factor expression and the effectiveness of doxorubicin treatment on directly taken primary tumor samples from chemotherapy-naive breast cancer patients. Twenty-six primary breast tumor samples taken from 26 different breast cancer patients were included in this study. Adenosine triphosphate tumor chemo-sensitivity assay (ATP-TCA) has been used to determine tumor response to doxorubicin and real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) was used for analyzing the
Keywords
- Biomarker
- Breast cancer
- Chemotherapy
- Expression
- gene
Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women and is also responsible for a great number of cancer-associated deaths among women worldwide [1,2]. Several chemo-therapeutic agents, either alone or in addition to other therapies, are used in the treatment of breast cancer patients. Anthracyclines and taxanes are the most commonly used chemo-therapeutics for breast cancer treatment [3]. Benefit and risk assessment for therapeutic agents for each patient is important because chemotherapy is a conventional method targeting all fast-dividing cells of the organism [4]. Toxicity and primary or secondary resistance are common problems of conventional chemotherapy. Thus, studies focusing on finding biomarkers to predict the response of the patients and tumors to the drugs used are an important part of precision medicine [5].
The twist transcription factor, encoded by the
In this study, we aimed to investigate the relationship between intrinsic
Clinopathological characteristics,
Sample | Tumor Grade | ER | PR | HER2 | Diagnosis | ATP-TCA Results | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 4.25 | NR |
S2 | 2 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 7.85 | NR |
S3 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 6.70 | NR |
S5 | 3 | [+] | [–] | [–] | IDC | 4.26 | R |
S6 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | IDC | 5.80 | R |
S7 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC; multifocal | 5.36 | R |
S9 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 4.74 | R |
S10 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | IDC | 3.67 | R |
S11 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | IDC | 6.06 | R |
S12 | 3 | [+] | [–] | [+] | IDC | 4.44 | R |
S13 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | mixed IDC and IDC-L | 5.84 | NR |
S14 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | IDC; multifocal | 4.51 | R |
S15 | 2 | [+] | [+] | [–] | mixed IDC and IDC-L | 3.87 | R |
S17 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 4.88 | R |
S18 | 3 | [–] | [–] | [–] | IDC | 5.56 | R |
S19 | 2 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 5.56 | R |
S21 | 2 | [+] | [+] | [+] | mixed IDC and IDC-L; multifocal | 5.28 | NR |
S22 | 2 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 4.18 | R |
S23 | 3 | [–] | [–] | [–] | IDC | 5.36 | NR |
S27 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 2.62 | R |
S29 | NA | NA | NA | NA | IDC | 4.43 | NR |
S34 | 1 | [+] | [+] | [–] | invasive mucinous carcinoma of breast | 7.32 | NR |
S54 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | IDC | 3.97 | NR |
S55 | 3 | [–] | [–] | [–] | IDC | 2.61 | R |
S87 | 3 | [–] | [–] | [–] | IDC | 0.00 | R |
S88 | 3 | [–] | [–] | [+] | IDC | 3.82 | R |
ER: estrogene receptor; PR: progesterone receptor; HER2: ErbB2 receptor defined by immunohistochemistry; ATP-TCA: adenosine triphosphate tumor chemo-sensitivity assay; IDC: invasive ductal carcinoma; IDC-L: IDC with lobular features; NR: non responsive; R: responsive; NA not available.
Figure 1
The 2–ΔΔCT differences of resistant and responsive tumor groups (p=0,041).

Chemotherapy resistance is one of the major obstacles to successful treatment of breast cancer [18]. Determination of clinical/pathological complete response to adjuvant chemotherapy takes time [19]. On the other hand, the use of in
The first evidence that
In cell line studies to investigate the drug resistance, increased concentrations of drugs are used to make cells resistant to the agents tested. This approach is due to the fact that chemo-therapeutic agents also promote resistant cell phenotypes. The first study indicating twist transcription factor as a biomarker performed with taxol resistant MCF-7 cell line,
Having compatible results with earlier cell line studies on the role of twist overexpression as a biomarker for doxorubicin chemo-resistance, this study also supports effectivity of ATP-TCA assay method as a valuable tool for biomarker prediction and validation studies. However, drug-metabolizing reactions in the liver, tumor vascularization [28], hypoxia levels [29] are some of the factors that may affect the clinical drug response and may not be precisely reflected during the in
Figure 1

Clinopathological characteristics, TWIST gene expression results and ATP-TCA results of samples.
Sample | Tumor Grade | ER | PR | HER2 | Diagnosis | ATP-TCA Results | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S1 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 4.25 | NR |
S2 | 2 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 7.85 | NR |
S3 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 6.70 | NR |
S5 | 3 | [+] | [–] | [–] | IDC | 4.26 | R |
S6 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | IDC | 5.80 | R |
S7 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC; multifocal | 5.36 | R |
S9 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 4.74 | R |
S10 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | IDC | 3.67 | R |
S11 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | IDC | 6.06 | R |
S12 | 3 | [+] | [–] | [+] | IDC | 4.44 | R |
S13 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | mixed IDC and IDC-L | 5.84 | NR |
S14 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | IDC; multifocal | 4.51 | R |
S15 | 2 | [+] | [+] | [–] | mixed IDC and IDC-L | 3.87 | R |
S17 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 4.88 | R |
S18 | 3 | [–] | [–] | [–] | IDC | 5.56 | R |
S19 | 2 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 5.56 | R |
S21 | 2 | [+] | [+] | [+] | mixed IDC and IDC-L; multifocal | 5.28 | NR |
S22 | 2 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 4.18 | R |
S23 | 3 | [–] | [–] | [–] | IDC | 5.36 | NR |
S27 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [–] | IDC | 2.62 | R |
S29 | NA | NA | NA | NA | IDC | 4.43 | NR |
S34 | 1 | [+] | [+] | [–] | invasive mucinous carcinoma of breast | 7.32 | NR |
S54 | 3 | [+] | [+] | [+] | IDC | 3.97 | NR |
S55 | 3 | [–] | [–] | [–] | IDC | 2.61 | R |
S87 | 3 | [–] | [–] | [–] | IDC | 0.00 | R |
S88 | 3 | [–] | [–] | [+] | IDC | 3.82 | R |
Simultaneously both expression of LMP-1 and methylation ofE-cadherin : Molecular biomarker in stage IV of nasopharyngeal carcinoma patientsTwo years of newborn screening for cystic fibrosis in North Macedonia: First experience Genetic association of solute carrier transporter gene variants with metformin response GA genotype of the Arg280His polymorphism on the XRCC1 gene: Genetic susceptibility genotype in differentiated thyroid carcinomas?Association of NFKB1 ,NKX2-5 ,GATA4 andRANKL gene polymorphisms with sporadic congenital heart disease in Greek patientsA case of glycogen storage disease type 1a mimicking familial chylomicronemia syndrome Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome: Bosnian and Herzegovinian experience Novel mutation in the COL11A1 gene causing Marshall-Stickler syndrome in three generations of a Bulgarian familyComparative analysis of genes associated with obesity in humans using bioinformatic data and tools Dual effect of the GHRL gene variant in the molecular pathogenesis of obesityDuplication of chromosome 16p13.11-p12.3 with different expressions in the same family PCSK9 gene participates in the development of primary dyslipidemiasIncreased expression of Cardiotrophin-1 in cardiomyopathy patients Familial atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome with positive p.S1191L (c.3572C>T) mutation on the CFH gene: A single-center experienceMutation status and immunohistochemical correlation of EGFR mutations in gastrointestinal stromal tumors