Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 281–290 | Cite as

The Nottingham Prognostic Index applied to 9,149 patients from the studies of the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG)

  • Ingegerd Balslev
  • Christen Kirk Axelsson
  • Karin Zedeler
  • Birgitte Bruun Rasmussen
  • Bendix Carstensen
  • Henning T. Mouridsen
Report

Summary

In primary, operable breast cancer, the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) based on tumour size, lymphnode stage and histological grade can identify three prognostic groups (PGs) with 10-year survival rates of 83%, 52%, and 13%. With the aim of defining a subset of patients having so good prognosis that adjuvant therapy can be withhold, the NPI was applied to a Danish population-based study group comprising 9,149 patients. As opposed to the British study, we used conventional axillary lymph-node staging. Histological grading was in both studies done by means of a similar slight modification of the Bloom and Richardson procedure, but in the Danish study only ductal carcinomas were graded.

The 10-year crude survival was 68.1% for 4,791 patients with tumour size ≤ 2 cm and 70.0% for 2,900 patients with grade I tumours. For 4,761 node-negative patients, the 10-year survival was also 70.0%, the expected survival being 89.3%. The relative mortality (observed:expected) was even at 10 years 2.1 demonstrating that more than 10 years observation time is necessary to estimate cumulated mortality. By application of the NPI, the Danish good PG comprising 27.3% of the patients had a 10-year survival of 79.0%. Thus, the index defined a subset with better survival than could be defined individually by each of its three components, but it did not succeed in defining a subset with survival similar to the expected; additional prognostic factors are therefore needed.

The somewhat poorer survival of the Danish good PG may be ascribed to the British inclusion of non-ductal carcinomas, to interobserver variation present only in the Danish study, and to poorer expected survival of the Danish patients. The 10-year survival of the Danish moderate PG and poor PG was 56% and 25%, respectively. These improved survival rates are attributed to the administration of adjuvant therapies. There were virtually no node-positive patients in the good PG and no node-negative patients in the poor PG. Patients should therefore still be stratified initially by lymph-node status, but tumour size and histological grade are significant prognostic factors primarily within the node-negative group, and they should be included in future prognostication procedures.

Key words

breast cancer histological grade lymph-node staging prognostic factors multivariate prognostic index survival tumour size 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    McGuire WL, Clark GM: Prognostic factors and treatment decisions in axillary-node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 326: 1756–1761, 1992Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balslev I, Zedeler K, Thorpe SM, Rasmussen BB, Mouridsen HT: Prognostic factors in node-negative breast cancer patients. In: Goldhirsch A (ed) Endocrine Therapy of Breast Cancer IV. European School of Oncology Monograph. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1990, pp 31–41Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO: The Nottingham Prognostic Index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 22: 207–219, 1992Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bloom HJG, Richardson WW: Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer. A study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer 11: 359–377, 1957Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO: Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathol 19: 403–410, 1991Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Scarff RW, Torloni H: Histological typing of breast tumors. WHO, Genéve, 1968Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mouridsen HT, Andersen J, Andersen KW, Axelsson C, Blichert-Toft M, Dombernowsky P, Hansen M, Krag C, Overgaard M, Rasmussen BB, Rose C, Thomsen H, Zedeler K: Classical prognostic factors in node-negative breast cancer: The DBCG experience. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 11: 163–166, 1992Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    The World Health Organization: The World Health Organization histological typing of breast tumors - second edition. Am J Clin Pathol 78: 806–816, 1982Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dombernowsky P, Brincker H, Hansen M, Mouridsen HT, Overgaard M, Panduro J, Rose C, Axelsson CK, Andersen J, Andersen KW: Adjuvant therapy of premenopausal and menopausal high-risk breast cancer patients. Present status of The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group Trials 77-B and 82-B. Acta Oncol 27: 691–697, 1988Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mouridsen HT, Rose C, Overgaard M, Dombernowsky P, Panduro J, Thorpe S, Rasmussen BB, Blichert-Toft M, Andersen KW: Adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal patients with high risk primary breast cancer. Results from the Danish adjuvant trials DBCG 77-C and DBCG 82-C. Acta Oncol 27: 699–705, 1988Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Overgaard M, Christensen JJ, Johansen H, Nybo-Rasmussen A, Rose C, van der Kooy P, Panduro J, Laursen F, Kjær M, Sørensen NE, Gadeberg CC, Hjelm-Hansen M, Overgaard J, Andersen KW, Zedeler K: Evaluation of radiotherapy in high-risk breast cancer patients: Report from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG 82) Trial. Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 19: 1121–1124, 1990Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group: Systemic treatment of early breast cancer by hormonal, cytotoxic, or immune therapy. 133 randomised trials involving 31 000 recurrences and 24 000 deaths among 75 000 women. Lancet 339: 1–15, 71-85, 1992Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Axelsson CK, Mouridsen HT, Zedeler K, on behalf on The Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG): Axillary dissection of level I and level II lymph nodes is important in breast cancer classification. Eur J Cancer 28A: 1415–1418, 1992Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    National Board of Health: Causes of death in Denmark 1990. Vitalstatistik I: 31, 1992Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Todd JH, Dowle C, Williams MR, Elston CW, Ellis IO, Hinton CP, Blamey RW, Haybittle JL: Confirmation of a prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 56: 489–492, 1987Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ellis IO, Galea M, Broughton N, Locker A, Blamey RW, Elston CW: Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathol 20: 479–489, 1992Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kiær H, Andersen JA, Rank F, Pedersen BV: Quality control of patho-anathomical diagnosis of carcinoma of the breast. Acta Oncol 27: 745–747, 1988Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingegerd Balslev
    • 1
  • Christen Kirk Axelsson
    • 2
  • Karin Zedeler
    • 3
  • Birgitte Bruun Rasmussen
    • 4
  • Bendix Carstensen
    • 5
  • Henning T. Mouridsen
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of Tumour EndocrinologyDanish Cancer Society, Division for Cancer BiologyCopenhagen ØDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Surgery KVejle HospitalVejleDenmark
  3. 3.The DBCG SecretariatRigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark
  4. 4.Department of PathologyRoskilde County HospitalRoskildeDenmark
  5. 5.Section of Biostatistics and DataprocessingDanish Cancer Society, Division for Cancer EpidemiologyCopenhagenDenmark
  6. 6.Department of Oncology 5074RigshospitaletCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations