World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 32, Issue 11, pp 2477–2482 | Cite as

Prognosis of Japanese Breast Cancer Based on Hormone Receptor and HER2 Expression Determined by Immunohistochemical Staining

  • Hiroo Nakajima
  • Ikuya Fujiwara
  • Naruhiko Mizuta
  • Koichi Sakaguchi
  • Yasushi Hachimine
  • Eiichi Konishi
  • Akio Yanagisawa
  • Junji Magae



We classified Japanese breast cancer patients based on estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and HER2 protein expression and compared their prognoses.


We compared the background and prognostic factors of 600 patients with breast cancer who were assigned to the following groups: luminal A (ER + and/or PR + and HER2-; n = 431; 71.8%), luminal B (ER + and/or PR + and HER2 + ; n = 27; 4.5%), HER2 (ER-, PR-, and HER2 + ; n = 39; 6.5%) and basal-like (BBC; ER-, PR-, and HER2-; n = 103; 17.2%).


Background factors did not significantly differ among the groups. Disease-free survival rates were significantly lower for the luminal B, HER2, and BBC subtypes than for the luminal A subtype. Cancer tended to recur earlier and overall survival was significantly lower for the BBC than for the luminal A and HER2 subtypes. Overall survival rates for the luminal B, HER2, and luminal A subtypes were comparable.


The subtype distribution for Japanese and Caucasian patients was comparable. The prognosis for the BBC subtype was poorest among all subtypes. Breast cancer tended to recur earlier for the luminal B and HER2 subtypes than for the luminal A subtype; however, overall survival did not significantly differ among them.


  1. 1.
    Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumors. Nature 406:747–752PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J et al (2003) Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8418–8423PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM et al (2003) Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:10393–10398PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jacquemier J, Ginestier C, Rougemont J et al (2005) Protein expression profiling identifies subclasses of breast cancer and predicts prognosis. Cancer Res 65:767–779PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abd El-Rehim DM, Pinder SE, Paish CE et al (2004) Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma. J Pathol 203:661–671PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina breast cancer study. JAMA 295:2492–2502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brenton JD, Carey LA, Ahmed AA et al (2005) Molecular classification and molecular forecasting of breast cancer: ready for clinical application? J Clin Oncol 23:7350–7360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dowsett M, Bartlett J, Ellis IO et al (2003) Correlation between immunohistochemistry (Hercep Test) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for HER-2 in 426 breast carcinomas from 37 centers. J Pathol 199:419–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD et al (2005) Meeting highlights: International expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 16:1569–1583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Breast Cancer v.2. (2007) Available at (accessed October 31, 2007)
  11. 11.
    Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B et al (2005) Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:1659–1672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Romond EH, Perez DF, Bryant J et al (2005) Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:1673–1684PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF et al (2005) Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 11:5678–5685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L et al (2007) The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 13:2329–2334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chang HY, Nuyten DS, Sneddon JB et al (2005) Robustness, scalability, and integration of a wound-response gene expression signature in predicting breast cancer survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1025:3738–3743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sakaguchi K, Nakajima H, Mizuta N et al (2005) Selective cytotoxicity of ascochlorin in ER-negative human breast cancer cell lines. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 329:46–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroo Nakajima
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ikuya Fujiwara
    • 1
    • 3
  • Naruhiko Mizuta
    • 1
  • Koichi Sakaguchi
    • 1
  • Yasushi Hachimine
    • 1
  • Eiichi Konishi
    • 4
  • Akio Yanagisawa
    • 4
  • Junji Magae
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Endocrine and Breast SurgeryKyoto Prefectural University of MedicineKyotoJapan
  2. 2.KyotoJapan
  3. 3.Department of Translational Cancer Drug DevelopmentKyoto Prefectural University of MedicineKyotoJapan
  4. 4.Department of PathologyKyoto Prefectural University of MedicineKyotoJapan
  5. 5.Radiation Safety Research CenterNuclear Technology Research Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power IndustryTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations