Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 165, Issue 3, pp 743–750 | Cite as

Risk of mortality of node-negative, ER/PR/HER2 breast cancer subtypes in T1, T2, and T3 tumors

  • Carol A. PariseEmail author
  • Vincent Caggiano



The purpose of this study was to assess differences in breast cancer-specific mortality within tumors of the same size when breast cancer was defined using the three tumor markers estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2).


We identified 104,499 cases of node-negative primary female invasive breast cancer from the California Cancer Registry. Tumor size was categorized as T1a, T1b, T1c, T2, and T3. Breast cancer was defined using ER, PR, and HER2. Kaplan–Meier Survival analysis was conducted and Cox Regression was used to compute the adjusted risk of mortality for the ER+/PR+/HER2+, ER−/PR−/HER2− (TNBC), and ER−/PR−/HER2+ (HER2-overexpressing) subtypes when compared with the ER+/PR+/HER2−. Separate models were computed for each tumor size.


Unadjusted survival analysis showed that for all tumor sizes, the ER+/PR+ subtypes regardless of HER status have better breast cancer-specific survival than ER−/PR− subtypes. Subtype was not an important factor for risk of mortality for T1a tumors. The ER+/PR+/HER2+ subtype was only a risk for mortality in T1b tumors that were unadjusted for treatment. For all other tumor sizes, the ER+/PR+/HER2+ had the same mortality as the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype regardless of adjustment for treatment. The HER2-overexpressing subtype had a higher risk of mortality than the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype except for T1b tumors that were adjusted for treatment. For all tumor sizes, the TNBC had higher hazard ratios than all other subtypes.


T1a tumors have the same risk of mortality regardless of ER/PR/HER2 subtype, and ER and PR negativity plays a stronger role in survival than HER2 positivity for tumors of all size.


Breast cancer ER/PR/HER2 subtype Tumor size 



We wish to thank Melissa Taylor and the staff at the Sutter Resource Library for their valuable assistance.


The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contract N01-PC-35136 awarded to the Northern California Cancer Center, contract N01-PC-35139 awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract N01-PC-54404 awarded to the Public Health Institute; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement 1U58DP00807-01 awarded to the Public Health Institute. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and endorsement by the State of California, Department of Public Health the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their Contractors and Subcontractors is not intended nor should be inferred.


This study was funded by Grant 947110-1107555 from the Sutter Medical Center Sacramento Foundation.

Compliance and ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This research study involved analysis of existing data from the CCR without subject identifiers or intervention. Therefore, the study was categorized as exempt from institutional review board oversight.


  1. 1.
    Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen HH, Prevost TC (1999) The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer 86(3):449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, Mandelblatt JS, Yakovlev AY, Habbema JD, Feuer EJ (2005) Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353(17):1784–1792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mandelblatt JS, Stout NK, Schechter CB, van den Broek JJ, Miglioretti DL, Krapcho M, Trentham-Dietz A, Munoz D, Lee SJ, Berry DA, van Ravesteyn NT, Alagoz O, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson AN, Near AM, Hoeffken A, Chang Y, Heijnsdijk EA, Chisholm G, Huang X, Huang H, Ergun MA, Gangnon R, Sprague BL, Plevritis S, Feuer E, de Koning HJ, Cronin KA (2016) Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. breast cancer screening strategies. Ann Intern Med 164(4):215–225. doi: 10.7326/M15-1536 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Curigliano G, Viale G, Bagnardi V, Fumagalli L, Locatelli M, Rotmensz N, Ghisini R, Colleoni M, Munzone E, Veronesi P, Zurrida S, Nole F, Goldhirsch A (2009) Clinical relevance of HER2 overexpression/amplification in patients with small tumor size and node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(34):5693–5699. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.22.0962 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Litton JK, Broglio KR, Meric-Bernstam F, Rakkhit R, Cardoso F, Peintinger F, Hanrahan EO, Sahin A, Guray M, Larsimont D, Feoli F, Stranzl H, Buchholz TA, Valero V, Theriault R, Piccart-Gebhart M, Ravdin PM, Berry DA, Hortobagyi GN (2009) High risk of recurrence for patients with breast cancer who have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, node-negative tumors 1 cm or smaller. J Clin Oncol 27(34):5700–5706. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.2025 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cancello G, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, Viale G, Mastropasqua MG, Pruneri G, Montagna E, Dellapasqua S, Iorfida M, Cardillo A, Veronesi P, Luini A, Intra M, Gentilini O, Scarano E, Goldhirsch A, Colleoni M (2011) Prognosis in women with small (T1mic, T1a, T1b) node-negative operable breast cancer by immunohistochemically selected subtypes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(3):713–720. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1465-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vaz-Luis I, Ottesen RA, Hughes ME, Mamet R, Burstein HJ, Edge SB, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Moy B, Rugo HS, Theriault RL, Weeks JC, Winer EP, Lin NU (2014) Outcomes by tumor subtype and treatment pattern in women with small, node-negative breast cancer: a multi-institutional study. J Clin Oncol 32(20):2142–2150. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.1608 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ignatov T, Eggemann H, Burger E, Costa SD, Ignatov A (2017) Management of small T1a/b breast cancer by tumor subtype. Breast Cancer Res Treat. doi: 10.1007/s10549-017-4168-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parise CA, Bauer KR, Brown MM, Caggiano V (2009) Breast cancer subtypes as defined by the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) among women with invasive breast cancer in California, 1999–2004. Breast Journal 15(6):593–602. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00822.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parise CA, Caggiano V (2014) Breast cancer survival defined by the ER/PR/HER2 subtypes and a surrogate classification according to tumor grade and immunohistochemical biomarkers. J Cancer Epidemiol 2014:469251. doi: 10.1155/2014/469251 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fritz AG (2000) International classification of diseases for oncology: ICD-O, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cancer reporting in California: abstracting and coding procedures for hospitals. California cancer reporting system standards, vol. I (2008). California Department of Public, Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  13. 13. Accessed Jan 2016
  14. 14.
    DAKO (2003) HERCEPTest® Information Web site. Summary of Procedure. Accessed June 2006
  15. 15.
    PathVysion® (2002) HER-2 DNA Probe Kit Package Insert, vol. February. Vysis, Inc.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    American Community Survey (2016) U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau Accessed Jan 2016
  17. 17.
    Yost K, Perkins C, Cohen R, Morris C, Wright W (2001) Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups. Cancer Causes Control 12(8):703–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clarke CA, Glaser SL, Keegan TH, Stroup A (2005) Neighborhood socioeconomic status and Hodgkin’s lymphoma incidence in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14(6):1441–1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Parikh-Patel A, Bates JH, Campleman S (2006) Colorectal cancer stage at diagnosis by socioeconomic and urban/rural status in California, 1988–2000. Cancer 107(5 Suppl):1189–1195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V (2007) Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California Cancer Registry. Cancer 109(9):1721–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zell JA, Rhee JM, Ziogas A, Lipkin SM, Anton-Culver H (2007) Race, socioeconomic status, treatment, and survival time among pancreatic cancer cases in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16(3):546–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Brown M, Tsodikov A, Bauer KR, Parise CA, Caggiano V (2008) The role of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 in the survival of women with estrogen and progesterone receptor-negative, invasive breast cancer: the California Cancer Registry, 1999–2004. Cancer 112(4):737–747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ou SH, Zell JA, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H (2008) Low socioeconomic status is a poor prognostic factor for survival in stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer and is independent of surgical treatment, race, and marital status. Cancer 112(9):2011–2020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yin D, Morris C, Allen M, Cress R, Bates J, Liu L (2010) Does socioeconomic disparity in cancer incidence vary across racial/ethnic groups? Cancer Causes Control 21(10):1721–1730CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Telli ML, Chang ET, Kurian AW, Keegan TH, McClure LA, Lichtensztajn D, Ford JM, Gomez SL (2011) Asian ethnicity and breast cancer subtypes: a study from the California Cancer Registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(2):471–478. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-1173-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Parise CA, Bauer KR, Caggiano V (2012) Disparities in receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery among the cancer-reporting regions of California. Cancer 118(9):2516–2524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    (2012) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, vol. 21.0. IBM Corp, ArmonkGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Subramaniam S, Bhoo-Pathy N, Taib NA, Tan GH, See MH, Jamaris S, Ho GF, Looi LM, Yip CH (2015) Breast cancer outcomes as defined by the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human growth factor receptor-2 in a multi-ethnic Asian country. World J Surg 39(10):2450–2458. doi: 10.1007/s00268-015-3133-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Izquierdo JN, Schoenbach VJ (2000) The potential and limitations of data from population-based state cancer registries. Am J Public Health 90(5):695–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Parise CA, Caggiano V (2013) Disparities in race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status: risk of mortality of breast cancer patients in the California Cancer Registry, 2000–2010. BMC Cancer 13:449. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-449 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sutter Institute for Medical ResearchSacramentoUSA

Personalised recommendations