Breast Cancer

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 260–267 | Cite as

Clinical significance of basal-like subtype in triple-negative breast cancer

  • Yutaka Yamamoto
  • Mutsuko Ibusuki
  • Masahiro Nakano
  • Teru Kawasoe
  • Ryousuke Hiki
  • Hirotaka Iwase
Conference Paper Symposium: Triple negative breast cancer

Abstract

Background

No clinically useful target molecule has been identified for triple-negative (TN) breast cancer, i.e., estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PgR)-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-negative phenotype, and its prognosis is poor. Triple-negative cancer consists of two subtypes: basal-like and non-basal-like. The aim of this study is to clarify the clinical and biological characteristics of these two subtypes of TN cancer.

Methods

We examined, by immunohistochemistry, expression of biological markers cytokeratin (CK) 5/6 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in triple-negative breast cancer. Basal-like subtype was defined as CK5/6-positive and/or EGFR-positive, and non-basal-like subtype was defined as no expression of these two markers. We studied the correlation between basal-like subtype and several factors related to tumor progression, along with the prognostic value of basal-like subtype and other biological markers in triple-negative cancer.

Results

In the 48 cases of operable triple-negative breast cancer, basal-like subtype was detected in 22 (45.8%) and non-basal-like subtype in 26 (54.2%). Basal-like subtype was significantly correlated with nodal status (P = 0.0475) and nuclear grade (P = 0.0475). Basal-like subtype was also significantly associated with Ki67 labeling index (P = 0.0118), c-kit expression (P = 0.0335), and aurora A expression (P = 0.0020). No association was detected between basal-like cancer and other biological markers. Patients with basal-like subtype of triple-negative cancer showed shorter disease-free survival (P = 0.0049) and overall survival (P = 0.0283) than patients with non-basal-like subtype. No independent prognostic factors were identified among the prognostic factors obtained from univariate analysis.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that basal markers can be used to classify triple-negative breast cancer into at least two subtypes with differing prognoses. It is necessary to develop a novel treatment strategy to improve the prognosis of patients with basal-like subtype of triple-negative breast cancer.

Keywords

Basal-like subtype CK5/6 EGFR Triple-negative breast cancer 

Abbreviations

ER

Estrogen receptor

PgR

Progesterone receptor

HER2

Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2

EGFR

Epidermal growth factor receptor

References

  1. 1.
    Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:5287–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Konecny G, Pauletti G, Pegram M, Untch M, Dandekar S, Aguila Z, et al. Quantitative association between HER-2/neu and steroid hormone receptors in hormone receptor-positive primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:142–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slamon DJ, Godolphin W, Jones LA, Holt JA, Wong SG, Keith DE, et al. Studies of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian cancer. Science. 1989;244:707–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, Gatti L, Moore DT, Collichio F, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:2329–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, Hanna WM, Kahn HK, Sawka CA, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:4429–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, Kearney T, Higgins SA, Weidhaas J, et al. Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5652–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, Lee AH, Robertson JF, Ellis IO. Prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer. 2007;109:25–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tischkowitz M, Brunet JS, Begin LR, Huntsman DG, Cheang MC, Akslen LA, et al. Use of immunohistochemical markers can refine prognosis in triple negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. 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. 2007;109:1721–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harris LN, Broadwater G, Lin NU, Miron A, Schnitt SJ, Cowan D, et al. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer in relation to paclitaxel response and outcomes in women with metastatic disease: results from CALGB 9342. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:R66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Morris GJ, Naidu S, Topham AK, Guiles F, Xu Y, McCue P, et al. Differences in breast carcinoma characteristics in newly diagnosed African-American and Caucasian patients: a single-institution compilation compared with the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Cancer. 2007;110:876–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC. Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:235–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reis-Filho JS, Tutt AN. Triple negative tumours: a critical review. Histopathology. 2008;52:108–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:10869–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron JS, Nobel A, et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:8418–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, et al. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:5367–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    van de Rijn M, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Haas P, Kallioniemi O, Kononen J, et al. Expression of cytokeratins 17 and 5 identifies a group of breast carcinomas with poor clinical outcome. Am J Pathol. 2002;161:1991–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Matos I, Dufloth R, Alvarenga M, Zeferino LC, Schmitt F. p63, cytokeratin 5, and P-cadherin: three molecular markers to distinguish basal phenotype in breast carcinomas. Virchows Arch. 2005;447:688–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kobayashi S. Basal-like subtype of breast cancer: a review of its unique characteristics and their clinical significance. Breast Cancer. 2008;15:153–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, Ibrahim N, Cristofanilli M, Anderson K, et al. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:5678–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bidard FC, Conforti R, Boulet T, Michiels S, Delaloge S. Andre F.egative phenotype accurately identify basal-like tumour? An immunohistochemical analysis based on 143 ‘triple-negative’ breast cancers. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1285–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tan DS, Marchio C, Jones RL, Savage K, Smith IE, Dowsett M, et al. Triple negative breast cancer: molecular profiling and prognostic impact in adjuvant anthracycline-treated patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111:27–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C, Leung S, McKinney S, Chia SK, et al. Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:1368–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sasa M, Bando Y, Takahashi M, Hirose T, Nagao T. Screening for basal marker expression is necessary for decision of therapeutic strategy for triple-negative breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2008;97:30–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yamamoto Y, Ibusuki M, Okumura Y, Kawasoe T, Kai K, Iyama K, et al. Hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha is closely linked to an aggressive phenotype in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;110:465–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bos R, van der Groep P, Greijer AE, Shavarts A, Meijer S, Pinedo HM, et al. Levels of hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha independently predict prognosis in patients with lymph node negative breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;97:1573–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Royce ME, Xia W, Sahin AA, Katayama H, Johnston DA, Hortobagi G, et al. STK15/Aurora-A expression in primary breast tumors is correlated with nuclear grade but not with prognosis. Cancer. 2003;100:12–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ. Meeting highlights: updated international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:3357–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spyratos F, Ferrero-Pous M, Trassard M, Hacene K, Phillips E, Tubiana-Hulin M, et al. Correlation between MIB-1 and other proliferation markers: clinical implications of the MIB-1 cutoff value. Cancer. 2002;94:2151–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hirota S, Isozaki K, Moriyama Y, Hashimoto K, Nishida T, Ishiguro S, et al. Gain-of-function mutations of c-kit in human gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Science. 1998;279:577–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Natali PG, Nicotra MR, Sures I, Mottolese M, Botti C, Ullrich A. Breast cancer is associated with loss of the c-kit oncogene product. Int J Cancer. 1992;52:713–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chui X, Egami H, Yamashita J, Kurizaki T, Ohmachi H, Yamamoto S, et al. Immunohistochemical expression of the c-kit proto-oncogene product in human malignant and non-malignant breast tissues. Br J Cancer. 1996;73:1233–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gautschi O, Heighway J, Mack PC, Purnell PR, Lara PN, Gandara DR Jr. Aurora kinases as anticancer drug targets. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:1639–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bischoff JR, Anderson L, Zhu Y, Mossie K, Ng L, Souza B, et al. A homologue of Drosophila aurora kinase is oncogenic and amplified in human colorectal cancers. EMBO J. 1998;17:3052–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhou H, Kuang J, Zhong L, Kuo WL, Gray JW, Sahin A, et al. Tumour amplified kinase STK15/BTAK induces centrosome amplification, aneuploidy and transformation. Nat Genet. 1998;20:189–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nadler Y, Camp RL, Schwartz C, Rimm DL, Kluger HM, Kluger Y. Expression of Aurora A (but not Aurora B) is predictive of survival in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:4455–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yutaka Yamamoto
    • 1
  • Mutsuko Ibusuki
    • 1
  • Masahiro Nakano
    • 1
  • Teru Kawasoe
    • 1
  • Ryousuke Hiki
    • 2
  • Hirotaka Iwase
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Faculty of Medical and Pharmaceutical SciencesKumamoto University Graduate School of Medical SciencesKumamotoJapan
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryHiki HospitalKumamotoJapan

Personalised recommendations