Breast Cancer

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 400–410 | Cite as

Hormone receptor status of contralateral breast cancers: analysis of data from the US SEER population-based registries

  • Roman Mezencev
  • Marián ŠvajdlerJr.
Original Article



Women diagnosed with breast cancer display higher propensity to develop second primary cancer in the contralateral breast (CBC). Identification of patients with increased risk of CBC and understanding relationships between hormone receptor (HR) statuses of the first and second breast cancers is desirable for endocrine-based prevention strategies.


Using 1992–2012 data from 13 SEER registries, the risk of developing CBC was determined as ratio of observed and expected second breast cancers (SIR). Association between HR statuses was examined by exploratory data analysis and multivariable logistic regression. Results: Women with ER-positive and ER-negative breast cancers have increased risk of developing CBC with SIR values 2.09 (CI 95 = 1.97–2.21) and 2.40 (CI 95 = 2.18–2.63), respectively. ER statuses of the CBC are moderately positively associated. In metachronous CBC, most cases with ER-positive first cancers had ER-positive second breast cancers (81.6 %; CI 95 = 80.2–82.9 %); however, considerable proportion of cases with ER-negative first cancers had ER-positive second cancers (48.8 %; CI 95 = 46.2–51.4 %).


Some women with ER-negative breast cancers may benefit from endocrine-based prevention of ER-positive CBC.


Bilateral breast cancer Contralateral breast cancer Synchronous breast cancer Metachronous breast cancer Estrogen receptor Estrogen receptor-negative breast cancers 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflict of interest relevant to the subject of this article.

Ethical approval

Data from the SEER have no personal identifying information and therefore ethical approval not required.

Supplementary material

12282_2016_716_MOESM1_ESM.docx (137 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 136 kb)


  1. 1.
    DeSantis CE, Bray F, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Anderson BO, Jemal A. International variation in female breast cancer incidence and mortality rates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015;24:1495–506.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Miller D, Altekruse SF, et al. SEER cancer statistics review (CSR) 1975–2012. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2015.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    American Cancer Society. Breast cancer facts and figures 2013–2014. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen Y, Thompson W, Semenciw R, Mao Y. Epidemiology of contralateral breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1999;8:855–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunnwald LK, Rossing MA, Li CI. Hormone receptor status, tumor characteristics, and prognosis: a prospective cohort of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9:R6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, et al. American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:e48–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group, Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Clarke M, Cutter D, et al. Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2011;378:771–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hefti MM, Hu R, Knoblauch NW, Collins LC, Haibe-Kains B, Tamimi RM, et al. Estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive breast cancer is not a reproducible subtype. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15:R68.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosen PP. Invasive mammary carcinoma. In: Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Hellman S, editors. Diseases of the Breast. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996. p. 393.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gong SJ, Rha SY, Jeung HC, Roh JK, Yang WI, Chung HC. Bilateral breast cancer: differential diagnosis using histological and biological parameters. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2007;37:487–92.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schoenberg BS, Myers MH. Statistical methods for studying multiple primary malignant neoplasms. Cancer. 1977;40:1892–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Allred DC. Issues and updates: evaluating estrogen receptor-alpha, progesterone receptor, and HER2 in breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(Suppl 2):S52–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kilgore AR. The incidence of cancer in the second breast: after radical removal of one breast for cancer. JAMA. 1921;77:454–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, Thor AD, Allred DC, Clark GM, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;124:966–78.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Encarnacion CA, Ciocca DR, McGuire WL, Clark GM, Fuqua SA, Osborne CK. Measurement of steroid hormone receptors in breast cancer patients on tamoxifen. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1993;26:237–46.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yamashita H, Yando Y, Nishio M, Zhang Z, Hamaguchi M, Mita K, et al. Immunohistochemical evaluation of hormone receptor status for predicting response to endocrine therapy in metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2006;13:74–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ma H, Wang Y, Sullivan-Halley J, Weiss L, Burkman RT, Simon MS, et al. Breast cancer receptor status: do results from a centralized pathology laboratory agree with SEER registry reports? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:2214–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Janschek E, Kandioler-Eckersberger D, Ludwig C, Kappel S, Wolf B, Taucher S, et al. Contralateral breast cancer: molecular differentiation between metastasis and second primary cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2001;67:1–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Utada M, Ohno Y, Hori M, Soda M. Incidence of multiple primary cancers and interval between first and second primary cancers. Cancer Sci. 2014;105:890–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brennan ME, Houssami N, Lord S, Macaskill P, Irwig L, Dixon JM, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging screening of the contralateral breast in women with newly diagnosed breast cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of incremental cancer detection and impact on surgical management. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5640–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Narod SA. Bilateral breast cancers. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2014;11:157–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kurian AW, McClure LA, John EM, Horn-Ross PL, Ford JM, Clarke CA. Second primary breast cancer occurrence according to hormone receptor status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101:1058–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sandberg ME, Hall P, Hartman M, Johansson AL, Eloranta S, Ploner A, et al. Estrogen receptor status in relation to risk of contralateral breast cancer—a population-based cohort study. PLoS One. 2012;7:e46535.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rusner C, Wolf K, Bandemer-Greulich U, Engel J, Stegmaier C, Holleczek B, et al. Risk of contralateral second primary breast cancer according to hormone receptor status in Germany. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16:452.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bessonova L, Taylor TH, Mehta RS, Zell JA, Anton-Culver H. Risk of a second breast cancer associated with hormone-receptor and HER2/neu status of the first breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:389–96.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bouchardy C, Benhamou S, Fioretta G, Verkooijen HM, Chappuis PO, Neyroud-Caspar I, et al. Risk of second breast cancer according to estrogen receptor status and family history. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127:233–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Banerjee M, George J, Yee C, Hryniuk W, Schwartz K. Disentangling the effects of race on breast cancer treatment. Cancer. 2007;110:2169–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Swain SM. Tamoxifen and contralateral breast cancer: the other side. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:963–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Swain SM, Wilson JW, Mamounas EP, Bryant J, Wickerham DL, Fisher B, et al. Estrogen receptor status of primary breast cancer is predictive of estrogen receptor status of contralateral breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:516–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Huo D, Melkonian S, Rathouz PJ, Khramtsov A, Olopade OI. Concordance in histological and biological parameters between first and second primary breast cancers. Cancer. 2011;117:907–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Coradini D, Oriana S, Mariani L, Miceli R, Bresciani G, Marubini E, et al. Is steroid receptor profile in contralateral breast cancer a marker of independence of the corresponding primary tumour? Eur J Cancer. 1998;34:825–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sighoko D, Liu J, Hou N, Gustafson P, Huo D. Discordance in hormone receptor status among primary, metastatic, and second primary breast cancers: biological difference or misclassification? Oncologist. 2014;19:592–601.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Arpino G, Weiss HL, Clark GM, Hilsenbeck SG, Osborne CK. Hormone receptor status of a contralateral breast cancer is independent of the receptor status of the first primary in patients not receiving adjuvant tamoxifen. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4687–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yang LH, Tseng HS, Lin C, Chen LS, Chen ST, Kuo SJ, et al. Survival benefit of tamoxifen in estrogen receptor-negative and progesterone receptor-positive low grade breast cancer patients. J Breast Cancer. 2012;15:288–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Maeyer L, Van Limbergen E, De Nys K, Moerman P, Pochet N, Hendrickx W, et al. Does estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive breast carcinoma exist? J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:335–6 (author reply 6–8).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Narod SA, Brunet JS, Ghadirian P, Robson M, Heimdal K, Neuhausen SL, et al. Tamoxifen and risk of contralateral breast cancer in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: a case-control study. Hereditary Breast Cancer Clinical Study Group. Lancet. 2000;356:1876–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Foulkes WD, Metcalfe K, Sun P, Hanna WM, Lynch HT, Ghadirian P, et al. Estrogen receptor status in BRCA1- and BRCA2-related breast cancer: the influence of age, grade, and histological type. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:2029–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Honma N, Horii R, Iwase T, Saji S, Younes M, Takubo K, et al. Clinical importance of estrogen receptor-beta evaluation in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3727–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Osborne CK. Tamoxifen in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:1609–18.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bogush T, Dudko E, Bogush E, Polotsky B, Tjulandin S, Davydov M. Tamoxifen non-estrogen receptor mediated molecular targets. Oncol Rev. 2012;6:e15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Williams N. Effect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 100-month analysis of the ATAC trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:45–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Breast Cancer Society 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Integrated Cancer Research Center, School of Biology and Parker H. Petit Institute of Bioengineering and BiosciencesGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.The Faculty of Medicine and Faculty Hospital in Pilsen, Šikl’s Department of PathologyCharles University in PraguePilsenCzech Republic
  3. 3.Bioptická laboratoř, s.r.o.PilsenCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations