Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Treatment When Prognostic Factors Do Not Match St. Gallen Recommendations: Profiling of Prognostic Factors among HR(+) and HER2(−) Breast Cancer Patients

  • Published:
World Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The St. Gallen consensus provides treatment recommendations for breast cancer based on prognostic factors. Although many patients’ prognostic patterns are not easily matched with the prognostic patterns listed in the St. Gallen consensus, there has been no systematic investigation reporting the gap between treatment recommendations and actual postoperative treatment choices in clinical practice.

Methods

Four hundred seventy-one patients with hormone receptor-positive [HR(+)] and human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2-negative [HER2(−)] breast cancer were analyzed. These patients were classified into either the “crisp treatment group” or “fuzzy treatment group” based on the definitiveness of postoperative treatment selection based on St. Gallen treatment recommendations. The patients in the fuzzy treatment group were further classified into strata in which patients within each stratum shared the same prognostic factor patterns with similar recurrence rates.

Results

A total of 87.3 % of HR(+)HER2(−) patients were designated to the fuzzy treatment group. Four prognostic strata were constructed according to the survival tree model, and revealed that patients with poor prognostic profiles tended to receive endocrine therapy with chemotherapy. This suggests that postoperative chemotherapy is useful, although there was no statistical significance.

Conclusions

We constructed prognostic profiles of patients in the fuzzy treatment group and examined the recurrence rates associated with two treatment regimens within each prognostic profile. These findings are exploratory, but they may be useful for planning prospective studies of the effectiveness of postoperative treatment regimens among patients with a heterogeneous combination of prognostic factors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Fisher B, Redmond C, Dimitrov NV et al (1989) A randomized clinical trial evaluating sequential methotrexate and fluorouracil in the treatment of patients with node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor-negative tumors. N Engl J Med 320:473–478

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisfer B, Costantino J, Redmond C et al (1989) A randomized clinical trial evaluating tamoxifen in the treatment of patients with node-negative breast cancer who have estrogen-receptor-positive tumors. N Engl J Med 320:479–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. LHRH-agonists in Early Breast Cancer Overview Group, Cuzick J, Ambroisine L, Davidson N et al (2007) Use of luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists as adjuvant treatment in premenopausal patients with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized adjuvant trials. Lancet 369(9574):1711–1723

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Piccart MJ, Di Leo A, Beauduin M et al (2001) Phase III trial comparing two dose levels of epirubicin combined with cyclophosphamide with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:3103–3110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sonoo H, Kurebayashi J (2001) Endocrine therapy for advanced or recurrent breast cancer. Jpn J Cancer Chemother 28:909–916

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG et al (1987) Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER2/new oncogene. Science 235:177–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD et al. (panel members) (2009) Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009, Ann Oncol 20:1319–1329

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wolf AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN et al (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:118–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC et al (2006) Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA 95:1658–1667

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garibaldi JM, Zhou SM, Wang XY et al (2012) Incorporation of expert variability into breast cancer treatment recommendation in designing clinical protocol guided fuzzy rule system models. J Biomed Inform 45:447–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Klir GJ, Folger TA (1988) Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  12. Zhang H, Singer B (1999) Recursive Partitioning in the Health Sciences. Springer, New York, pp 93–103

    Google Scholar 

  13. Carletta J (1996) Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic. Comput Linguist 22:249–254

    Google Scholar 

  14. Banerjee M, Biswas D, Sakr W et al (2000) Recursive partitioning for prognostic grouping of patients with clinically localized prostate carcinoma. Cancer 89:404–411

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Kwak LW, Halpern J, Olshen RA et al (1990) Prognostic significance of actual dose intensity in diffuse large-cell lymphoma: results of a tree-structured survival analysis. J Clin Oncol 8:963–977

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Guo J, Wang W, Liao P et al (2009) Identification of serum biomarkers for pancreatic adenocarcinoma by proteomic analysis. Cancer Sci 100:2292–2301

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Warwick J, Vardaki E, Fattizzi N et al (2009) Defining the surgical management of suspected early-stage ovarian cancer by estimating patient numbers through alternative management strategies. BJOG 116:1225–1241

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Bacchetti P, Segal MR (1995) Survival trees with time-dependent covariates: application to estimating changes in the incubation period of AIDS. Lifetime Data Anal 1:35–47

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Carmelli D, Halpern J, Swan GE et al (1991) 27-year mortality in the Western Collaborative Group study: construction of risk groups by recursive partitioning. J Clin Epidemiol 44:1341–1351

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Carmelli D, Zhang HP, Swan GE (1997) Obesity and 33 years of coronary heart disease and cancer mortality in the Western Collaborative Group study. Epidemiology 8:378–383

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Brewster AM, Hortobagyl GN, Broglio KR et al (2008) Residual risk of breast cancer recurrence 5 years after adjuvant therapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 100:1179–1183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Saphner T, Tormey DC, Gray R (1996) Annual hazard rates of recurrence for breast cancer after primary therapy. J Clin Oncol 14:2738–2746

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Makita M, Iwase T, Tada T et al (2004) The site and timing of the first recurrence of breast cancer. Jpn J Breast Cancer 19:343–351

    Google Scholar 

  24. Morgan JA, Sonquist JA (1963) Problems in the analysis of survey data, and a proposal. J Am Stat Assoc 58:415–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Breiman L, Friedman JH, Oishen R et al (1984) Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth International Group, Belmony

    Google Scholar 

  26. Davis R, Anderson J (1989) Exponential survival trees. Stat Med 8:947–962

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G Jr et al (2007) Ki67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer 96:1504–1513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G et al (2004) A multigate assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen- treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351:2817–2826

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ et al (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415:530–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Medicine, Kurume University, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume City, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan

    Kyoko Satoh, Ayako Yano & Jiang Ying

  2. Department of Surgery, Kurume Daiichi Hospital, 21 Kushihara-machi, Kurume City, Fukuoka, 830-0013, Japan

    Kyoko Satoh & Maki Tanaka

  3. Clinical Research Office, Kurume Daiichi Hospital, 21 Kushihara-machi, Kurume City, Fukuoka, 830-0013, Japan

    Ayako Yano

  4. Biostatistics Center, Kurume University, 67 Asahi-machi, Kurume City, Fukuoka, 830-0011, Japan

    Tatsuyuki Kakuma

Authors
  1. Kyoko Satoh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Maki Tanaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ayako Yano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jiang Ying
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tatsuyuki Kakuma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kyoko Satoh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Satoh, K., Tanaka, M., Yano, A. et al. Treatment When Prognostic Factors Do Not Match St. Gallen Recommendations: Profiling of Prognostic Factors among HR(+) and HER2(−) Breast Cancer Patients. World J Surg 37, 516–524 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1881-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-012-1881-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation