Abstract
Purpose
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive disease lacking specific biomarkers to guide treatment decisions. We evaluated the combined prognostic impact of clinical features and novel biomarkers of cell cycle-progression in age-dependent subgroups of TNBC patients.
Methods
One hundred forty seven TNBC patients with complete clinical data and up to 18 year follow-up were collected from Turku University Hospital, Finland. Eight biomarkers for cell division were immunohistochemically detected to evaluate their clinical applicability in relation to patient and tumor characteristics.
Results
Age at diagnosis was the decisive factor predicting disease-specific mortality in TNBC (p = 0.002). The established prognostic features, nodal status and Ki-67, predicted survival only when combined with age. The outcome and prognostic features differed significantly between age groups, middle-aged patients showing the most favorable outcome. Among young patients, only lack of basal differentiation predicted disease outcome, indicating 4.5-fold mortality risk (p = 0.03). Among patients aged > 57, the established prognostic features predicted disease outcome with up to 3.0-fold mortality risk for tumor size ≥ 2 cm (p = 0.001). Concerning cell proliferation, Ki-67 alone was a significant prognosticator among patients aged > 57 years (p = 0.009). Among the studied cell cycle-specific biomarkers, only geminin predicted disease outcome, indicating up to 6.2-fold increased risk of mortality for tumor size < 2 cm (p = 0.03).
Conclusion
Traditional clinical features do not provide optimal prognostic characterization for all TNBC patients. Young age should be considered as an additional adverse prognostic feature in therapeutic considerations. Increased proliferation, as evaluated using Ki-67 or geminin immunohistochemistry, showed potential in detecting survival differences in subgroups of TNBC.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Breast cancer presents as distinctive subtypes with various behavioral patterns. Among these, triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) remains a major challenge since it affects younger patients than the other subtypes and inflicts a particularly aggressive course of disease. Consequently, the average 5 year survival rate is reported to be considerably lower among TNBC patients (77%) than among breast cancer patients in general (91%) (American Cancer Society 2022).
TNBC comprises several tumor subtypes with varying biological characteristic and behavioral patterns [1]. Recently, targeted therapies, i.e. immune checkpoint, AKT pathway and PARP inhibitors, have provided promising treatment options for subgroups of TNBC patients with high mutational burden and germline BRCA mutations [2]. Still, in the majority of TNBC cases, no clinically applicable expression signatures are available for identifying the prognosis of individual patients [3]. In clinical practice, international guidelines for treatment decisions of TNBC are based on the traditional prognostic features of breast cancer, i.e. stage, patient’s age at diagnosis and, to some extent, the proliferative activity of the malignant cells [4]. In most cases, the course of disease of a single TNBC patient is still unpredictable and, therefore, there is a constant need for intensified, clinically applicable, personalized prognostic markers.
Uncontrollable proliferation is one of the crucial properties of malignant transformation [5]. Mitotic activity is an established prognostic feature reflecting tumor biology also in breast cancer, especially in the luminal subtype [1, 6]. Ki-67 is the routinely applied proliferation marker but only few studies have addressed Ki-67 as a prognostic feature in TNBC [7,8,9], part of them showing controversial results [10]. The clinical applicability of Ki-67 in predicting the outcome of TNBC is limited due to the lack of standardized cut-off values [7, 11]. In previous literature, the applied optimal cut-points for Ki-67 labeling index have ranged from 10 to 61% [11,12,13]. Moreover, quantification of Ki-67-immunoexpression has been criticized for poor inter- and intra-observer concordance [11, 14].
Ki-67 does not only identify cells actually progressing into mitosis. Instead, it is expressed with varying functions throughout the cell cycle from S to G0 phases [15]. Previous literature presents several attempts to intensify the evaluation of cell proliferation by detecting proteins with specific functions and precise expression profiles in the cell cycle [16]. Among them, the metaphase-anaphase transition is one of the points-of-no-return in the cell cycle, where sister chromatids, after perfect alignment at the equator of the cell, separate and move to opposite poles of the mitotic spindle to start final division of the genetic material [17]. Several checkpoints participate in quality control at this event by monitoring and maintaining the accuracy of the DNA replication and repair, proper bi-orientation, and separation of the chromatids. Any disturbed regulatory cascades will lead to uncontrolled cell division and potentially induce excessive cell proliferation and malignant progression. Disrupted control mechanisms may result in mis-segregation of chromosomes, predisposing the cells to the loss of tumor-suppressor genes, chromosomal instability, and carcinogenesis [18].
In this paper, we evaluate the prognostic potential of clinical features and cancer cell proliferation among TNBC patients. For this purpose, we selected nine proliferation markers to investigate their prognostic potential and clinical applicability. These markers include the established mitotic indices Ki-67 and MCM2, as well as a set of regulatory proteins which have previously shown prognostic potential in assessing the outcome of breast cancer, i.e. geminin, separase, PLK1, aurora A, securin, cyclinB1 and CDK1-3. The results emphasize the biological and clinical heterogeneity of TNBC, and the significance of multifactorial prognostic evaluations in this breast cancer subgroup.
Material and methods
Patient and tissue material
In total, the study comprises 147 TNBC patients diagnosed and treated between 2000 and 2015 in Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland (Table 1). The cases were identified based on surrogate markers of molecular subclassification according to WHO tumor classification criteria and St. Gallen consensus [1, 19]. All patients were treated with either conservative breast surgery or mastectomy combined with either sentinel node investigation or axillary evacuation. Surgery was followed by radiation and/or cytostatic treatment based on the international guidelines of TNBC at the time of diagnosis [20]. Patients detected with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis were excluded from the material. None of the patients received neoadjuvant treatment. Clinical information and complete follow-up data of the patients was provided by Auria Biobank (Auria Biobank, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland, https://www.auria.fi/biobank/). Causes of death were obtained from autopsy reports, death certificates and Finnish Cancer Registry (Statistics Finland, Helsinki, Finland), resulting in maximum follow-up period of 18 years (mean 8 years).
The tissue specimen were obtained from Auria Biobank. All tumors represented poorly differentiated invasive ductal breast cancer NST. Originally, the specimen were treated according to standard pathology procedure, fixed in formalin (pH 7.0) and embedded in paraffin. Two specialists in breast pathology reassessed the specimen and selected the representative areas from HE-stained whole tumor sections. Thereafter, the tissue material was arranged in tissue microarrays (TMAs) by punching two 1.5 mm diameter cylinders from each tumor; one from the central and another from the peripheral tumor area. The TMAs were constructed using an automated tissue arrayer (TMA Grand Master machine, 3D HISTOTECH, Budapest, Hungary).
Immunohistochemical methods
Triple-negativity of the tumors was confirmed by the absence of receptors for estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) using standard IHC practice, and HER2 amplification based on IHC alone (scores 0 or 1 +) or the combination of IHC (score 2 +) with negative amplification status detected in double in situ hybridizations (HER2 and chromosome 17 probes) [1]. Basal differentiation of the tumor cells was detected based on immunoexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and/or cytokeratins 5/6, according to international guidelines [1, 21].
Immunohistochemical detection of the studied proteins (Table 2) followed the standard, previously described procedures [22].
The expression profiles of the studied proliferation markers are demonstrated in Fig. 1. In each tissue core of the TMAs, 1–3 foci consisting of at least 100 invasive cancer cells were selected for immunoevaluations. Cores with less than 100 invasive cancer cells or suboptimal tissue preservation were excluded from the analysis. The fraction of positively stained cancer cells was counted from each chosen field and the mean value was registered. In each patient case, the highest value of the two TMA cores, either the central or peripheral core, was applied in further analysis. The evaluations were performed using an automated image analysis software ImmunoRatio (https://biii.eu/immunoratio, Institute of Biomedical Technology, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland) when applicable [23]. Immunopositivity was originally detected in each staining based on visual observation and, thereafter, the set criteria were applied to ImmunoRatio.
Statistical analysis
In statistical analyses, the established clinical prognostic factors were assessed as continuous variables and classified according to internationally accepted criteria [1]. Patients’ age at diagnosis was statistically divided at median value (57 years) and at first and third quartiles (49 and 73 years, respectively). The studied proliferation markers were analyzed both as continuous and classified variables which categorized the patients into subgroups exhibiting low versus high expression of the studied proteins. This was performed by selecting cut-points based on, first, the observations of the immunohistochemical expression patterns and, secondly, on statistical analyses involving the mean, median and quartile values of each parameter. The optimal cut-point for each protein was verified based on univariate analyses identifying the cut-point producing the most significant survival difference between cancer-specific survival versus mortality in our material. Prognostic associations were modelled for the clinical prognostic features and the studied proliferation markers using Kaplan–Meier plots and Cox’s regression models detecting associations for breast cancer-specific mortality. Each association was quantitated as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). p values under 0.05 were considered significant. Statistical analysis was performed using R Statistical Software (R Development Core Team, 2017) and Cox regression models with the 'survival' package [24] and 'Survminer' package [25].
Results
In our material of TNBC patients, age at diagnosis strongly influenced the prognostic evaluations of disease-specific mortality (Table 3). In our results, each 10-year increase in patient’s age at diagnosis indicated a 1.5-fold increased risk of breast cancer death (CI 1.2–1.8). However, age at diagnosis did not show a linear association with disease outcome. Instead, patients aged 49 − 57 showed a more favorable outcome than the younger and older age groups (Fig. 2). The risk of breast cancer death for younger patients (< 49 years) was 3.2-fold (p = 0.09) and for older (> 57 years) patients 4.3-fold (p = 0.02, CI 1.6–16.2) increased as compared to the risk of middle-aged patients. Particularly, the survival of patients > 73 years at diagnosis differed significantly from all younger age groups (HR 3.6, p < 0.001, CI 1.4–12.3).
In our material, axillary lymph node status and tumor size predicted mortality in TNBC. Specifically, each 10 mm increase in tumor diameter indicated 6.1-fold increased risk of cancer death among all TNBC patients (p = 0.0003, CI 1.4–22.3), and 8.2-fold increased risk for patients aged > 57 at diagnosis (p = 0.001, CI 1.6–25.6). Concerning nodal status, axillary lymph node metastasis indicated 2.0-fold increased risk of cancer death among all TNBC patients (p = 0.05, CI 1.0–4.1), and 2.5-fold increased risk among patients aged > 57 at diagnosis (p = 0.04, CI 1.0–6.2). Among patients aged < 49 at diagnosis, only basal differentiation of the cancer cells showed statistically significant prognostic value, even after including nodal status and tumor size in the analysis (p = 0.04). This finding suggests that among young TNBC patients, lack of basal differentiation indicates a 4.5-fold increased risk of mortality (p = 0.03, CI 1.3–17.3).
Among the studied proliferation markers, Ki-67 sparsely failed to predict survival of TNBC (p = 0.07) but showed statistical significance after excluding the strong prognostic impact of age from the analysis (Table 3). Our findings suggest that each 10% increase in Ki-67 results in 1.6-fold increased risk of cancer death (p = 0.01, CI 1.2–1.7). High Ki-67 was also significantly associated with increased mortality among older patients (> 57 years of age) but not among the younger patient groups. Specifically, for patients aged > 57, each 10% increase in Ki-67 indicated 2.9-fold risk of breast cancer death (p = 0.009, CI 1.1–6.7). In further multivariate analyses involving age with different combinations of clinically applied prognostic features, Ki-67 (p = 0.02), nodal status (p = 0.03), and tumor size (p < 0.001), but not basal differentiation, predicted mortality in TNBC. In similar analyses among the subgroup of young patients, tumor size (p = 0.03) and basal differentiation (p = 0.02), but not nodal status or Ki-67, predicted disease outcome. Instead, among the oldest (> 57) patient group, tumor size (p = 0.03) and Ki-67 (p = 0.008) showed a prognostic value, but not nodal status or basal differentiation.
Among the studied novel proliferation markers, only geminin and separase showed prognostic potential in TNBC. Low geminin immunoexpression (< 5%) suggested doubled risk of breast cancer death, but the association sparsely failed statistical significance (p = 0.07). More specifically, the subgroup of patients exhibiting geminin immunoexpression in 1 − 4% of cancer cells showed a significantly worse outcome (HR 3.1, p = 0.01, CI 1.2–7.6) than the subgroup expressing geminin in ≥ 5% of cancer cells (Fig. 2). When analyzed together with patient’s age at diagnosis, the immunoexpression of geminin lost its prognostic value. Instead, among TNBC with small tumor size (< 2 cm in diameter), low geminin (< 5%) expression indicated 6.2-fold increased breast cancer mortality (p = 0.03, CI 1.4–25.3). Similarly, among node-negative patients, low geminin indicated 2.9-fold increased risk of breast cancer mortality (p = 0.03, CI 1.1–8.0). High separase (≥ 3% of cancer cells) suggested a 2.0-fold increased risk of breast cancer death, approaching statistical significance (p = 0.06) (Fig. 2). Even after excluding the impact of age at diagnosis, separase did not show significant prognostic associations. PLK1, aurora A, securin, MCM2, cyclinB1 or CDK1-3 showed no prognostic value in our material of TNBCs after testing as continuous variables or classified at several relevant cut-points.
Discussion
Age at diagnosis turned out to be the decisive prognostic factor in our material of TNBCs. We observed the most favorable outcome among patients aged 49–57 years. As compared to this age group, the risk of breast cancer-specific mortality was increased threefold among the younger patients. Overrepresentation of aggressive course of disease among young TNBC patients is also reported in previous literature [26,27,28,29], especially among very young patients aged < 35 years at diagnosis [30, 31]. The prognostic role of age in TNBC has not been settled [32,33,34,35,36,37,38], and a considerable part of the research is controversial [39,40,41,42]. Among patients older than 57 years at diagnosis, our results indicated a fourfold increased risk of breast cancer-specific mortality, and the risk was further accentuated among the eldest patients (aged > 73) (Fig. 3A). Likewise, the majority of previous research associates increasing age with decreasing survival in TNBC [37, 43,44,45], with the highest reported mortality among the oldest old [46]. The survival deficit of elderly patients has been accounted for the lack of organized screening in the age group [47], as well as comorbidities [27, 48], and the consequent less intensive treatments [49]. Also, it has been suggested that the variation of outcomes in different age groups may partly be explained by the distribution of biological TNBC subtypes [37, 44, 50, 51].
Basal-like subtype is overrepresented among young TNBC patients and characterized by BRCA mutations [52,53,54]. However, the prognostic role of basal differentiation in TNBC is not completely settled [52, 55, 56] and part of literature reports similar prognosis for basal and non-basal TNBC [54]. Our findings (Fig. 3), however, are in line with research reporting age-dependent outcome of TNBC, and higher survival and lower recurrence rates for basal-like than non-basal-like disease [42, 50]. In our material, lack of basal differentiation was a statistically significant prognostic feature only among the youngest patient subgroup (women aged < 49), predicting more than fourfold increased risk of TNBC-specific mortality (Table 3). Apart from previous literature [50], in our material basal differentiation did not show prognostic significance among the older patients. Heterogeneity of TNBC has been presented as an explanation for the observed survival differences between age groups [3, 57, 58]. Among the young, aggressive course of disease has been explained by the lower proliferation rates in non-basal-like TNBC predisposing chemotherapy insensitivity [50], whereas among the older patients, alterations in tumor microenvironment have been addressed [32].
Regarding the established prognostic factors of breast cancer, in our material tumor size indicated up to 2.2-fold mortality risk in age-dependent multivariate analysis (Table 3, Fig. 3). Ample evidence from previous literature indicates the independent prognostic role of tumor size in TNBC [30, 59, 60], but the impact of tumor size in different age groups has not been settled. In our material, tumor size was a significant predictor of survival only among the subgroup of patients > 57, but not > 73 years at diagnosis. This finding may be explained by the Finnish national breast cancer screening program [61] which has resulted in a significant improvement of breast cancer survival, particularly among TNBC patients [62]. Among the elderly, the more sinister outcome may also reflect the complexity of chemotherapy decision-making due to the heterogeneity of patient characteristics, presence of comorbidities and increased risk of toxicity [63].
According to general understanding, TNBC has a reduced probability of lymph node involvement, due to its tendency to spread hematogenously [64]. In our material, nodal status alone did not predict disease survival (Table 3). However, after standardizing for age at diagnosis, axillary metastasis proved to be an independent prognostic factor in the whole material and among patients aged > 57 years, indicating 2.0- and 2.5-fold increased mortality, respectively. Among younger patients, instead, age was such a strong prognostic factor that it overrode the impact of nodal status. In previous literature, no consensus reigns on the prognostic impact of nodal status in TNBC. Part of previous research considers axillary metastases as an adverse clinical feature [65, 66], especially for short-term survival [67]. The association between nodal status and outcome of TNBC, however, appears not to be straightforward [67, 68], while even extensive metastatic disease has not been observed to impair survival [69]. The discrepant and confusing association between nodal status and disease outcome have been linked to the genetic and clinical heterogeneity of TNBC [67].
Defects in cell cycle regulation and DNA repair mechanisms are common characteristics of TNBC, and enhanced cell cycle is recognized as a specific cellular feature of young patients [65, 70]. This is also reflected in proliferation indices, such as immunohistochemically detected Ki-67 labeling index, which has been reported to decrease with increasing age [70]. Similar to our present findings, the majority of researchers have associated high Ki-67 with unfavorable disease outcome among TNBC patients [9, 13, 60, 71]. In our material, however, Ki-67 was an independent prognosticator only among patients aged > 57 years for whom each 10% increase in Ki-67 indicated 2.9-fold increased risk of mortality. As previously reported [72], Ki-67 was not a clinically applicable prognostic factor among the youngest patient subgroup in our material, possibly reflecting the age-dependent distribution of different genetic and transcriptional phenotypes in TNBC [27, 32, 70]. However, the clinical applicability of Ki-67 in predicting the outcome of TNBC is impaired by different areas assessed, such as hot spot or average across slide [73], and the varying criteria for high vs low labeling index with cut-points ranging from 14% [1] to 25%, and even up to 60% [11, 72, 74]. Moreover, poor understanding of the functions and dynamics of Ki-67 protein during the cell cycle hamper detailed prognostic conclusions [75].
Previous literature has identified various cell cycle-regulating proteins with expression peaks at specific steps of cell division. Due to their distinct expression patterns in cell cycle, these proteins have been suggested with advantages over Ki-67 in achieving more detailed prognostic information [6]. Previously, based on invasive breast carcinomas of all intrinsic subtypes, we have reported 8.4-fold increased risk of mortality associated with the combination of separase, securin and cdk1, each a crucial regulator of cell cycle-progression [76]. Contradictory to our previous results, apart from geminin, all the tested novel biomarkers for cell proliferation failed to show statistically significant prognostic associations in our present material of TNBCs.
Geminin, a DNA replication inhibitor, is activated during cell cycle-progression by the anaphase-promotion complex (APC) leading to initiation of sister chromatid separation [77]. The specific role of geminin is to limit DNA replication and trigger sister chromatid separation and, therefore, it is considered to qualify exceptionally well as a cell cycle-specific proliferation marker [78,79,80]. In previous literature, loss of geminin expression has been observed to predict poor survival in breast cancer [81,82,83] and aggressive course of disease in the subgroup of TNBCs [84,85,86]. In our material, geminin identified TNBC patients with increased mortality among subgroups generally associated with favorable outcome, i.e. patients with node-negative disease and small tumor size. Consistent with previous literature, adverse outcome in TNBC was associated with geminin expression but the association was not linear. Emerging evidence emphasizes the multifaceted role of geminin in malignancy [78, 87]. Based on the current understanding, geminin overexpression arrests cell proliferation whereas loss of geminin may generate re-replication, predisposing cancer cells to aneuploidy and drug-resistance [81, 88].
In summary, our results emphasize the nature of TNBC as a heterogeneous disease with varying courses of disease in different age groups. Traditional clinical features do not provide optimal prognostic characterization for all TNBC patients, and young age should be considered as an additional adverse prognostic feature. Contrary to other breast cancer subtypes, proliferation does not explain for the survival differences in all age-subgroups of TNBC patients. Among the youngest patients (< 49 years at diagnosis), lack of basal differentiation predicted disease outcome. The traditional prognostic features of breast cancer, tumor size and nodal status, applied only among the oldest patient group (> 57 years at diagnosis). However, among middle-aged patients (49–57 years at diagnosis), no features indicating disease outcome could be detected in our material. The findings provide additional support for the hypothesis that young TNBC patients comprise a unique disease entity, while elderly patients represent a more coherent subgroup which, in this therapeutically challenging disease, may indicate potential regarding future targeted treatments. While the explanation for the survival deficit between different age groups in TNBC still remains unsettled, it is evident that TNBC diagnosed at a young age warrants individual therapeutic considerations, especially concerning the increasing number of patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the patients’ privacy/ethical restrictions but are available from Auria Biobank, Turku University Hospital, Turku, Finland (www.auria.fi) on reasonable request.
References
WHO Classification of Tumours Editorial Board (2019) Breast tumours. WHO classification of tumors series, vol 2, 5th edn. International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon
Lyons TG (2019) Targeted therapies for triple-negative breast cancer. Curr Treat Options Oncol 20(11):82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-019-0682-x
Zhao S, Ma D, Xiao Y, Li XM, Ma JL, Zhang H et al (2020) Molecular subtyping of triple-negative breast cancers by immunohistochemistry: molecular basis and clinical relevance. Oncologist 25(10):e1481–e1491. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0982
Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Winer EP, Gnant M, Dubsky P, Loibl S et al (2018) De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International expert consensus conference on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2017. Ann Oncol 28(8):1700–1712. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx308
Wenzel ES, Singh ATK (2018) Cell-cycle checkpoints and aneuploidy on the path to cancer. In Vivo 32(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11197
Loibl S, Poortmans P, Morrow M, Denkert C, Curigliano G (2021) Breast cancer. Lancet 397(10286):1750–1769. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32381-3
Arafah MA, Ouban A, Ameer OZ, Quek KJ (2021) Ki-67 LI expression in triple-negative breast cancer patients and its significance. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 15:11782234211016976. https://doi.org/10.1177/11782234211016977
Keam B, Im SA, Lee KH, Han SW, Oh DY, Kim JH et al (2011) Ki-67 can be used for further classification of triple negative breast cancer into two subtypes with different response and prognosis. Breast Cancer Res 13(2):R22. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2834
Wang RX, Chen S, Jin X, Shao ZM (2016) Value of Ki-67 expression in triple-negative breast cancer before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel plus carboplatin. Sci Rep 6:30091. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30091
Nishimura R, Osako T, Okumura Y, Hayashi M, Arima N (2010) Clinical significance of Ki-67 in neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer as a predictor for chemosensitivity and for prognosis. Breast Cancer 17:269–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-009-0161-5
Zhu X, Chen L, Huang B, Wang Y, Ji L, Wu J et al (2020) The prognostic and predictive potential of Ki-67 in triple-negative breast cancer. Sci Rep 10(1):225. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57094-3
Miyashita M, Ishida T, Ishida K, Tamaki K, Amari M, Watanabe M et al (2011) Histopathological subclassification of triple negative breast cancer using prognostic scoring system: five variables as candidates. Virchows Arch 458(1):65–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-010-1009-2
Munzone E, Botteri E, Sciandivasci A, Curigliano G, Nolè F, Mastropasqua M et al (2012) Prognostic value of Ki-67 labeling index in patients with node-negative, triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 134(1):277–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2040-6
Røge R, Nielsen S, Riber-Hansen R, Vyberg M (2021) Ki-67 proliferation index in breast cancer as a function of assessment method: a NordiQC experience. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 29(2):99–104. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000000846
Sun X, Kaufman PD (2018) Ki-67: more than a proliferation marker. Chromosoma 127(2):175–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00412-018-0659-8
Matthews HK, Bertoli C, de Bruin RAM (2022) Cell cycle control in cancer. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 23(1):74–88. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41580-021-00404-3
Risteski P, Jagrić M, Pavin N, Tolić IM (2021) Biomechanics of chromosome alignment at the spindle midplane. Curr Biol 31(10):R574–R585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.03.082
Potapova T, Gorbsky GJ (2017) The consequences of chromosome segregation errors in mitosis and meiosis. Biology (Basel) 6(1):12. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology6010012
Burstein HJ, Curigliano G, Thürlimann B, Weber WP, Poortmans P, Regan MM et al (2021) Customizing local and systemic therapies for women with early breast cancer: the St. Gallen International consensus guidelines for treatment of early breast cancer 2021. Ann Oncol 32(10):1216–1235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.06.023
Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ (2009) Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. Ann Oncol 20:1319–1329. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp322
Botti G, Cantile M, Collina F, Cerrone M, Sarno S, Anniciello A (2019) Morphological and pathological features of basal-like breast cancer. Transl Cancer Res 8(Suppl 5):S503–S509. https://doi.org/10.21037/tcr.2019.06.50
Repo H, Löyttyniemi E, Nykänen M, Lintunen M, Karra H, Pitkänen R et al (2016) The expression of cohesin subunit SA2 predicts breast cancer survival. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 24(9):615–621. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0000000000000240
Tuominen VJ, Ruotoistenmäki S, Viitanen A, Jumppanen M, Isola J (2010) ImmunoRatio: a publicly available web application for quantitative image analysis of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and Ki-67. Breast Cancer Res 12(4):R56. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2615
Therneau T (2022) A package for survival analysis in R. R package version 3.3–1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=survival.
Kassambara A, Kosinski M, Biece P, Scheipl F (2021) Drawing survival curves using 'ggplot2'. R package version 0.4.9. https://mran.revolutionanalytics.com/package/survminer
Dai D, Zhong Y, Wang Z, Yousafzai NA, Jin H, Wang X et al (2019) The prognostic impact of age in different molecular subtypes of breast cancer: a population-based study. PeerJ 7:e7252. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7252
Johansson ALV, Trewin CB, Hjerkind KV, Ellingjord-Dale M, Johannesen TB, Ursin G et al (2019) Breast cancer-specific survival by clinical subtype after 7 years follow-up of young and elderly women in a nationwide cohort. Int J Cancer 144(6):1251–1261. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31950
Chen HL, Zhou MQ, Tian W, Meng KX, He HF (2016) Effect of age on breast cancer patient prognoses: a population-based study using the SEER 18 database. PLoS ONE 11(10):e0165409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165409
Alabdulkareem H, Pinchinat T, Khan S, Landers A, Christos P, Simmons R et al (2018) The impact of molecular subtype on breast cancer recurrence in young women treated with contemporary adjuvant therapy. Breast J 24(2):148–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12853
Chung WP, Lee KT, Chen YP, Hsu YT, Loh ZJ, Huang CC et al (2021) The prognosis of early-stage breast cancer in extremely young female patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 100(1):e24076. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000024076
Liu Y, Xin T, Huang DY, Shen WX, Li L, Lv YJ et al (2014) Prognosis in very young women with triple-negative breast cancer: retrospective study of 216 cases. Med Oncol 31(12):222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-014-0222-2
Aine M, Boyaci C, Hartman J, Häkkinen J, Mitra S, Campos AB et al (2021) Molecular analyses of triple-negative breast cancer in the young and elderly. Breast Cancer Res 23(1):20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-021-01392-0
Lian W, Fu F, Lin Y, Lu M, Chen B, Yang P et al (2017) The impact of young age for prognosis by subtype in women with early breast cancer. Sci Rep 7(1):11625. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10414-x
Fallahpour S, Navaneelan T, De P, Borgo A (2017) Breast cancer survival by molecular subtype: a population-based analysis of cancer registry data. CMAJ Open 5(3):E734–E739. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20170030
Fredholm H, Magnusson K, Lindström LS, Garmo H, Fält SE, Lindman H et al (2016) Long-term outcome in young women with breast cancer: a population-based study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 160(1):131–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3983-9
Chollet-Hinton L, Anders CK, Tse CK, Bell MB, Yang YC, Carey LA et al (2016) Breast cancer biologic and etiologic heterogeneity by young age and menopausal status in the Carolina breast cancer study: a case-control study. Breast Cancer Res 18(1):79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-016-0736-y
Tzikas AK, Nemes S, Linderholm BK (2020) A comparison between young and old patients with triple-negative breast cancer: biology, survival and metastatic patterns. Breast Cancer Res Treat 182(3):643–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05727-x
Ryu JM, Yu J, Kim SI, Kim KS, Moon HG, Choi JE et al (2017) Different prognosis of young breast cancer patients in their 20s and 30s depending on subtype: a nationwide study from the Korean breast cancer society. Breast Cancer Res Treat 166(3):833–842. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4472-5
Kim EK, Noh WC, Han W, Noh DY (2011) Prognostic significance of young age (<35 years) by subtype based on ER, PR, and HER2 status in breast cancer: a nationwide registry-based study. World J Surg 35(6):1244–1253. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-011-1071-1
Liedtke C, Hess KR, Karn T, Rody A, Kiesel L, Hortobagyi GN et al (2013) The prognostic impact of age in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138(2):591–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2461-x
Radosa JC, Eaton A, Stempel M, Khander A, Liedtke C, Solomayer EF et al (2017) Evaluation of local and distant recurrence patterns in patients with triple-negative breast cancer according to age. Ann Surg Oncol 24(3):698–704. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5631-3
Syed BM, Green AR, Nolan CC, Morgan DA, Ellis IO, Cheung KL (2014) Biological characteristics and clinical outcome of triple negative primary breast cancer in older women - comparison with their younger counterparts. PLoS ONE 9(7):e100573. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0100573
Königsberg R, Pfeiler G, Hammerschmid N, Holub O, Glössmann K, Larcher-Senn J et al (2016) Breast cancer subtypes in patients aged 70 years and older. Cancer Invest 34(5):197–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07357907.2016.1182184
Thike AA, Iqbal J, Cheok PY, Chong AP, Tse GM, Tan B et al (2010) Triple negative breast cancer: outcome correlation with immunohistochemical detection of basal markers. Am J Surg Pathol 34(7):956–964. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e3181e02f45
Zhu W, Perez EA, Hong R, Li Q, Xu B (2015) Age-related disparity in immediate prognosis of patients with triple-negative breast cancer: a population-based study from SEER cancer registries. PLoS ONE 10(5):e0128345. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128345
Fleurier C, De Wit A, Pilloy J, Boivin L, Jourdan ML, Arbion F (2020) Outcome of patients with breast cancer in the oldest old (≥80 years). Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 244:66–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.11.009
Heinävaara S, Sarkeala T, Anttila A (2016) Impact of organised mammography screening on breast cancer mortality in a case-control and cohort study. Br J Cancer 114(9):1038–1044. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.68
Kaplan HG, Malmgren JA, Atwood MK (2017) Triple-negative breast cancer in the elderly: prognosis and treatment. Breast J 23(6):630–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12813
Aapro M, Wildiers H (2012) Triple-negative breast cancer in the older population. Ann Oncol 23(Suppl 6):vi52–vi55. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds189
Gulbahce HE, Bernard PS, Weltzien EK, Factor RE, Kushi LH, Caan BJ et al (2018) Differences in molecular features of triple-negative breast cancers based on the age at diagnosis. Cancer 124(24):4676–4684. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31776
Qiu JD, Xue XY, Li R, Wang JD (2016) Clinicopathological features and prognosis of triple-negative breast cancer: a comparison between younger (<60) and elderly (≥60) patients. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 25(6):1065–1075. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12346
Borri F, Granaglia A (2021) Pathology of triple negative breast cancer. Semin Cancer Biol 72:136–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcancer.2020.06.005
Dogra A, Mehta A, Doval DC (2020) Are basal-like and non-basal-like triple-negative breast cancers really different? J Oncol. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4061063
Nunnery SE, Mayer IA, Balko JM (2021) Triple-negative breast cancer: breast tumors with an identity crisis. Cancer J 27(1):2–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/PPO.0000000000000494
Mueller C, Haymond A, Davis JB, Williams A, Espina V (2018) Protein biomarkers for subtyping breast cancer and implications for future research. Expert Rev Proteomics 15(2):131–152. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789450.2018.1421071
Sutton LM, Han JS, Molberg KH, Sarode VR, Cao D, Rakheja D et al (2010) Intratumoral expression level of epidermal growth factor receptor and cytokeratin 5/6 is significantly associated with nodal and distant metastases in patients with basal-like triple-negative breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol 134(5):782–787. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPRMD3ARUO5WPN
Mills MN, Yang GQ, Oliver DE, Liveringhouse CL, Ahmed KA, Orman AG et al (2018) Histologic heterogeneity of triple negative breast cancer: a national cancer centre database analysis. Eur J Cancer 98:48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.04.011
Wang DY, Jiang Z, Ben-David Y, Woodgett JR, Zacksenhaus E (2019) Molecular stratification within triple-negative breast cancer subtypes. Sci Rep 9(1):19107. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55710-w
Agostinetto E, Giordano L, Torrisi R, De Sanctis R, Masci G, Losurdo A et al (2020) Biological characteristics and long-term outcomes in node-negative breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 20(4):e481–e489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2020.02.011
Pan Y, Yuan Y, Liu G, Wei Y (2017) P53 and Ki-67 as prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer patients. PLoS ONE 12(2):e0172324. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172324
Finnish Cancer Registry. Breast cancer screening programme in Finland. Annual review 2021. https://syoparekisteri.fi/assets/files/2021/10/The_Breast_Cancer_Screening_Programme_Annual_Review_2021.pdf. Accessed 22 July 2022
Alanko J, Tanner M, Vanninen R, Auvinen A, Isola J (2021) Triple-negative and HER2-positive breast cancers found by mammography screening show excellent prognosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 187(1):267–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-06060-z
Yoon J, Knapp G, Quan ML, Bouchard-Fortier A (2021) Cancer-specific outcomes in the elderly with triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review. Curr Oncol 28(4):2337–2345. https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol28040215
Holm-Rasmussen EV, Jensen MB, Balslev E, Kroman N, Tvedskov TF (2015) Reduced risk of axillary lymphatic spread in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 149(1):229–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-014-3225-y
Nishimura R, Osako T, Okumura Y, Nakano M, Otsuka H, Fujisue M et al (2022) Triple negative breast cancer: an analysis of the subtypes and the effects of menopausal status on invasive breast cancer. J Clin Med 11(9):2331. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11092331
Wang XX, Jiang YZ, Li JJ, Song CG, Shao ZM (2016) Effect of nodal status on clinical outcomes of triple-negative breast cancer: a population-based study using the SEER 18 database. Oncotarget 7(29):46636–46645. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.9432
Yin L, Shuang H, Sheng C, Liang H, Sun XJ, Yang WT et al (2018) The prognostic value of nodal staging in triple-negative breast cancer - a cohort from China. Sci Rep 8(1):9007. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23999-8
Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, Hanna WM, Kahn HK, Sawka CA et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 13(15 Pt 1):4429–4434. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-3045
Hernandez-Aya LF, Chavez-Macgregor M, Lei X, Meric-Bernstam F, Buchholz TA, Hsu L et al (2011) Nodal status and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(19):2628–2634. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.32.1877
Ma D, Jiang YZ, Xiao Y, Xie MD, Zhao S, Jin X et al (2020) Integrated molecular profiling of young and elderly patients with triple-negative breast cancer indicates different biological bases and clinical management strategies. Cancer 126(14):3209–3218. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32922
Zhang G, Shi Z, Liu L, Yuan H, Pan Z, Li W et al (2021) The prognostic relevance of p53 and Ki-67 to chemotherapy sensitivity and prognosis in triple-negative breast cancer. Transl Cancer Res 10(2):1082–1087. https://doi.org/10.21037/tcr-21-180
Zenzola V, Cabezas-Quintario MA, Arguelles M, Pérez-Fernández E, Izarzugaza Y, Correa A et al (2018) Prognostic value of Ki-67 according to age in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Clin Transl Oncol 20(11):1448–1454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12094-018-1877-5
Nielsen TO, Leung SCY, Rimm DL, Dodson A, Acs B, Badve S et al (2021) Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: updated recommendations from the international Ki67 in breast cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst 113(7):808–819. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaa201
Petrelli F, Viale G, Cabiddu M, Barni S (2015) Prognostic value of different cut-off levels of Ki-67 in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 64,196 patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 153(3):477–491. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3559-0
Miller I, Min M, Yang C, Tian C, Gookin S, Carter D et al (2018) Ki67 is a graded rather than a binary marker of proliferation versus quiescence. Cell Rep 24(5):1105-1112.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2018.06.110
Repo H, Löyttyniemi E, Kurki S, Kallio L, Kuopio T, Talvinen K et al (2020) A prognostic model based on cell-cycle control predicts outcome of breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer 20(1):558. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-020-07045-3
Ma J, Shi Q, Cui G, Sheng H, Botuyan MV, Zhou Y et al (2021) SPOP mutation induces replication over-firing by impairing geminin ubiquitination and triggers replication catastrophe upon ATR inhibition. Nat Commun 12(1):5779. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26049-6
Karamitros D, Kotantaki P, Lygerou Z, Veiga-Fernandes H, Pachnis V, Kioussis D et al (2010) Life without geminin. Cell Cycle 9(16):3181–3185. https://doi.org/10.4161/cc.9.16.12554
Champeris Tsaniras S, Delinasios GJ, Petropoulos M, Panagopoulos A, Anagnostopoulos AK, Villiou M et al (2019) DNA replication inhibitor geminin and retinoic acid signaling participate in complex interactions associated with pluripotency. Cancer Genom Proteom 16(6):593–601. https://doi.org/10.21873/cgp.20162
Hernández-Carralero E, Cabrera E, Alonso-de Vega I, Hernández-Pérez S, Smits VAJ, Freire R (2018) Control of DNA replication initiation by ubiquitin. Cells 7(10):146. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells7100146
VanGenderen C, Harkness TAA, Arnason TG (2020) The role of anaphase promoting complex activation, inhibition and substrates in cancer development and progression. Aging 12(15):15818–15855. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.103792
Sundara Rajan S, Hanby AM, Horgan K, Thygesen HH, Speirs V (2014) The potential utility of geminin as a predictive biomarker in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 143(1):91–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2786-5
Joshi S, Watkins J, Gazinska P, Brown JP, Gillett CE, Grigoriadis A et al (2015) Digital imaging in the immunohistochemical evaluation of the proliferation markers Ki67, MCM2 and geminin, in early breast cancer, and their putative prognostic value. BMC Cancer 15:546. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1531-3
Sami E, Bogan D, Molinolo A, Koziol J, ElShamy WM (2022) The molecular underpinning of geminin-overexpressing triple-negative breast cancer cells homing specifically to lungs. Cancer Gene Ther 29(3–4):304–325. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41417-021-00311-x
Ryan D, Koziol J, ElShamy WM (2019) Targeting AXL and RAGE to prevent geminin overexpression-induced triple-negative breast cancer metastasis. Sci Rep 9(1):19150. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55702-w
Ananthula S, Sinha A, El Gassim M, Batth S, Marshall GD Jr, Gardner LH et al (2016) Geminin overexpression-dependent recruitment and crosstalk with mesenchymal stem cells enhance aggressiveness in triple negative breast cancers. Oncotarget 7(15):20869–20889. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.8029
Petropoulou C, Kotantaki P, Karamitros D, Taraviras S (2008) Cdt1 and geminin in cancer: markers or triggers of malignant transformation? Front Biosci 13:4485–4494. https://doi.org/10.2741/3018
Gardner L, Malik R, Shimizu Y, Mullins N, ElShamy WM (2011) Geminin overexpression prevents the completion of topoisomerase IIα chromosome decatenation, leading to aneuploidy in human mammary epithelial cells. Breast Cancer Res 13(3):R53. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2884
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Mrs. Sinikka Collanus from Institute of Biomedicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland, for technical assistance.
Funding
Open Access funding provided by University of Turku (UTU) including Turku University Central Hospital. This work was supported by the Cancer Society of South-West Finland, the Medical Society of Finland (11–1798-10), Perkléns Foundation (20210004), Juhani Aho Foundation, and Turku University Hospital (E3027).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by HV, KK, TAA, HR, KT and PK. The first draft of the manuscript was written by HV and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of institutional and national research committees approved by the Regional Ethical Review Boards of Turku University Hospital and Auria Biobank, Turku, Finland and Finnish Cancer Registry, Cancer Society of Finland, Helsinki, Finland (permit numbers AB15-9859 and TK-53-716-16) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Vihervuori, H., Korpinen, K., Autere, T.A. et al. Varying outcomes of triple-negative breast cancer in different age groups–prognostic value of clinical features and proliferation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 196, 471–482 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06767-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06767-1