Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Differences in clinicopatholgic characteristics and risk of mortality between the triple positive and ER+/PR+/HER2− breast cancer subtypes

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study compared the demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics and risk of mortality between the triple positive (TP) and ER+/PR+/HER2− breast cancer subtypes.

Methods

Cases of first primary female invasive TP and ER+/PR+/HER2− breast cancer were obtained from the California Cancer Registry. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare differences in factors associated with the TP versus the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype. Cox regression was used to compute the adjusted risk of breast cancer-specific mortality of the TP versus ER+/PR+/HER2−.

Results

The odds of TP versus ER+/PR+/HER2− were higher with advanced stage, high grade, low SES, ≤ 45 years of age (OR 1.48; CI 1.40–1.55), black (OR 1.11; CI 1.02–1.21), Asian/Pacific Islander (OR 1.15; CI 1.09–1.22), and uninsured (OR 1.42; CI 1.15–1.73). Unadjusted survival analysis indicated worse survival for the TP when compared with the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype. However, adjusted risk of mortality for the TP subtype was not statistically significantly worse than the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype.

Conclusions

Young age, advanced stage and grade, low SES, black and API race, and lack of health insurance are more common in the TP subtype than in the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype. However the risk of mortality between these two subtypes is similar.

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.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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 J 15:593–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 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 109:1721–1728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyle P (2012) Triple-negative breast cancer: epidemiological considerations and recommendations. Ann Oncol 23(Suppl 6):vi7–12

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Liao HY, Zhang WW, Sun JY, Li FY, He ZY, Wu SG (2018) The clinicopathological features and survival outcomes of different histological subtypes in triple-negative breast cancer. J Cancer 9:296–303

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295:2492–2502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Parise CA, Caggiano V (2017) Risk factors associated with the triple-negative breast cancer subtype within four race/ethnicities. Breast Cancer Res Treat 163:151–158

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:736–750

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Urru SAM, Gallus S, Bosetti C et al (2018) Clinical and pathological factors influencing survival in a large cohort of triple-negative breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer 18:56

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhao S, Ma D, Xiao Y, Jiang YZ, Shao ZM (2018) Clinicopathologic features and prognoses of different histologic types of triple-negative breast cancer: a large population-based analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(4):420–428

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fritz AG (2000) International classification of diseases for oncology: ICD-O, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp. vi, 239

    Google Scholar 

  12. California Department of Public, Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch (2008) Cancer reporting in California: abstracting and coding procedures for hospitals. California cancer reporting system standards, vol. I. California Department of Public, Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch, Sacramento

    Google Scholar 

  13. ICD10Data.com. http://www.icd10.com. Accessed Jan 2016

  14. DAKO HERCEPTest® 2019 [March, 2019]; 11th: Available from: https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/packageinsert/public/PD04086US_01.pdf.

  15. PathVision HER-2 DNA Probe Kit Package Insert. 2016 [March, 2019]; Available from: https://www.molecular.abbott/us/en/products/oncology/pathvysion-her-2-dna-probe-kit

  16. American Community Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/. Accessed Jan 2016

  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 12:703–711

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Clarke CA, Glaser SL, Keegan TH, Stroup A (2005) Neighborhood socioeconomic status and Hodgkin’s lymphoma incidence in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 14:1441–1447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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 107:1189–1195

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 Biomark Prev 16:546–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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 112:737–747

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 112:2011–2020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 21:1721–1730

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Telli ML, Chang ET, Kurian AW et al (2011) Asian ethnicity and breast cancer subtypes: a study from the California Cancer Registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127:471–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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 118:2516–2524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hosmer D, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  28. IBM Corp (2012) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, vol 21.0. IBM Corp., Armonk

    Google Scholar 

  29. Alqaisi A, Chen L, Romond E et al (2014) Impact of estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) co-expression on breast cancer disease characteristics: implications for tumor biology and research. Breast Cancer Res Treat 148:437–444

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Alwan NAS, Mualla FH, Al Naqash M, Kathum S, Tawfiq FN, Nadhir S (2017) Clinical and pathological characteristics of triple positive breast cancer among Iraqi patients. Gulf J Oncol 1:51–60

    Google Scholar 

  31. Parise CA, Caggiano V (2017) Risk of mortality of node-negative, ER/PR/HER2 breast cancer subtypes in T1, T2, and T3 tumors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:743–750

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, Marotti J et al (2008) Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 10:R67

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Ades F, Zardavas D, Bozovic-Spasojevic I et al (2014) Luminal B breast cancer: molecular characterization, clinical management, and future perspectives. J Clin Oncol 32:2794–2803

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bediaga NG, Beristain E, Calvo B et al (2016) Luminal B breast cancer subtype displays a dicotomic epigenetic pattern. SpringerPlus 5:623

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Bhargava R, Dabbs DJ (2008) Luminal B breast tumors are not HER2 positive. Breast Cancer Res 10:404; author reply 5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS et al (2011) Strategies for subtypes-dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 22:1736–1747

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:10869–10874

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J et al (2003) Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8418–8423

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM et al (2003) Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:10393–10398

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Creighton CJ (2012) The molecular profile of luminal B breast cancer. Biologics 6:289–297

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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

Disclaimer

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.

Funding

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sutter Institute for Medical Research, 2801 Capitol Ave, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA, 95816, USA

    Carol A. Parise & Vincent Caggiano

Authors
  1. Carol A. Parise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Vincent Caggiano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CAP and VC equally contributed to the conceptualization, analysis, and writing of this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carol A. Parise.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

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.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parise, C.A., Caggiano, V. Differences in clinicopatholgic characteristics and risk of mortality between the triple positive and ER+/PR+/HER2− breast cancer subtypes. Cancer Causes Control 30, 417–424 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-019-01152-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-019-01152-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation