Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Utilizing prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer

  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Opinion statement

In order to make optimal treatment recommendations for patients with early-stage breast cancer, it is essential to accurately determine the patient’s underlying risk of disease recurrence and choose a therapy to which the individual is most likely to respond. Lymph node status, tumor size, histopathologic features including tumor type and grade, and hormone receptor status are well-accepted prognostic factors related to breast cancer. In addition, hormone receptor status is a very strong predictor of response to hormonal therapy. However, our currently accepted prognostic and predictive factors fall short and there is a critical need to more accurately identify those most likely to require or benefit from particular therapies. Attention has therefore focused on the determination of novel prognostic and predictive factors. The most promising new factor is the level of urokinase plasminogen activator and its inhibitor plasminogen activator inhibitor. Other putative factors include proliferative rate, the presence of lymphatic or vascular invasion, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2/neu or erbB-2) positivity, the presence of micrometastases in lymph nodes or bone marrow, and gene expression profile by microarray analysis, and by RNA-based methodology. Data regarding potential new prognostic factors are constantly emerging. These studies are frequently challenging to interpret as they are often retrospective, based on relatively small numbers of patients, include a mix of treated and untreated women, and often do not control for other known prognostic factors. Therefore, new data must be interpreted with caution.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. American Cancer Society:Cancer Facts & Figures:2004. Surveillance Research, 2004.

  2. Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al.:Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin. 2004, 54:8–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE:Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989, 63:181–187. One of the largest analysis of the SEER database showing the significance of axillary lymph node status and tumor size as powerful predictors of prognosis in breast cancer.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nemoto T, Vana J, Bedwani RN, et al.:Management and survival of female breast cancer:results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Cancer 1980, 45:2917–2924.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rieg EM, Kosary CL, et al.:SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2001. In National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD; 2004.

  6. Rosen PP, Groshen S, Kinne DW, Norton L:Factors influencing prognosis in node-negative breast carcinoma:analysis of 767 T1N0M0/T2N0M0 patients with long-term follow-up. J Clin Oncol 1993, 11:2090–2100.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Diab SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Libby A, et al.:Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of tubular and mucinous breast carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17:1442–1448.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Wong SL, Chao C, Edwards MJ, et al.:Frequency of sentinel lymph node metastases in patients with favorable breast cancer histologic subtypes [discussion]. Am J Surg. 2002, 184:492–498.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Fisher B, Redmond C, Fisher ER, Caplan R:Relative worth of estrogen or progesterone receptor and pathologic characteristics of differentiation as indicators of prognosis in node negative breast cancer patients:findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-06. J Clin Oncol 1988, 6:1076–1087.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hilsenbeck SG, Ravdin PM, de Moor CA, et al.:Timedependence of hazard ratios for prognostic factors in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998, 52:227–237.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group:Tamoxifen for early breast cancer:an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 1998, 351:1451–1467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Smith RE:A review of selective estrogen receptor modulators and national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project clinical trials. Semin Oncol 2003, 30(Suppl):4–13.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bardou VJ, Arpino G, Elledge RM, et al.:Progesterone receptor status significantly improves outcome prediction over estrogen receptor status alone for adjuvant endocrine therapy in two large breast cancer databases. J Clin Oncol 2003, 21:1973–1979.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Bloom HJ, Richardson WW:Histological grading and prognosis in breast cancer; a study of 1409 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer 1957, 11:359–377.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Elston CW, Ellis IO:Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer I. The value of histologic grade in breast cancer:experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991, 19:403–410.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Le Doussal V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Friedman S, et al.:Prognostic value of histologic-grade nuclear components of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR). An improved score modification based on a multivariate analysis of 1262 invasive ductal breast carcinomas. Cancer 1989, 64:1914–1921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P, et al.:Revision of the American Joint Committee on cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002, 20:3628–3636.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Neville AM, Bettelheim R, Gelber RD, et al.:Factors predicting treatment responsiveness and prognosis in node-negative breast cancer. The International (Ludwig) Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1992, 10:696–705.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Lauria R, Perrone F, Carlomagno C, et al.:The prognostic value of lymphatic and blood vessel invasion in operable breast cancer. Cancer 1995, 76:1772–1778.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Toikkanen S, Helin H, Isola J, Joensuu H:Prognostic significance of HER-2 oncoprotein expression in breast cancer:a 30-year follow-up. J Clin Oncol 1992, 10:1044–1048.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Gasparini G, Gullick WJ, Maluta S, et al.:c-erbB-3 and c-erbB-2 protein expression in node-negative breast carcinoma--an immunocytochemical study. Eur J Cancer 1994, 30A:16–22.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Menard S, Valagussa P, Pilotti S, et al.:Response to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in lymph node-positive breast cancer according to HER-2 overexpression and other tumor biologic variables. J Clin Oncol 2001, 19:329–335.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Yamauchi H, Stearns V, Hayes DF:When is a tumor marker ready for prime time? A case study of c-erbB-2 as a predictive factor in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001, 19:2334–2356. A comprehensive review of the prognostic and predictive role of Her-2/neu receptor status in breast cancer treatment.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Press MF, Bernstein L, Thomas PA, et al.:HER-2/neu gene amplification characterized by fluorescence in situ hybridization:poor prognosis in node-negative breast carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 1997, 15:2894–2904.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Joensuu H, Isola J, Lundin M, et al.:Amplification of erbB2 and erbB2 expression are superior to estrogen receptor status as risk factors for distant recurrence in pT1N0M0 breast cancer:a nationwide populationbased study. Clin Cancer Res 2003, 9:923–930.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Seshadri R, Leong AS, McCaul K, et al.:Relationship between p53 gene abnormalities and other tumour characteristics in breast-cancer prognosis. Int J Cancer 1996, 69:135–141.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Paik S, Bryant J, Tan-Chiu E, et al.:HER-2 and choice of adjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer:National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-15. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000, 92:1991–1998.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Elledge RM, Green S, Ciocca D, et al.:HER-2 expression and response to tamoxifen in estrogen receptorpositive breast cancer:a Southwest Oncology Group Study. Clin Cancer Res 1998, 4:7–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. De Placido S, De Laurentiis M, Carlomagno C, et al.:Twenty-year results of the Naples GUN randomized trial:predictive factors of adjuvant tamoxifen efficacy in early breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2003, 9:1039–1046.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ellis MJ, Coop A, Singh B, et al.:Letrozole is more effective neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than tamoxifen for ErbB-1- and/or ErbB-2-positive, estrogen receptorpositive primary breast cancer:evidence from a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2001, 19:3808–3816.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Duffy MJ, Duggan C:The urokinase plasminogen activator system:a rich source of tumour markers for the individualised management of patients with cancer. Clin Biochem 2004, 37:541–548. An excellent review on the role of uPA and PAI-1 breast cancer and other malignancies.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Duffy MJ, O’Grady P, Devaney D, et al.:Urokinaseplasminogen activator, a marker for aggressive breast carcinomas [preliminary report]. Cancer 1988, 62:531–533.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Janicke F, Schmitt M, Graeff H:Clinical relevance of the urokinase-type and tissue-type plasminogen activators and of their type 1 inhibitor in breast cancer. Semin Thromb Hemost 1991, 17:303–312.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Look MP, van Putten WL, Duffy MJ, et al.:Pooled analysis of prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator and its inhibitor PAI-1 in 8377 breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002, 94:116–128. A large pooled analysis from the EORTC of 8377 breast cancer patients from 18 datasets in nine European countries followed for over 6 years showing uPA/PAI-1 to be second only to nodal status in predicting poor relapse-free and overall survival.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Hayes DF, Bast RC, Desch CE, et al.:Tumor marker utility grading system:a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996, 88:1456–1466.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Janicke F, Prechtl A, Thomssen C, et al.:Randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial in high-risk, lymph node-negative breast cancer patients identified by urokinase-type plasminogen activator and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001, 93:913–920.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Harbeck N, Kates RE, Gauger K, et al.:Urokinase-type plasminogen activator (uPA) and its inhibitor PAI-I:novel tumor-derived factors with a high-prognostic and predictive impact in breast cancer. Thromb Haemost 2004, 91:450–456.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Harbeck N, Kates RE, Look MP, et al.:Enhanced benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients classified high-risk according to urokinasetype plasminogen activator (uPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 (n=3424). Cancer Res 2002, 62:4617–4622.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Abraha RS TC, Harbeck N:Micromethod for determination of uPA and PAI-1 from preoperative coreneedle biopsies in breast cancer. Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, 2003. San Antonio:TX; 2003.

  40. Wenger CR, Clark GM:S-phase fraction and breast cancer—a decade of experience. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998, 51:255–265.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Bryant J, Fisher B, Gunduz N, et al.:S-phase fraction combined with other patient and tumor characteristics for the prognosis of node-negative, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1998, 51:239–253.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Silvestrini R, Daidone MG, Luisi A, et al.:Biologic and clinicopathologic factors as indicators of specific relapse types in node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995, 13:697–704.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Rudolph P, Olsson H, Bonatz G, et al.:Correlation between p53, c-erbB-2, and topoisomerase II-a expression, DNA ploidy, hormonal receptor status, and proliferation in 356 node-negative breast carcinomas:prognostic implications. J Pathol 1999, 187:207–216.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Cote RJ, Peterson HF, Chaiwun B, et al.:Role of immunohistochemical detection of lymph-node metastases in management of breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group. Lancet 1999, 354:896–900.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Cody HS, 3rd, Borgen PI, Tan LK:Redefining prognosis in node-negative breast cancer:can sentinel lymph node biopsy raise the threshold for systemic adjuvant therapy? Ann Surg Oncol 2004, 11(Suppl):227–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Millis RR, Springall R, Lee AH, et al.:Occult axillary lymph node metastases are of no prognostic significance in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 2002, 86:396–401.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Hansen NM GB, Te W, Brennan ML, et al.:Clinical significance of axillary micrometastases in breast cancer:How small is too small [abstract]? Proc ASCO 2001.

  48. Alleyne R BC, Holmes DR, Nakamura SK, et al.:The impact of immunohistochemistry (IHC) on axillary nodal positivity [abstract]. Paper presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio, TX; December 11–14, 2002.

  49. Chagpar AB ML, Sahin A, Ross MI, et al.:Clinical outcome of node negative breast cancer patients with micrometastatic disease by immunohistochemistry. Proc ASCO 2003.

  50. Braun S, Pantel K, Muller P, et al.:Cytokeratin-positive cells in the bone marrow and survival of patients with stage I, II, or III breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2000, 342:525–533. Analysis by IHC of bone marrow micrometastases demonstrating a significant impact on overall survival and diseasefree survival.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Wiedswang G, Borgen E, Karesen R, et al.:Detection of isolated tumor cells in bone marrow is an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003, 21:3469–3478.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Gebauer G, Fehm T, Merkle E, et al.:Micrometastases in axillary lymph nodes and bone marrow of lymph node-negative breast cancer patients—prognostic relevance after 10 years. Anticancer Res 2003, 23:4319–4324.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Mansi JL, Gogas H, Bliss JM, et al.:Outcome of primary-breast-cancer patients with micrometastases:a longterm follow-up study. Lancet 1999, 354:197–202.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, vande Vijver MJ, et al.:Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002, 415:530–536. This validation study demonstrated that the prognostic profile based on gene expression signature outperformed standard breast cancer prognostic tools such as St. Gallen’s criteria and NIH criteria.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, et al.:A geneexpression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002, 347:1999–2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, et al.:Meeting highlights:International Consensus Panel on the treatment of primary breast cancer. Seventh international conference on adjuvant therapy of primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001, 19:3817–3827.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Eifel P, Axelson JA, Costa J, et al.:National Institutes of Health Consensus Development conference statement:adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1–3, 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001, 93:979–989.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Paik S SS, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, et al.:Multigene RTPCR assay for predicting recurrence in node-negative breast cancer patients-NSABP studies B-20 and B-14 [abstract]. Paper presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium. San Antonio, TX; 2003.

  59. Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO:The Nottingham Prognostic Index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1992, 22:207–219.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Kattan MW, Giri D, Panageas KS, et al.:A tool for predicting breast carcinoma mortality in women who do not receive adjuvant therapy. Cancer 2004, 101:2509–2515.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Olivotto I:An independent population-based validation of the adjuvant decision-aid for stage I-II breast cancer [abstract]. Proc ASCO 2004.

  62. Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, et al.:Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001, 19:980–991. This article describes the development of an online computer model to assess the risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality in the adjuvant setting, and predicts the impact of various treatment modalities.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgetown University Medical Center, Lombardi Cancer Center, 3800 Reservoir Road, 20007, Washington, DC, USA

    Deepa S. Subramaniam (MD)

Authors
  1. Deepa S. Subramaniam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudine Isaacs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Subramaniam, D.S., Isaacs, C. Utilizing prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer. Curr. Treat. Options in Oncol. 6, 147–159 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-005-0022-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-005-0022-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation