Advertisement

Clinical and Translational Oncology

, Volume 14, Issue 6, pp 481–485 | Cite as

Behaviour of breast cancer molecular subtypes through tumour progression

  • Carlos A. CastanedaEmail author
  • Eva Andrés
  • Carmen Barcena
  • Henry L. Gómez
  • Hernán Cortés-Funés
  • Eva Ciruelos
Research Articles

Abstract

Introduction

Breast cancer (BC) becomes more aggressive throughout disease progression. Clinical stage is correlated with patient outcome. We hypothesised that BC molecular subtypes are associated with a poor prognosis in advanced clinical stages. We analysed the distribution and behaviour of molecular subtypes at different BC tumour size and variation of molecular subtype in recurrent lesions.

Patients and methods

We studied 1647 consecutive patients with non-metastatic invasive and microinvasive (Tmi) BC treated from January 1997 to December 2007. Patients were categorised by tumour size and molecular subtype. A chi-square method was used for multiple group comparisons. Kaplan-Meier product limit method was used to calculate overall survival and disease-free survival.

Results

Median follow-up was 7.2 years. For patients with invasive BC the median age was 56 years. Four hundred and fifteen patients recurred and 225 died. Larger tumours were more frequently of triple-negative (TN) subtype than small ones or Tmi lesions. Any molecular subtype change from primary tumour to recurrent lesions is more likely to happen from a good prognosis to a subtype of worse prognosis than the opposite. Larger tumours of luminal A, luminal B and TN, but not HER2 subtype, are more likely to carry aggressive markers and to have worse outcomes than small ones.

Conclusion

We found accumulation of TN subtype, migration to a poor prognosis subtype and increasing aggressiveness of luminal and TN subtypes throughout tumour progression. Tumours belonging to the HER2 subtype behave aggressively regardless of the primary size.

Keywords

Breast cancer Subtypes Size HER2 Grade Lymph node Primary Metastases Variation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Hanahan D, Weinberg RA (2011) Hallmarks of cancer: the next generation. Cell 144:646–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Singletary SE, Allred C, Ashley P et al (2002) Revision of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:3628–3636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE (1989) Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 63:181–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Contesso G, Mouriesse H, Friedman S et al (1987) The importance of histologic grade in long-term prognosis of breast cancer: a study of 1,010 patients, uniformly treated at the Institut Gustave-Roussy. J Clin Oncol 5:1378–1386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 U S A 98:10869–10874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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 101:736–750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295:2492–2502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gomez HL, Castaneda CA, Vigil CE et al (2010) Prognostic effect of hormone receptor status in early HER2 positive breast cancer patients. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther 3:109–115PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tavassoli FA, Devilee P (eds) (2003) Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. In: World Health Organization classification of tumours. IARC Press, LyonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19:403–410. Comment in 2002;41:151–153PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rosen PP, Oberman HA (1993) Tumors of the mammary gland. In: Atlas of tumor pathology. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wolff 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 25:118–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mallmann P (2006) [Breast cancer: adjuvant therapy with trastuzumab: herceptin adjuvant (HERA) Trial Study, B-31- and N9831-Study]. Internist (Berl) 47:1183–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Foulkes WD, Grainge MJ, Rakha EA et al (2009) Tumor size is an unreliable predictor of prognosis in basal-like breast cancers and does not correlate closely with lymph node status. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117:199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Litton JK, Broglio KR et al (2009) High risk of recurrence for patients with breast cancer who have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, node-negative tumors 1 cm or smaller. J Clin Oncol 27:5700–5706PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chia S, Norris B, Speers C et al (2008) Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 overexpression as a prognostic factor in a large tissue microarray series of node-negative breast cancers. J Clin Oncol 26:5697–5704PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dent R, Hanna WM, Trudeau M et al (2009) Time to disease recurrence in basal-type breast cancers: effects of tumor size and lymph node status. Cancer 115:4917–4923PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bogina G, Bortesi L, Marconi M et al (2011) Comparison of hormonal receptor and HER-2 status between breast primary tumours and relapsing tumours: clinical implications of progesterone receptor loss. Virchows Arch 459:1–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Singletary SE, Greene FL (2003) Revision of breast cancer staging: the 6th edition of the TNM Classification. Semin Surg Oncol 21:53–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Curigliano G, Viale G, Bagnardi V et al (2009) Clinical relevance of HER2 overexpression/ amplification in patients with small tumor size and node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:5693–5699PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Burstein HJ, Winer EP (2009) Refining therapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: T stands for trastuzumab, tumor size, and treatment strategy. J Clin Oncol 27:5671–5673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Desmedt C, Haibe-Kains B, Wirapati P et al (2008) Biological processes associated with breast cancer clinical outcome depend on the molecular subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 14:5158–5165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hernandez-Aya LF, Chavez-Macgregor M, Lei X et al (2011) Nodal status and clinical outcomes in a large cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29:2628–2634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Comen EA, Norton L, Massague J (2011) Breast cancer tumor size, nodal status, and prognosis: biology trumps anatomy. J Clin Oncol 29:2610–2612PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Foulkes WD, Reis-Filho JS, Narod SA (2010) Tumor size and survival in breast cancer: a reappraisal. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 7:348–353PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FESEO 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos A. Castaneda
    • 1
    Email author
  • Eva Andrés
    • 2
  • Carmen Barcena
    • 2
  • Henry L. Gómez
    • 1
  • Hernán Cortés-Funés
    • 2
  • Eva Ciruelos
    • 2
  1. 1.Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades NeoplásicasLimaPerú
  2. 2.Hospital Universitario 12 de OctubreMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations