Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A study of high-nuclear-grade breast cancer in Thailand: subclassification and correlation with prognostic factors and immunohistochemical study

  • Special Feature
  • Breast pathology in Asia
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To classify high-nuclear-grade breast cancer (BC) into typical medullary carcinoma (TMC), atypical medullary carcinoma (AMC), and non-medullary carcinoma (NMC), and luminal A, luminal B, and HER2, and to correlate these tumors with other prognostic factors.

Materials and methods

A retrospective study reviewing high-nuclear-grade BCs. The patients’ age, histologic types, various histologic features, axillary lymph node (ALN) status, and results of immunohistochemical (IHC) study were recorded and analyzed.

Results

One-hundred and eighty-one cases of high-nuclear-grade BCs were reviewed and categorized into IDC, NOS (140, 77.3%), TMC (1, 0.6%), AMC (21, 11.6%), and others (19, 10.5%). The median age was younger in AMC than in NMC patients. NMC patients had a higher incidence of LVI and ALN metastasis with involvement of more than four lymph nodes (p = 0.006) whereas AMC patients had a higher mitotic index. Forty-six (35.9%) cases were triple-negative (TN), including 1 (100%), 7 (53.9%) and 38 (33.3%) cases of TMC, AMC, and NMC, respectively. AMC had a significantly lower number of node metastases (p = 0.006) than NMC; whereas TN had higher MI (p = 0.001) than non-TN. The non-TN group was subclassified into luminal A, luminal B, and HER2. Of these, TN and luminal B occurred at younger age (p = 0.01) whereas TN and luminal A had a higher mitotic count. TN had lower incidence of LNM including higher number of LNM.

Conclusion

Overall, AMC-TN group showed a basal-like prognostic factor expression. NMC may be separated into TN and non-TN, with possibly different behavior. These sub-groupings should continue to be used. Interestingly, luminal A in our study tended to correlate with poor prognostic factors, thus, luminal A with high nuclear grade may not be representative of the usual luminal group profiles.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gallagher HS. Pathologic types of breast cancer: their prognoses. Cancer. 1984;53:623–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Le Doussal V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Friedman S, Hacene K, Spyratos F, Brunet M. 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;64:1914–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Henson DE, Ries L, Freedman LS, Carriaga M. Relationship among outcome, stage of disease, and histologic grade for 22, 616 cases of breast cancer. The basis for a prognostic index. Cancer. 1991;68:2142–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Northridge ME, Rhoads GG, Wartenberg D, Koffman D. The importance of histologic type on breast cancer survival. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:283–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ridolfi RL, Rosen PP, Port A, Kinne D, Mike V. Medullary carcinoma of the breast: a clinicopathologic study with 10 year follow-up. Cancer. 1977;40:1365–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jacquemier J, Padovani L, Rabayrol L, Lakhani SR, Penault-Llorca F, Denoux Y, et al. European Working Group for Breast Screening Pathology; Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Typical medullary breast carcinomas have a basal/myoepithelial phenotype. J Pathol. 2005;207(3):260–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bertucci F, Finetti P, Cervera N, Charafe-Jauffret E, Mamessier E, Adélaïde J, et al. Gene expression profiling shows medullary breast cancer is a subgroup of basal breast cancers. Cancer Res. 2006;66(9):4636–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Rodriguez-Pinilla SM, Rodriguez-Gil Y, Moreno-Bueno G, Sarrio D, Martin-Guijarro Mdel C, Hernandez L, et al. Sporadic invasive breast carcinomas with medullary features display a basal-like phenotype: an immunohistochemical and gene amplification study. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(4):501–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rapin V, Contesso G, Mouriesse H, Bertin F, Lacombe MJ, Piekarski JD, et al. Medullary breast carcinoma. A reevaluation of 95 cases of breast cancer with inflammatory stroma. Cancer. 1988;61:2503–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gamel JW, Meyer JS, Feuer E, Miller BA. The impact of stage and histology on the long-term clinical course of 163, 808 patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer. 1996;77:1459–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Jensen ML, Kiaer H, Andersen J, Jensen V, Melsen F. Prognostic comparison of three classifications for medullary carcinomas of the breast. Histopathology. 1997;30:523–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fulford LG, Easton DF, Reis-Filho JS, Sofronis A, Gillett CE, Lakhani SR, et al. Specific morphological features predictive for the basal phenotype in grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma of breast. Histopathology. 2006;49:22–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:10869–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron JS, Nobel A, et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:8418–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hu Z, Fan C, Oh SD, Marron JS, He X, Qaqish BF, Livasy C, Carey LA, Reynolds H, Dressler L, Nobel A, Parker J, Ewend MG, Sawyer LR, Wu J, Liu Y, Nanda R, Tretiakova M, Orrico AR, Dreher D, Palazzo JP, Perreard L, Nelson E, Mone M, Hansen H, Mullins M, Quackenbush JF, Ellis MJ, Olopade OI, Bernard PS, Perou CM. The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genom 2006;7:96.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Goldhirsch A, Ingle JN, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ. Panel members. Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009. Ann Oncol. 2009;20:1319–29.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bloom HJG, Richardson WW. Histologic grading and prognosis in breast cancer: a study of 1709 cases of which 359 have been followed for 15 years. Br J Cancer. 1957;11:359–77.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Elston CW, Ellis IO. 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. 1991;19:403–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. World Health Organization classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics of tumors of the breast and female genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2003;28–9.

  20. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, et al. 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. 2007;25:118–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bidard FC, Conforti R, Boulet T, Michiels S, Delaloge S, Andre F. Does triple-negative phenotype accurately identify basal-like tumour? An immunohistochemical analysis based on 143 ‘triple-negative’ breast cancers. Ann Oncol. 2007;18:1285–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kreike B, van Kouwenhove M, Horlings H, Weigelt B, Peterse H, Bartelink H, et al. Gene expression profiling and histopathological characterization of triple-negative/basal-like breast carcinomas. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9:R65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bertucci F, Finetti P, Cervera N, Esterni B, Hermitte F, Viens P, et al. How basal are triple-negative breast cancers? Int J Cancer. 2008;123:236–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Chiangmai University, Chiangmai, 50200, Thailand

    Benjaporn Chaiwun, Saranyu Nakrungsee & Neelaya Sukhamwang

  2. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiangmai University, Chiangmai, 50200, Thailand

    Songphol Srisukho

Authors
  1. Benjaporn Chaiwun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saranyu Nakrungsee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neelaya Sukhamwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Songphol Srisukho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjaporn Chaiwun.

About this article

Cite this article

Chaiwun, B., Nakrungsee, S., Sukhamwang, N. et al. A study of high-nuclear-grade breast cancer in Thailand: subclassification and correlation with prognostic factors and immunohistochemical study. Breast Cancer 17, 35–41 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-009-0174-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-009-0174-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation