Tumor Biology

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 1073–1079 | Cite as

Prognostic relevance of biological subtype overrides that of TNM staging in breast cancer: discordance between stage and biology

  • Hyun Ae Jung
  • Yeon Hee Park
  • Moonjin Kim
  • Sungmin Kim
  • Won Jin Chang
  • Moon Ki Choi
  • Jung Yong Hong
  • Seok Won Kim
  • Won Ho Kil
  • Jeong Eon Lee
  • Seok Jin Nam
  • Jin Seok Ahn
  • Young-Hyuck Im
Research Article

Abstract

Recently, we faced difficult treatment decisions regarding appropriate adjuvant systemic treatment, especially for patients who show discordance between stage and tumor biology. The aim of this study was to compare the prognostic relevance of the TNM staging system with that of intrinsic subtype in breast cancer. We retrospectively identified women patients who received curative surgery for stage I–III breast cancer with available data on immunohistochemistry profiles including hormone receptor (HR) status, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status, and Ki 67 staining at the Samsung Medical Center from January 2004 to September 2008. Primary outcomes were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS). A total of 1145 patients were diagnosed with breast cancer and received curative surgery. Of these, 463 (40.4 %) patients were stage I, and 682 (59.6 %) were stage II or III. In addition, 701 (61.2 %) patients were HR positive, 239 (20.9 %) were HER2 positive, and 205 (20.9 %) had triple-negative breast cancer. The 5-year RFS for the patients who were HR positive and HER2 negative with a low Ki 67 staining score (0–25 %) was 99 %. The 5-year RFS for patients who were HER2-positive or had triple-negative breast cancer were 89 and 83 %, respectively (P value = <0.001). In multivariate analysis, advanced stage (II/III) and unfavorable biology (HER2 positive or triple negative) retained their statistical significance as predictors of decreased RFS and OS. Patients with advanced-stage disease (II or III) but favorable tumor biology (HR positive and HER2 negative and low Ki 67) had better clinical outcomes than those with stage I disease and unfavorable tumor biology in terms of RFS (99 versus 92 %, P value = 0.011) and OS (99 versus 96 %, P value = 0.03) at 5 years. The current results showed that intrinsic subtype has a greater prognostic impact in predicting clinical outcomes in subpopulations of patients with stage I–III breast cancer who show discordance between stage and biologic subtypes.

Keywords

Breast cancer TNM stage Biology 

Notes

Conflicts of interest

None

Supplementary material

13277_2014_2730_MOESM1_ESM.doc (216 kb)
Fig. S1 (DOC 216 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hormone dependence and breast cancer. Lancet, 1959. 1(7083): p. 1133–4.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sun Y et al. Luminal breast cancer classification according to proliferative indices: clinicopathological characteristics and short-term survival analysis. Med Oncol. 2014;31(7):55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Slamon DJ. Studies of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast cancer. Cancer Investig. 1990;8(2):253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buzdar AU et al. Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(16):3676–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dent R et al. Pattern of metastatic spread in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;115(2):423–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi J, Jung WH, Koo JS. Clinicopathologic features of molecular subtypes of triple negative breast cancer based on immunohistochemical markers. Histol Histopathol. 2012;27(11):1481–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choi YL et al. Triple-negative, basal-like, and quintuple-negative breast cancers: better prediction model for survival. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:507.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Torrisi R et al. Potential impact of the 70-gene signature in the choice of adjuvant systemic treatment for ER positive, HER2 negative tumors: a single institution experience. Breast. 2013;22(4):419–24.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paik S et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2817–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Allred DC et al. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol. 1998;11(2):155–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC. Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8(3):235–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Park YH et al. Small node-negative (T1b-cN0) invasive hormone receptor-positive breast cancers: is there a subpopulation that might have benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(1):247–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Curigliano G et al. Clinical relevance of HER2 overexpression/amplification in patients with small tumor size and node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(34):5693–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Livi L et al. Prognostic value of positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and negative hormone status in patients with T1a/T1b, lymph node-negative breast cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(13):3236–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Park YH et al. Clinical relevance of TNM staging system according to breast cancer subtypes. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(7):1554–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rhee J et al. The clinicopathologic characteristics and prognostic significance of triple-negativity in node-negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2008;8:307.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Paik S et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(23):3726–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cardoso F et al. The MINDACT trial: the first prospective clinical validation of a genomic tool. Mol Oncol. 2007;1(3):246–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jankowitz RC, McGuire KP, Davidson NE. Optimal systemic therapy for premenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Breast. 2013;22 Suppl 2:S165–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sparano JA. TAILORx: trial assigning individualized options for treatment (Rx). Clin Breast Cancer. 2006;7(4):347–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Albain KS et al. Adjuvant chemotherapy and timing of tamoxifen in postmenopausal patients with endocrine-responsive, node-positive breast cancer: a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374(9707):2055–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Minicozzi P et al. High fasting blood glucose and obesity significantly and independently increase risk of breast cancer death in hormone receptor-positive disease. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49(18):3881–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hyun Ae Jung
    • 1
  • Yeon Hee Park
    • 1
  • Moonjin Kim
    • 1
  • Sungmin Kim
    • 1
  • Won Jin Chang
    • 1
  • Moon Ki Choi
    • 1
  • Jung Yong Hong
    • 1
  • Seok Won Kim
    • 2
  • Won Ho Kil
    • 2
  • Jeong Eon Lee
    • 2
  • Seok Jin Nam
    • 2
  • Jin Seok Ahn
    • 1
  • Young-Hyuck Im
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, School of MedicineSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of Surgery, Samsung Medical Center, School of MedicineSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations