Advertisement

Tumor Biology

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 7493–7500 | Cite as

The tumor-to-breast volume ratio (TBR) predicts cancer-specific survival in breast cancer patients who underwent modified radical mastectomy

  • Jiahuai Wen
  • Feng Ye
  • Xiaojia Huang
  • Shuaijie Li
  • Lu Yang
  • Xiangsheng Xiao
  • Xiaoming Xie
Original Article
  • 115 Downloads

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women globally, and tumor size measured as the largest diameter of the tumor focus is currently used in tumor–lymph node–metastasis (TNM) staging for prognosis and treatment decisions. The present study utilized the tumor-to-breast volume ratio (TBR) to evaluate the relative tumor size and determined the prognostic impact of TBR on survival in patients with breast cancer. Two thousand twenty-five consecutive breast cancer patients who underwent modified radical mastectomy between January 2002 and December 2008 at Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center were enrolled in this retrospective study. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to assess the prognostic effect of TBR on cancer-specific survival (CSS), and univariate log-rank test and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression model were performed to identify independent prognostic factors. The optimal cutoff value of TBR was determined to be 1.70 %, and 1473 and 552 patients were categorized to low-TBR and high-TBR groups, respectively. In the whole patient cohort, CSS was significantly shorter in the high-TBR group (110.2 vs 128.5 months, P < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that TBR was an independent prognostic factor of CSS in breast cancer patients (hazard ratio (HR) 1.489, 95 % CI 1.130–1.961, P = 0.005). High TBR was independently associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer patients. This variable may serve as a valuable parameter to predict the outcomes of breast cancer.

Keywords

Breast cancer Tumor-to-breast volume ratio Mastectomy Prognosis 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

None

Ethics statement

The study protocol was approved by the independent ethical committee/institutional review board of Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center (SYSUCC), and written informed consent about the treatment and researchful use of the clinical data was obtained from each participant prior to surgery. All patient data were anonymized and de-identified prior to analysis.

Supplementary material

13277_2015_4382_MOESM1_ESM.doc (558 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 558 kb)
13277_2015_4382_MOESM2_ESM.doc (74 kb)
ESM 2 (DOC 74 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64:9–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kobayashi N, Toyooka S, Soh J, Ichimura K, Yanai H, Suehisa H, et al. Risk factors for recurrence and unfavorable prognosis in patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer and a tumor diameter of 20 mm or less. J Thorac Oncol. 2007;2:808–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen YL, Ko CJ, Chien SY, Chen LS, Chen ML, Chi CW, et al. Tumor size as a prognostic factor in resected small hepatocellular carcinoma: a controversy revisited. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;26:851–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Marelli L, Grasso A, Pleguezuelo M, Martines H, Stigliano R, Dhillon AP, et al. Tumour size and differentiation in predicting recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation: external validation of a new prognostic score. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:3503–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Foulkes WD, Reis-Filho JS, Narod SA. Tumor size and survival in breast cancer—a reappraisal. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7:348–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zheng YZ, Wang L, Hu X, Shao ZM. Effect of tumor size on breast cancer-specific survival stratified by joint hormone receptor status in a SEER population-based study. Oncotarget. 2015;6:22985–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tsai CH, Lin CM, Hsieh CC, Hsu WH, Wang HW, Wang LS. Tumor volume is a better prognostic factor than greatest tumor diameter in stage Ia non-small cell lung cancer. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006;54:537–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sennerstam RB, Wiksell H, Schassburger KU, Auer GU. Breast cancer and clinical outcome among women over 60 years of age: a plead for more screening and alternative treatments. Anal Quant Cytopathol Histpathol. 2012;34:189–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akazawa K, Tamaki Y, Taguchi T, Tanji Y, Miyoshi Y, Kim SJ, et al. Potential of reduction in total tumor volume measured with 3D-MRI as a prognostic factor for locally-advanced breast cancer patients treated with primary chemotherapy. Breast J. 2008;14:523–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Timmermans AJ, Lange CA, de Bois JA, van Werkhoven E, Hamming-Vrieze O, Hilgers FJ, van den Brekel MW: Tumor volume as a prognostic factor for local control and overall survival in advanced larynx cancer. Laryngoscope 2015Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boggs DH, Hanna A, Burrows W, Horiba N, Suntharalingam M. Primary gross tumor volume is an important prognostic factor in locally advanced esophageal cancer patients treated with trimodality therapy. J Gastrointest Cancer. 2015;46:131–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jiang N, Deng JY, Ding XW, Liu Y, Liang H. Tumor volume as a prognostic factor was superior to the seventh edition of the pT classification in resectable gastric cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015;41:315–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jansen LA, Backstein RM, Brown MH. Breast size and breast cancer: a systematic review. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67:1615–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Markkula A, Bromee A, Henningson M, Hietala M, Ringberg A, Ingvar C, et al. Given breast cancer, does breast size matter? Data from a prospective breast cancer cohort. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23:1307–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics. 1988;44:837–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jung HA, Park YH, Kim M, Kim S, Chang WJ, Choi MK, Hong JY, Kim SW, Kil WH, Lee JE, Nam SJ, Ahn JS, Im YH: Prognostic relevance of biological subtype overrides that of TNM staging in breast cancer: discordance between stage and biology. Tumour Biol 2014Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee DS, Kim SH, Kim S, Suh YJ, Kim HK, Shim BY. Prognostic significance of breast cancer subtype and p53 overexpression in patients with locally advanced or high-risk breast cancer treated using upfront modified radical mastectomy with or without post-mastectomy radiation therapy. Int J Clin Oncol. 2012;17:447–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Benson JR, Weaver DL, Mittra I, Hayashi M. The TNM staging system and breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2003;4:56–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yang CJ, Kim DY, Lee JH, Roh JL, Choi SH, Nam SY, et al. Prognostic value of total tumor volume in advanced-stage laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2013;108:509–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    van den Broek GB, Rasch CR, Pameijer FA, Peter E, van den Brekel MW, Tan IB, et al. Pretreatment probability model for predicting outcome after intraarterial chemoradiation for advanced head and neck carcinoma. Cancer-Am Cancer Soc. 2004;101:1809–17.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Knegjens JL, Hauptmann M, Pameijer FA, Balm AJ, Hoebers FJ, de Bois JA, et al. Tumor volume as prognostic factor in chemoradiation for advanced head and neck cancer. Head Neck. 2011;33:375–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Orang E, Marzony ET, Afsharfard A. Predictive role of tumor size in breast cancer with axillary lymph node involvement—can size of primary tumor be used to omit an unnecessary axillary lymph node dissection? Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14:717–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Park JH, Anderson WF, Gail MH. Improvements in US breast cancer survival and proportion explained by tumor size and estrogen-receptor status. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:2870–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Varga Z, Zhao J, Ohlschlegel C, Odermatt B, Heitz PU. Preferential HER-2/neu overexpression and/or amplification in aggressive histological subtypes of invasive breast cancer. Histopathology. 2004;44:332–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sahin AA. Biologic and clinical significance of HER-2/neu (cerbB-2) in breast cancer. Adv Anat Pathol. 2000;7:158–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Oncology and BioMarkers (ISOBM) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jiahuai Wen
    • 1
  • Feng Ye
    • 1
  • Xiaojia Huang
    • 1
  • Shuaijie Li
    • 1
  • Lu Yang
    • 1
  • Xiangsheng Xiao
    • 1
  • Xiaoming Xie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Breast Oncology, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer MedicineSun Yat-Sen University Cancer CenterGuangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations