Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 24, Issue 3, pp 698–704 | Cite as

Evaluation of Local and Distant Recurrence Patterns in Patients with Triple-Negative Breast Cancer According to Age

  • Julia C. Radosa
  • Anne Eaton
  • Michelle Stempel
  • Amrin Khander
  • Cornelia Liedtke
  • Erich-Franz Solomayer
  • Maria Karsten
  • Melissa Pilewskie
  • Monica Morrow
  • Tari A. KingEmail author
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) subtype and young patient age are both associated with an increased risk of local recurrence (LR) and distant recurrence (DR). In young women with TNBC, it is unclear whether subtype or patient age is driving prognosis.

Methods

Patients treated for primary TNBC from 1998 to 2011 were identified from the breast surgery database. Clinicopathologic characteristics, treatment, and outcomes were compared between patients <40 and ≥40 years of age at diagnosis. Multivariate models were used to identify factors independently associated with LR and DR.

Results

Among 1930 patients with TNBC, 289 (15 %) were <40 and 1641 (85 %) were ≥40 years of age at diagnosis. Younger patients were more likely to present with higher stage disease and more likely to receive mastectomy (p < 0.01), axillary node dissection (p < 0.01), and chemotherapy (p < 0.01). At a median follow-up of 74 (0–201.1) months, there was no difference in LR or disease-free survival (DFS) by age group [5-year LR = 3.9 % (95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.5–6.2) vs. 4.5 % (95 % CI 3.5–5.6) and 5-year DFS = 75.3 % (95 % CI 70.2–80.7) vs. 77.7 % (95 % CI 75.6–79.8), p = 0.94] in patients aged <40 and ≥40 years, respectively. On multivariate analysis, larger tumor size, lymphovascular invasion, and nodal positivity were associated with increased risk of DR. Age and type of surgery were not significantly associated with either outcome.

Conclusions

Young age at diagnosis is not an independent risk factor for LR or DR in patients with TNBC.

Keywords

Local Recurrence Local Recurrence Rate Distant Recurrence Breast Cancer Subtype Regional Recurrence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgment

Partly funded by a Grant provided by the German academic exchange services (DAAD; Grant No. 91533303 to J.C.R.).

Disclosure

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Sidoni A, Cavaliere A, Bellezza G, Scheibel M, Bucciarelli E. Breast cancer in young women: clinicopathological features and biological specificity. Breast. 2003;12:247–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li ZH, Xiong QY, Tu JH, et al. Tau proteins expressions in advanced breast cancer and its significance in taxane-containing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Med Oncol. 2013;30:591.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Collins LC, Marotti JD, Gelber S, et al. Pathologic features and molecular phenotype by patient age in a large cohort of young women with breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;131:1061–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Xiong Q, Valero V, Kau V, et al. Female patients with breast carcinoma age 30 years and younger have a poor prognosis: the MD Anderson Cancer Center experience. Cancer. 2001;92:2523–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:4429–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wang SL, Li YX, Song YW, et al. Triple-negative or HER2-positive status predicts higher rates of locoregional recurrence in node-positive breast cancer patients after mastectomy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;80:1095–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Montagna E, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, et al. Heterogeneity of triple-negative breast cancer: histologic subtyping to inform the outcome. Clin Breast Cancer. 2013;13:31–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pilewskie M, King TA. Age and molecular subtypes: impact on surgical decisions. J Surg Oncol. 2014;110:8–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim EK, Noh WC, Han W, Noh DY. Prognostic significance of young age (<35 years) by subtype based on ER, PR, and HER2 status in breast cancer: a nationwide registry-based study. World J Surg. 2011;35:1244–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Liedtke C, Hess KR, Karn T, et al. The prognostic impact of age in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;138:591–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ahn SH, Son BH, Kim SW, et al. Poor outcome of hormone receptor–positive breast cancer at very young age is due to tamoxifen resistance: nationwide survival data in Korea—a report from the Korean Breast Cancer Society. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:2360–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Partridge AH, Hughes ME, Warner ET, et al. Subtype-dependent relationship between young age at diagnosis and breast cancer survival. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:3308–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sheridan W, Scott T, Caroline S, et al. Breast cancer in young women: have the prognostic implications of breast cancer subtypes changed over time? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;147:617–29.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    King TA, Pilewskie M, Morrow M. Optimal surgical management for high-risk populations. Breast. 2015;24(suppl 2):S91–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cancello G, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, et al. Prognosis in women with small (T1mic,T1a,T1b) node-negative operable breast cancer by immunohistochemically selected subtypes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127:713–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gangi A, Chung A, Mirocha J, Liou DZ, Leong T, Giuliano AE. Breast-conserving therapy for triple-negative breast cancer. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:252–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lowery AJ, Kell MR, Glynn RW, Kerin MJ, Sweeney KJ. Locoregional recurrence after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review by receptor phenotype. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133:831–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J, et al. Five versus more than five years of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients with negative lymph nodes and estrogen receptor–positive tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88:1529–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dahabreh IJ, Linardou H, Siannis F, Fountzilas G, Murray S. Trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Oncologist. 2008;13:620–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kiess AP, McArthur HL, Mahoney K, et al. Adjuvant trastuzumab reduces locoregional recurrence in women who receive breast-conservation therapy for lymph node-negative, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer. Cancer. 2012;118:1982–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Abdulkarim BS, Cuartero J, Hanson J, Deschenes J, Lesniak D, Sabri S. Increased risk of locoregional recurrence for women with T1–2N0 triple-negative breast cancer treated with modified radical mastectomy without adjuvant radiation therapy compared with breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2852–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Adkins FC, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Lei X, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer is not a contraindication for breast conservation. Ann Surg Oncol. 2011;18:3164–73.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zumsteg ZS, Morrow M, Arnold B, et al. Breast-conserving therapy achieves locoregional outcomes comparable to mastectomy in women with T1–2N0 triple-negative breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3469–76.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pilewskie M, Ho A, Orell E, et al. Effect of margin width on local recurrence in triple-negative breast cancer patients treated with breast-conserving therapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2014;21:1209–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Laar C, van der Sangen MJ, Poortmans PM, et al. Local recurrence following breast-conserving treatment in women aged 40 years or younger: trends in risk and the impact on prognosis in a population-based cohort of 1143 patients. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:3093–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Coulombe G, Tyldesley S, Speers C, et al. Is mastectomy superior to breast-conserving treatment for young women? Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2007;67:1282–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kroman N, Holtveg H, Wohlfahrt J, et al. Effect of breast-conserving therapy versus radical mastectomy on prognosis for young women with breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100:688–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Da Silva L, Lakhani SR. Pathology of hereditary breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(suppl 2):S46–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Boyle P. Triple-negative breast cancer: epidemiological considerations and recommendations. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(suppl 6):vi7–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Greenup R, Buchanan A, Lorizio W, et al. Prevalence of BRCA mutations among women with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in a genetic counseling cohort. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20:3254–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Valachis A, Nearchou AD, Lind P. Surgical management of breast cancer in BRCA-mutation carriers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;144:443–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julia C. Radosa
    • 1
    • 2
  • Anne Eaton
    • 3
  • Michelle Stempel
    • 1
  • Amrin Khander
    • 1
  • Cornelia Liedtke
    • 4
  • Erich-Franz Solomayer
    • 2
  • Maria Karsten
    • 1
  • Melissa Pilewskie
    • 1
  • Monica Morrow
    • 1
  • Tari A. King
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  1. 1.Breast Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsSaarland University HospitalHomburgGermany
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology-BiostatisticsMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity of Schleswig-HolsteinLübeckGermany
  5. 5.Breast SurgeryBrigham and Women’s Hospital, Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women’s Cancer CenterBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations