Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biological characteristics of interval cancers: a role for biomarkers in the breast cancer screening

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

In a population-based screening program, a percentage of tumors remain undetected; these tumors comprise a heterogeneous group, and they are more likely to have adverse prognostic features. The aim of this study was to identify differences in biological characteristics of screen-detected versus interval breast cancers in a population-based screening program according to molecular subtypes.

Materials and methods

We analyzed the population-based data from a long-running screening program in the area of Florence. Data on screening history and on age, T and N status, grade, histotype, hormonal status and Ki-67 and HER2 expression were retrieved. Subtypes of breast cancer were defined on the expression of ER, PR, Ki-67 and HER2: luminal A if ER/PR+, HER2− and Ki67 <14 %, luminal B (HER2 negative) if ER/PR+, HER2− and Ki67 ≥14 %, luminal B (HER2 positive) if ER/PR+ and HER2+, triple negative if ER/PR−and HER2−, HER2 positive if ER/PR− and HER2+. Association between molecular subtypes and mode of detection will be evaluated by a logistic regression model adjusted for the potential confounding variables.

Results

Information about biomarkers was known for 277 cases, 211 screening-detected and 66 interval cancers. Among interval cases, the triple-negative cancers were more represented than luminal A (OR = 3.52; CI, 1.112–11.13; p = 0.0319), while the proportion of HER2+ was quite similar (OR = 1.57; p = 0.4709).

Conclusion

Although made on a small number of cases, our results suggest a difference in distribution of molecular subtypes according to mode detection, confirming the results of earlier studies.

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

  • Anttinen J, Kuopio T, Nykanen M, Torkkeli H, Saari U, Juhola M (2003) Her-2/Neu oncogene amplification and protein over-expression in interval and screen-detected breast cancers. Anticancer Res 23(5b):4213–4218

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein L, Lacey JV Jr (2011) Receptors, associations, and risk factor differences by breast cancer subtypes: positive or negative? JNCI 103(6):2–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caldarella A, Crocetti E, Bianchi S, Vezzosi V, Urso C, Biancalani M, Zappa M (2011) Female breast cancer status according to ER, PR and HER2 expression: a population based analysis. Pathol Oncol Res 17(3):753–758

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Collett K, Stefansonn IM, Eide J, Braaten A, Wang H, Eide GE, Thoresen SO, Foulkes WD, Akslen LA (2005) A basal epithelial phenotype is more frequent in interval breast cancer compared with screen detected tumors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14(5):1108–1112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Conroy SM, Pagano I, Kolonel LN, Maskarinec G (2011) Mammographic density and hormone receptor expression in breast cancer: the multiethnic cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol 35(5):448–452

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson SJ, Duffy SW, Blows FM, Driver KE, Provenzano E, LeQuesne J, Greenberg DC, Pharoah P, Caldas C, Wishart GC (2009) Molecular characteristics of screen detected vs symptomatic breast cancers and their impact on survival. Br J Cancer 101:1338–1344

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ding J, Warren R, Girling A, Thompson D, Easton D (2010) Mammographic density, estrogen receptor status and other breast cancer tumor characteristics. Breast J 16(3):279–289

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Domingo L, Sala M, Servitja S, Corominas JM, Ferrer F, Martinez J, Macia F, Quintana MJ, Albanell J, Castells X (2010) Phenotypic characterizations and risk factors for interval breast cancers in a population based breast cancer screening program in Barcelona, Spain. Cancer Causes Control 21:1155–1164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Esserman LJ, Shieh Y, Park JW, Ozanne EM (2007) A role for biomarkers in the screening and diagnosis of breast cancer in younger women. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 7(5):533–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Esserman LJ, Shieh Y, Rutgers EJT, Knauer M, Retel VP, Mook S, Glas AM, Moore DH, Linn S, van Leeuwen FE, van’t Veer LJ (2011) Impact of mammographic screening on the detection of good and poor prognosis breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat 130(3):725–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann Senn H-J, Panel members (2011) Strategies for subtypes-dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 22:1736–1747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heusinger K, Jud SM, Haberle L, Hack C, Adamietz BR, Meier-Meitinger M, Lux MP, Wittenberg T, Wagner F, Loehberg CR, Uder M, Hartmann A, Schulz-Wendtland RS, Beckmann MW, Fasching PA (2012) Association of mammographic density with hormone receptors in invasive breast cancers-results from a case-only study. Int J Cancer. doi:10.1002/ijc.27515

  • Kerlikowske K, Phipps AI (2011) Breast density influences tumor subtypes and tumor aggressiveness. JNCI 103(15):1143–1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kirsh VA, Chairelli AM, Edwards SA, O’Malley FP, Shumak RS, Yaffe MJ, Boyd NF (2011) Tumor characteristics associated with mammographic detection of breast cancer in the Ontario breast screening program. JNCI 103:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko ES, Lee BH, Kim HA, Noh WC, Kim MS, Lee SA (2010) Triple negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings. Eur Radiol 20:1111–1117

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kojima Y, Tsunoda H (2011) Mammography and ultrasound features of triple negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer 18(3):146–151

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtimaki T, Lundin M, Linder N, Sihto H, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Kataja V, Isola J, Joensuu H, Lundin J (2011) Long-term prognosis of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods. Breats Cancer Res 13(6):R134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowery JT, Byers T, Kittelson J, Hokanson JE, Mouchawar J, Lewin J, Merrick D, Hines L, Singh M (2011) Differential expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval and screen-detected breast cancers: does age or family history matter? Breast Cancer Res Treat 129:211–219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ma H, Luo J, Press MF, Wang Y, Bernstein L, Ursin G (2009) Is there a difference in the association between percent mammographic density and subtypes of breast cancer? Luminal A and triple negative breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 18(2):479–485

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Musolino A, Michiara M, Conti GM, Boggiani D, Zatelli M, Palleschi D, Bella MA, Sgargi P, Di Blasio B, Ardizzoni A (2012) Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status and interval breast cancer in a population-based cancer registry study. JCO 30(19):2362–2368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palka I, Kelemen G, Ormandi K, Lazar G, Nyari T, Thurzo L, Kahan Z (2008) Tumor characteristics in screen detected and symptomatic breast cancers. Path Oncol Res 14:161–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sihto H, Lundin J, Lehtimaki T, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Butzow R, Holli K, Sailas L, Kataja V, Lundin M, Turpeenniemi-Hujanen T, Isola J, Heikkila P, Joensuu H (2008) Molecular subtypes of breast cancers detected in mammography screening and outside of screening. Clin Cancer Res 14(13):4103–4110

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tamaki K, Ishida T, Miyashita M, Amari M, Ohuchi N, Tamaki N, Sasano H (2011) Correlation between mammographic findings and the corresponding histopathology: a potential predictors for biological characteristics of breast diseases. Cancer Sci 102(12):2179–2185

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yaghjyan L, Colditz GA, Collins LC, Schnitt SJ, Rosner B, Vachon C, Tamimi RM (2011) Mammographic breast density and subsequent risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women according to tumor characteristics. JNCI 103(15):1179–1189

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yang WT, Dryden M, Broglio K, Gilcrease M, Dawood S, Dempsey PJ, Valero V, Hortobagyi G, Atchley D, Arun B (2008) Mammographic features of triple receptor-negative primary breast cancers in young premenopausal women. Breats Cancer Res Treat 111:405–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical and Descriptive Epidemiology Unit, Institute for Study and Cancer Prevention (ISPO), Via delle Oblate 2, 50141, Florence, Italy

    A. Caldarella, D. Puliti, E. Crocetti & E. Paci

  2. Section of Pathological Anatomy, Department of Medical and Surgical Critical Care, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    S. Bianchi & V. Vezzosi

  3. Anatomic Pathology, Pistoia Hospital, Pistoia, Italy

    P. Apicella

  4. Pathological Anatomy, San Giuseppe Hospital, Empoli, Italy

    M. Biancalani

  5. Anatomic Pathology, Misericordia e Dolce Hospital, Prato, Italy

    A. Giannini

  6. Anatomic Pathology, S. M. Annunziata Hospital, Firenze, Italy

    C. Urso

  7. Anatomic Pathology, S. Giovanni di Dio Hospital, Firenze, Italy

    F. Zolfanelli

Authors
  1. A. Caldarella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Puliti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Crocetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Bianchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. V. Vezzosi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P. Apicella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. M. Biancalani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. A. Giannini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. C. Urso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. F. Zolfanelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. E. Paci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Caldarella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Caldarella, A., Puliti, D., Crocetti, E. et al. Biological characteristics of interval cancers: a role for biomarkers in the breast cancer screening. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 139, 181–185 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-012-1304-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-012-1304-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation