Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Can Molecular Subtyping Replace Axillary Nodal Status as Prognostic Marker in Breast Cancer?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Subtypes are an established prognostic factor of BC in western population but its significance in Indian BC patients has not been evaluated. Thus this study provides an insight into the prognostic significance of molecular classification and its effect on the survival of BC patients in Eastern India. In this hospital based study 242 BC patients attending a Comprehensive Breast Service Clinic of a reputed institute in Eastern India and having IDC were studied over a period of 7 years (January 2007 to October 2013). Nonluminal HER-2-positive and Triple negative tumors were associated with advanced stage of disease, metastatic lymph nodes and NPI ≥5.4, whereas Luminal 1 and Luminal 2 tumors were associated with early stage, uninvolved lymph nodes and NPI <5.4. Better survival was observed for the patients with Luminal 1 [OS = 57.1 % (n = 36)] and Luminal 2 [OS = 60.0 % (n = 6)], compared to Triple negative [OS = 33.6 % (n = 38)] and nonluminal HER-2-positive tumors [OS = 32.1 % (n = 18)]. This study provided some idea about the pattern of BC on the basis of classification by molecular profiling. Our study indicated that Triple negative and nonluminal HER-2-positive tumors have reduced DFS and OS compared with luminal 1 and 2 subtypes. In our patients, Triple negative and nonluminal HER-2-positive tumors were associated with established unfavorable prognostic indicators and this reflects the data in the western literature. The results suggest that the molecular subtypes are an independent prognostic and predictive marker in Indian BC patients. Whether or not molecular subtyping of breast cancer can replace axillary lymph nodes as the standard in prognosis remains to be seen, but if molecular subtyping can provide more information than the axilla about the prognosis and treatment option, it may well be the future of prognostication.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jana D, Mandal S, Mukhopadhyay M et al (2012) Prognostic signifcance of HER-2/neu and survival of breast cancer patients attending a specialized breast clinic in Kolkata, Eastern India. Asian Pacifc J Cancer Prev 13:3851–3855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jana D, Das S, Sarkar DK et al (2012) Role of nuclear factor-κB in female breast cancer: a study in Indian patients. Asian Pacifc J Cancer Prev 13:5511–5515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Greenlee RT et al (2009) BC subtypes based on ER/PR and Her2 expression: comparison of clinicopathologic features and survival. Clin Med Res 7:4–13

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Diptendra K, Sarkar SL, Pandey S (2009) Is estrogen receptor study useful in prognostication of breast cancer patients in India? Indian J Surg Oncol 1:37–39

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jana D, Sarkar DK, Maji A et al (2012) Can cyclo-oxygenase-2 be a useful prognostic and risk stratification marker in breast cancer? J Indian Med Assoc 110:429–433

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:10869–10874

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J et al (2003) Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:8418–8423

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K et al (2004) Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the Triple negativesubtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 10:5367–5374

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Blows FM, Driver KE, Schmidt MK et al (2010) Subtyping of BC by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies. PLoS Med 7:e1000279

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hugh J, Hanson J, Cheang MC et al (2009) BC subtypes and response to docetaxel in node-positive BC: use of an immunohistochemical definition in the BCIRG 001 Trial. J Clin Oncol 27:1168–1176

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cheang MCU, Chia SK, Voduc D et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B BC. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:736–750

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Prat A, Perou CM (2011) Deconstructing the molecular portraits of BC. Mol Oncol 5:5–23

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MCU et al (2009) Supervised risk predictor of BC based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol 27:1160–1167

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Phipps AI, Buist DS, Malone KE et al (2011) Reproductive history and risk of three BC subtypes defined by three biomarkers. Cancer Causes Control 22:399–405

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR et al (2008) Response to neoadjuvant therapy and longterm survival in patients with triple-negative BC. J Clin Oncol 26:1275–1281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dignam JJ, Dukic VM, Anderson SJ et al (2009) Hazard of recurrence and adjuvant treatment effects over time in lymph node-negative BC. BC Res Treat 116:595–602

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Millikan RC, Newman B, Tse CK et al (2008) Epidemiology of Triple negativeBC. BC Res Treat 109:123–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Phipps AI, Chlebowski RT, Prentice R et al (2011) Body size, physical activity, and risk of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive BC. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 20:454–463

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Aebi S, Sun Z, Braun D et al (2011) Differential efficacy of three cycles of CMF followed by tamoxifen in patients with ER-positive and ER-negative tumors: long-term follow up on IBCSG Trial IX. Ann Oncol 22:1981–1987

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S et al (2010) Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive BC on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol 11:55–65

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nguyen PL, Taghian AG, Katz MS et al (2008) BC subtype approximated by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 is associated with local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol 26:2373–2378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wo JY, Taghian AG, Nguyen PL et al (2010) The association between biological subtype and isolated regional nodal failure after breast-conserving therapy. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 77:188–196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tang G, Shak S, Paik S et al (2011) Comparison of the prognostic and predictive utilities of the 21-gene recurrence score assay and Adjuvant! for women with node-negative, ER-positive BC: results from NSABP B-14 and NSABP B-20. BC Res Treat 127:133–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. David Voduc K, Cheang MCU, Tyldesley S et al (2010) BC subtypes and the risk of local and regional relapse. J Clin Oncol 28:1684–1691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Early BC Trialists’ Collaborative Group (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early BC on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 365:1687–1717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Braga S, dal Lago L, Bernard C et al (2006) Use of trastuzumab for the treatment of early stage BC. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther 6:1153–1164

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B et al (2005) Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive BC. N Engl J Med 353:1659–1672

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S et al (2001) Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic BC that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med 344:783–792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR et al (2008) Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative BC. J Clin Oncol 26:1275–1281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK et al (2005) Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from BC. N Engl J Med 353:1784–1792

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC et al (2006) Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive BC. JAMA 295:1658–1667

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Desmedt C, Haibe-Kains B, Wirapati P et al (2008) Outcome depend on the molecular subtypes biological processes associated with BC clinical. Clin Cancer Res 14:5158–5165

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Van Belle V, Decock J, Hendrickx W et al (2011) Short-term prognostic index for BC: NPI or Lpi. Pathol Res Int 4061:918408, 7 pages

    Google Scholar 

  34. Henson DE, Ries L, Freedman LS et al (1991) Relationship among outcome, stage of disease, and histologic grade for 22,616 cases of BC. Cancer 68:2142–2149

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson D (1989) Relation of tumour size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 BC cases. Cancer 63:181–187

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M et al (2006) Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed Triple negativeearly-stage BC. J Clin Oncol 24:5652–5657

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al (2006) Race, BC subtypes, and survival in the Carolina BC Study. JAMA 295:2492–2502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Abd El-Rehim DM, Pinder SE, Paish CE et al (2004) Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma. J Pathol 203:661–671

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM et al (2003) BC classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:10393–10398

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Liedtke C, Broglio K, Moulder S et al (2009) Prognostic impact of discordance between triple-receptor measurements in primary and recurrent BC. Ann Oncol 20:1953–1958

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Albergaria A, Ricardo S, Milanezi F et al (2011) Nottingham prognostic index in triple-negative BC: a reliable prognostic tool? BMC Cancer 11:299

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We must express our deep sense of obligation and gratitude to the Ethical Committee of IPGME & R, Kolkata, for their kind permission to carry out this study in this Institution. Indrani Bag helped us during the entire course of this study. Special thanks to our patients for their continuing co-operation.

Conflict of Interest

The authors have stated that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Comprehensive Breast Service and Breast Cancer Research Unit, Department of Surgery, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education & Research (IPGME&R) and Seth Sukhlal Karnani Memorial Hospital (SSKM), Kolkata, 700020, India

    Debarshi Jana, Diptendra Kumar Sarkar, Suvro Ganguly, Abhirup Banerjee & Asim Kumar Manna

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute, 37, S.P. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata, 700026, India

    Syamsundar Mandal

Authors
  1. Debarshi Jana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diptendra Kumar Sarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suvro Ganguly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Abhirup Banerjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Asim Kumar Manna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Syamsundar Mandal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debarshi Jana.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jana, D., Sarkar, D.K., Ganguly, S. et al. Can Molecular Subtyping Replace Axillary Nodal Status as Prognostic Marker in Breast Cancer?. Indian J Surg Oncol 5, 282–289 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-014-0309-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13193-014-0309-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation