Molecular subtypes are prognostic for N3 breast cancer patients in the modern therapeutic era

Yersal,Özlem; Kaplan,Muhammed  Ali; Işikdoğan,Abdurrahman; Özdemir,Nuriye; Aliustaoğlu,Mehmet; Barutca,Sabri; Erdoğdu,Halil  İbrahim; Meydan,Nezih

doi:10.3892/mco.2018.1771

Molecular subtypes are prognostic for N3 breast cancer patients in the modern therapeutic era

Authors:
- Özlem Yersal
- Muhammed Ali Kaplan
- Abdurrahman Işikdoğan
- Nuriye Özdemir
- Mehmet Aliustaoğlu
- Sabri Barutca
- Halil İbrahim Erdoğdu
- Nezih Meydan
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Medical Oncology, Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Medicine, Aydin 09010, Turkey, Department of Medical Oncology, Dicle University Faculty of Medicine, Diyarbakir 21280, Turkey, Department of Medical Oncology, Numune Training and Research Hospital, Ankara 06230, Turkey, Department of Medical Oncology, Dr Lütfi Kirdar Kartal Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul 34865, Turkey, Department of Pathology, Adnan Menderes University Faculty of Medicine, Aydin 09010, Turkey
Published online on: November 19, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2018.1771
Pages: 180-184

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Nodal (N) status and molecular subtypes are well‑known prognostic factors for breast cancer patients. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether there was a prognostic role of molecular subtypes for pN3a breast cancer patients in the modern therapeutic era. The present study retrospectively evaluated a total of 521 breast cancer patients who had 10 or more metastatic lymph nodes and received adjuvant systemic therapy at the Oncology Department of four different centers in Turkey between 2000‑2015. Patients were divided into four molecular subtypes by immunohistochemical staining. There were no significant differences in relapse rates according to the molecular subtypes (P=0.07). The five year disease free survival rate was 62% for the whole study population, 67% for Luminal A tumors, 53% for Luminal B tumors, 64% for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2‑positive tumors and 56% for triple negative tumors. Luminal A patients had a better progression free survival when compared with Luminal B (P=0.026) and triple negative (P=0.07) patients. pT stage (P<0.001), and breast cancer subtype (P<0.001), remained significant independent factors for disease free survival. Therefore, breast cancer subtypes are still prognostic for patients with pN3 breast cancer.

View Figures

View References

1	Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, Byrd DR, Brookland RK, Washington MK, Gershenwald JE, Compton CC, Hess KR, Sullivan DC, et al: AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th edition. Springer; New York, NY: 2017, View Article : Google Scholar
2	Nemoto T, Vana J, Bedwani RN, Baker HW, McGregor FH and Murphy GP: Management and survival of female breast cancer: Results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Cancer. 45:2917–2924. 1980. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Walker MJ, Osborne MD, Young DC, Schneebaum S, La Valle GJ and Farrar WB: The natural history of breast cancer with more than 10 positive nodes. Am J Surg. 169:575–579. 1995. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
4	Buzdar AU, Kau SW, Hortobagyi GN, Ames FC, Holmes FA, Fraschini G, Hug V, Theriault RL, McNeese MD and Singletary SE: Clinical course of patients with breast cancer with ten or more positive nodes who were treated with doxorubicin-containing adjuvant therapy. Cancer. 69:448–452. 1992. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Schmoor C, Sauerbrei W, Bastert G, Bojar H and Schumacher M: German Breast Cancer Study Group: Long-term prognosis of breast cancer patients with 10 or more positive lymph nodes treated with CMF. Eur J Cancer. 37:1123–1131. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Basaran G, Devrim C, Caglar HB, Gulluoglu B, Kaya H, Seber S, Korkmaz T, Telli F, Kocak M, Dane F, et al: Clinical outcome of breast cancer patients with N3a (≥10 positive lymph nodes) disease: Has it changed over years? Med Oncol. 28:726–732. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, Pollack JR, Ross DT, Johnsen H, Akslen LA, et al: Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 406:747–752. 2000. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
8	Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, Hastie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, et al: Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 98:10869–10874. 2001. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, Korn EL, Long PM, Jazaeri A, Martiat P, Fox SB, Harris AL and Liu ET: Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 100:10393–10398. 2003. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
10	Abd El-Rehim DM, Ball G, Pinder SE, Rakha E, Paish C, Robertson JF, Macmillan D, Blamey RW and Ellis IO: High-throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well-characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses. Int J Cancer. 116:340–350. 2005. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
11	Yersal O and Barutca S: Biological subtypes of breast cancer: Prognostic and therapeutic implications. World J Clin Oncol. 5:412–424. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	Cianfrocca M and Goldstein LJ: Prognostic and predictive factors in early-stage breast cancer. Oncologist. 9:606–616. 2004. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
13	Kennecke H, Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Cheang MC, Voduc D, Speers CH, Nielsen TO and Gelmon K: Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 28:3271–3277. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Yang ZJ, Yu Y, Hou XW, Chi JR, Ge J, Wang X and Cao XC: The prognostic value of node status in different breast cancer subtypes. Oncotarget. 8:4563–4571. 2017.PubMed/NCBI
15	Kim YY, Park HK, Lee KH, Kim KI and Chun YS: Prognostically distinctive subgroup in pathologic N3 breast cancer. J Breast Cancer. 19:163–168. 2016. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Liu N, Yang Z, Liu X and Niu Y: Lymph node status in different molecular subtype of breast cancer: Triple negative tumours are more likely lymph node negative. Oncotarget. 8:55534–55543. 2017.PubMed/NCBI
17	Bria E, Nistico C, Cuppone F, Carlini P, Ciccarese M, Milella M, Natoli G, Terzoli E, Cognetti F and Giannarelli D: Benefit of taxanes as adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer: Pooled analysis of 15,500 patients. Cancer. 106:2337–2344. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	De Laurentiis M, Cancello G, D'Agostino D, Giuliano M, Giordano A, Montagna E, Lauria R, Forestieri V, Esposito A, Silvestro L, et al: Taxane-based combinations as adjuvant chemotherapy of early breast cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 26:44–53. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Ferguson T, Wilcken N, Vagg R, Ghersi D and Nowak AK: Taxanes for adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 4:CD0044212007.
20	Perez EA, Romond EH, Suman VJ, Jeong JH, Sledge G, Geyer CE Jr, Martino S, Rastogi P, Gralow J, Swain SM, et al: Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: Planned joint analysis of overall survival from NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831. J Clin Oncol. 32:3744–3752. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI