Prognosis of lymph node‑negative breast cancer: Association with clinicopathological factors and tumor associated gene expression

He,Jing; Wang,Haijuan; Ma,Fei; Feng,Fengyi; Lin,Chen; Qian,Haili

doi:10.3892/ol.2014.2339

Prognosis of lymph node‑negative breast cancer: Association with clinicopathological factors and tumor associated gene expression

Authors:
- Jing He
- Haijuan Wang
- Fei Ma
- Fengyi Feng
- Chen Lin
- Haili Qian
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Internal Medicine, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100021, P.R. China, State Key Laboratory of Molecular Oncology, Cancer Institute and Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100021, P.R. China
Published online on: July 10, 2014 https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2014.2339
Pages: 1717-1724

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

The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between the prognosis of lymph node‑negative breast cancer patients and clinicopathological factors, as well as the association between tumor‑associated gene expression and prognosis. Clinical data and survival information was collected for 341 patients with lymph node‑negative breast cancer, admitted to the Cancer Hospital of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences (Beijing, China) from 1995 to 1999. Kaplan‑Meier survival analysis and Log‑rank tests were used to evaluate the association of clinical parameters and prognosis. In addition, the gene expression of HER2, TOP2A and CCND1 in patients with good [disease‑free survival (DFS), ≥5 years] and poor (DFS, <5 years) prognoses was analyzed. The clinicopathological factors of the 341 lymph node‑negative breast cancer patients were determined. The 5‑year DFS and overall survival rate (OS) in patients >35 years old was higher as compared with those of patients under the age of 35. Tumor size significantly affected the 5‑year DFS. Patients with smaller tumors (≤2 cm) had a significantly higher DFS rate as compared with patients with larger tumors (>2 cm). Estrogen receptor (ER)‑positive patients had a significantly higher 5‑year DFS and OS rate as compared with ER‑negative patients. By contrast, there were no significant differences in the 5‑year DFS and OS rates between progesterone receptor‑positive and ‑negative patients. The 5‑year DFS and OS rates were significantly higher in patients treated with adjuvant hormone therapy, as compared with patients without hormone therapy. The expression of HER2 protein was higher in patients with a poor prognosis as compared with those with a good prognosis; however, there were no differences in the protein expression of CCND1 and TOP2A between patients with a good and poor prognosis. The results of quantitative polymerase chain reaction showed that the gene expression of HER2 and CCND1 was higher in patients with a poor prognosis as compared with that in patients with a good prognosis. TOP2A gene expression was not significantly different between patients with a poor and good prognosis. The age at diagnosis, tumor size, ER status and hormone therapy were associated with prognosis in patients with lymph node‑negative breast cancer. The molecular biomarker, HER2, but not CCND1 or TOP2A, may be a critical factor for predicting prognosis.

View Figures

View References

1	Wang YC, Wei LJ, Liu JT, Li SX and Wang QS: Comparison of Cancer Incidence between China and the USA. Cancer Biol Med. 9:128–132. 2012.
2	Tinoco G, Warsch S, Glück S, et al: Treating breast cancer in the 21st centrury: emerging biological therapies. J Cancer. 4:117–132. 2013.
3	Alphandéry EL: Perspectives of breast cancer thermotherapies. J Cancer. 5:472–479. 2014.
4	Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, Coates AS and Senn HJ: Meeting highlights: International Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer. Seventh International Conference on Adjuvant Therapy of Primary Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol. 19:3817–3827. 2001.
5	Rosen PP, Groshen S, Saigo PE, Kinne DW and Hellman S: Pathological prognostic factors in stage I (T1N0M0) and stage II (T1N1M0) breast carcinoma: a study of 644 patients with median follow-up of 18 years. J Clin Oncol. 7:1239–1251. 1989.
6	Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet. 351:1451–1467. 1998.
7	Fisher B, Redmond C, Fisher ER and Caplan R: Relative worth of estrogen or progesterone receptor and pathologic characteristics of differentiation as indicators of prognosis in node negative breast cancer patients: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-06. J Clin Oncol. 6:1076–1087. 1988.
8	Saimura M, Fukutomi T, Tsuda H, et al: Prognosis of a series of 763 consecutive node-negative invasive breast cancer patients without adjuvant therapy: analysis of clinicopathological prognostic factor. J Surg Oncol. 71:101–105. 1999.
9	Hui R, Campbell DH, Lee CS, et al: EMS1 amplification can occur independently of CCND1 or INT-2 amplification at 11q13 and may identify different phenotypes in primary breast cancer. Oncogene. 15:1617–1623. 1997.
10	Kallioniemi OP, Kallioniemi A, Kurisu W, et al: ERBB2 amplification in breast cancer analyzed by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 89:5321–5325. 1992.
11	Rummukainen JK, Salminen T, Lundin J, et al: Amplification of c-myc by fluorescence in situ hybridization in a population-based breast cancer tissue array. Mod Pathol. 14:1030–1035. 2001.
12	Jerjees DA, Alabdullah M, Green AR, et al: Prognostic and biological significance of proliferation and HER2 expression in the luminal class of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 145:317–330. 2014.
13	Figueroa-Magalhães MC, Jelovac D, Connolly RM and Wolff AC: Treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. Breast. 23:128–136. 2014.
14	Bautista S and Theillet C: CCND1 and FGFR1 coamplification results in the colocalization of 11q13 and 8p12 sequences in breast tumor nuclei. Genes Chromosomes Cancer. 22:268–277. 1998.
15	Sidoni A, Ferri I, Cavaliere A, et al: Detection of HER-2/neu (c-erbB-2) overexpression and amplification in breast carcinomas with ambiguous immunohistochemical results. A further contribution to defining the role of fluorescent in situ hybridization. Anticancer Res. 26:2333–2337. 2006.
16	Winchester DP: Breast cancer in young women. Surg Clin North Am. 76:279–287. 1996.
17	Han W, Kim SW, Park IA, et al: Young age: an independent risk factor for disease-free survival in women with operable breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 4:822004.
18	Chen WG, Li JW, Zhu L, Li YF and Zhu JX: Analysis of prognosis of breast cancer in women under 35 years of age (report of 157 cases). Zhong Liu. 2:135–137. 2001.(In Chinese).
19	Chung M, Chang HR, Bland KI and Wanebo HJ: Younger women with breast carcinoma have a poorer prognosis than older women. Cancer. 77:97–103. 1996.
20	Fowble BL, Schultz DJ, Overmoyer B, et al: The influence of young age on outcome in early stage breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 30:23–33. 1994.
21	Mirza AN, Mirza NQ, Vlastos G and Singletary SE: Prognostic factors in node-negative breast cancer: a review of studies with sample size more than 200 and follow-up more than 5 years. Ann Surg. 235:10–26. 2002.
22	Salama JK, Heimann R, Lin F, et al: Does the number of lymph nodes examined in patients with lymph node-negative breast carcinoma have prognostic significance? Cancer. 103:664–671. 2005.
23	No authors listed. Polychemotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Lancet. 352:930–942. 1998.
24	Fisher B, Jeong JH, Anderson S and Wolmark N: Treatment of axillary lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-negative breast cancer: updated findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst. 96:1823–1831. 2004.
25	Fisher B, Jeong JH, Bryant J, et al: Treatment of lymph-node-negative, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: long-term findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 364:858–868. 2004.
26	Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, et al: Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 235:177–182. 1987.
27	van de Vijver MJ, Peterse JL, Mooi WJ, et al: Neu-protein overexpression in breast cancer. Association with comedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ and limited prognostic value in stage II breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 319:1239–1245. 1988.
28	Ross JS, Fletcher JA, Linette GP, et al: The Her-2/neu gene and protein in breast cancer 2003: biomarker and target of therapy. Oncologist. 8:307–325. 2003.
29	Hajduk M: Topoisomerase II alpha - a fundamental prognostic factor in breast carcinoma. Pol J Pathol. 60:67–75. 2009.
30	Rudolph P, MacGrogan G, Bonichon F, et al: Prognostic significance of Ki-67 and topoisomerase IIalpha expression in infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. A multivariate analysis of 863 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 55:61–71. 1999.
31	Depowski PL, Rosenthal SI, Brien TP, Stylos S, Johnson RL and Ross JS: Topoisomerase IIalpha expression in breast cancer: correlation with outcome variables. Mod Pathol. 13:542–547. 2000.
32	Schwab M: Amplification of oncogenes in human cancer cells. Bioessays. 20:473–479. 1998.
33	Casimiro MC, Wang C, Li Z, et al: Cyclin D1 determines estrogen signaling in the mammary gland in vivo. Mol Endocrinol. 27:1415–1428. 2013.
34	Hernández-Hernández OT and Camacho-Arroyo I: Regulation of gene expression by progesterone in cancer cells: effects on cyclin D1, EGFR and VEGF. Mini Rev Med Chem. 13:635–642. 2013.
35	Cheng CW, Liu YF, Yu JC, et al: Prognostic significance of cyclin D1, β-catenin, and MTA1 in patients with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Ann Surg Oncol. 19:4129–4139. 2012.
36	Mylona E, Tzelepis K, Theohari I, et al: Cyclin D1 in invasive breast carcinoma: favourable prognostic significance in unselected patients and within subgroups with an aggressive phenotype. Histopathology. 62:472–480. 2013.
37	Vogel C, de Abreu RS, Ko D, et al: Sequence signatures and mRNA concentration can explain two-thirds of protein abundance variation in a human cell line. Mol Syst Biol. 6:4002010.
38	Schwanhäusser B, Busse D, Li N, et al: Global quantification of mammalian gene expression control. Nature. 473:337–342. 2011.