MCO Molecular and Clinical Oncology 2049-9450 2049-9469 D.A. Spandidos 10.3892/mco.2018.1716 MCO-0-0-1716 Articles Lymph node metastasis and high serum CEA are important prognostic factors in hormone receptor positive and HER2 negative breast cancer KosakaYoshimasa 1 * MinataniNaoko 1 * TanakaYoko 1 ShidaAkiko 1 KikuchiMariko 1 NishimiyaHiroshi 1 WarayaMina 1 KatohHiroshi 1 SatoTakeo 2 SengokuNorihiko 1 TaninoHirokazu 3 YamashitaKeishi 2 WatanabeMasahiko 2 Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, School of Medicine, Kitasato University Hospital, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 252-0374, Japan Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Kitasato University Hospital, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 252-0374, Japan Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Kobe University Hospital, Kobe, Hyogo 650-0017, Japan Correspondence to: Dr Yoshimasa Kosaka, Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, School of Medicine, Kitasato University Hospital, 1-15-1 Kitasato, Minami-ku, Sagamihara, Kanagawa 252-0374, Japan, E-mail: y-kosaka@med.kitasato-u.ac.jp

Contributed equally

 11 2018 13 09 2018 9 5 566 574 08022018 12092018 Copyright © 2018, Spandidos Publications 2018

In recent years, treatment options for breast cancer have increased, and prognosis has improved since the 1990s. The present study examined the prognosis for recurrence of breast cancer between 2006 and 2009, in comparison with the results of past treatments, and sought to guide future treatment strategies by elucidating present prognostic factors. A total of 662 patients with breast cancer stage 0–III who underwent surgery at Kitasato University Hospital between January 2006 and March 2009 were included. Cases were classified into four subtypes, based on the presence or absence of hormone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). Factors associated with recurrence and prognosis were then examined. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 94.9% and the 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) was 98.4%. Factors related to RFS were pathological lymph node (pN) positive [hazard ratio (HR)=2.85, P=0.001], clinical lymph node (cN) positive (HR=2.28, P<0.01), and hormone receptor negative (HR=1.83, P<0.05). Factors associated with DSS were cN positive (HR=4.55, P<0.01), pN positive (HR=3.40, P<0.05), higher preoperative serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) (HR=3.04, P<0.05), and hormone receptor negative (HR=2.32, P<0.05). In the hormone receptor positive HER2 negative, cN-positive/pN-positive breast cancer group, RFS and DSS were poorer compared with the other groups. In this group, preoperative high CEA level was a poor prognostic factor. The prognosis for hormone receptor positive HER2-negative breast cancer has improved significantly since the 1990s. On the other hand, the prognosis for cN-positive/pN-positive breast cancer was poor. Pre-treatment serum CEA positive cases exhibited a particularly poor prognosis.

 breast cancer lymph node metastasis CEA prognosis Hormone receptor positive Introduction

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in women worldwide, accounting for 23% (1.4 million) of the total new cancer cases and 14% (458,400) of the total cancer deaths in 2008 (1,2).

Breast cancer is a heterogeneous disease and has distinct morphological features and tumor subtypes (3–6). Breast cancer is classified into 4 subtypes: Luminal A (hormone receptor positive, HER2 negative), luminal B (hormone receptor positive, HER2 positive), HER2-enriched (hormone receptor negative, HER2 positive), and triple negative (hormone receptor negative, HER2 negative) by microarray and hierarchical clustering analysis (7–11). It is now classified into 5 subtypes using Ki-67 expression. This classification has been used to formulate guidelines for breast cancer therapy. It was used to determine systemic adjuvant therapies by subtype and risk categories in 2007 per the St. Gallen consensus meeting (12). The 11th St. Gallen (Switzerland) expert consensus meeting on the primary treatment of early breast cancer in March 2009 maintained an emphasis on targeting adjuvant systemic therapies to subgroups as defined by these predictive markers (13,14).

We followed these guidelines and based our breast cancer therapy on expression of hormone receptors and HER2. Little is known about the prognosis of Japanese breast cancer patients treated according to subtype. There are no articles that described long-term prognosis and compared more recent outcomes with those of the 1990s. In this study, we examined prognosis of Japanese breast cancer patients from the 2000s, during which time we followed guidelines for therapy.

 Patients and methods

A total of 662 patients with stage 0–III breast cancer underwent surgical resection in the Kitasato University Hospital between January 2006 and March 2009. We classified them into 4 subtypes: Hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative, hormone receptor positive/HER2 positive, hormone receptor negative/HER2 positive, and hormone receptor negative/HER2 negative known as triple negative. Systemic therapy was consistent with recommendations for each of the biological subtypes. Characteristics of the 662 patients are shown in Table I. Median follow-up period was 77 (2–109) months. TNM classification was used based on the 7th edition of the Union for International Cancer Control (UICC). Clinical lymph node metastasis was considered more than 10 mm minor axis based on computed tomography. The patients with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) were also classified to pTNM. The positive cut-off value of serum CEA was higher than 5 ng/ml.

We extracted 87 cases with hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative and cN positive/pN positive between April, 2009 and December, 2014 as the validation group. Median follow-up was 51 (5–96) months. The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Kitasato University.

<sec> <title>Statistical analysis

Recurrence free survival (RFS) and disease specific survival (DSS) were analysed based on clinicopathologic characteristics. RFS and DSS were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and survival differences were assessed using a log-rank test. Variables suggested to be prognostic factors on univariate analysis were subjected to multivariate analysis using a Cox proportional-hazards model. The P-value <0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. All statistical analyses were conducted with SAS software package (JMP Pro11, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA).

 Results <sec> <title>Univariate analysis for RFS and DSS

5-year RFS of surgically treated breast cancer was 94.9%. Univariate prognostic factors for recurrence were serum value of CEA≥5.0 ng/ml (CEA positive) before cancer therapy (P<0.05), cT2-4 (P<0.001), cN positive (P<0.0001), NAC (P<0.0001), mastectomy (P<0.001), hormone receptor negative (P<0.001), pT2-4 (P<0.01), and pN positive (P<0.0001) (Table II). 5-year DSS was 98.4%. Univariate prognostic factors for DSS were serum value of CEA positive (P<0.01), cT2-4 (P<0.001), cN positive (P<0.0001), hormone receptor negative (P<0.01), pT2-4 (P=0.01), and pN positive (P<0.0001) (Table III).

 Multivariate analysis for RFS and DSS

Among the 662 patients, multivariate Cox proportional hazards model identified pN positive (hazards ratio (HR)=2.85, P=0.001), cN positive (HR=2.28, P<0.01), and hormone receptor negative (HR=1.83, P<0.05) as significant independent factors for recurrence (Table II). In the multivariate model for DSS, cN positive (HR=4.55, P<0.01), pN positive (HR=3.40, P<0.05), serum value of CEA positive (HR=3.04, P<0.05) and hormone receptor negative (HR2.32, P<0.05) were identified as independent prognostic factors (Table III).

 Kaplan-Meier curve of RFS and DSS by independent prognostic factors based on multivariate analysis

cN status was significantly different in recurrent cases (RFS of cN positive and negative were 70 and 88% respectively, P<0.0001). pN status was significantly different in recurrent cases (RFS of pN positive and negative were 68 and 92% respectively, P<0.0001). RFS of hormone receptor negative breast cancer was worse than that of the hormone receptor positive group (71 and 89% respectively, P<0.001).

cN positive cases had significantly poorer prognoses than the cN negative group (83 and 99% respectively, P<0.0001). DSS of hormone receptor negative breast cancers was 91%, whereas DSS of hormone receptor positive breast cancer was 97% (P<0.01). The pN positive group showed poorer prognoses than the pN negative group (89 and 98% respectively, P<0.0001). DSS of the serum CEA positive group was worse compared with that of the negative group (83 and 97% respectively, P=0.0001).

 Intersection of clinical and pathological lymph node metastasis

Fig. 1A shows differences in RFS and DSS based on the intersection of cN and pN factors. The RFS and DSS of the cN positive/pN positive group were 65 and 81%, respectively. This group was significantly worse off than the other groups.

Fig. 1B shows the prognosis of hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative according to intersection of cN and pN. The cN positive/pN positive group showed poorer prognoses than the other groups in hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative types (RFS P<0.0001/DSS P<0.0001). Lymph node metastasis was not associated with recurrence and was not a prognostic factor in the other subtype groups.

 Kaplan-Meier curve of RFS and DSS by serum value of CEA before cancer therapy

In hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative breast cancers, RFS and DSS for the serum CEA positive group were significantly worse compared with the CEA negative group (RFS P<0.05, DSS P<0.0001) (Fig. 2A).

In the cN positive/pN positive group, the RFS of CEA positive cases was 52% and for CEA negative cases was 66% (P<0.05). The DSS of CEA positive cases was 43% and CEA negative cases was 90% (P<0.001) (Fig. 2B).

The RFS of CEA positive cases was 50% and that of CEA negative cases was 84% (P<0.05) in the validation group. There was no significant difference in DSS (P=0.26) (Fig. 2C).

 Discussion

For the present research, we clarified breast cancer treatment according to hormone receptor expression and HER2 expression. We reported treatment outcomes compared with 1995–1996 patients (15). According to results reported by Nishimiya et al (15), recurrence rates for breast cancer in 1995–1996 was 31.2%. Mortality rate was 24.5%. These numbers were 10.4 and 4% respectively in recent years. For hormone receptor positive breast cancers, RFS and DSS were 68.42 and 83.05% respectively in the 1990s. In the 2000s, these numbers were 89 and 97%. These numbers were 60.20 and 64.88% respectively for hormone receptor negative breast cancer. In the 2000s, these numbers were 71 and 91%. For HER2 positive breast cancer, RFS and DSS were 61.17 and 63.16% in the 1990s, and 83 and 94% in the 2000s respectively. For HER2 negative breast cancers, these numbers were 67.40 and 81.26% and 85 and 96% respectively. Prognoses have improved in all subtypes. In the 2000s, it became clear that prognosis was improving dramatically due to more personalized medical treatment for breast cancer. All in all, it is believed that the overall prognosis of breast cancer has improved with diversification of hormonal therapies and chemotherapy along with the advent of molecular targeted therapeutic agents (16–23). Also in Japan, the prognosis for recurrent breast cancer has improved in the 2000s (24–26).

There is a limitation in this research. Ki-67 subtype was not analyzed yet. Ki-67 is a biomarker used for subtype classification in hormone receptor positive breast cancers. It has been drawing attention as a marker for possibility of recurrence (14,15). Ki-67 cut-off values vary depending on lab factors including antibodies, time, staining methods, and methods for scoring. We believe that analysis according to Ki-67 will be necessary in the future.

Within the hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative group, the cN negative group had a good prognosis. In these cases, adjuvant hormone therapy was administered for 5 years. Recently, studies such as ATLAS (27), attom (28), and MA17R (29) demonstrated the effectiveness of 10 years of hormone therapy. Nevertheless, there is no research determining the particular circumstances under which hormone therapy should be administered. In the present study, in multivariate analysis, factors relating to relapse included cN, pN, and the presence or absence of hormone receptor. Factors relating to prognosis were cN, pN, the presence or absence of hormone receptor, and pretreatment serum CEA values. The analysis of the Intersection of cN and pN was related to poor prognosis. Within the hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative group, the prognosis for the cN positive/pN positive group was particularly poor. Additionally, within the cN positive/pN positive group in the hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative group, there was a poor prognosis for those with high pretreatment CEA levels (Fig. 2B). Serum CEA is a tumor marker used for early detection and monitoring for recurrence of breast cancer, and for evaluating progress of therapy in patients with progressive, recurrent breast cancer in the clinical setting (30–35). Within the 87 cases of the validation group, there was a significant rate of recurrence in those with high serum CEA levels compared with those with low levels of CEA (P<0.05) (Fig. 2C). Nevertheless, future surveillance is necessary, since the follow-up period is insufficient. That is to say, in the cN positive/pN positive group, contemporary treatments were inadequate. We believe it is an urgent priority to develop stronger treatment algorithms or to develop new treatments that exceed the current standard. Taking these results into consideration, our facility plans to administer hormone therapy for 10 years to those patients with high serum CEA levels and cN positive/pN positive breast cancer. We will subsequently study the therapeutic effects and side effects such as osteoporosis of prolonged hormone therapy in this population.

Although the number of cases was small, the prognosis was the same in the cN positive/pN negative, and cN negative/pN negative groups. In these 10 cases, pretreatment imaging showed axillary lymph node enlargement of 10 mm or more. Eight out of the 10 cases received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and these became pN negative (ypN0) after surgery. von Minckwitz et al (36) report a good prognosis for patients with ypN0 induced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In the hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative/high Ki-67 expression group (Luminal B), the recurrence rate for pathological complete response (pCR) cases was low (36). In the NSABP B18 trial, good prognosis was reported for pCR cases (37,38). There are additional reports of good prognosis in pCR cases with neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with other cases (39,40). That is to say, aggressive neoadjuvant chemotherapy should be performed for hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative cases that are cN positive and with high levels of Ki-67. It is considered possible to selectively induce good prognosis via neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

The cN positive/pN positive group had a poor overall prognosis. In hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative breast cancer, nodal metastasis was found to be a strong factor relating to the prognosis of recurrence. Furthermore, cases with elevated serum CEA had an especially poor prognosis; therefore the prolongation of hormone therapy is necessary.

 Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

 Conflicts of interest

None.

 Funding

No funding was received.

 Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

 Authors' contributions

YK and NM performed the statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. YT, AS, MK, HN, MiW and HK participated in the interpretation of data and the critical review of the manuscript. TS, NS, HT, KY and MaW gave final approval of the version to be published, and made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the study. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

 Ethics approval and consent to participate

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Kitasato University and written informed consents were obtained from the patients for publication of this study.

 Patient consent for publication

Written informed consents were obtained from the patients for publication of this study.

 Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

 References JemalABrayFCenterMMFerlayJWardEFormanDGlobal cancer statisticsCA Cancer J Clin616990201110.3322/caac.2010721296855 LamSWJimenezCRBovenEBreast cancer classification by proteomic technologies: Current state of knowledgeCancer Treat Rev40129138201410.1016/j.ctrv.2013.06.00623891266 ClearyASLeonardTLGestlSAGuntherEJTumour cell heterogeneity maintained by cooperating subclones in Wnt-driven mammary cancersNature508113117201410.1038/nature1318724695311 GeyerFCMarchioCReis-FilhoJSThe role of molecular analysis in breast cancerPathology417788200910.1080/0031302080256353619089743 WeigeltBHorlingsHMKreikeBHayesMMHauptmannMWesselsLFde JongDVan de VijverMJVan't VeerLJbPeterseJLRefinement of breast cancer classification by molecular characterization of histological special typesJ Pathol216141150200810.1002/path.240718720457 YersalOBarutcaSBiological subtypes of breast cancer: Prognostic and therapeutic implicationsWorld J Clin Oncol5412424201410.5306/wjco.v5.i3.41225114856 ParkerJSMullinsMCheangMCLeungSVoducDVickeryTDaviesSFauronCHeXHuZSupervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypesJ Clin Oncol2711601167200910.1200/JCO.2008.18.137019204204 PerouCMSørlieTEisenMBvan de RijnMJeffreySSReesCAPollackJRRossDTJohnsenHAkslenLAMolecular portraits of human breast tumoursNature406747752200010.1038/3502109310963602 SorlieTTibshiraniRParkerJHastieTMarronJSNobelADengSJohnsenHPesichRGeislerSRepeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data setsProc Natl Acad Sci USA10084188423200310.1073/pnas.093269210012829800 FanCOhDSWesselsLWeigeltBNuytenDSNobelABvan't VeerLJPerouCMConcordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancerN Engl J Med355560569200610.1056/NEJMoa05293316899776 SørlieTPerouCMTibshiraniRAasTGeislerSJohnsenHHastieTEisenMBvan de RijnMJeffreySSGene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implicationsProc Natl Acad Sci USA981086910874200110.1073/pnas.19136709811553815 GoldhirschAWoodWCGelberRDCoatesASThürlimannBSennHJ10th St. Gallen conference: Progress and promise: Highlights of the international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2007Ann Oncol1811331144200710.1093/annonc/mdm27117675394 GoldhirschAIngleJNGelberRDCoatesASThürlimannBSennHJPanel members: Thresholds for therapies: Highlights of the St Gallen International expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2009Ann Oncol2013191329200910.1093/annonc/mdp32219535820 GoldhirschAWoodWCCoatesASGelberRDThürlimannBSennHJPanel members: 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 2011Ann Oncol2217361747201110.1093/annonc/mdr30421709140 NishimiyaHKosakaYYamashitaKMinataniNKikuchiMEmaANakamuraKWarayaMSengokuNTaninoHPrognostic significance of Ki-67 in chemotherapy-naive breast cancer patients with 10-year follow-upAnticancer Res34259268201424403472 AebiSSunZBraunDPriceKNCastiglione-GertschMRabaglioMGelberRDCrivellariDLindtnerJSnyderRDifferential 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 IXAnn Oncol2219811987201110.1093/annonc/mdq75421282282 DafniUGrimaniIXyrafasAEleftherakiAGFountzilasGFifteen-year trends in metastatic breast cancer survival in GreeceBreast Cancer Res Treat119621631201010.1007/s10549-009-0630-819915976 DawoodSBroglioKGonzalez-AnguloAMBuzdarAUHortobagyiGNGiordanoSHTrends in survival over the past two decades among white and black patients with newly diagnosed stage IV breast cancerJ Clin Oncol2648914898200810.1200/JCO.2007.14.116818725649 GennariAContePRossoROrlandiniCBruzziPSurvival of metastatic breast carcinoma patients over a 20-year period: A retrospective analysis based on individual patient data from six consecutive studiesCancer10417421750200510.1002/cncr.2135916149088 Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group (EBCTCG)Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomised trialsLancet36516871717200510.1016/S0140-6736(05)66544-015894097 Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) Trialists' GroupForbesJFCuzickJBuzdarAHowellATobiasJSBaumMEffect of anastrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant treatment for early-stage breast cancer: 100-month analysis of the ATAC trialLancet Oncol94553200810.1016/S1470-2045(07)70385-618083636 SmithIProcterMGelberRDGuillaumeSFeyereislovaADowsettMGoldhirschAUntchMMarianiGBaselgaJ2-year follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer: A randomised controlled trialLancet3692936200710.1016/S0140-6736(07)60028-217208639 Piccart-GebhartMJProcterMLeyland-JonesBGoldhirschAUntchMSmithIGianniLBaselgaJBellRJackischCTrastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancerN Engl J Med35316591672200510.1056/NEJMoa05230616236737 ShigematsuHKawaguchiHNakamuraYTanakaKShiotaniSKogaCNishimuraSTaguchiKNishiyamaKOhnoSSignificant survival improvement of patients with recurrent breast cancer in the periods 2001–2008 vs. 1992–2000BMC Cancer11118201110.1186/1471-2407-11-11821453503 KurebayashiJMiyoshiYIshikawaTSajiSSugieTSuzukiTTakahashiSNozakiMYamashitaHTokudaYNakamuraSClinicopathological characteristics of breast cancer and trends in the management of breast cancer patients in Japan: Based on the Breast Cancer Registry of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society between 2004 and 2011Breast Cancer22235244201510.1007/s12282-015-0599-625758809 TamakiMKamioTKameokaSKojimaharaNNishikawaTThe relevance of the intrinsic subtype to the clinicopathological features and biomarkers in Japanese breast cancer patientsWorld J Surg Oncol11293201310.1186/1477-7819-11-29324245483 DaviesCPanHGodwinJGrayRArriagadaRRainaVAbrahamMAlencarMedeiros VHBadranABonfillXLong-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trialLancet381805816201310.1016/S0140-6736(12)61963-123219286 GrayRDaviesCPerryPTamoxifen for early breast cancer: Better late than neverAnn Oncol11505507200010.1023/A:100832311626510907940 GossPEIngleJNPritchardKIRobertNJMussHGralowJGelmonKWhelanTStrasser-WeipplKRubinSExtending aromatase-inhibitor adjuvant therapy to 10 yearsN Engl J Med375209219201610.1056/NEJMoa160470027264120 UeharaMKinoshitaTHojoTAkashi-TanakaSIwamotoEFukutomiTLong-term prognostic study of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and carbohydrate antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3) in breast cancerInt J Clin Oncol13447451200810.1007/s10147-008-0773-318946756 ShaoYSunXHeYLiuCLiuHElevated levels of serum tumor markers CEA and CA15-3 are prognostic parameters for different molecular subtypes of breast cancerPLoS One10e0133830201510.1371/journal.pone.013383026207909 LeeJSParkSParkJMChoJHKimSIParkBWElevated levels of preoperative CA 15-3 and CEA serum levels have independently poor prognostic significance in breast cancerAnn Oncol2412251231201310.1093/annonc/mds60423230137 PedersenACSørensenPDJacobsenEHMadsenJSBrandslundISensitivity of CA 15-3, CEA and serum HER2 in the early detection of recurrence of breast cancerClin Chem Lab Med5115111519201310.1515/cclm-2012-048823403727 ParkBWOhJWKimJHParkSHKimKSKimJHLeeKSPreoperative CA 15-3 and CEA serum levels as predictor for breast cancer outcomesAnn Oncol19675681200810.1093/annonc/mdm53818037623 YangYZhangHZhangMMengQCaiLZhangQElevation of serum CEA and CA15-3 levels during antitumor therapy predicts poor therapeutic response in advanced breast cancer patientsOncol Lett1475497556201729344201 von MinckwitzGUntchMBlohmerJUCostaSDEidtmannHFaschingPAGerberBEiermannWHilfrichJHuoberJDefinition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypesJ Clin Oncol3017961804201210.1200/JCO.2011.38.859522508812 WolmarkNWangJMamounasEBryantJFisherBPreoperative chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer: Nine-year results from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr11022001 RastogiPAndersonSJBearHDGeyerCEKahlenbergMSRobidouxAMargoleseRGHoehnJLVogelVGDakhilSRPreoperative chemotherapy: Updates of National surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project protocols B-18 and B-27J Clin Oncol26778785200810.1200/JCO.2007.15.023518258986 FisherBBryantJWolmarkNMamounasEBrownAFisherERWickerhamDLBegovicMDeCillisARobidouxAEffect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancerJ Clin Oncol1626722685199810.1200/JCO.1998.16.8.26729704717 CareyLAMetzgerRDeesECCollichioFSartorCIOllilaDWKlauber-DeMoreNHalleJSawyerLMooreDTGrahamMLAmerican Joint Committee on Cancer tumor-node-metastasis stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast cancer outcomeJ Natl Cancer Inst9711371142200510.1093/jnci/dji20616077072

Kaplan-Meier curve of RFS and DSS by cN/pN status. (A) The RFS and DSS of cN positive and pN positive cases were significantly worse than those of the other groups. (B) cN positive/pN positive group showed poorer prognosis than the other groups in hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative type.

Kaplan-Meier curve of RFS and DSS by serum CEA values before cancer therapy. (A) The RFS and DSS of serum CEA values before cancer therapy positive group were significantly worse compared with the CEA negative group in hormone receptor positive/HER2 negative breast cancers. (B) In the cN positive/pN positive group, the RFS and DSS of CEA positive cases were worse than in the CEA negative group. (C) In the validation group, the RFS of CEA positive cases was worse than in the CEA negative group.

Clinicopathologic characteristics of the 662 patients.

Factors No. %
Patient 662 100.0
Age (median) 56 (24–93)
Sex
  Female 657 99.3
  Male 5 0.7
Neo adjuvant therapy
  Yes 75 11.3
  No 587 88.7
cTa
  T0 104 15.7
  T1 280 42.3
  T2 215 32.5
  T3 32 4.8
  T4 31 4.7
cN
  N0 530 80.1
  N1 91 13.7
  N2 32 4.8
  N3 9 1.4
cStage
  0 104 15.5
  I 255 38.5
  II 228 34.7
  III 75 11.3
Serum CEA
  5> 607 91.7
  5≤ 55 8.3
Surgical method
  Lumpectomy 450 68.1
  Mastectomy 212 32.0
Lymphadenectomy
  Sentinel lymphnode biopsy 360 54.4
  Axillary lymphadenectomy 267 40.3
  Not performed 35 5.3
Pathological type
  Ductal carcinoma in situ 106 16.0
  Lobular carcinoma in situ 2 0.3
  Invasive ductal carcinoma 500 75.5
  Invasive lobular carcinoma 54 8.2
Nuclear grade
  Grade 1 205 31.0
  Grade 2 98 14.8
  Grade 3 176 26.6
  Unknown 183 27.6
pT
  T0 10 1.5
  Tis 108 16.3
  T1 295 44.6
  T2 189 28.6
  T3 28 4.2
  T4 32 4.8
pN
  pN0 451 68.1
  pN1 138 20.8
  pN2 39 5.9
  pN3 22 3.3
  Unknown 12 1.8
pStage
  0 116 17.5
  I 225 34.0
  II 227 34.3
  III 94 14.2
HR (IHC)
  Positive 522 78.9
  Negative 140 21.1
HER 2 (IHC and/or FISH)
  Positive 67 10.2
  Negative 593 89.6
  Unknown 2 0.2
Subtype
  HR+/HER2− 503 76.0
  HR+/HER2+ 19 2.9
  HR−/HER2+ 48 7.3
  HR−/HER2− 92 13.8
Postoperative adjuvant therapy
  Yes 597 90.2
  No 65 9.8
Recurrence
  Yes 69 10.4
  No 593 89.6
Succumbed
  Yes 26 4.0
  No 636 96.0

7th edition of the Union for International Cancer Control. IHC, immunohistochemistry; FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen; HR, hormone receptor.

Univariate and multivariate analysis for recurrence free survival (RFS).

RFS
Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
Factors Patient number RFS (%) P-value HR 95% CI P-value
Age, years 0.87
  >56 322 86
  <56 340 80
Sex 0.34
  Female 657 84
  Male 5 100
CEA <0.05 NS
  5> 607 85 1.79 0.86–3.37
  5≤ 55 81
cT <0.001 NS
  T0-1 384 90 1.14 0.41–2.90
  T2-4 278 77
cN <0.0001 <0.01
  Negative 530 88 2.28 1.26–4.28
  Positive 132 70
cStage (7th UICC) <0.0001
  0 102 79
  I 255 91
  II 230 81
  III 75 71
Neo adjuvant therapy <0.0001
  No 587 86
  Yes 75 72
Surgical method <0.001
  Lumpectomy 450 91
  Mastectomy 212 73
Pathological type 0.1
  DCIS 106 74
  LCIS 2 100
  IDC 500 86
  ILC 54 45
Hormone receptor <0.001 <0.05
  Negative 140 71 1.83 1.08–3.01
  Positive 522 89
HER2 receptor 0.08
  Positive 67 83
  Negative 593 85
Subtype
  HR+/HER2− 503 89 0.01
  HR+/HER2+ 19 83
  HR−/HER2+ 48 83
  HR−/HER2− 92 68
pT <0.01 NS
  T0-1 413 89 1.02 0.42–2.79
  T2-4 249 77
pN <0.0001 0.001
  Negative 451 92 2.85 1.52–5.30
  Positive 199 68
pStage (7th UICC) <0.0001
  0 116 84
  I 225 90
  II 227 92
  III 94 41
Adjuvant therapy 0.2
  No 65 94
  Yes 597 83

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; NS, not significant; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; LCIS, lobular carcinoma in situ; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC, invasive lobular carcinoma; HR, hormone recepto; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; UICC, Union for International Cancer Contro; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.

Univariate and multivariate analysis for disease specific survival (DSS).

DSS
Univariate analysis Multivariate analysis
Factors Patient number DSS (%) P-value HR 95% CI P-value
Age, years 0.66
  >56 322 95
  <56 340 96
Sex 0.57
  Female 657 96
  Male 5 100
CEA <0.01 <0.05
  5> 607 97 3.04 1.17–7.03
  5≤ 55 82
cT <0.001 NS
  T0-1 384 98 2.31 0.53–9.45
  T2-4 278 92
cN <0.0001 <0.01
  Negative 530 99 4.55 1.64–15.18
  Positive 132 83
cStage (7th UICC) <0.0001
  0 102 100
  I 255 99
  II 230 93
  III 75 87
Neo adjuvant therapy <0.001
  No 587 97
  Yes 75 86
Surgical method 0.01
  Lumpectomy 450 97
  Mastectomy 212 92
Pathological type 0.33
  DCIS 106 100
  LCIS 2 100
  IDC 500 95
  ILC 54 96
Hormone receptor <0.01 <0.05
  Negative 140 91 2.32 1.02–5.17
  Positive 522 97
HER2 receptor 0.37
  Positive 67 94
  Negative 593 96
Subtype <0.05
  HR+/HER2− 503 97
  HR+/HER2+ 19 94
  HR-/HER2+ 48 93
  HR-/HER2− 92 89
pT 0.01 NS
  T0-1 413 97 1.51 0.38–5.01
  T2-4 249 93
pN <0.0001 <0.05
  Negative 451 98 3.40 1.08–11.17
  Positive 198 89
pStage (7th UICC) <0.0001
  0 116 100
  I 225 97
  II 227 98
  III 94 82
Adjuvant therapy 0.01
  No 65 93
  Yes 597 96

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; NS, not significant; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; LCIS, lobular carcinoma in situ; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC, invasive lobular carcinoma; HR, hormone recepto; HER2, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; UICC, Union for International Cancer Control; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.