Prognostic significance of tumor grade in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer with axillary lymph node metastasis

The prognostic significance of histologic tumor grade has been evaluated in 1537 women entered into the Ludwig Trials I‐IV of adjuvant therapy for node‐positive breast cancer. Tumor grade was determined on histologic review of primary tumor sections by two central review pathologists using a modification of the Bloom and Richardson grading system. The 5‐year overall survival rates (±SE) were: Grade 1, 86% ± 2; Grade 2, 70% ± 2; and Grade 3, 57% ± 2 (P <0.0001). This survival difference was seen in both premenopausal (P <0.0001) and postmenopausal (P <0.0001) women. Significant differences in disease‐free survival (DPS) by tumor grade were also observed (P <0.0001). The tumor grade determined by the 75 contributing local clinic pathologists was also highly significant for predicting DPS and overall survival. Tumor grade remained a statistically significant prognostic factor for DPS (P <0.0001) and overall survival (P <0.0001) in multivariate analyses controlling for nodal status, tumor size, estrogen receptor status, menopausal status, age, peritumoral vessel invasion, and treatment assigned. In postmenopausal patients for whom adjuvant treatment was compared with no adjuvant therapy, the prognostic significance of tumor grade was modified by the effect of treatment. The presence of vessel invasion by primary tumor cells was a stronger predictor of early recurrence than was increasing tumor grade in postmenopausal patients who received no adjuvant therapy. The higher failure rates for patients with high‐grade tumors was due to a larger number of failures in regional and visceral sites. Tumor grade can be determined by any pathologist and allows for selection of a subpopulation of breast cancer patients at high risk for early mortality.

[1]  A. Goldhirsch,et al.  Prognostic significance of peritumoral vessel invasion in clinical trials of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer with axillary lymph node metastasis. , 1985, Human pathology.

[2]  G. Bonadonna,et al.  Adjuvant systemic therapy for resectable breast cancer. , 1985, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  I. Henderson Adjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer: a promising experiment or standard practice? , 1985, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  M. Zelen,et al.  A randomized trial of adjuvant combination chemotherapy with or without prednisone in premenopausal breast cancer patients with metastases in one to three axillary lymph nodes. , 1985, Cancer research.

[5]  Ludwig Breast Chemotherapy with or without oophorectomy in high-risk premenopausal patients with operable breast cancer. , 1985, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  A. Neville,et al.  Prognostic significance of peritumoral vascular invasion in breast cancer. , 1984, British Journal of Cancer.

[7]  I. Taylor,et al.  Influence of cellular DNA content on disease-free survival of Stage II breast cancer patients. , 1984, Cancer research.

[8]  A. Goldhirsch,et al.  Receptor heterogeneity of human breast cancer as measured by multiple intratumoral assays of estrogen and progesterone receptor. , 1984, European journal of cancer & clinical oncology.

[9]  B. Fisher,et al.  Pathologic findings from the national surgical adjuvant project for breast cancers (protocol no. 4) X. Discriminants for tenth year treatment failure , 1984, Cancer.

[10]  C. Redmond,et al.  Pathologic findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast project. VIII. Relationship of chemotherapeutic responsiveness to tumor differentiation , 1983, Cancer.

[11]  J. Haybittle,et al.  The cancer research campaign (King's/Cambridge trial for early breast cancer: clinico-pathological aspects. , 1982, British Journal of Cancer.

[12]  R. Rubens,et al.  HISTOLOGICAL GRADE AND RESPONSE TO ENDOCRINE THERAPY IN BREAST CANCER , 1981, The Lancet.

[13]  H. Johansen,et al.  Selection of High Risk Groups Among Prognostically Favorable Patients with Breast Cancer: An Analysis of the Value of Prospective Grading of Tumor Anaplasia in 1,048 Patients , 1981, Annals of surgery.

[14]  C. Redmond,et al.  Pathologic findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast project (protocol no. 4) vi. discriminants for five‐year treatment failure , 1980, Cancer.

[15]  C. Redmond,et al.  Histologic grading of breast cancer. , 1980, Pathology annual.

[16]  N. M. Drayer,et al.  STERILITY PROBLEMS AND THE DIABETIC , 1978, The Lancet.

[17]  David R. Cox,et al.  Regression models and life tables (with discussion , 1972 .

[18]  N. Mantel Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. , 1966, Cancer chemotherapy reports.

[19]  M. Marshall TUBERCULOSIS IN HONG KONG. , 1964, Lancet.

[20]  E. Kaplan,et al.  Nonparametric Estimation from Incomplete Observations , 1958 .

[21]  H. Bloom,et al.  Histological Grading and Prognosis in Breast Cancer , 1957, British Journal of Cancer.