Prognostic Value of the Progesterone Receptor by Subtype in Patients with Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER-2 Negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND In estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) negative breast cancers, the progesterone receptor (PR) is an independent prognostic marker. Little is known about the prognostic value of PR by tumor grade. We assessed this in two independent datasets. PATIENTS AND METHODS Women with primary operable, invasive ER+ HER-2 negative breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2012, treated at University Hospitals Leuven, were included. We assessed the association of PR status and subtype (grade 1-2 vs. grade 3) with distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and breast cancer-specific survival. The interaction between PR status and subtype was investigated, and associations of PR status by subtype were calculated. The BIG 1-98 data set was used for validation. RESULTS In total, 4,228 patients from Leuven and 5,419 from BIG 1-98 were analyzed. In the Leuven cohort, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of PR-positive versus PR-negative tumors for DRFI was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.89). For the interaction with subtype (p = .34), the HR of PR status was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.61-1.01) in luminal A-like and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46-0.76) in luminal B-like tumors. In luminal A-like tumors, observed 5-year cumulative incidences of distant recurrence were 4.1% for PR-negative and 2.8% for PR-positive tumors, and in luminal B-like 18.7% and 9.2%, respectively. In the BIG 1-98 cohort, similar results were observed; for the interaction with subtype (p = .12), the adjusted HR of PR status for DRFI was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.57-1.35) in luminal A-like and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43-0.77) in luminal B-like tumors. Observed 5-year cumulative incidences were similar. CONCLUSION PR positivity may be more protective against metastatic relapse in luminal B-like versus luminal A-like breast cancer, but no strong conclusions can be made. In absolute risk, results suggest an absent PR is clinically more important in high compared with low proliferative ER+ HER-2 negative tumors. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE An absent progesterone receptor (PR) predicts a worse outcome in women treated for an estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancer. As low proliferative tumors lacking PR are now also classified high risk, the prognostic value of PR across risk groups was studied. Despite a negative test for interaction of the prognostic value of PR by tumor grade, the magnitude of an absent PR on breast cancer relapse is much larger in high than in low proliferative breast cancers.

[1]  E. Scarpi,et al.  The impact of progesterone receptor expression on prognosis of patients with rapidly proliferating, hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer: a post hoc analysis of the IBIS 3 trial , 2020, Therapeutic advances in medical oncology.

[2]  Daniel F. Hayes,et al.  20‐Year Risks of Breast‐Cancer Recurrence after Stopping Endocrine Therapy at 5 Years , 2017, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  R. Heidel,et al.  Oncotype DX breast cancer recurrence score can be predicted with a novel nomogram using clinicopathologic data , 2017, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[4]  C. Hudis,et al.  Estimating the OncotypeDX score: validation of an inexpensive estimation tool , 2017, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[5]  Leslie Cope,et al.  Optimizing the Use of Gene Expression Profiling in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[6]  R. Bast,et al.  Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. , 2016, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  A. Szabo,et al.  Relevance of progesterone receptor immunohistochemical staining to Oncotype DX recurrence score. , 2016, Hematology/oncology and stem cell therapy.

[8]  L. Cope,et al.  A Validated Model for Identifying Patients Unlikely to Benefit From the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay. , 2015, Clinical breast cancer.

[9]  R. Gelber,et al.  Tailoring therapies—improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2015 , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[10]  C. Mathers,et al.  Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: Sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012 , 2015, International journal of cancer.

[11]  A. Luini,et al.  Proposed new clinicopathological surrogate definitions of luminal A and luminal B (HER2-negative) intrinsic breast cancer subtypes , 2014, Breast Cancer Research.

[12]  A. Thompson,et al.  Progesterone receptor expression is an independent prognostic variable in early breast cancer: a population-based study , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[13]  C. Perou,et al.  Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2013 , 2013, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[14]  D. Dabbs,et al.  Prediction of the Oncotype DX recurrence score: use of pathology-generated equations derived by linear regression analysis , 2013, Modern Pathology.

[15]  C. Markopoulos Overview of the use of Oncotype DX® as an additional treatment decision tool in early breast cancer , 2013, Expert review of anticancer therapy.

[16]  C. Perou,et al.  Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor-positive tumor cells within immunohistochemically defined luminal A breast cancer. , 2013, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[17]  E. van Limbergen,et al.  Applying the 2011 St Gallen panel of prognostic markers on a large single hospital cohort of consecutively treated primary operable breast cancers. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[18]  E. Mardis,et al.  A 50-Gene Intrinsic Subtype Classifier for Prognosis and Prediction of Benefit from Adjuvant Tamoxifen , 2012, Clinical Cancer Research.

[19]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Prognostic value of a combined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence score in early breast cancer. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  A. Giobbie-Hurder,et al.  Interpreting breast international group (BIG) 1-98: a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, early breast cancer , 2011, Breast Cancer Research.

[21]  B. van Calster,et al.  Qualitative assessment of the progesterone receptor and HER2 improves the Nottingham Prognostic Index up to 5 years after breast cancer diagnosis. , 2010, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  Charles M. Perou,et al.  Ki67 Index, HER2 Status, and Prognosis of Patients With Luminal B Breast Cancer , 2009, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[23]  Adrian V. Lee,et al.  Molecular profiles of progesterone receptor loss in human breast tumors , 2009, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[24]  E. van Limbergen,et al.  Does estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive breast carcinoma exist? , 2008, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  C. Wells,et al.  Predictive markers in breast cancer – the present , 2007, Histopathology.

[26]  M. Cronin,et al.  A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. , 2004, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  C. Osborne,et al.  Progesterone receptor status significantly improves outcome prediction over estrogen receptor status alone for adjuvant endocrine therapy in two large breast cancer databases. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[28]  M. Schemper Cox Analysis of Survival Data with Non‐Proportional Hazard Functions , 1992 .

[29]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. , 2002, Histopathology.

[30]  I Persson,et al.  The relation between survival and age at diagnosis in breast cancer. , 1986, The New England journal of medicine.

[31]  W. McGuire,et al.  Correlations between estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and patient characteristics in human breast cancer. , 1984, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[32]  E. Rutgers,et al.  Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[33]  F. Monzon A Multigene Assay to Predict Recurrence of Tamoxifen-Treated, Node-Negative Breast Cancer , 2006 .

[34]  S. Romain,et al.  Steroid receptor distribution in 47,892 breast cancers. A collaborative study of 7 European laboratories. The EORTC Receptor Study Group. , 1995, European journal of cancer.

[35]  C. Rose,et al.  Oestrogen and progesterone receptor determinations in breast cancer: technology and biology. , 1986, Cancer surveys.