Molecular subtypes, histopathological grade and survival in a historic cohort of breast cancer patients

Abstract Molecular subtyping of breast cancer may provide additional prognostic information regarding patient outcome. However, its clinical significance remains to be established. In this study, the main aims were to discover whether reclassification of breast cancer into molecular subtypes provides more precise information regarding outcome compared to conventional histopathological grading and to study breast cancer-specific survival in the different molecular subtypes. Cases of breast cancer occurring in a cohort of women born between 1886 and 1928 with long-term follow-up were included in the study. Tissue microarrays were constructed from archival formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue from 909 cases. Using immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridisation as surrogates for gene expression analyses, all cases were reclassified into the following molecular subtypes: Luminal A; Luminal B (HER2−); Luminal B (HER2+); HER2 subtype; Basal phenotype; and five negative phenotype. Kaplan–Meier survival curves and Cox proportional hazards models were used in the analyses. During the first 5 years after diagnosis, there were significant differences in prognosis according to molecular subtypes with the best survival for the Luminal A subtype and the worst for HER2 and five negative phenotype. In this historic cohort of women with breast cancer, differences in breast cancer-specific survival according to subtype occur almost exclusively amongst the histopathological grade 2 tumours. From 5 years after time of diagnosis until the end of follow-up, there appears to be no difference in survival according to molecular subtype or histopathological grade.

[1]  Päivi Heikkilä,et al.  Subtyping of Breast Cancer by Immunohistochemistry to Investigate a Relationship between Subtype and Short and Long Term Survival: A Collaborative Analysis of Data for 10,159 Cases from 12 Studies , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[2]  Christoph I. Lee,et al.  Stage-specific breast cancer incidence rates among participants and non-participants of a population-based mammographic screening program , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[3]  Histopathological and Genomic Grading Provide Complementary Prognostic Information in Breast Cancer: A Study on Publicly Available Datasets , 2011, Pathology research international.

[4]  Shu Ichihara,et al.  Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: the role of histological grade , 2010, Breast Cancer Research.

[5]  J. Isola,et al.  A quality assurance exercise to evaluate the accuracy and reproducibility of chromogenic in situ hybridisation for HER2 analysis in breast cancer , 2007, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[6]  Y. Qi,et al.  A 3-gene proliferation score (TOP-FOX-67) can re-classify histological grade-2, ER-positive breast cancers into low- and high-risk prognostic categories , 2013, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[7]  A. Leong,et al.  The Changing Role of Pathology in Breast Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment , 2011, Pathobiology.

[8]  S. Duffy,et al.  Molecular characteristics of screen-detected vs symptomatic breast cancers and their impact on survival , 2009, British Journal of Cancer.

[9]  K. Hirakawa,et al.  Immunohistochemical assessment for estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor status in breast cancer: Analysis for a cut-off point as the predictor for endocrine therapy , 2004, Breast cancer.

[10]  W. Sauerbrei,et al.  Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies (REMARK). , 2005, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[11]  Marc Tischkowitz,et al.  Use of immunohistochemical markers can refine prognosis in triple negative breast cancer , 2007, BMC Cancer.

[12]  V. Cogliano International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) , 2018, The Grants Register 2019.

[13]  J. Niland,et al.  Impact of hormone receptor status on patterns of recurrence and clinical outcomes among patients with human epidermal growth factor-2-positive breast cancer in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: a prospective cohort study , 2012, Breast Cancer Research.

[14]  N. Harbeck,et al.  St. Gallen 2011: Summary of the Consensus Discussion , 2011, Breast Care.

[15]  Ivar Heuch,et al.  A prospective study of reproductive factors and breast cancer. II. Age at first and last birth. , 1987, American journal of epidemiology.

[16]  D. Dabbs,et al.  CK5 is more sensitive than CK5/6 in identifying the "basal-like" phenotype of breast carcinoma. , 2008, American journal of clinical pathology.

[17]  Jane Warwick,et al.  Time‐dependent effects on survival in breast carcinoma , 2004, Cancer.

[18]  L. Akslen,et al.  Frequency of the basal‐like phenotype in African breast cancer , 2007, APMIS : acta pathologica, microbiologica, et immunologica Scandinavica.

[19]  I. Ellis,et al.  Biology of primary breast cancer in older women treated by surgery: with correlation with long-term clinical outcome and comparison with their younger counterparts , 2013, British Journal of Cancer.

[20]  William D. Foulkes,et al.  Re: Germline BRCA1 Mutations and a Basal Epithelial Phenotype in Breast Cancer , 2004 .

[21]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[22]  I. Ellis,et al.  HER2 testing in the UK: recommendations for breast and gastric in-situ hybridisation methods , 2011, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[23]  C. Mathers,et al.  Global burden of cancer in 2008: a systematic analysis of disability-adjusted life-years in 12 world regions , 2012, The Lancet.

[24]  J. Coebergh,et al.  An overview of prognostic factors for long-term survivors of breast cancer , 2007, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[25]  N. Ueno,et al.  Adding hormonal therapy to chemotherapy and trastuzumab improves prognosis in patients with hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive primary breast cancer , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

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

[27]  R. Gelber,et al.  Thresholds for therapies: highlights of the St Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2009 , 2009, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[28]  I. Ellis,et al.  HER2 testing in the UK: further update to recommendations , 2008, Journal of Clinical Pathology.

[29]  Graham A. Colditz,et al.  Defining breast cancer prognosis based on molecular phenotypes: results from a large cohort study , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[30]  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.

[31]  S. Pinder,et al.  Histological grading of breast carcinomas: a study of interobserver agreement. , 1995, Human pathology.

[32]  E. Paci,et al.  Biological characteristics of interval cancers: a role for biomarkers in the breast cancer screening , 2013, Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology.

[33]  Sunil R. Lakhani,et al.  WHO classification of tumours of the breast , 2012 .

[34]  John M S Bartlett,et al.  Guidelines for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing: biologic and methodologic considerations. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[35]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. , 1999, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[36]  E. Perez,et al.  How relevant is hormone receptor status in the context of outcome to HER2-positive breast cancer? , 2013, Breast Cancer Research.

[37]  I. Janszky,et al.  Joint effects of nulliparity and other breast cancer risk factors , 2011, British Journal of Cancer.

[38]  S Michiels,et al.  Molecular subclasses of breast cancer: how do we define them? The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Statement. , 2012, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[39]  A. Thompson,et al.  HER2 assessment on core biopsy specimens using monoclonal antibody CB11 accurately determines HER2 status in breast carcinoma , 2010, Histopathology.

[40]  Anthony Rhodes,et al.  American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. , 2010, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[41]  C. Mathers,et al.  Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008 , 2010, International journal of cancer.

[42]  E. Winer,et al.  Human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-positive breast cancer: does estrogen receptor status define two distinct subtypes? , 2013, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[43]  Christian A. Rees,et al.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours , 2000, Nature.

[44]  R. Gelber,et al.  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 2011 , 2011, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[45]  Craig D. Shriver,et al.  Effect of ASCO/CAP Guidelines for Determining ER Status on Molecular Subtype , 2012, Annals of Surgical Oncology.

[46]  Samuel Leung,et al.  Basal-Like Breast Cancer Defined by Five Biomarkers Has Superior Prognostic Value than Triple-Negative Phenotype , 2008, Clinical Cancer Research.

[47]  L. Bégin,et al.  Germline BRCA1 mutations and a basal epithelial phenotype in breast cancer. , 2004, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.