Advertisement

Basal Breast Cancer Molecular Subtype Predicts for Lower Incidence of Axillary Lymph Node Metastases in Primary Breast Cancer

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.

      Abstract

      Background

      Axillary lymph node involvement remains the most important prognostic factor in early-stage breast cancer. We hypothesized that molecular classification based on breast cancer biology would predict the presence of nodal involvement at diagnosis, which might aid treatment decisions regarding the axilla.

      Patients and Methods

      From a clinically annotated tissue microarray of 4444 early-stage breast cancers, expression of estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR), HER2, epidermal growth factor receptor, and cytokeratin 5/6 was determined by immunohistochemistry. Cases were classified by published criteria into molecular subtypes of luminal, luminal/HER2 positive, HER2 positive/ER negative/PgR negative, and basal. Risk of axillary nodal involvement at diagnosis was determined in 2 multivariable logistic regression models: a “core biopsy model” including molecular subtype, age, grade, and tumor size and a “lumpectomy model,” which also included lymphovascular invasion. Luminal was used as the reference group. After internal validation of findings in 2 independent sets, we conducted combined analysis of both.

      Results

      In the core biopsy model, the molecular subtypes had a predictive effect for nodal involvement (P = .000001), with the basal subtype having an odds ratio for axillary lymph node involvement of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.41-0.69). Tumor grade (P = 5.43 × 10−12) and size (P = 8.52 × 10−35) were also predictive for nodal involvement. Similar results were found in the lumpectomy model, where lymphovascular invasion was also predictive (P = 2.74 × 10−115).

      Conclusion

      These results indicate that the basal breast cancer molecular subtype predicts a lower incidence of axillary nodal involvement, and including biomarker profiles to predict nodal status at diagnosis could help stratification for decisions regarding axillary surgery and locoregional radiation.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      References

        • Goldhirsch A
        • Glick JH
        • Gelber RD
        • et al.
        Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005.
        Ann Oncol. 2005; 16: 1569-1583
        • Lyman GH
        • Giuliano AE
        • Somerfield MR
        • et al.
        American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer.
        J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23: 7703-7720
        • Benson J
        Effect of sentinel-node biopsy on metastatic development in breast cancer.
        Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7: 964-966
        • Veronesi U
        • Paganelli G
        • Viale G
        • et al.
        Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy as a staging procedure in breast cancer: update of a randomised controlled study.
        Lancet Oncol. 2006; 7: 983-990
        • Veronesi U
        • Paganelli G
        • Viale G
        • et al.
        A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2003; 349: 546-553
        • Barth A
        • Craig PH
        • Silverstein MJ
        Predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in patients with T1 breast carcinoma.
        Cancer. 1997; 79: 1918-1922
        • Olivotto IA
        • Jackson JS
        • Mates D
        • et al.
        Prediction of axillary lymph node involvement of women with invasive breast carcinoma: a multivariate analysis.
        Cancer. 1998; 83: 948-955
        • Silverstein MJ
        • Gierson ED
        • Waisman JR
        • et al.
        Predicting axillary node positivity in patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast by using a combination of T category and palpability.
        J Am Coll Surg. 1995; 180: 700-704
        • Silverstein MJ
        • Skinner KA
        • Lomis TJ
        Predicting axillary nodal positivity in 2282 patients with breast carcinoma.
        World J Surg. 2001; 25: 767-772
        • Gajdos C
        • Tartter PI
        • Bleiweiss IJ
        Lymphatic invasion, tumor size, and age are independent predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in women with T1 breast cancers.
        Ann Surg. 1999; 230: 692-696
        • Gann PH
        • Colilla SA
        • Gapstur SM
        • et al.
        Factors associated with axillary lymph node metastasis from breast carcinoma: descriptive and predictive analyses.
        Cancer. 1999; 86: 1511-1519
        • Viale G
        • Zurrida S
        • Maiorano E
        • et al.
        Predicting the status of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in 4351 patients with invasive breast carcinoma treated in a single institution.
        Cancer. 2005; 103: 492-500
        • Perou CM
        • Sorlie T
        • Eisen MB
        • et al.
        Molecular portraits of human breast tumours.
        Nature. 2000; 406: 747-752
        • Sorlie T
        • Perou CM
        • Tibshirani R
        • et al.
        Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001; 98: 10869-10874
        • Fan C
        • Oh DS
        • Wessels L
        • et al.
        Concordance among gene-expressionbased predictors for breast cancer.
        N Engl J Med. 2006; 355: 560-569
        • Hu Z
        • Fan C
        • Oh DS
        • et al.
        The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms.
        BMC Genomics. 2006; 7: 96
        • Carter CL
        • Allen C
        • Henson DE
        Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases.
        Cancer. 1989; 63: 181-187
        • Nemoto T
        • Vana J
        • Bedwani RN
        • et al.
        Management and survival of female breast cancer: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons.
        Cancer. 1980; 45: 2917-2924
        • National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel
        National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1-3, 2000.
        J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2001; : 5-15
        • Sotiriou C
        • Neo SY
        • McShane LM
        • et al.
        Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a populationbased study.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003; 100: 10393-10398
        • Weigelt B
        • Hu Z
        • He X
        • et al.
        Molecular portraits and 70-gene prognosis signature are preserved throughout the metastatic process of breast cancer.
        Cancer Res. 2005; 65: 9155-9158
        • Abd El-Rehim DM
        • Ball G
        • Pinder SE
        • et al.
        High-throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well-characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses.
        Int J Cancer. 2005; 116: 340-350
        • Diallo-Danebrock R
        • Ting E
        • Gluz O
        • et al.
        Protein expression profiling in high-risk breast cancer patients treated with high-dose or conventional dose-dense chemotherapy.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2007; 13: 488-497
        • Jacquemier J
        • Ginestier C
        • Rougemont J
        • et al.
        Protein expression profiling identifies subclasses of breast cancer and predicts prognosis.
        Cancer Res. 2005; 65: 767-779
        • Nielsen TO
        • Hsu FD
        • Jensen K
        • et al.
        Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2004; 10: 5367-5374
        • Cheang MC
        • Treaba DO
        • Speers CH
        • et al.
        Immunohistochemical detection using the new rabbit monoclonal antibody SP1 of estrogen receptor in breast cancer is superior to mouse monoclonal antibody 1D5 in predicting survival.
        J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 5637-5644
        • Rajput AB
        • Turbin DA
        • Cheang MC
        • et al.
        Stromal mast cells in invasive breast cancer are a marker of favourable prognosis: a study of 4,444 cases.
        Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008; 107: 249-257
        • Carey LA
        • Perou CM
        • Livasy CA
        • et al.
        Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the carolina breast cancer study.
        JAMA. 2006; 295: 2492-2502
      1. Hermanek P Sobin LH International Union Against Cancer: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 4th ed. New York, Springer1987
        • Elston CW
        • Ellis IO
        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.
        Histopathology. 1991; 19: 403-410
      2. Hosmer DW Lemeshow S Applied Logistic Regression. New York, Wiley & Sons1989
        • Fulford LG
        • Reis-Filho JS
        • Ryder K
        • et al.
        Basal-like grade III invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: patterns of metastasis and longterm survival.
        Breast Cancer Res. 2007; 9: R4
        • Rakha EA
        • El-Rehim DA
        • Paish C
        • et al.
        Basal phenotype identifies a poor prognostic subgroup of breast cancer of clinical importance.
        Eur J Cancer. 2006; 42: 3149-3156
        • Cheang MC
        • Voduc D
        • Bajdik C
        • et al.
        Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple negative phenotype.
        Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14: 1368-1376