Top

Published in:

01-03-2017 | Original Article

Breast carcinoma subtypes show different patterns of metastatic behavior

Authors: István Artúr Molnár, Béla Ákos Molnár, Laura Vízkeleti, Krisztina Fekete, Judit Tamás, Péter Deák, Csilla Szundi, Borbála Székely, Judit Moldvay, Stefan Vári-Kakas, Marcell A. Szász, Balázs Ács, Janina Kulka, Anna-Mária Tőkés

Published in: Virchows Archiv | Issue 3/2017

Abstract

The aim of our retrospective study was to analyze patterns of subtype specific metastatic spread and to identify the time course of distant metastases. A consecutive series of 490 patients with breast cancer who underwent surgery and postoperative treatment at Semmelweis University, Hungary, and diagnosed between the years 2000 and 2007 was identified from the archives of the 2nd Department of Pathology, Hungary. Molecular subtypes were defined based on the 2011 St. Gallen recommendations. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22.0. Distant metastasis free survival (DMFS) was defined as the time elapsed between the first pathological diagnosis of the tumor and the first distant metastasis detection. Distant metastases were detected in 124 patients. Mean time to develop metastasis was 29 months (range 0–127 months). The longest DMFS was observed in the Luminal A (LUMA) subtype (mean 39 months) whereas the shortest was seen in the HER2-positive (HER2+) subtype (mean 21 months; p = 0.012). We confirmed that HER2+ tumors carry a higher risk for distant metastases (42.1%). LUMA-associated metastases were found to be solitary in 59% of cases, whereas HER2+ tumors showed multiple metastases in 79.2% of cases. LUMA tumors showed a preference for bone-only metastasis as compared with HER2+ and triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) cases, which exhibited a higher rate of brain metastasis. The most frequent second metastatic sites of hormone receptor (HR) positive tumors were the lung and liver, whereas the brain was the most affected organ in HR-negative (HR−) cases. Tumor subtypes differ in DMFS and in pattern of distant metastases. HER2+ tumors featured the most aggressive clinical course. Further identification of subtype-specific factors influencing prognosis might have an impact on clinical care and decision-making.

Gerratana L et al (2015) Pattern of metastasis and outcome in patients with breast cancer. Clin Exp Metastasis 32(2):125–133CrossRefPubMed

Joensuu K et al (2013) ER, PR, HER2, Ki-67 and CK5 in early and late relapsing breast cancer-reduced CK5 expression in metastases. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 7:23–34

Kast K et al (2015) Impact of breast cancer subtypes and patterns of metastasis on outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat 150(3):621–629CrossRefPubMed

Kennecke H et al (2010) Metastatic behavior of breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol 28(20):3271–3277CrossRefPubMed

Savci-Heijink CD et al (2015) Retrospective analysis of metastatic behaviour of breast cancer subtypes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 150(3):547–557CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Aurilio G et al (2013) Discordant hormone receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status in bone metastases compared to primary breast cancer. Acta Oncol 52(8):1649–1656CrossRefPubMed

Cancello G et al (2013) Progesterone receptor loss identifies Luminal B breast cancer subgroups at higher risk of relapse. Ann Oncol 24(3):661–668CrossRefPubMed

Sihto H et al (2011) Breast cancer biological subtypes and protein expression predict for the preferential distant metastasis sites: a nationwide cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 13(5):R87CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Blighe K et al (2014) Whole genome sequence analysis suggests intratumoral heterogeneity in dissemination of breast cancer to lymph nodes. PLoS One 9(12):e115346CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Sant M et al (2004) Breast carcinoma survival in Europe and the United States. Cancer 100(4):715–722CrossRefPubMed

11.

Zardavas D et al (2014) The AURORA initiative for metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 111(10):1881–1887CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Goldhirsch A et al (2011) 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. Ann Oncol 22(8):1736–1747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Goldhirsch A (2013) Personalized adjuvant therapies: lessons from the past: the opening address by the St. Gallen 2013 award recipient. Breast 22(Suppl 2):S3–S7CrossRefPubMed

14.

Cserni G et al (2014) Distribution pattern of the Ki67 labelling index in breast cancer and its implications for choosing cut-off values. Breast 23(3):259–263CrossRefPubMed

15.

Selmeci TTA, Róna Á, Molnár BÁ, Kenessey I, Székely B, Szász AM, Kulka J (2014) Prognostic role of progesteron receptor expression in HER2 negative Luminal B breast cancers. Nőgyógyászati Onkológia 19:47–49

16.

Wolff AC et al (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(1):118–145CrossRefPubMed

17.

Wolff AC et al (2014) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138(2):241–256CrossRefPubMed

18.

Ostrovnaya I et al (2010) A metastasis or a second independent cancer? Evaluating the clonal origin of tumors using array copy number data. Stat Med 29(15):1608–1621PubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Bueno-de-Mesquita JM et al (2009) Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 117(3):483–495CrossRefPubMed

20.

van de Vijver MJ et al (2002) A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347(25):1999–2009CrossRefPubMed

21.

Gyorffy B et al (2015) Dynamic classification using case-specific training cohorts outperforms static gene expression signatures in breast cancer. Int J Cancer 136(9):2091–2098CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sotiriou C et al (2006) Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(4):262–272CrossRefPubMed

23.

Brockton NT et al (2015) The Breast Cancer to Bone (B2B) Metastases Research Program: a multi-disciplinary investigation of bone metastases from breast cancer. BMC Cancer 15:512CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Kim HJ et al (2015) Metastasis-free interval is closely related to tumor characteristics and has prognostic value in breast cancer patients with distant relapse. J Breast Cancer 18(4):371–377CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Rugo HS (2008) The importance of distant metastases in hormone-sensitive breast cancer. Breast 17(Suppl 1):S3–S8CrossRefPubMed

26.

Soni A et al (2015) Breast cancer subtypes predispose the site of distant metastases. Am J Clin Pathol 143(4):471–478CrossRefPubMed

27.

Aleskandarany MA et al (2015) Markers of progression in early-stage invasive breast cancer: a predictive immunohistochemical panel algorithm for distant recurrence risk stratification. Breast Cancer Res Treat 151(2):325–333CrossRefPubMed

28.

Sato K et al (2016) Prognostic significance of the progesterone receptor status in Ki67-high and -low Luminal B-like HER2-negative breast cancers. Breast Cancer 23(2):310–317CrossRefPubMed

29.

Desmedt C, Yates L, Kulka J (2016) Catalog of genetic progression of human cancers: breast cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 35(1):49–62CrossRefPubMed

30.

Kulka J et al (2016) Comparison of predictive immunohistochemical marker expression of primary breast cancer and paired distant metastasis using surgical material: a practice-based study. J Histochem Cytochem 64(4):256–267CrossRefPubMed

31.

Kimbung S, Loman N, Hedenfalk I (2015) Clinical and molecular complexity of breast cancer metastases. Semin Cancer Biol 35:85–95CrossRefPubMed

32.

Bahrami T et al (2016) The molecular signature of breast cancer metastasis to bone. Anti-Cancer Drugs 27(9):824–831CrossRefPubMed

33.

Lee JY et al (2016) Gene expression profiling of breast cancer brain metastasis. Sci Rep 6:28623CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Weidle UH et al (2016) Dissection of the process of brain metastasis reveals targets and mechanisms for molecular-based intervention. Cancer Genomics Proteomics 13(4):245–258PubMed

35.

Kimbung S et al (2016) Transcriptional profiling of breast cancer metastases identifies liver metastasis-selective genes associated with adverse outcome in Luminal A primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 22(1):146–157CrossRefPubMed

36.

Kimbung S et al (2015) Contrasting breast cancer molecular subtypes across serial tumor progression stages: biological and prognostic implications. Oncotarget 6(32):33306–33318PubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Smid M et al (2008) Subtypes of breast cancer show preferential site of relapse. Cancer Res 68(9):3108–3114CrossRefPubMed

38.

Savci-Heijink CD et al (2016) A novel gene expression signature for bone metastasis in breast carcinomas. Breast Cancer Res Treat 156(2):249–259CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Harrell JC et al (2012) Genomic analysis identifies unique signatures predictive of brain, lung, and liver relapse. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132(2):523–535CrossRefPubMed

40.

Lin NU et al (2012) Clinicopathologic features, patterns of recurrence, and survival among women with triple-negative breast cancer in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Cancer 118(22):5463–5472CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Pestalozzi BC et al (2006) Identifying breast cancer patients at risk for central nervous system (CNS) metastases in trials of the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG). Ann Oncol 17(6):935–944CrossRefPubMed

42.

Saunus JM et al (2015) Integrated genomic and transcriptomic analysis of human brain metastases identifies alterations of potential clinical significance. J Pathol 237(3):363–378CrossRefPubMed

43.

Rostami R et al (2016) Brain metastasis in breast cancer: a comprehensive literature review. J Neuro-Oncol 127(3):407–414CrossRef

44.

Olson EM et al (2013) Clinical outcomes and treatment practice patterns of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in the post-trastuzumab era. Breast 22(4):525–531CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

45.

Dawood S et al (2010) Prognosis of women with metastatic breast cancer by HER2 status and trastuzumab treatment: an institutional-based review. J Clin Oncol 28(1):92–98CrossRefPubMed

Title: Breast carcinoma subtypes show different patterns of metastatic behavior
Authors: István Artúr Molnár
Béla Ákos Molnár
Laura Vízkeleti
Krisztina Fekete
Judit Tamás
Péter Deák
Csilla Szundi
Borbála Székely
Judit Moldvay
Stefan Vári-Kakas
Marcell A. Szász
Balázs Ács
Janina Kulka
Anna-Mária Tőkés
Publication date: 01-03-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Virchows Archiv / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0945-6317
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-017-2065-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Breast carcinoma subtypes show different patterns of metastatic behavior

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Altered expression of apoptosis-regulating miRNAs in salivary gland tumors suggests their involvement in salivary gland tumorigenesis

Actin isoform expression patterns in adult extracardiac and cardiac rhabdomyomas indicate a different cell of origin

Ovarian metastasis from uveal melanoma with MLH1/PMS2 protein loss in a patient with germline MLH1 mutated Lynch syndrome: consequence or coincidence?

Book Review—Hematopathology, 2nd edition

Molecular characterization of CD44+/CD24−/Ck+/CD45− cells in benign and malignant breast lesions

In stage pT1 non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), high KRT20 and low KRT5 mRNA expression identify the luminal subtype and predict recurrence and survival