Top

World Journal of Surgery

Published in:

01-06-2016 | Original Scientific Report

Outcomes of Triple-Negative Breast Cancers (TNBC) Compared with Non-TNBC: Does the Survival Vary for All Stages?

Authors: Gaurav Agarwal, Gitika Nanda, Punita Lal, Anjali Mishra, Amit Agarwal, Vinita Agrawal, Narendra Krishnani

Published in: World Journal of Surgery | Issue 6/2016

Abstract

Background

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is associated with aggressive tumor behavior and worse outcomes. In a study at a tertiary care breast unit in a developing country, clinico-pathological attributes and outcomes of patients with TNBC were compared with (c.w.) ER, PR, and/or HER2 expressing tumors (non-TNBC).

Patients and methods

Medical records of 1213 consecutive breast cancer patients managed during 2004–2010 were reviewed. An evaluable cohort of 705 patients with complete treatment and follow-up (median 36 months) information was thus identified. Patients were categorized per ER, PR & HER2 status into TNBC, and ER/PR+ and/or HER2+ groups. Clinico-pathological parameters, response to NACT, and OS & DFS were compared between TNBC and non-TNBC groups.

Results

TNBC patients (n = 249) comprised 35.3 % of the study cohort (n = 705), and were significantly younger than non-TNBC patients (mean age 49.1 ± 11.2y c.w. 51.8 ± 11.3, p = 0.02). The TNM stage at presentation was similar in the two groups (Stage I and II—37 % c.w. 44.3 %, Stage III—47.5 % c.w. 39.5 %, Stage IV—15.5 % c.w. 16.2 % in TNBC c.w. Non-TNBC; p = 0.09). Tumor size (5.7 ± 2.9 cm TNBC c.w. 5.4 ± 2.8 cm non-TNBC, p = 0.22) was similar but lymph nodal (cN) metastases were more frequent in TNBC (77.3 % c.w. 69.8 %; p = 0.03). TNBC had higher histologic grade (97.1 % gr II/III in TNBC c.w. 91.2 % non-TNBC, p = 0.01) and higher incidence of LVI (20.4 % in TNBC c.w. 13.5 %, p = 0.03). Patient groups received similar multi-disciplinary surgical, radiation, and systemic treatment. Comparable proportion of patients in 2 groups were treated with NACT (42 % c.w. 38 %), which resulted in pathological complete response (pCR) in 27.5 % TNBC patients c.w. 17.1 % non-TNBC patients (p = 0.04). Both OS (81.8 ± 4.52 c.w. 97.90 ± 3.87 months, p < 0.001) and DFS (89.2 ± 5.1 c.w. 113.8 ± 4.3 months, p < 0.001) were shorter in TNBC than non-TNBC group. On stage-wise comparison, OS differed significantly only in stage III (47.4 ± 5.3 months in TNBC c.w. 74.5 ± 4.4 in non-TNBC; p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed tumor stage and IHC subtyping into TNBC c.w. non-TNBC as most important factors predictive of survival.

Conclusions

TNBC occurred at younger age and exhibited aggressive pathology as compared to non-TNBC patients. Although patients with TNBC exhibited better chemo-sensitivity, they had worse DFS and OS compared to the non-TNBC patients. The survival of Stage III TNBC patients was significantly worse compared to non-TNBC group; while in stages I, II, and IV, survival were not significantly different.

Available only for authorised users

Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M et al (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 28(16):2784–2795CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS 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

Hamm C, El-Masri M, Poliquin G et al (2011) A single-centre chart review exploring the adjusted association between breast cancer phenotype and prognosis. Curr Oncol 18(4):191–196CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kaplan HG, Malmgren JA (2008) Impact of triple negative phenotype on breast cancer prognosis. Breast J 14(5):456–463CrossRefPubMed

Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L et al (2007) The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 13(8):2329–2334CrossRefPubMed

Lee JA, Kim KI, Bae JW et al (2010) Korean Breast Cancer Society. Triple negative breast cancer in Korea-distinct biology with different impact of prognostic factors on survival. Breast Cancer Res Treat 123(1):177–187CrossRefPubMed

Lin NU, Vanderplas A, Hughes ME 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

Leong SP, Shen ZZ, Liu TJ et al (2010) Is breast cancer the same disease in Asian and Western countries? World J Surg 34(10):2308–2324. doi:10.1007/s00268-010-0683-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Agarwal G, Pradeep PV, Aggarwal V et al (2007) Spectrum of breast cancer in Asian women. World J Surg 31(5):1031–1040. doi:10.1007/s00268-005-0585-9 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Ram Prabu MP, Raina V, Shukla NK et al (2011) A study of triple-negative breast cancer at a cancer institute in India. J Clin Oncol 29:(suppl; abstr e11548)

11.

Shet T, Agrawal A, Nadkarni M et al (2009) Hormone receptors over the last 8 years in a cancer referral center in India: what was and what is? Indian J Pathol Microbiol 52(2):171–174CrossRefPubMed

12.

Kuraparthy S, Reddy KM, Yadagiri LA et al (2007) Epidemiology and patterns of care for invasive breast carcinoma at a community hospital in Southern India. World J Surg Oncol. 23(5):56CrossRef

13.

Dey S, Boffetta P, Mathews A et al (2009) Risk factors according to estrogen receptor status of breast cancer patients in Trivandrum, South India. Int J Cancer 125(7):1663–1670CrossRefPubMed

14.

Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295(21):2492–2502CrossRefPubMed

15.

Millikan RC, Newman B, Tse CK et al (2008) Epidemiology of basal-like breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 109(1):123–139CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD et al (2007) Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer 109(9):1721–1728CrossRefPubMed

17.

Matos I, Dufloth R, Alvarenga M et al (2005) p63, cytokeratin 5 and P-cadherin: three molecular markers to distinguish basal phenotype in breast carcinomas. Virchows Arch 447(4):688–694CrossRefPubMed

18.

Elnashar AT, Ali el-SM, Gaber A (2012) The prognostic value of triple negative in stage II/III breast cancer. J Oncol Pharm Pract. 18(1):68–75CrossRefPubMed

19.

Park YH, Lee SJ, Cho EY et al (2011) Clinical relevance of TNM staging system according to breast cancer subtypes. Ann Oncol 22(7):1554–1560CrossRefPubMed

20.

Ring AE, Smith IE, Ashley S et al (2004) Oestrogen receptor status, pathological complete response and prognosis in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Brit J Cancer 91:2012–2017CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

21.

Martin M, Romero A, Cheang MC et al (2011) Genomic predictors of response to doxorubicin versus docetaxel in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 128(1):127–136CrossRefPubMed

22.

Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR et al (2008) Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26(8):1275–1281CrossRefPubMed

23.

Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10869–10874CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Gianni L, Zambetti M, Clark K et al (2005) Gene expression profiles in paraffin-embedded core biopsy tissue predict response to chemotherapy in women with locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23(29):7265–7277CrossRefPubMed

25.

Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Greenlee RT, Mukesh BN (2009) Breast cancer subtypes based on ER/PR and Her2 expression: comparison of clinicopathologic features and survival. Clin Med Res. 7(1–2):4–13CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Pogoda K, Niwikska A, Murawska M, Pieńkowski T (2013) Analysis of pattern, time and risk factors influencing recurrence in triple-negative breast cancer patients. Med Oncol 30(1):388CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Title: Outcomes of Triple-Negative Breast Cancers (TNBC) Compared with Non-TNBC: Does the Survival Vary for All Stages?
Authors: Gaurav Agarwal
Gitika Nanda
Punita Lal
Anjali Mishra
Amit Agarwal
Vinita Agrawal
Narendra Krishnani
Publication date: 01-06-2016
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: World Journal of Surgery / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0364-2313
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2323
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-016-3422-4

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Outcomes of Triple-Negative Breast Cancers (TNBC) Compared with Non-TNBC: Does the Survival Vary for All Stages?

Abstract

Background

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Long-Term Follow-Up of Patients Undergoing Resection of TNM Stage I Colorectal Cancer: An Analysis of Tumour and Host Determinants of Outcome

Does Delay of Diagnosis and Treatment in Appendicitis Cause Perforation?

Preserving Parathyroid Gland Vasculature to Reduce Post-thyroidectomy Hypocalcemia

Editorial Commentary on Bolkan et al. “The Surgical Workforce and Surgical Provider Productivity in Sierra Leone: A Countrywide Inventory”

Involving Medical Students in Informed Consent: A Pilot Study

Severity of Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Injuries in Thyroid Surgery