Top

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

Published in:

01-07-2017 | Brief Report

Assessment of the prognostic and discriminating value of the novel bioscore system for breast cancer; a SEER database analysis

Author: Omar Abdel-Rahman

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 1/2017

Abstract

Background

An updated bioscore has been proposed within the context of the 8th edition American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for breast cancer. This study seeks to validate the discriminating value of this bioscore among non-metastatic breast cancer patients registered within the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) database.

Methods

Through SEER*Stat program, SEER database (2010–2013) was accessed and bioscore was formulated for each patient. Overall and cancer-specific survival analyses according to both bioscore and AJCC pathological stages were conducted through Kaplan–Meier analysis/log-rank testing, and multivariate analysis was conducted through a Cox proportional model.

Results

A total of 181030 patients with non-metastatic, surgically treated breast cancer were identified in the period from 2010 to 2013. For overall and cancer-specific survival assessment according to the bioscore system, P values for pairwise comparisons among different score points were significant (P < 0.0001) except for the comparison between score 0 and score 1. For cancer-specific survival assessment according to the AJCC stages, P values for pairwise comparisons among different stages were significant (P < 0.0001) except for the comparison between stages IIIB and IIIC. For overall survival assessment according to the AJCC stages, P values for pairwise comparisons among different stages were significant (P < 0.001) except for the comparison between stages IA and IB. In a multivariate analysis, the following factors were associated with better cancer-specific survival (earlier stage disease, ER positivity, PR positivity, Her2 neu positivity, and nuclear grade) (P < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The current analysis confirms the prognostic utility of the bioscore system and suggests it may be incorporated into decision-making algorithms for non-metastatic breast cancer.

http://globocan.iarc.fr. Last accessed on 27/11/2016

Abdoli G, Bottai M, Sandelin K, Moradi T (2017) Breast cancer diagnosis and mortality by tumor stage and migration background in a nationwide cohort study in Sweden. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 31:57–65CrossRef

Jackisch C, Lammers P, Jacobs I (2017) Evolving landscape of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer treatment and the future of biosimilars. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) 32:199–216CrossRef

Amin MB, Greene FL, Greene FL, Edge SB, Edge SB, Compton CC, Gershenwald JE, Brookland RK et al (2017) The Eighth Edition AJCC Cancer Staging Manual: Continuing to build a bridge from a population-based to a more “personalized” approach to cancer staging. CA Cancer J Clin 67(2):93–99CrossRefPubMed

Bagaria SP, Ray PS, Sim MS, Ye X, Shamonki JM, Cui X et al (2014) Personalizing breast cancer staging by the inclusion of ER, PR, and HER2. JAMA surgery 149(2):125–129CrossRefPubMed

Yi M, Mittendorf EA, Cormier JN, Buchholz TA, Bilimoria K, Sahin AA et al (2011) Novel staging system for predicting disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as the first intervention: time to modify the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. J Clin Oncol 29(35):4654–4661CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Giuliano AE, Connolly JL, Edge SB, Mittendorf EA, Rugo HS, Solin LJ, et al (2017) Breast cancer—major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual. CA Cancer J Clin. doi:10.3322/caac.21393

Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program. About the SEER Program. Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/about. Accessed June 25

Mittendorf EA, Vila J, Tucker SL, Chavez-MacGregor M, Smith BD, Symmans WF et al (2016) The neo-bioscore update for staging breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: incorporation of prognostic biologic factors into staging after treatment. JAMA Oncol. 2(7):929–936CrossRefPubMed

10.

Marme F, Lederer B, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Denkert C, Eidtmann H et al (2016) Utility of the CPS + EG staging system in hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur J Cancer 53:65–74CrossRefPubMed

11.

Vila J, Teshome M, Tucker SL, Woodward WA, Chavez-MacGregor M, Hunt KK et al (2017) Combining clinical and pathologic staging variables has prognostic value in predicting local-regional recurrence following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. Ann Surg 265(3):574–580CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mittendorf EA, Jeruss JS, Tucker SL, Kolli A, Newman LA, Gonzalez-Angulo AM et al (2011) Validation of a novel staging system for disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 29(15):1956–1962CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Eggemann H, Ignatov T, Burger E, Kantelhardt EJ, Fettke F, Thomssen C et al (2015) Moderate HER2 expression as a prognostic factor in hormone receptor positive breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 22(5):725–733CrossRefPubMed

14.

Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 98(19):10869–10874CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, Pritchard KI, Albain KS, Hayes DF et al (2015) Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 373(21):2005–2014CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Gluz O, Nitz UA, Christgen M, Kates RE, Shak S, Clemens M et al (2016) West german study group phase III PlanB trial: first prospective outcome data for the 21-gene recurrence score assay and concordance of prognostic markers by central and local pathology assessment. J Clin Oncol 34(20):2341–2349CrossRefPubMed

Title: Assessment of the prognostic and discriminating value of the novel bioscore system for breast cancer; a SEER database analysis
Author: Omar Abdel-Rahman
Publication date: 01-07-2017
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4244-2

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

Role of taxanes in chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment: A prospective longitudinal study

Erratum to: Effective treatment of intractable cutaneous metastases of breast cancer with electrochemotherapy: a useful contributor to cutaneous disease control

Ablative Therapies in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review

Breast cancer in Asian Americans in California, 1988–2013: increasing incidence trends and recent data on breast cancer subtypes

SLCO1B1 polymorphisms and plasma estrone conjugates in postmenopausal women with ER+ breast cancer: genome-wide association studies of the estrone pathway

Omitting re-excision for focally positive margins after breast-conserving surgery does not impair disease-free and overall survival

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer