Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2017

01-10-2017 | Epidemiology

Risk of mortality of node-negative, ER/PR/HER2 breast cancer subtypes in T1, T2, and T3 tumors

Authors: Carol A. Parise, Vincent Caggiano

Published in: Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Issue 3/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess differences in breast cancer-specific mortality within tumors of the same size when breast cancer was defined using the three tumor markers estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2).

Methods

We identified 104,499 cases of node-negative primary female invasive breast cancer from the California Cancer Registry. Tumor size was categorized as T1a, T1b, T1c, T2, and T3. Breast cancer was defined using ER, PR, and HER2. Kaplan–Meier Survival analysis was conducted and Cox Regression was used to compute the adjusted risk of mortality for the ER+/PR+/HER2+, ER−/PR−/HER2− (TNBC), and ER−/PR−/HER2+ (HER2-overexpressing) subtypes when compared with the ER+/PR+/HER2−. Separate models were computed for each tumor size.

Results

Unadjusted survival analysis showed that for all tumor sizes, the ER+/PR+ subtypes regardless of HER status have better breast cancer-specific survival than ER−/PR− subtypes. Subtype was not an important factor for risk of mortality for T1a tumors. The ER+/PR+/HER2+ subtype was only a risk for mortality in T1b tumors that were unadjusted for treatment. For all other tumor sizes, the ER+/PR+/HER2+ had the same mortality as the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype regardless of adjustment for treatment. The HER2-overexpressing subtype had a higher risk of mortality than the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype except for T1b tumors that were adjusted for treatment. For all tumor sizes, the TNBC had higher hazard ratios than all other subtypes.

Conclusions

T1a tumors have the same risk of mortality regardless of ER/PR/HER2 subtype, and ER and PR negativity plays a stronger role in survival than HER2 positivity for tumors of all size.
Literature
1.
Tabar L, Duffy SW, Vitak B, Chen HH, Prevost TC (1999) The natural history of breast carcinoma: what have we learned from screening? Cancer 86(3):449–462CrossRef
2.
Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, Fryback DG, Clarke L, Zelen M, Mandelblatt JS, Yakovlev AY, Habbema JD, Feuer EJ (2005) Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353(17):1784–1792CrossRef
3.
Mandelblatt JS, Stout NK, Schechter CB, van den Broek JJ, Miglioretti DL, Krapcho M, Trentham-Dietz A, Munoz D, Lee SJ, Berry DA, van Ravesteyn NT, Alagoz O, Kerlikowske K, Tosteson AN, Near AM, Hoeffken A, Chang Y, Heijnsdijk EA, Chisholm G, Huang X, Huang H, Ergun MA, Gangnon R, Sprague BL, Plevritis S, Feuer E, de Koning HJ, Cronin KA (2016) Collaborative modeling of the benefits and harms associated with different U.S. breast cancer screening strategies. Ann Intern Med 164(4):215–225. doi:10.​7326/​M15-1536 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
4.
Curigliano G, Viale G, Bagnardi V, Fumagalli L, Locatelli M, Rotmensz N, Ghisini R, Colleoni M, Munzone E, Veronesi P, Zurrida S, Nole F, Goldhirsch A (2009) Clinical relevance of HER2 overexpression/amplification in patients with small tumor size and node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27(34):5693–5699. doi:10.​1200/​JCO.​2009.​22.​0962 CrossRefPubMed
5.
Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Litton JK, Broglio KR, Meric-Bernstam F, Rakkhit R, Cardoso F, Peintinger F, Hanrahan EO, Sahin A, Guray M, Larsimont D, Feoli F, Stranzl H, Buchholz TA, Valero V, Theriault R, Piccart-Gebhart M, Ravdin PM, Berry DA, Hortobagyi GN (2009) High risk of recurrence for patients with breast cancer who have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, node-negative tumors 1 cm or smaller. J Clin Oncol 27(34):5700–5706. doi:10.​1200/​JCO.​2009.​23.​2025 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Cancello G, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, Viale G, Mastropasqua MG, Pruneri G, Montagna E, Dellapasqua S, Iorfida M, Cardillo A, Veronesi P, Luini A, Intra M, Gentilini O, Scarano E, Goldhirsch A, Colleoni M (2011) Prognosis in women with small (T1mic, T1a, T1b) node-negative operable breast cancer by immunohistochemically selected subtypes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(3):713–720. doi:10.​1007/​s10549-011-1465-7 CrossRefPubMed
7.
Vaz-Luis I, Ottesen RA, Hughes ME, Mamet R, Burstein HJ, Edge SB, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Moy B, Rugo HS, Theriault RL, Weeks JC, Winer EP, Lin NU (2014) Outcomes by tumor subtype and treatment pattern in women with small, node-negative breast cancer: a multi-institutional study. J Clin Oncol 32(20):2142–2150. doi:10.​1200/​JCO.​2013.​53.​1608 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
9.
Parise CA, Bauer KR, Brown MM, Caggiano V (2009) Breast cancer subtypes as defined by the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) among women with invasive breast cancer in California, 1999–2004. Breast Journal 15(6):593–602. doi:10.​1111/​j.​1524-4741.​2009.​00822.​x CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Fritz AG (2000) International classification of diseases for oncology: ICD-O, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva
12.
Cancer reporting in California: abstracting and coding procedures for hospitals. California cancer reporting system standards, vol. I (2008). California Department of Public, Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch, Sacramento
13.
14.
15.
PathVysion® (2002) HER-2 DNA Probe Kit Package Insert, vol. February. Vysis, Inc.
16.
17.
Yost K, Perkins C, Cohen R, Morris C, Wright W (2001) Socioeconomic status and breast cancer incidence in California for different race/ethnic groups. Cancer Causes Control 12(8):703–711CrossRef
18.
Clarke CA, Glaser SL, Keegan TH, Stroup A (2005) Neighborhood socioeconomic status and Hodgkin’s lymphoma incidence in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14(6):1441–1447CrossRef
19.
Parikh-Patel A, Bates JH, Campleman S (2006) Colorectal cancer stage at diagnosis by socioeconomic and urban/rural status in California, 1988–2000. Cancer 107(5 Suppl):1189–1195CrossRef
20.
Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V (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):1721–1728CrossRef
21.
Zell JA, Rhee JM, Ziogas A, Lipkin SM, Anton-Culver H (2007) Race, socioeconomic status, treatment, and survival time among pancreatic cancer cases in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16(3):546–552CrossRef
22.
Brown M, Tsodikov A, Bauer KR, Parise CA, Caggiano V (2008) The role of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 in the survival of women with estrogen and progesterone receptor-negative, invasive breast cancer: the California Cancer Registry, 1999–2004. Cancer 112(4):737–747CrossRef
23.
Ou SH, Zell JA, Ziogas A, Anton-Culver H (2008) Low socioeconomic status is a poor prognostic factor for survival in stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer and is independent of surgical treatment, race, and marital status. Cancer 112(9):2011–2020CrossRef
24.
Yin D, Morris C, Allen M, Cress R, Bates J, Liu L (2010) Does socioeconomic disparity in cancer incidence vary across racial/ethnic groups? Cancer Causes Control 21(10):1721–1730CrossRef
25.
Telli ML, Chang ET, Kurian AW, Keegan TH, McClure LA, Lichtensztajn D, Ford JM, Gomez SL (2011) Asian ethnicity and breast cancer subtypes: a study from the California Cancer Registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127(2):471–478. doi:10.​1007/​s10549-010-1173-8 CrossRefPubMed
26.
Parise CA, Bauer KR, Caggiano V (2012) Disparities in receipt of adjuvant radiation therapy after breast-conserving surgery among the cancer-reporting regions of California. Cancer 118(9):2516–2524CrossRef
27.
(2012) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, vol. 21.0. IBM Corp, Armonk
28.
Subramaniam S, Bhoo-Pathy N, Taib NA, Tan GH, See MH, Jamaris S, Ho GF, Looi LM, Yip CH (2015) Breast cancer outcomes as defined by the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human growth factor receptor-2 in a multi-ethnic Asian country. World J Surg 39(10):2450–2458. doi:10.​1007/​s00268-015-3133-2 CrossRefPubMed
29.
Izquierdo JN, Schoenbach VJ (2000) The potential and limitations of data from population-based state cancer registries. Am J Public Health 90(5):695–698CrossRef
30.
Metadata
Title
Risk of mortality of node-negative, ER/PR/HER2 breast cancer subtypes in T1, T2, and T3 tumors
Authors
Carol A. Parise
Vincent Caggiano
Publication date
01-10-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment / Issue 3/2017
Print ISSN: 0167-6806
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7217
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4383-5

Other articles of this Issue 3/2017

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 3/2017 Go to the issue

Epidemiology

Oncologists’ influence on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy: does it matter whom you see for treatment of curable breast cancer?

Epidemiology

Patterns and predictors of first and subsequent recurrence in women with early breast cancer

Preclinical study

Pro-apoptotic effect of Δ2-TGZ in “claudin-1-low” triple-negative breast cancer cells: involvement of claudin-1

Erratum

Erratum to: Pro-apoptotic effect of Δ2-TGZ in “claudin-1-low” triple-negative breast cancer cells: involvement of claudin-1

Epidemiology

Increasing utilization of regional nodal irradiation in elderly node-positive women and declining emphasis on demographic factors

Brief Report

From clinical trials to clinical practice: outcome of NSABP-B27 neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimen for high-risk early-stage breast cancer
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
Image Credits