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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cancer Causes & Control
Published in: Cancer Causes & Control 5/2019

01-05-2019 | Breast Cancer | Original Paper

Differences in clinicopatholgic characteristics and risk of mortality between the triple positive and ER+/PR+/HER2− breast cancer subtypes

Authors: Carol A. Parise, Vincent Caggiano

Published in: Cancer Causes & Control | Issue 5/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

This study compared the demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics and risk of mortality between the triple positive (TP) and ER+/PR+/HER2− breast cancer subtypes.

Methods

Cases of first primary female invasive TP and ER+/PR+/HER2− breast cancer were obtained from the California Cancer Registry. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare differences in factors associated with the TP versus the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype. Cox regression was used to compute the adjusted risk of breast cancer-specific mortality of the TP versus ER+/PR+/HER2−.

Results

The odds of TP versus ER+/PR+/HER2− were higher with advanced stage, high grade, low SES, ≤ 45 years of age (OR 1.48; CI 1.40–1.55), black (OR 1.11; CI 1.02–1.21), Asian/Pacific Islander (OR 1.15; CI 1.09–1.22), and uninsured (OR 1.42; CI 1.15–1.73). Unadjusted survival analysis indicated worse survival for the TP when compared with the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype. However, adjusted risk of mortality for the TP subtype was not statistically significantly worse than the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype.

Conclusions

Young age, advanced stage and grade, low SES, black and API race, and lack of health insurance are more common in the TP subtype than in the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype. However the risk of mortality between these two subtypes is similar.
Literature
1.
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 J 15:593–602CrossRefPubMed
2.
Parise CA, Caggiano V (2014) Breast cancer survival defined by the ER/PR/HER2 subtypes and a surrogate classification according to tumor grade and immunohistochemical biomarkers. J. Cancer Epidemiol 2014:469251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
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 109:1721–1728CrossRefPubMed
4.
Boyle P (2012) Triple-negative breast cancer: epidemiological considerations and recommendations. Ann Oncol 23(Suppl 6):vi7–12CrossRefPubMed
5.
Liao HY, Zhang WW, Sun JY, Li FY, He ZY, Wu SG (2018) The clinicopathological features and survival outcomes of different histological subtypes in triple-negative breast cancer. J Cancer 9:296–303CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295:2492–2502CrossRefPubMed
7.
Parise CA, Caggiano V (2017) Risk factors associated with the triple-negative breast cancer subtype within four race/ethnicities. Breast Cancer Res Treat 163:151–158CrossRefPubMed
8.
Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:736–750CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Urru SAM, Gallus S, Bosetti C et al (2018) Clinical and pathological factors influencing survival in a large cohort of triple-negative breast cancer patients. BMC Cancer 18:56CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
Zhao S, Ma D, Xiao Y, Jiang YZ, Shao ZM (2018) Clinicopathologic features and prognoses of different histologic types of triple-negative breast cancer: a large population-based analysis. Eur J Surg Oncol 44(4):420–428CrossRefPubMed
11.
Fritz AG (2000) International classification of diseases for oncology: ICD-O, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp. vi, 239
12.
California Department of Public, Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch (2008) Cancer reporting in California: abstracting and coding procedures for hospitals. California cancer reporting system standards, vol. I. California Department of Public, Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch, Sacramento
13.
14.
15.
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 12:703–711CrossRefPubMed
18.
Clarke CA, Glaser SL, Keegan TH, Stroup A (2005) Neighborhood socioeconomic status and Hodgkin’s lymphoma incidence in California. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 14:1441–1447CrossRef
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 107:1189–1195CrossRefPubMed
20.
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 Biomark Prev 16:546–552CrossRef
21.
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 112:737–747CrossRefPubMed
22.
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 112:2011–2020CrossRefPubMed
23.
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 21:1721–1730CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
Telli ML, Chang ET, Kurian AW et al (2011) Asian ethnicity and breast cancer subtypes: a study from the California Cancer Registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127:471–478CrossRefPubMed
25.
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 118:2516–2524CrossRefPubMed
26.
Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR (1987) A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 40:373–383CrossRefPubMed
27.
Hosmer D, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New York
28.
IBM Corp (2012) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, vol 21.0. IBM Corp., Armonk
29.
Alqaisi A, Chen L, Romond E et al (2014) Impact of estrogen receptor (ER) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) co-expression on breast cancer disease characteristics: implications for tumor biology and research. Breast Cancer Res Treat 148:437–444CrossRefPubMed
30.
Alwan NAS, Mualla FH, Al Naqash M, Kathum S, Tawfiq FN, Nadhir S (2017) Clinical and pathological characteristics of triple positive breast cancer among Iraqi patients. Gulf J Oncol 1:51–60
31.
Parise CA, Caggiano V (2017) Risk of mortality of node-negative, ER/PR/HER2 breast cancer subtypes in T1, T2, and T3 tumors. Breast Cancer Res Treat 165:743–750CrossRefPubMed
32.
Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, Marotti J et al (2008) Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 10:R67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Ades F, Zardavas D, Bozovic-Spasojevic I et al (2014) Luminal B breast cancer: molecular characterization, clinical management, and future perspectives. J Clin Oncol 32:2794–2803CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
36.
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 22:1736–1747CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
Sorlie 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 98:10869–10874CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J et al (2003) Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8418–8423CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM et al (2003) Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:10393–10398CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Metadata
Title
Differences in clinicopatholgic characteristics and risk of mortality between the triple positive and ER+/PR+/HER2− breast cancer subtypes
Authors
Carol A. Parise
Vincent Caggiano
Publication date
01-05-2019
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Cancer Causes & Control / Issue 5/2019
Print ISSN: 0957-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7225
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-019-01152-8

Other articles of this Issue 5/2019

Cancer Causes & Control 5/2019 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Primary central nervous system lymphoma in patients with and without HIV infection: a multicenter study and comparison with U.S national data

Original Paper

Diabetes, obesity, and subsequent risk of postmenopausal breast cancer among white and black women in the Southern Community Cohort Study

Original Paper

Global patterns and trends in the incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma

Brief report

Diabetes and differences in detection of incident invasive breast cancer

Original Paper

Joint exposure to smoking, excessive weight, and physical inactivity and survival of ovarian cancer patients, evidence from the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium

Review article

Placing prostate cancer disparities within a psychosocial context: challenges and opportunities for future research
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