Receptor Status Differences in Prognosis for Breast Cancer
Receptor Status in Breast Cancer
Keywords:
Breast cancer, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER2Abstract
Objective: Breast cancer is a type of cancer that originates in breast tissue cells. It is the most common cancer type in the world after lung cancer. The prognosis of the disease mostly depends on the type and stage of cancer. One of the worst prognoses is seen in a specific type called Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), which represents not having any of the three most recognized receptors, namely estrogen, progesterone, and c-erb2 receptors. Our objective was to determine the difference in overall and disease-free survival for breast cancer types categorized by receptor status.
Methods: This is a retrospective matched case-control study with breast cancer patients of two types. A total of 102 patients were divided equally into having TNBC of 51 patients in one arm and triplepositive breast cancer (TPBC) of 51 patients in the other arm. Analyses were run for disease prognostic values and patients’ demographic values.
Results: Disease free survival were 63±10.6 months and 93.2±4.9 months in the fifth year for the TNBC and TPBC groups, respectively. (p=0.004) Overall survival was significantly different as 73.9±7.3 months for TNBC and 97.7±2.3 months for TPBC (p=0.002).
Conclusion: TNBC prognosis is worse than that of other breast cancer types. The most important reason is being unable to use hormonal treatment because of the receptor status, and a disease-specific targeted treatment could not have been developed so far. Therefore, it is necessary to identify new molecular targets and develop treatments for them.
References
2. Deroo, B.J. and K.S. Korach, Estrogen receptors and human disease. J Clin Invest, 2006. 116(3): p. 561-70.
3. Kastner, P., et al., Two distinct estrogen-regulated promoters generate transcripts encoding the two functionally different human progesterone receptor forms A and B. EMBO J, 1990. 9(5): p. 1603-14.
4. Casciato DA, T.M., Manual of Clinical Oncology 6th edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2009 (Breast Cancer): p. 237-265.
5. Cheang, M.C., et al., Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res, 2008. 14(5): p. 1368-76.
6. Liedtke, C., et al., Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2008. 26(8): p. 1275-81.
7. Nielsen, T.O., et al., Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res, 2004. 10(16): p. 5367-74.
8. Sorlie, T., et al., Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2003. 100(14): p. 8418-23.
9. Perou, C.M., et al., Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature, 2000. 406(6797): p. 747-52.
10. Fulford, L.G., et al., Specific morphological features predictive for the basal phenotype in grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma of breast. Histopathology, 2006. 49(1): p. 22-34.
11. Livasy, C.A., et al., Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol, 2006. 19(2): p. 264-71.
12. Jack, R.H., et al., Differences in breast cancer hormone receptor status in ethnic groups: a London population. Eur J Cancer, 2013. 49(3): p. 696-702.
13. Sajid, M.T., et al., Age-related frequency of triple negative breast cancer in women. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak, 2014. 24(6): p. 400-3.
14. Notice of retraction. Prognostic factors in breast cancer: the value of the Nottingham Prognostic Index for patients treated in a single institution. Surg Today, 2009. 39(8): p. 738.
15. Carey, L.A., et al., Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA, 2006. 295(21): p. 2492-502.
