Basal breast cancer molecular subtype predicts for lower incidence of axillary lymph node metastases in primary breast cancer

Clinical Breast Cancer

Volumn 8, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 249-256

  Crabb, Simon J ^a   Cheang, Maggie C U ^b   Leung, Samuel ^b   Immonen, Taina ^c   Nielsen, Torsten O ^b   Huntsman, David D ^b   Bajdik, Chris D ^c   Chia, Stephen K ^a,c  

^a Division of Medical Oncology

^b Genetic Pathology Evaluation Centre

^c BRITISH COLUMBIA CANCER AGENCY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Axilla; Core biopsy model; Luminal subtype; Lumpectomy model; Lymphovascular invasion

Indexed keywords

BIOLOGICAL MARKER; CYTOKERATIN 5; CYTOKERATIN 6; EPIDERMAL GROWTH FACTOR RECEPTOR 2; ESTROGEN RECEPTOR; PROGESTERONE RECEPTOR;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; AXILLARY LYMPH NODE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER GRADING; CANCER INVASION; CANCER STAGING; EARLY CANCER; FEMALE; GENE EXPRESSION; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; IMMUNOHISTOCHEMISTRY; INCIDENCE; LYMPH NODE BIOPSY; LYMPH NODE METASTASIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MULTIVARIATE LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; PARTIAL MASTECTOMY; PROGNOSIS; TISSUE MICROARRAY; TUMOR VOLUME; VALIDATION PROCESS;

EID: 46949096398     PISSN: 15268209     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3816/CBC.2008.n.028     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989; 63:181-7.
2. Nemoto T, Vana J, Bedwani RN, et al. Management and survival of female breast cancer: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Cancer 1980; 45:2917-24.
3. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1-3, 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2001; 5-15.
4. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, et al. Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol 2005; 16:1569-83.
5. Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:7703-20.
6. Benson J. Effect of sentinel-node biopsy on metastatic development in breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7:964-6.
7. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node biopsy as a staging procedure in breast cancer: update of a randomised controlled study. Lancet Oncol 2006; 7:983-90.
8. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G, et al. A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003; 349:546-53.
9. Barth A, Craig PH, Silverstein MJ. Predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in patients with Tl breast carcinoma. Cancer 1997; 79:1918-22.
10. Olivotto IA, Jackson JS, Mates D, et al. Prediction of axillary lymph node involvement of women with invasive breast carcinoma: a multivariate analysis. Cancer 1998; 83:948-55.
11. Silverstein MJ, Gierson ED, Waisman JR, et al. Predicting axillary node positivity in patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast by using a combination of T category and palpability. J Am Coll Surg 1995; 180:700-4.
12. Silverstein MJ, Skinner KA, Lomis TJ. Predicting axillary nodal positivity in 2282 patients with breast carcinoma. World J Surg 2001; 25:767-72.
13. Gajdos C, Tartter PI, Bleiweiss IJ. Lymphatic invasion, tumor size, and age are independent predictors of axillary lymph node metastases in women with Tl breast cancers. Ann Surg 1999; 230:692-6.
14. Gann PH, Colilla SA, Gapstur SM, et al. Factors associated with axillary lymph node metastasis from breast carcinoma: descriptive and predictive analyses. Cancer 1999; 86:1511-9.
15. Viale G, Zurrida S, Maiorano E, et al. Predicting the status of axillary sentinel lymph nodes in 4351 patients with invasive breast carcinoma treated in a single institution. Cancer 2005; 103:492-500.
16. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000; 406:747-52.
17. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2001; 98:10869-74.
18. Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L, et al. Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2006; 355:560-9.
19. Hu Z, Fan C, Oh DS, et al. The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genomics 2006; 7:96.
20. Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, et al. Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2003; 100:10393-8.
21. Weigelt B, Hu Z, He X, et al. Molecular portraits and 70-gene prognosis signature are preserved throughout the metastatic process of breast cancer. Cancer Res 2005; 65:9155-8.
22. Abd El-Rehim DM, Ball G, Pinder SE, et al. High-throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well-characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses. Int J Cancer 2005; 116:340-50.
23. Diallo-Danebrock R, Ting E, Gluz O, et al. Protein expression profiling in high-risk breast cancer patients treated with high-dose or conventional dose-dense chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2007; 13:488-97.
24. Jacquemier J, Ginestier C, Rougemont J, et al. Protein expression profiling identifies subclasses of breast cancer and predicts prognosis. Cancer Res 2005; 65:767-79.
25. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, et al. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004; 10:5367-74.
26. Cheang MC, Treaba DO, Speers CH, et al. Immunohistochemical detection using the new rabbit monoclonal antibody SP1 of estrogen receptor in breast cancer is superior to mouse monoclonal antibody 1D5 in predicting survival. J Clin Oncol 2006; 24:5637-44.
27. Rajput AB, Turbin DA, Cheang MC, et al. Stromal mast cells in invasive breast cancer are a marker of favourable prognosis: a study of 4,444 cases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 107:249-57.
28. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina breast cancer study. JAMA 2006; 295:2492-502.
29. Hermanek P, Sobin LH, eds. International Union Against Cancer: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumours. 4th ed. Springer: New York; 1987.
30. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991; 19:403-10.
31. Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S, eds. Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley & Sons: New York; 1989.
32. Fulford LG, Reis-Filho JS, Ryder K, et al. Basal-like grade III invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: patterns of metastasis and long-term survival. Breast Cancer Res 2007; 9:R4.
33. Rakha EA, El-Rehim DA, Paish C, et al. Basal phenotype identifies a poor prognostic subgroup of breast cancer of clinical importance. Eur J Cancer 2006; 42:3149-56.
34. Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C, et al. Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 2008; 14:1368-76.