PURPOSE: Response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer correlates with estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) status. It is usually easier to decide treatment strategies in cases of double-positive/-negative phenotypes than in single-positive tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We have examined a large and well-characterized series of primary invasive breast carcinoma (1,944 cases) with long-term clinical follow-up and hormone therapy data. Patients were stratified according to ER and PgR expression and the study was focused on the single-positive groups (ER-/PgR+ and ER+/PgR-), to assess their main features and evaluate any prognostic and predictive difference between them and compare them with the double-positive/-negative tumors. RESULTS: ER+/PgR-tumors were found more frequently in elderly, postmenopausal women. The majority were grade 2 ductal/no specific type carcinomas. There was no difference between the two groups with regard to lymph node stage. Survival analyses showed no difference between the two groups in terms of disease-free interval and overall survival. However, when compared with the double-negative phenotype, ER+/PgR-showed an association with better outcome but no such survival advantage was detected in case of ER-/PgR+ tumors. In the group of patients with ER+ tumors who received adjuvant hormonal therapy, absence of PgR (ER+/PgR-) was an independent predictor of development of recurrence and shorter survival and, hence, poorer response to hormonal therapy. CONCLUSION: ER+/PgR-and ER-/PgR+ tumors are biologically and clinically distinct groups of breast cancer that may require different treatment strategies with ER-/PgR+ exhibiting more aggressive behavioral characteristics.
PURPOSE: Response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer correlates with estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) status. It is usually easier to decide treatment strategies in cases of double-positive/-negative phenotypes than in single-positive tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We have examined a large and well-characterized series of primary invasive breast carcinoma (1,944 cases) with long-term clinical follow-up and hormone therapy data. Patients were stratified according to ER and PgR expression and the study was focused on the single-positive groups (ER-/PgR+ and ER+/PgR-), to assess their main features and evaluate any prognostic and predictive difference between them and compare them with the double-positive/-negative tumors. RESULTS:ER+/PgR-tumors were found more frequently in elderly, postmenopausal women. The majority were grade 2 ductal/no specific type carcinomas. There was no difference between the two groups with regard to lymph node stage. Survival analyses showed no difference between the two groups in terms of disease-free interval and overall survival. However, when compared with the double-negative phenotype, ER+/PgR-showed an association with better outcome but no such survival advantage was detected in case of ER-/PgR+ tumors. In the group of patients with ER+ tumors who received adjuvant hormonal therapy, absence of PgR (ER+/PgR-) was an independent predictor of development of recurrence and shorter survival and, hence, poorer response to hormonal therapy. CONCLUSION: ER+/PgR-and ER-/PgR+ tumors are biologically and clinically distinct groups of breast cancer that may require different treatment strategies with ER-/PgR+ exhibiting more aggressive behavioral characteristics.
Authors: Nasim Mavaddat; Daniel Barrowdale; Irene L Andrulis; Susan M Domchek; Diana Eccles; Heli Nevanlinna; Susan J Ramus; Amanda Spurdle; Mark Robson; Mark Sherman; Anna Marie Mulligan; Fergus J Couch; Christoph Engel; Lesley McGuffog; Sue Healey; Olga M Sinilnikova; Melissa C Southey; Mary Beth Terry; David Goldgar; Frances O'Malley; Esther M John; Ramunas Janavicius; Laima Tihomirova; Thomas V O Hansen; Finn C Nielsen; Ana Osorio; Alexandra Stavropoulou; Javier Benítez; Siranoush Manoukian; Bernard Peissel; Monica Barile; Sara Volorio; Barbara Pasini; Riccardo Dolcetti; Anna Laura Putignano; Laura Ottini; Paolo Radice; Ute Hamann; Muhammad U Rashid; Frans B Hogervorst; Mieke Kriege; Rob B van der Luijt; Susan Peock; Debra Frost; D Gareth Evans; Carole Brewer; Lisa Walker; Mark T Rogers; Lucy E Side; Catherine Houghton; JoEllen Weaver; Andrew K Godwin; Rita K Schmutzler; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Alfons Meindl; Karin Kast; Norbert Arnold; Dieter Niederacher; Christian Sutter; Helmut Deissler; Doroteha Gadzicki; Sabine Preisler-Adams; Raymonda Varon-Mateeva; Ines Schönbuchner; Heidrun Gevensleben; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Muriel Belotti; Laure Barjhoux; Claudine Isaacs; Beth N Peshkin; Trinidad Caldes; Miguel de la Hoya; Carmen Cañadas; Tuomas Heikkinen; Päivi Heikkilä; Kristiina Aittomäki; Ignacio Blanco; Conxi Lazaro; Joan Brunet; Bjarni A Agnarsson; Adalgeir Arason; Rosa B Barkardottir; Martine Dumont; Jacques Simard; Marco Montagna; Simona Agata; Emma D'Andrea; Max Yan; Stephen Fox; Timothy R Rebbeck; Wendy Rubinstein; Nadine Tung; Judy E Garber; Xianshu Wang; Zachary Fredericksen; Vernon S Pankratz; Noralane M Lindor; Csilla Szabo; Kenneth Offit; Rita Sakr; Mia M Gaudet; Christian F Singer; Muy-Kheng Tea; Christine Rappaport; Phuong L Mai; Mark H Greene; Anna Sokolenko; Evgeny Imyanitov; Amanda Ewart Toland; Leigha Senter; Kevin Sweet; Mads Thomassen; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Torben Kruse; Maria Caligo; Paolo Aretini; Johanna Rantala; Anna von Wachenfeld; Karin Henriksson; Linda Steele; Susan L Neuhausen; Robert Nussbaum; Mary Beattie; Kunle Odunsi; Lara Sucheston; Simon A Gayther; Kate Nathanson; Jenny Gross; Christine Walsh; Beth Karlan; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jieqiong Liu; Wen Jiang; Kai Mao; Yi An; Fengxi Su; Betty Y S Kim; Qiang Liu; Lisa K Jacobs Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 4.872