AIMS: To assess whether basal phenotype influences the metastatic pattern and survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The basal phenotype status of a well-characterised series of consecutive primary operable breast cancers (1868 cases) was ascertained using the basal cytokeratin markers CK5/6 and CK14. Follow-up data, including time, site and pattern of distant metastasis and post-metastasis survival, were available for 113 women with basal phenotype cancers and they were compared with 178 matching cases from women in the non-basal phenotype group. RESULTS: Patients with basal phenotype were more likely to present with intrapulmonary (25/48, [52%] vs 15/64, [23%]; P=0.0009) and/or brain metastases (20/113, [18%] vs 3/178, [2%]; P<0.0001) than non-basal phenotype patients. Patients with non-basal phenotype were more likely to present with bone metastases in the absence of visceral disease (48/102, [47%] vs 14/62, [23%]; P=0.0017) than patients with basal phenotype. There was no significant difference in the frequency of pleural or liver metastases between both groups. Basal phenotype was also associated with a shorter median survival with metastatic disease (10.1 months vs 25 months, P<0.001). The multivariate analysis, including other established prognostic variables in breast cancer, showed that basal phenotype is an independent poor prognostic factor. CONCLUSION: Intrapulmonary and brain metastases are seen more frequently at metastatic presentation in basal phenotype breast cancer patients, and the basal phenotype is associated with a poorer survival after metastatic presentation. Assessment of basal cytokeratin expression status may provide valuable prognostic information relevant to breast cancer patients' management.
AIMS: To assess whether basal phenotype influences the metastatic pattern and survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The basal phenotype status of a well-characterised series of consecutive primary operable breast cancers (1868 cases) was ascertained using the basal cytokeratin markers CK5/6 and CK14. Follow-up data, including time, site and pattern of distant metastasis and post-metastasis survival, were available for 113 women with basal phenotype cancers and they were compared with 178 matching cases from women in the non-basal phenotype group. RESULTS:Patients with basal phenotype were more likely to present with intrapulmonary (25/48, [52%] vs 15/64, [23%]; P=0.0009) and/or brain metastases (20/113, [18%] vs 3/178, [2%]; P<0.0001) than non-basal phenotype patients. Patients with non-basal phenotype were more likely to present with bone metastases in the absence of visceral disease (48/102, [47%] vs 14/62, [23%]; P=0.0017) than patients with basal phenotype. There was no significant difference in the frequency of pleural or liver metastases between both groups. Basal phenotype was also associated with a shorter median survival with metastatic disease (10.1 months vs 25 months, P<0.001). The multivariate analysis, including other established prognostic variables in breast cancer, showed that basal phenotype is an independent poor prognostic factor. CONCLUSION: Intrapulmonary and brain metastases are seen more frequently at metastatic presentation in basal phenotype breast cancerpatients, and the basal phenotype is associated with a poorer survival after metastatic presentation. Assessment of basal cytokeratin expression status may provide valuable prognostic information relevant to breast cancerpatients' management.
Authors: Rebeca Sanz-Pamplona; Ramón Aragüés; Keltouma Driouch; Berta Martín; Baldo Oliva; Miguel Gil; Susana Boluda; Pedro L Fernández; Antonio Martínez; Víctor Moreno; Juan J Acebes; Rosette Lidereau; Fabien Reyal; Marc J Van de Vijver; Angels Sierra Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 2011-06-25 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Mu-min Shao; Jun Liu; Joaquim S Vong; Yun Niu; Barbara Germin; Ping Tang; Anthony W H Chan; Philip C W Lui; Bonita K B Law; Puay-Hoon Tan; Gary M Tse Journal: Med Mol Morphol Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.309
Authors: Nancy U Lin; Ann Vanderplas; Melissa E Hughes; Richard L Theriault; Stephen B Edge; Yu-Ning Wong; Douglas W Blayney; Joyce C Niland; Eric P Winer; Jane C Weeks Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Leonard Da Silva; Peter T Simpson; Chanel E Smart; Sibylle Cocciardi; Nic Waddell; Annette Lane; Brian J Morrison; Ana Cristina Vargas; Sue Healey; Jonathan Beesley; Pria Pakkiri; Suzanne Parry; Nyoman Kurniawan; Lynne Reid; Patricia Keith; Paulo Faria; Emilio Pereira; Alena Skalova; Michael Bilous; Rosemary L Balleine; Hongdo Do; Alexander Dobrovic; Stephen Fox; Marcello Franco; Brent Reynolds; Kum Kum Khanna; Margaret Cummings; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Sunil R Lakhani Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Michelle D Martin; Barbara Fingleton; Conor C Lynch; Sam Wells; J Oliver McIntyre; David W Piston; Lynn M Matrisian Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2008-09-12 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: G Grelier; N Voirin; A-S Ay; D G Cox; S Chabaud; I Treilleux; S Léon-Goddard; R Rimokh; I Mikaelian; C Venoux; A Puisieux; C Lasset; C Moyret-Lalle Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 7.640