PURPOSE: Basal-like breast cancer is associated with high grade, poor prognosis, and younger patient age. Clinically, a triple-negative phenotype definition [estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2, all negative] is commonly used to identify such cases. EGFR and cytokeratin 5/6 are readily available positive markers of basal-like breast cancer applicable to standard pathology specimens. This study directly compares the prognostic significance between three- and five-biomarker surrogate panels to define intrinsic breast cancer subtypes, using a large clinically annotated series of breast tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Four thousand forty-six invasive breast cancers were assembled into tissue microarrays. All had staging, pathology, treatment, and outcome information; median follow-up was 12.5 years. Cox regression analyses and likelihood ratio tests compared the prognostic significance for breast cancer death-specific survival (BCSS) of the two immunohistochemical panels. RESULTS: Among 3,744 interpretable cases, 17% were basal using the triple-negative definition (10-year BCSS, 6 7%) and 9% were basal using the five-marker method (10-year BCSS, 62%). Likelihood ratio tests of multivariable Cox models including standard clinical variables show that the five-marker panel is significantly more prognostic than the three-marker panel. The poor prognosis of triple-negative phenotype is conferred almost entirely by those tumors positive for basal markers. Among triple-negative patients treated with adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy, the additional positive basal markers identified a cohort of patients with significantly worse outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The expanded surrogate immunopanel of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human HER-2, EGFR, and cytokeratin 5/6 provides a more specific definition of basal-like breast cancer that better predicts breast cancer survival.
PURPOSE: Basal-like breast cancer is associated with high grade, poor prognosis, and younger patient age. Clinically, a triple-negative phenotype definition [estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and humanepidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2, all negative] is commonly used to identify such cases. EGFR and cytokeratin 5/6 are readily available positive markers of basal-like breast cancer applicable to standard pathology specimens. This study directly compares the prognostic significance between three- and five-biomarker surrogate panels to define intrinsic breast cancer subtypes, using a large clinically annotated series of breast tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Four thousand forty-six invasive breast cancers were assembled into tissue microarrays. All had staging, pathology, treatment, and outcome information; median follow-up was 12.5 years. Cox regression analyses and likelihood ratio tests compared the prognostic significance for breast cancer death-specific survival (BCSS) of the two immunohistochemical panels. RESULTS: Among 3,744 interpretable cases, 17% were basal using the triple-negative definition (10-year BCSS, 6 7%) and 9% were basal using the five-marker method (10-year BCSS, 62%). Likelihood ratio tests of multivariable Cox models including standard clinical variables show that the five-marker panel is significantly more prognostic than the three-marker panel. The poor prognosis of triple-negative phenotype is conferred almost entirely by those tumors positive for basal markers. Among triple-negative patients treated with adjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy, the additional positive basal markers identified a cohort of patients with significantly worse outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The expanded surrogate immunopanel of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, humanHER-2, EGFR, and cytokeratin 5/6 provides a more specific definition of basal-like breast cancer that better predicts breast cancer survival.
Authors: Josie Ursini-Siegel; Sean Cory; Dongmei Zuo; William R Hardy; Elton Rexhepaj; Sonya Lam; Babette Schade; Karin Jirstrom; Eva Bjur; Ciriaco A Piccirillo; David Denardo; Lisa M Coussens; Donal J Brennan; William M Gallagher; Morag Park; Tony Pawson; Michael Hallett; William J Muller Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Qiao Zheng; Sarah M Dunlap; Jinling Zhu; Erinn Downs-Kelly; Jeremy Rich; Stephen D Hursting; Nathan A Berger; Ofer Reizes Journal: Endocr Relat Cancer Date: 2011-07-11 Impact factor: 5.678
Authors: Jing Li; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Pamela K Allen; Tse K Yu; Wendy A Woodward; Naoto T Ueno; Anthony Lucci; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Yun Gong; Melissa L Bondy; Wei Yang; Jie S Willey; Massimo Cristofanilli; Vicente Valero; Thomas A Buchholz Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-12-06
Authors: Franca Podo; Lutgarde M C Buydens; Hadassa Degani; Riet Hilhorst; Edda Klipp; Ingrid S Gribbestad; Sabine Van Huffel; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Jan Luts; Daniel Monleon; Geert J Postma; Nicole Schneiderhan-Marra; Filippo Santoro; Hans Wouters; Hege G Russnes; Therese Sørlie; Elda Tagliabue; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2010-04-24 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Soley Bayraktar; Angelica M Gutierrez-Barrera; Diane Liu; Tunc Tasbas; Ugur Akar; Jennifer K Litton; E Lin; Constance T Albarracin; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Banu K Arun Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Catherine L Forse; Dushanthi Pinnaduwage; Shelley B Bull; Anna Marie Mulligan; Irene L Andrulis Journal: Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol Date: 2019-03
Authors: Jl Steiner; Jm Davis; Jl McClellan; Rt Enos; Ja Carson; R Fayad; M Nagarkatti; Ps Nagarkatti; D Altomare; Ke Creek; Ea Murphy Journal: Cancer Biol Ther Date: 2014 Impact factor: 4.742