INTRODUCTION: Emerging research suggests a substantially greater prevalence of the adverse triple-negative (TN) subtype (human epidermal growth factor receptor [HER]2(-), estrogen receptor [ER](-), and progesterone receptor [PR])(-)) among black patients with breast cancer. No reports however have been generated from a statewide cancer registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study consisted of all black patients (N = 643) and a random sample of white patients (n = 719) diagnosed with primary invasive breast cancer (2000-2003) listed in the National Cancer Institute-Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (NCI-SEER) Connecticut Tumor Registry (CTR). HER2 status was obtained from pathology reports submitted to the registry. Remaining data were obtained from the registry database. RESULTS: TN tumors were more prevalent in black compared with white patients (30.8% vs. 11.2%, respectively; P < .001.) There was a 2-fold greater frequency of ER(-) and PR(-) phenotypes among black patients, but HER2 status did not differ by race. Patients with lobular cancer were less likely to have TN breast cancer compared with patients with ductal tumors (odds ratio [OR] = 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.58). Among patients with regional disease, black patients exhibited increased risk of death (relative risk [RR] = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.48-4.97) independent of TN status. No survival disparity was found among patients with local disease. DISCUSSION: These registry-based data corroborate reports that TN breast cancer varies substantially by race and histologic subtype. A survival disparity among patients with advanced disease, but not local disease, casts some doubt on TN status as an explanation for differences. CONCLUSION: More research is warranted to understand why black patients with advanced breast cancer may be at increased risk for death whether or not their tumors express the TN phenotype.
INTRODUCTION: Emerging research suggests a substantially greater prevalence of the adverse triple-negative (TN) subtype (humanepidermal growth factor receptor [HER]2(-), estrogen receptor [ER](-), and progesterone receptor [PR])(-)) among black patients with breast cancer. No reports however have been generated from a statewide cancer registry. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study consisted of all black patients (N = 643) and a random sample of white patients (n = 719) diagnosed with primary invasive breast cancer (2000-2003) listed in the National Cancer Institute-Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (NCI-SEER) Connecticut Tumor Registry (CTR). HER2 status was obtained from pathology reports submitted to the registry. Remaining data were obtained from the registry database. RESULTS:TN tumors were more prevalent in black compared with white patients (30.8% vs. 11.2%, respectively; P < .001.) There was a 2-fold greater frequency of ER(-) and PR(-) phenotypes among black patients, but HER2 status did not differ by race. Patients with lobular cancer were less likely to have TN breast cancer compared with patients with ductal tumors (odds ratio [OR] = 0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.10-0.58). Among patients with regional disease, black patients exhibited increased risk of death (relative risk [RR] = 2.71; 95% CI, 1.48-4.97) independent of TN status. No survival disparity was found among patients with local disease. DISCUSSION: These registry-based data corroborate reports that TN breast cancer varies substantially by race and histologic subtype. A survival disparity among patients with advanced disease, but not local disease, casts some doubt on TN status as an explanation for differences. CONCLUSION: More research is warranted to understand why black patients with advanced breast cancer may be at increased risk for death whether or not their tumors express the TN phenotype.
Authors: M A Al-Abbadi; T A Washington; H A Saleh; S E Tekyi-Mensah; D R Lucas; C A Briston Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Marsha E Reichman; Sean Altekruse; Christopher I Li; Vivien W Chen; Dennis Deapen; Mary Potts; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Donna Morrell; Jennifer Hafterson; Amanda I Phipps; Linda C Harlan; Lynn G Ries; Brenda K Edwards Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: B A Gusterson; R D Gelber; A Goldhirsch; K N Price; J Säve-Söderborgh; R Anbazhagan; J Styles; C M Rudenstam; R Golouh; R Reed Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1992-07 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Bryan P Schneider; Eric P Winer; William D Foulkes; Judy Garber; Charles M Perou; Andrea Richardson; George W Sledge; Lisa A Carey Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-12-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Helen Swede; Amna Sarwar; Anil Magge; Dejana Braithwaite; Linda S Cook; David I Gregorio; Beth A Jones; Jessica R Hoag; Lou Gonsalves; Andrew L Salner; Kristen Zarfos; Biree Andemariam; Richard G Stevens; Alicia G Dugan; Mellisa Pensa; Jessica A Brockmeyer Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Suthat Chottanapund; M B M Van Duursen; Kumpol Ratchaworapong; Panida Navasumrit; Mathuros Ruchirawat; Martin Van den Berg Journal: Med Sci (Basel) Date: 2016-09-14