| Literature DB >> 21762477 |
André Albergaria1, Sara Ricardo, Fernanda Milanezi, Vítor Carneiro, Isabel Amendoeira, Daniella Vieira, Jorge Cameselle-Teijeiro, Fernando Schmitt.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A breast cancer prognostic tool should ideally be applicable to all types of invasive breast lesions. A number of studies have shown histopathological grade to be an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer, adding prognostic power to nodal stage and tumour size. The Nottingham Prognostic Index has been shown to accurately predict patient outcome in stratified groups with a follow-up period of 15 years after primary diagnosis of breast cancer. Clinically, breast tumours that lack the expression of Oestrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptor and Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor 2 (HER2) are identified as presenting a "triple-negative" phenotype or as triple-negative breast cancers. These poor outcome tumours represent an easily recognisable prognostic group of breast cancer with aggressive behaviour that currently lack the benefit of available systemic therapy. There are conflicting results on the prevalence of lymph node metastasis at the time of diagnosis in triple-negative breast cancer patients but it is currently accepted that triple-negative breast cancer does not metastasize to axillary nodes and bones as frequently as the non-triple-negative carcinomas, favouring instead, a preferentially haematogenous spread. Hypothetically, this particular tumour dissemination pattern would impair the reliability of using Nottingham Prognostic Index as a tool for triple-negative breast cancer prognostication.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21762477 PMCID: PMC3151231 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-11-299
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Cancer ISSN: 1471-2407 Impact factor: 4.430
Patients characteristics and tumour parameters
| Variable ( | Data |
|---|---|
| Mean and standard deviation | 59 ± 13 |
| Range | 64 (Min 28; Max 92) |
| Mean and standard deviation | 3.110 cm ± 2.00 cm |
| Range | 15.6 (Min 0.4; max 16) |
| T1: < 2 cm | 101 (24.7%) |
| T2: 2-5 cm | 245 (59.9%) |
| T3: > 5 cm | 63 (15.4%) |
| Not assessed | 58 |
| Present | 207 (56.6%) |
| Absent | 159 (43.4%) |
| Not assessed | 101 |
| Grade I | 81 (18.3%) |
| Grade II | 135 (30.5%) |
| Grade III | 227 (51.2%) |
| Not assessed | 24 |
| Positive | 309 (66.5%) |
| Negative | 156 (33.5%) |
| Not assessed | 2 |
| Positive | 228 (48.9%) |
| Negative | 238 (51.1%) |
| Not assessed | 1 |
| Positive | 68 (14.7%) |
| Negative | 395 (85.3%) |
| Not assessed | 4 |
| NPI < 3.4 | 99 (24.4%) |
| 3.4 ≤ NPI ≤ 5.4 | 188 (46.4%) |
| NPI > 5.4 | 118 (29.2%) |
| Not assessed | 62 |
| Luminal | 343 (73.6%) |
| HER2 Over-expressing | 33 (7.1%) |
| Triple Negative | 90 (19.3%) |
Figure 1Long term overall and disease-free survival in breast cancer subtypes according with Nottingham Prognostic Index. Kaplan-Meier plots for a general series comprising all subtypes of invasive breast tumours (A and B). As expected, NPI clearly separate different groups with distinct outcomes, showing that patients with NPI > 5.4 presented a much worse prognosis compared with patients with moderate and good prognosis; (C and D) Kaplan-Meier plots for luminal subtype breast carcinomas. NPI is similarly able to stratify breast cancer patient into different survival outcomes; (E and F) Kaplan-Meier plots for HER2 subtype breast carcinomas. None of the patients encompassing this subgroup presented a NPI < 3.4. Although lacking statistical association, NPI is still able to discriminate between moderate and poor prognosis patients; (G and H) Kaplan-Meier survival plots for TNBC subtype. Most of the patients within this subtype fell into the group with NPI > 5.4. Even though, NPI had the statistically significant power to stratify patients with distinct outcomes.
Nottingham Prognostic Index components on triple-negative and non-triple-negative breast cancer subtypes
| Nottingham Prognostic Index Components | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Molecular Subtype | Tumour Size | Tumour Grade | Lymph Node Status | ||||||
| I | II | III | None | 1 < LNS < 3 | LNS > 3 | ||||
| 2.92 cm ± 0.105 | 24.1% | 38% | 38% | 43.9% | 26.7% | 29.4% | |||
| 3.08 cm ± 0.203 | |||||||||
| 3.70 cm ± 0.211 | 4.9% | 23.9% | 71.2% | 48.6% | 25% | 26.4% | |||
| Luminal | |||||||||
| TNBC | |||||||||
| HER2-OE | P = 0.05 | ||||||||
*ANOVA was used to compare the means of the three groups
** P-values were calculated with the use of the χ2 test
Association of tumour size and lymph node status in triple-negative and non-triple-negative breast cancer
| Non-Triple Negative Breast Cancer | Triple Negative Breast Cancer | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 66.7% | 22.7% | 10.7% | 60.8% | 32.1% | 7.1% | |
| 19.4% | 33.3% | 47.2% | 22.2% | 33.3% | 44.5% | |
Figure 2Significance of the NPI components to breast cancer mortality risk and survival in TNBC patients. Kaplan-Meier survival curves for tumour size (A) and for lymph node status (B). Both NPI components are highly statistically relevant to predict long term survival in TNBC patients; (C) Hazard ratio (CI 95%) in the TNBC cohort was calculated for tumour size and lymph node status. Patients with triple-negative tumours larger than 5 cm display a 3.2-fold risk of death by breast cancer; Concerning axillary lymph node status, TNBC patients with lymphatic involvement higher than 3 nodes have a 4.5-fold risk of breast-cancer specific death.