Alexandra Gangi1, Alice Chung1, James Mirocha2, Douglas Z Liou1, Trista Leong3, Armando E Giuliano1. 1. Department of Surgery, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California. 3. Department of Health Information, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: The aggressive triple-negative phenotype of breast cancer (negative for estrogen and progesterone receptors and v-erb-b2 avian erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene homolog 2 [ERBB2] [formerly human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)]) is considered by some investigators to be a relative contraindication to breast-conserving therapy. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of breast-conserving therapy for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) with those of patients with the luminal A, luminal B, and ERBB2 subtypes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective database review at an academic tertiary medical center with a designated breast cancer center. We included 1851 consecutive patients ages 29 to 85 years with stages I to III invasive breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving therapy at a single institution from January 1, 2000, through May 30, 2012. Of these patients, 234 (12.6%) had TNBC; 1341 (72.4%), luminal A subtype; 212 (11.5%), luminal B subtype; and 64 (3.5%), ERBB2-enriched subtype. EXPOSURE: Breast-conserving therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was local recurrence (LR). Secondary outcome measures included regional recurrence, distant recurrence, and overall survival. RESULTS Triple-negative breast cancer was associated with younger age at diagnosis (56 vs 60 years; P = .001), larger tumors (2.1 vs 1.8 cm; P < .001), more stage II vs I cancer (42.1% vs 33.6%; P = .005), and more G3 tumors (86.4% vs 28.4%; P < .001) compared with the non-TNBC subtypes. Multivariable analysis showed that TNBC did not have a significantly increased risk of LR compared with the luminal A (hazard ratio, 1.4 [95% CI, 0.6-3.3]; P = .43), luminal B (1.6 [0.5-5.2]; P = .43), and ERBB2 (1.1 [0.2-5.2]; P = .87) subtypes. Only tumor size was a significant predictor of LR (hazard ratio, 4.7 [95% CI, 1.6-14.3]; P = .006). Predictors of worse overall survival included tumor size, grade, and stage and TNBC subtype. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Breast-conserving therapy for TNBC is not associated with increased LR compared with non-TNBC subtypes. However, the TNBC phenotype correlates with worse overall survival. Breast-conserving therapy is appropriate for patients with TNBC.
IMPORTANCE: The aggressive triple-negative phenotype of breast cancer (negative for estrogen and progesterone receptors and v-erb-b2 avian erythroblastic leukemia viral oncogene homolog 2 [ERBB2] [formerly humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)]) is considered by some investigators to be a relative contraindication to breast-conserving therapy. OBJECTIVES: To compare outcomes of breast-conserving therapy for patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) with those of patients with the luminal A, luminal B, and ERBB2 subtypes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective database review at an academic tertiary medical center with a designated breast cancer center. We included 1851 consecutive patients ages 29 to 85 years with stages I to III invasive breast cancer who underwent breast-conserving therapy at a single institution from January 1, 2000, through May 30, 2012. Of these patients, 234 (12.6%) had TNBC; 1341 (72.4%), luminal A subtype; 212 (11.5%), luminal B subtype; and 64 (3.5%), ERBB2-enriched subtype. EXPOSURE: Breast-conserving therapy. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was local recurrence (LR). Secondary outcome measures included regional recurrence, distant recurrence, and overall survival. RESULTS Triple-negative breast cancer was associated with younger age at diagnosis (56 vs 60 years; P = .001), larger tumors (2.1 vs 1.8 cm; P < .001), more stage II vs I cancer (42.1% vs 33.6%; P = .005), and more G3 tumors (86.4% vs 28.4%; P < .001) compared with the non-TNBC subtypes. Multivariable analysis showed that TNBC did not have a significantly increased risk of LR compared with the luminal A (hazard ratio, 1.4 [95% CI, 0.6-3.3]; P = .43), luminal B (1.6 [0.5-5.2]; P = .43), and ERBB2 (1.1 [0.2-5.2]; P = .87) subtypes. Only tumor size was a significant predictor of LR (hazard ratio, 4.7 [95% CI, 1.6-14.3]; P = .006). Predictors of worse overall survival included tumor size, grade, and stage and TNBC subtype. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Breast-conserving therapy for TNBC is not associated with increased LR compared with non-TNBC subtypes. However, the TNBC phenotype correlates with worse overall survival. Breast-conserving therapy is appropriate for patients with TNBC.
Authors: Julia C Radosa; Anne Eaton; Michelle Stempel; Amrin Khander; Cornelia Liedtke; Erich-Franz Solomayer; Maria Karsten; Melissa Pilewskie; Monica Morrow; Tari A King Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2016-10-25 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Meena S Moran; Stuart J Schnitt; Armando E Giuliano; Jay R Harris; Seema A Khan; Janet Horton; Suzanne Klimberg; Mariana Chavez-MacGregor; Gary Freedman; Nehmat Houssami; Peggy L Johnson; Monica Morrow Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Lori M van Roozendaal; Leonie H M Smit; Gaston H N M Duijsens; Bart de Vries; Sabine Siesling; Marc B I Lobbes; Maaike de Boer; Johannes H W de Wilt; Marjolein L Smidt Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-03-25 Impact factor: 4.872