Esther M de Kruijf1, Esther Bastiaannet2, Francesca Rubertá1, Anton J M de Craen3, Peter J K Kuppen1, Vincent T H B M Smit4, Cornelis J H van de Velde1, Gerrit Jan Liefers5. 1. Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands; Department of Gerontology & Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 3. Department of Gerontology & Geriatrics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 4. Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands. Electronic address: g.j.liefers@lumc.nl.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the distribution and prognostic effect of the breast cancer molecular subtypes in young and elderly breast cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our study population (n = 822) consisted of all early breast cancer patients primarily treated with surgery in our center between 1985 and 1996. A total of 142/822 fresh frozen tissues were available with good quality RNA and analyzed by gene expression microarray. Gene expression molecular subtypes were determined by correlation to the expression centroids of 534 "intrinsic" genes. Sections of a tissue micro array containing formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue of 714/822 patients were immunohistochemically (IHC) stained for Ki67, EGFR, CK5/6. Tumor expression of ER, PR, HER2 was previously determined. IHC molecular subtypes were defined based on expression of these markers: Luminal A: ER+ and/or PR+, HER2- and Ki67-; Luminal B: ER+ and/or PR+ and ki67+; ERBB2: ER-, PR- and HER2+; Basal-like: ER-, PR-, HER2- and EGFR+ and/or CK5/6+; Unclassified: ER-, PR-, HER2-, EGFR- and CK5/6-. IHC molecular subtypes were validated against gene expression defined molecular subtypes. Assessment of distribution and prognostic effect of molecular subtypes was stratified to age (<65 versus ≥65 years). RESULTS: Validation of molecular subtypes determined by IHC against gene expression revealed a substantial agreement in classification (Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.75). A statistically significant association (p = 0.02) was found between molecular subtypes and age, where Luminal tumors were more often found in elderly patients, while ERBB2, basal-like and unclassified subtypes were more often found in young patients. Molecular subtypes showed a prognostic association with outcome in young patients concerning relapse-free period (RFP) (p = 0.01) and relative survival (RS) (p < 0.001). No statistically significant prognostic effect was found for molecular subtypes in elderly patients (RFP p = 0.5; RS p = 0.1). Additional analyses showed that no molecular subtypes showed a statistically significant difference in outcome for elderly compare to young patients. CONCLUSION: We have shown that molecular subtypes have a different distribution and prognostic effect in elderly compared to young breast cancer patients, emphasizing the fact that biomarkers may have different distributions and prognostic effects and therefore different implications in elderly compared to their younger counterparts. Our results support the premise that breast cancer clinical behavior is significantly affected by patient age. We suggest that competing risks of death in elderly patients, ER-driven differences and micro-environmental changes in biology are underlying these age-dependent variations in patient prognosis.
PURPOSE: To compare the distribution and prognostic effect of the breast cancer molecular subtypes in young and elderly breast cancerpatients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our study population (n = 822) consisted of all early breast cancerpatients primarily treated with surgery in our center between 1985 and 1996. A total of 142/822 fresh frozen tissues were available with good quality RNA and analyzed by gene expression microarray. Gene expression molecular subtypes were determined by correlation to the expression centroids of 534 "intrinsic" genes. Sections of a tissue micro array containing formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue of 714/822 patients were immunohistochemically (IHC) stained for Ki67, EGFR, CK5/6. Tumor expression of ER, PR, HER2 was previously determined. IHC molecular subtypes were defined based on expression of these markers: Luminal A: ER+ and/or PR+, HER2- and Ki67-; Luminal B: ER+ and/or PR+ and ki67+; ERBB2: ER-, PR- and HER2+; Basal-like: ER-, PR-, HER2- and EGFR+ and/or CK5/6+; Unclassified: ER-, PR-, HER2-, EGFR- and CK5/6-. IHC molecular subtypes were validated against gene expression defined molecular subtypes. Assessment of distribution and prognostic effect of molecular subtypes was stratified to age (<65 versus ≥65 years). RESULTS: Validation of molecular subtypes determined by IHC against gene expression revealed a substantial agreement in classification (Cohen's kappa coefficient 0.75). A statistically significant association (p = 0.02) was found between molecular subtypes and age, where Luminal tumors were more often found in elderly patients, while ERBB2, basal-like and unclassified subtypes were more often found in young patients. Molecular subtypes showed a prognostic association with outcome in young patients concerning relapse-free period (RFP) (p = 0.01) and relative survival (RS) (p < 0.001). No statistically significant prognostic effect was found for molecular subtypes in elderly patients (RFP p = 0.5; RS p = 0.1). Additional analyses showed that no molecular subtypes showed a statistically significant difference in outcome for elderly compare to young patients. CONCLUSION: We have shown that molecular subtypes have a different distribution and prognostic effect in elderly compared to young breast cancerpatients, emphasizing the fact that biomarkers may have different distributions and prognostic effects and therefore different implications in elderly compared to their younger counterparts. Our results support the premise that breast cancer clinical behavior is significantly affected by patient age. We suggest that competing risks of death in elderly patients, ER-driven differences and micro-environmental changes in biology are underlying these age-dependent variations in patient prognosis.
Authors: Willemien van de Water; Christos Markopoulos; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Caroline Seynaeve; Annette Hasenburg; Daniel Rea; Hein Putter; Johan W R Nortier; Anton J M de Craen; Elysée T M Hille; Esther Bastiaannet; Peyman Hadji; Rudi G J Westendorp; Gerrit-Jan Liefers; Stephen E Jones Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-02-08 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Andrew E Teschendorff; Usha Menon; Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj; Susan J Ramus; Daniel J Weisenberger; Hui Shen; Mihaela Campan; Houtan Noushmehr; Christopher G Bell; A Peter Maxwell; David A Savage; Elisabeth Mueller-Holzner; Christian Marth; Gabrijela Kocjan; Simon A Gayther; Allison Jones; Stephan Beck; Wolfgang Wagner; Peter W Laird; Ian J Jacobs; Martin Widschwendter Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-03-10 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: T Sørlie; C M Perou; R Tibshirani; T Aas; S Geisler; H Johnsen; T Hastie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; T Thorsen; H Quist; J C Matese; P O Brown; D Botstein; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-09-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Esther Bastiaannet; Johanneke E A Portielje; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Anton J M de Craen; Susanne van der Velde; Peter J K Kuppen; Lydia G M van der Geest; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Olaf M Dekkers; Rudi G J Westendorp; Gerrit-Jan Liefers Journal: Oncologist Date: 2011-03-15
Authors: Torsten O Nielsen; Forrest D Hsu; Kristin Jensen; Maggie Cheang; Gamze Karaca; Zhiyuan Hu; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Chad Livasy; Dave Cowan; Lynn Dressler; Lars A Akslen; Joseph Ragaz; Allen M Gown; C Blake Gilks; Matt van de Rijn; Charles M Perou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Serenella Eppenberger-Castori; Dan H Moore; Ann D Thor; Susan M Edgerton; Willy Kueng; Urs Eppenberger; Christopher C Benz Journal: Int J Biochem Cell Biol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 5.085
Authors: Therese Sorlie; Robert Tibshirani; Joel Parker; Trevor Hastie; J S Marron; Andrew Nobel; Shibing Deng; Hilde Johnsen; Robert Pesich; Stephanie Geisler; Janos Demeter; Charles M Perou; Per E Lønning; Patrick O Brown; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; David Botstein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 12.779
Authors: Esther M de Kruijf; Esther Bastiaannet; Francesca Rubertá; Anton J M de Craen; Peter J K Kuppen; Vincent T H B M Smit; Cornelis J H van de Velde; Gerrit Jan Liefers Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2014-04-08 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Charla C Engels; Mandy Kiderlen; Esther Bastiaannet; Antien L Mooyaart; Ronald van Vlierberghe; Vincent T H B M Smit; Peter J K Kuppen; Cornelis J H van de Velde; G J Liefers Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2015-11-24 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: Mª D Torregrosa; M J Escudero; I Paredero; E Carrasco; B Bermejo; J Gavila; J García-Saenz; A Santaballa; P Martínez; A Llombart; R Andrés; N Batista; A Fernández; A Antón; M Seguí; S Gonzalez; A Ruiz Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2019-08-05 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Heloisa Helena Milioli; Renato Vimieiro; Carlos Riveros; Inna Tishchenko; Regina Berretta; Pablo Moscato Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: E S Bergen; C Tichy; A S Berghoff; M Rudas; P Dubsky; Z Bago-Horvath; R M Mader; R Exner; M Gnant; C C Zielinski; G G Steger; M Preusser; R Bartsch Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-04-23 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Matthew Mills; Casey Liveringhouse; Frank Lee; Ronica H Nanda; Kamran A Ahmed; Iman R Washington; Ram Thapa; Brooke L Fridley; Peter Blumencranz; Martine Extermann; Loretta Loftus; Lodovico Balducci; Roberto Diaz Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2020-08-26 Impact factor: 3.599