Gaurav Agarwal1, Gitika Nanda2, Punita Lal3, Anjali Mishra2, Amit Agarwal2, Vinita Agrawal4, Narendra Krishnani4. 1. Department of Endocrine and Breast Surgery, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India. gaurav@sgpgi.ac.in. 2. Department of Endocrine and Breast Surgery, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India. 4. Department of Pathology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is associated with aggressive tumor behavior and worse outcomes. In a study at a tertiary care breast unit in a developing country, clinico-pathological attributes and outcomes of patients with TNBC were compared with (c.w.) ER, PR, and/or HER2 expressing tumors (non-TNBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of 1213 consecutive breast cancer patients managed during 2004-2010 were reviewed. An evaluable cohort of 705 patients with complete treatment and follow-up (median 36 months) information was thus identified. Patients were categorized per ER, PR & HER2 status into TNBC, and ER/PR+ and/or HER2+ groups. Clinico-pathological parameters, response to NACT, and OS & DFS were compared between TNBC and non-TNBC groups. RESULTS: TNBC patients (n = 249) comprised 35.3 % of the study cohort (n = 705), and were significantly younger than non-TNBC patients (mean age 49.1 ± 11.2y c.w. 51.8 ± 11.3, p = 0.02). The TNM stage at presentation was similar in the two groups (Stage I and II-37 % c.w. 44.3 %, Stage III-47.5 % c.w. 39.5 %, Stage IV-15.5 % c.w. 16.2 % in TNBC c.w. Non-TNBC; p = 0.09). Tumor size (5.7 ± 2.9 cm TNBC c.w. 5.4 ± 2.8 cm non-TNBC, p = 0.22) was similar but lymph nodal (cN) metastases were more frequent in TNBC (77.3 % c.w. 69.8 %; p = 0.03). TNBC had higher histologic grade (97.1 % gr II/III in TNBC c.w. 91.2 % non-TNBC, p = 0.01) and higher incidence of LVI (20.4 % in TNBC c.w. 13.5 %, p = 0.03). Patient groups received similar multi-disciplinary surgical, radiation, and systemic treatment. Comparable proportion of patients in 2 groups were treated with NACT (42 % c.w. 38 %), which resulted in pathological complete response (pCR) in 27.5 % TNBC patients c.w. 17.1 % non-TNBC patients (p = 0.04). Both OS (81.8 ± 4.52 c.w. 97.90 ± 3.87 months, p < 0.001) and DFS (89.2 ± 5.1 c.w. 113.8 ± 4.3 months, p < 0.001) were shorter in TNBC than non-TNBC group. On stage-wise comparison, OS differed significantly only in stage III (47.4 ± 5.3 months in TNBC c.w. 74.5 ± 4.4 in non-TNBC; p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed tumor stage and IHC subtyping into TNBC c.w. non-TNBC as most important factors predictive of survival. CONCLUSIONS: TNBC occurred at younger age and exhibited aggressive pathology as compared to non-TNBC patients. Although patients with TNBC exhibited better chemo-sensitivity, they had worse DFS and OS compared to the non-TNBC patients. The survival of Stage III TNBC patients was significantly worse compared to non-TNBC group; while in stages I, II, and IV, survival were not significantly different.
BACKGROUND: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is associated with aggressive tumor behavior and worse outcomes. In a study at a tertiary care breast unit in a developing country, clinico-pathological attributes and outcomes of patients with TNBC were compared with (c.w.) ER, PR, and/or HER2 expressing tumors (non-TNBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Medical records of 1213 consecutive breast cancerpatients managed during 2004-2010 were reviewed. An evaluable cohort of 705 patients with complete treatment and follow-up (median 36 months) information was thus identified. Patients were categorized per ER, PR & HER2 status into TNBC, and ER/PR+ and/or HER2+ groups. Clinico-pathological parameters, response to NACT, and OS & DFS were compared between TNBC and non-TNBC groups. RESULTS: TNBC patients (n = 249) comprised 35.3 % of the study cohort (n = 705), and were significantly younger than non-TNBC patients (mean age 49.1 ± 11.2y c.w. 51.8 ± 11.3, p = 0.02). The TNM stage at presentation was similar in the two groups (Stage I and II-37 % c.w. 44.3 %, Stage III-47.5 % c.w. 39.5 %, Stage IV-15.5 % c.w. 16.2 % in TNBC c.w. Non-TNBC; p = 0.09). Tumor size (5.7 ± 2.9 cm TNBC c.w. 5.4 ± 2.8 cm non-TNBC, p = 0.22) was similar but lymph nodal (cN) metastases were more frequent in TNBC (77.3 % c.w. 69.8 %; p = 0.03). TNBC had higher histologic grade (97.1 % gr II/III in TNBC c.w. 91.2 % non-TNBC, p = 0.01) and higher incidence of LVI (20.4 % in TNBC c.w. 13.5 %, p = 0.03). Patient groups received similar multi-disciplinary surgical, radiation, and systemic treatment. Comparable proportion of patients in 2 groups were treated with NACT (42 % c.w. 38 %), which resulted in pathological complete response (pCR) in 27.5 % TNBC patients c.w. 17.1 % non-TNBC patients (p = 0.04). Both OS (81.8 ± 4.52 c.w. 97.90 ± 3.87 months, p < 0.001) and DFS (89.2 ± 5.1 c.w. 113.8 ± 4.3 months, p < 0.001) were shorter in TNBC than non-TNBC group. On stage-wise comparison, OS differed significantly only in stage III (47.4 ± 5.3 months in TNBC c.w. 74.5 ± 4.4 in non-TNBC; p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed tumor stage and IHC subtyping into TNBC c.w. non-TNBC as most important factors predictive of survival. CONCLUSIONS: TNBC occurred at younger age and exhibited aggressive pathology as compared to non-TNBC patients. Although patients with TNBC exhibited better chemo-sensitivity, they had worse DFS and OS compared to the non-TNBC patients. The survival of Stage III TNBC patients was significantly worse compared to non-TNBC group; while in stages I, II, and IV, survival were not significantly different.
Authors: Lisa A Carey; E Claire Dees; Lynda Sawyer; Lisa Gatti; Dominic T Moore; Frances Collichio; David W Ollila; Carolyn I Sartor; Mark L Graham; Charles M Perou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2007-04-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Nancy U Lin; Ann Vanderplas; Melissa E Hughes; Richard L Theriault; Stephen B Edge; Yu-Ning Wong; Douglas W Blayney; Joyce C Niland; Eric P Winer; Jane C Weeks Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Y H Park; S J Lee; E Y Cho; Y La Choi; J E Lee; S J Nam; J-H Yang; J H Shin; E Y Ko; B-K Han; J S Ahn; Y-H Im Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Subhojit Dey; Paolo Boffetta; Anitha Mathews; Paul Brennan; Amr Soliman; Aleyamma Mathew Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2009-10-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Stanley P L Leong; Zhen-Zhou Shen; Tse-Jia Liu; Gaurav Agarwal; Tomoo Tajima; Nam-Sun Paik; Kerstin Sandelin; Anna Derossis; Hiram Cody; William D Foulkes Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Tamás Mezei; Melinda Hajdu; Gábor Czigléczki; Gábor Lotz; Judit Kocsis; Janina Kulka; Anna Horváth Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 4.430