Gilda Schmidt1, Christoph Gerlinger2, Ingolf Juhasz-Böss2, Elmar Stickeler3, Achim Rody4, Cornelia Liedtke4, Pauline Wimberger5, Theresa Link5, Eberhard Müller6, Tanja Fehm7, Manuela Abel8, Stefan Stein8, Rainer Bohle2, Jan Endrikat2, Erich-Franz Solomayer2. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Homburg University Medical Centre, University of Saarland, 66421, Homburg, Germany. gilda.schmidt@uks.eu. 2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Homburg University Medical Centre, University of Saarland, 66421, Homburg, Germany. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, RWTH Aachen University, 52062, Aachen, Germany. 4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Clinic of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, 23538, Lübeck, Germany. 5. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Carl Gustav Carus University Hospital, 01069, Dresden, Germany. 6. Hospital St. Wendel, 66606, St. Wendel, Germany. 7. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Duesseldorf University Hospital, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany. 8. Hospital Idar-Oberstein, 55743, Idar-Oberstein, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by a strong heterogeneity with regard to tumour biology as well as in the clinical course of the disease. This study aimed to analyse whether there are any prognostic factors enabling prediction of the clinical outcome in patients with TNBC. Particularly, the impact of Her2-neu score 0 versus Her2-neu score 1 and 2 on survival was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied a cohort of 1013 patients with TNBC, diagnosed at seven hospitals between May 2002 and February 2015. We studied the impact of Her2-neu scores (0 vs. 1 or 2 with negative FISH) on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 1013 patients were included in this study. 447 (44.13 %) of them had a T2-4 tumour. A total of 314 (31.00 %) were nodal-positive and 714 (70.48 %) had high-grade tumours. The Her2-neu score of all participating patients was determined. 588 (58.05 %) of them had a Her2-neu score 0, and 425 (41.95 %) had a score of 1 or 2. This study shows that TNBC patients with a Her2-neu score 0 had a significantly poorer outcome regarding DFS (p = 0.0001) and OS (p = 0.0051) compared to a score of 1 or 2. In contrast, grading did not seem to have any prognostic value for women with TNBC. CONCLUSION: The Her2-neu score 0 might be considered as an innovative prognostic factor for patients with TNBC indicating poor clinical outcome.
PURPOSE: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is characterized by a strong heterogeneity with regard to tumour biology as well as in the clinical course of the disease. This study aimed to analyse whether there are any prognostic factors enabling prediction of the clinical outcome in patients with TNBC. Particularly, the impact of Her2-neu score 0 versus Her2-neu score 1 and 2 on survival was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied a cohort of 1013 patients with TNBC, diagnosed at seven hospitals between May 2002 and February 2015. We studied the impact of Her2-neu scores (0 vs. 1 or 2 with negative FISH) on disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 1013 patients were included in this study. 447 (44.13 %) of them had a T2-4 tumour. A total of 314 (31.00 %) were nodal-positive and 714 (70.48 %) had high-grade tumours. The Her2-neu score of all participating patients was determined. 588 (58.05 %) of them had a Her2-neu score 0, and 425 (41.95 %) had a score of 1 or 2. This study shows that TNBC patients with a Her2-neu score 0 had a significantly poorer outcome regarding DFS (p = 0.0001) and OS (p = 0.0051) compared to a score of 1 or 2. In contrast, grading did not seem to have any prognostic value for women with TNBC. CONCLUSION: The Her2-neu score 0 might be considered as an innovative prognostic factor for patients with TNBC indicating poor clinical outcome.
Authors: Brian D Lehmann; Joshua A Bauer; Xi Chen; Melinda E Sanders; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Yu Shyr; Jennifer A Pietenpol Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Leonel F Hernandez-Aya; Mariana Chavez-Macgregor; Xiudong Lei; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Thomas A Buchholz; Limin Hsu; Aysegul A Sahin; Kim-Anh Do; Vicente Valero; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-23 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Surabhi Amar; Ann E McCullough; Winston Tan; Xochiquetzal J Geiger; Judy C Boughey; Rebecca B McNeil; Kyle E Coppola; Sarah A McLaughlin; Frances M Palmieri; Edith A Perez Journal: Oncologist Date: 2010-10-07
Authors: Pierluigi Gasparini; Matteo Fassan; Luciano Cascione; Gulnur Guler; Serdar Balci; Cigdem Irkkan; Carolyn Paisie; Francesca Lovat; Carl Morrison; Jianying Zhang; Aldo Scarpa; Carlo M Croce; Charles L Shapiro; Kay Huebner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Luciano Cascione; Pierluigi Gasparini; Francesca Lovat; Stefania Carasi; Alfredo Pulvirenti; Alfredo Ferro; Hansjuerg Alder; Gang He; Andrea Vecchione; Carlo M Croce; Charles L Shapiro; Kay Huebner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 3.240