Literature DB >> 27102151

Prognosis of subtypes of the mucinous breast carcinoma in Chinese women: a population-based study of 32-year experience (1983-2014).

Bo Pan1, Ru Yao1, Jie Shi2, Qian-Qian Xu1, Yi-Dong Zhou1, Feng Mao1, Yan Lin1, Jing-Hong Guan1, Xue-Jing Wang1, Yan-Na Zhang1, Xiao-Hui Zhang1, Song-Jie Shen1, Ying Zhong1, Ya-Li Xu1, Qing-Li Zhu3, Zhi-Yong Liang2, Qiang Sun1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The heterogeneous nature of the mucinous breast cancer (MBC), with its pure (PMBC) and mixed subtypes (MMBC), calls for precise prognosis assessment.
METHODS: We analyzed 197 consecutive MBC patients, including 117 PMBC and 80 MMBC, who were treated from 1983 to 2014. The clinicopathological features, treatment choice, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared among PMBC, MMBC and MMBC subgroups. Prognostic factors of PMBC and MMBC were identified.
RESULTS: Compared to PMBC, MMBC had more lymph node metastasis (p = 0.043), Her2 positivity (p = 0.036), high Ki-67 index (defined as>20%, p = 0.026) and anti-Her2 targeted therapy (p = 0.016). The 5-year DFS of PMBC and MMBC were 90.4% and 86.2%, whereas the 5-year OS were 99.0% and 98.7%. No significant difference was found in DFS or OS among all MBC subtypes. High Ki-67 (p = 0.020) appeared as DFS factor in PMBC, while anti-Her2 targeted therapy (p = 0.047) as the DFS predictors in MMBC.
CONCLUSION: MMBC manifested similar 5-year survival to PMBC in Chinese woman, suggesting that intra-tumoral heterogeneity might not interfere with MBC short-term prognosis.

Entities:  

Keywords:  mucinous breast cancer; prognosis; subtype

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27102151      PMCID: PMC5122436          DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.8778

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncotarget        ISSN: 1949-2553


INTRODUCTION

Synonymous with colloid, gelatinous mucous or mucoid carcinoma, mucinous breast cancer (MBC) represents 1-7% of all breast cancers [1-5]. The World Health Organization designates two subtypes: 1) pure mucinous breast cancer (PMBC) if the non-mucinous component is less than 10% and 2) mixed mucinous breast cancer (MMBC) if there is 10-49% non-mucinous co-existing disease in the tumor [6, 7]. It is generally accepted that PMBC has a favorable prognosis in both Caucasian and Chinese women compared to invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC) [1, 2]. However, most of the studies proposing that MMBC had worse prognosis than PMBC were performed 2-3 decades ago, when modern adjuvant chemotherapy, radiation, endocrine and anti-Her2 targeted therapy were largely unavailable [3, 4, 8–10]. Few studies had investigated the tumor biology, treatment choice and survival outcomes of MMBC in Chinese population, especially with respect to the intra- and inter-tumoral histological heterogeneity represented by the different co-existing cancer components. The prognostic predictors for PMBC and MMBC also remained unclear. A recent study showed that both the mucinous and the co-existing components in MMBC were remarkably similar at the molecular level to PMBC, suggesting that MMBC be best classified as variants of mucinous cancers rather than of IDC [11]. Conversely PMBC appeared to possess phenotypic plasticity that could be converted by estrogen into MMBC with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) component [12]. Thus, we plan to compare the prognosis of PMBC versus MMBC in Chinese population when all measures of the modern comprehensive therapy were available.

RESULTS

Descriptive information of the study cohort

A total of 244 patients were identified as described in METHOD. After excluding 28 patients with < 50% focal mucinous lesion and 19 patients lost to follow-up, 197 patients were included in the analysis, comprising 1.9% of contemporary 10,192 breast cancer treated in PUMC Hospital. 171 patients (86.8%) were treated during the recent ten years (2005-2014) while 130 patients (66.0%) were treated during the recent five years (2010-2014). 112 patients (56.9%) were pre-menopausal and 85 (43.1%) post-menopausal. There were 117 PMBC and 80 MMBC patients, the latter including 24 patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and IDC (with or without other types of carcinoma), 45 with only IDC, 9 with invasive micro-papillary carcinoma (IMPC) and 2 with ILC. With a median follow-up time of 41 months (3-385 months), 11 PMBC and 7 MMBC patients developed recurrence or metastasis, and 1 PMBC and 1 MMBC passed away (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Diagram of the research design

The clinic-pathological characteristics and the survival outcomes (DFS and OS) were firstly compared between PMBC and MMBC, and then between PMBC, MBC+DCIS+IDC, MBC+IDC and MBC+IMPC. Two patients with MBC+ILC were excluded from the second comparison due to limited case number. Abbreviations: MBC, mucinous breast cancer; PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; MMBC, mixed mucinous breast cancer; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC, invasive lobular carcinoma; IMPC, invasive micropapillary carcinoma; DFS, disease free survival; OS, overall survival.

Diagram of the research design

The clinic-pathological characteristics and the survival outcomes (DFS and OS) were firstly compared between PMBC and MMBC, and then between PMBC, MBC+DCIS+IDC, MBC+IDC and MBC+IMPC. Two patients with MBC+ILC were excluded from the second comparison due to limited case number. Abbreviations: MBC, mucinous breast cancer; PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; MMBC, mixed mucinous breast cancer; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; ILC, invasive lobular carcinoma; IMPC, invasive micropapillary carcinoma; DFS, disease free survival; OS, overall survival.

Comparison of clinicopathological characteristics between subtypes and subgroups of MBC

Compared to PMBC, MMBC had significantly more lymph node metastasis (p = 0.043), Her2 positivity (p = 0.036), high Ki-67 index (defined as > 20%, p = 0.026) and anti-Her2 targeted therapy (p = 0.016). There were no significant differences in age at diagnosis, age group distribution, tumor size, TNM stage, ER, PR, hormone receptor status, immunophenotype, p53, type of surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and endocrine therapy (Table 1). When the comparison was performed among PMBC, MBC+DCIS+IDC, MBC+IDC and MBC+IMPC, significant differences were identified in lymph node metastasis (p = 0.023), Her2 positivity (p = 0.014), high Ki-67 index (p = 0.008), chemotherapy (p = 0.011) and anti-Her2 targeted therapy (p = 0.002) (Table 2).
Table 1

Clinicopathological characteristics of PMBC and MMBC patients

CharacteristicsNo. (%) of PatientsPa
PMBCMMBC
Total11780
Age (Mean±SD) (years)53.26±15.2555.90±14.380.223
Age at diagnosis (years)0.432
≤3510 (8.5)5 (6.2)
36~5052 (44.5)30 (37.5)
>5055 (47.0)45 (56.3)
Tumor size (cm)0.480
T≤2.059 (50.4)43 (53.8)
2<T≤5.049 (41.9)31 (38.8)
T>5.04 (3.4)5 (6.2)
Unknown5 (4.3)1 (1.2)
Lymph node status0.043
Negative103 (88.0)64 (80.0)
Positive11 (9.4)16 (20.0)
Unknown3 (2.6)0 (0.0)
TNM stageb0.147
Stage I55 (47.0)35 (43.8)
Stage II53 (45.3)35 (43.8)
Stage III6 (5.1)10 (12.5)
Unknown3 (2.6)0 (0.0)
ER status0.484
 Positive94 (80.3)66 (82.5)
 Negative12 (10.3)10 (12.5)
 Unknwon11 (9.4)4 (5.0)
PR status0.834
 Positive88 (75.3)62 (77.6)
 Negative19 (16.2)13 (16.2)
 Unknwon10 (8.5)5 (6.2)
Hormone receptor status0.631
 Positive98 (83.8)70 (87.5)
 Negative9 (7.7)6 (7.5)
 Unknwon10 (8.5)4 (5.0)
HER2 status0.036
 Positive3 (2.6)9 (11.2)
 Negative97 (82.9)58 (72.5)
 Unknwon17 (14.5)13 (16.2)
Ki-67 expression0.026
 <20%64 (54.7)36 (45.0)
 ≥20%29 (24.8)34 (42.5)
 Unknown24 (20.5)10 (12.5)
Immunophenotype0.136
 Luminal A62 (53.0)32 (40.0)
 Luminal B29 (24.8)32 (40.0)
 HER20 (0.0)1 (1.2)
 TNBC8 (6.8)5 (6.2)
 Unknown18 (15.4)10 (12.5)
p530.547
 Positive6 (5.1)6 (7.5)
 Negative46 (39.3)26 (32.5)
 Unknown65 (55.6)48 (60.0)
Surgery0.897
Mastectomy75 (64.1)52 (65.0)
Breast conserving42 (35.9)28 (35.0)
 Unknown0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Chemotherapy0.195
 No69 (59.0)41 (51.2)
 Yes43 (36.8)38 (47.5)
 Unknown5 (4.2)1 (1.2)
Radiotherapy0.242
 No82 (70.1)57 (71.3)
 Yes26 (22.2)21 (20.2)
 Unknown9 (7.7)2 (2.5)
Anti-Her2 targeted therapy0.016
 No107 (91.5)70 (87.5)
 Yes2 (1.7)8 (10.0)
 Unknown8 (6.8)2 (2.5)
Endocrine therapy0.399
 No15 (12.8)8 (10.0)
 Yes91 (77.8)68 (85.0)
 Unknown11 (9.4)4 (5.0)

Abbreviations: PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; MBC, mucinous breast cancer; SD, standard deviation; TNM, tumor, node, metastasis system; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer.

Bold type indicates statistical significance.

TNM stage is according to the 7th AJCC cancer staging system.

Table 2

Comparison of the clinicopathological characteristics of PMBC versus subgroups of MMBC including MBC+DCIS+IDC, MBC+IDC and MBC+IMPC patients

CharacteristicsNo. (%) of PatientsPa
PMBCMBC+DCIS+IDCMBC+IDCMBC+IMPC
Total11724459
Age (Mean±SD) (years)53.3±15.356.6±12.654.7±15.261.8±15.40.333
Age at diagnosis (years)0.612
 ≤3510 (8.5)0 (0.0)4 (8.9)1 (11.1)
 36~5052 (44.5)10 (41.7)17 (37.8)2 (22.2)
 >5055 (47.0)14 (58.3)24 (53.3)6 (66.7)
Tumor size (cm)0.204
 T≤2.059 (50.4)18 (75.0)19 (42.2)5 (56.6)
 2<T≤5.049 (41.9)4 (16.7)24 (53.3)3 (33.3)
 T>5.04 (3.4)1 (4.2)2 (4.4)1 (11.1)
 Unknown5 (4.3)1 (4.2)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Lymph node status0.023
 Negative103 (88.0)22 (91.7)32 (71.1)9 (100.0)
 Positive11 (9.4)2 (8.3)13 (28.9)0 (0.0)
 Unknown3 (2.6)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
TNM stageb0.069
 Stage I55 (47.0)16 (66.7)13 (28.9)5 (55.6)
 Stage II53 (45.3)6 (25.0)25 (55.6)4 (44.4)
 Stage III6 (5.1)2 (8.3)7 (15.6)0 (0.0)
 Unknown3 (2.6)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
ER status0.587
 Positive94 (80.3)22 (91.7)34 (75.6)8 (88.9)
 Negative12 (10.3)2 (8.3)7 (15.6)1 (11.1)
 Unknown11 (9.4)0 (0.0)4 (8.9)0 (0.0)
PR status0.816
 Positive88 (75.2)21 (87.5)33 (73.3)7 (77.8)
 Negative19 (16.2)2 (8.3)8 (17.8)2 (22.2)
 Unknown10 (8.5)1 (4.2)4 (8.9)0 (0.0)
Hormone receptor status0.694
 Positive98 (83.8)23 (95.8)37 (82.2)8 (88.9)
 Negative9 (7.7)1 (4.2)4 (8.9)1 (11.1)
 Unknown10 (8.5)0 (0.0)4 (8.9)0 (0.0)
HER2 status0.014
 Positive3 (2.6)1 (4.2)8 (17.8)0 (0.0)
 Negative97 (82.9)20 (83.3)28 (62.2)8 (88.9)
 Unknown17 (14.5)3 (12.5)9 (20.0)1 (11.1)
Ki-67 expression0.008
 <20%64 (54.7)16 (66.7)14 (31.1)6 (66.7)
 ≥20%29 (24.8)5 (20.8)24 (53.3)3 (33.3)
 Unknown24 (20.5)3 (12.5)7 (15.6)0 (0.0)
Immunophenotype0.105
 Luminal A62 (53.0)15 (62.5)12 (26.7)5 (55.6)
 Luminal B29 (24.8)5 (20.8)22 (48.9)3 (33.3)
 HER20 (0.0)0 (0.0)1 (2.2)0 (0.0)
 TNBC8 (6.8)1 (4.2)3 (6.7)1 (11.1)
 Unknown18 (15.4)3 (12.5)7 (15.6)0 (0.0)
p530.418
 Positive6 (5.1)0 (0.0)5 (11.1)1 (11.1)
 Negative46 (39.3)7 (29.2)16 (35.6)2 (22.2)
 Unknown65 (55.6)17 (70.8)24 (53.3)6 (66.7)
Surgery0.575
 Mastectomy75 (64.1)15 (62.5)31 (68.9)4 (44.4)
 Breast conserving42 (35.9)9 (37.5)14 (31.1)5 (55.6)
 Unknown0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Chemotherapy0.011
 No69 (59.0)18 (75.0)16 (35.6)6 (66.7)
 Yes43 (36.8)5 (20.8)29 (64.4)3 (33.3)
 Unknown5 (4.2)1 (4.2)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Radiotherapy0.299
 No82 (70.1)19 (79.2)30 (66.7)6 (66.7)
 Yes26 (22.2)4 (16.7)15 (33.3)3 (33.3)
 Unknown9 (7.7)1 (4.1)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
Anti-Her2 targeted therapy0.002
 No107 (91.5)23 (95.8)36 (80.0)9 (100.0)
 Yes2 (1.7)0 (0.0)8 (17.8)0 (0.0)
 Unknown8 (6.8)1 (4.1)1 (2.2)0 (0.0)
Endocrine therapy0.566
 No15 (12.8)1 (4.2)6 (13.3)1 (11.1)
 Yes91 (77.8)21 (87.5)38 (84.4)8 (88.9)
 Unknown11 (9.4)2 (8.3)1 (2.2)0 (0.0)

Abbreviations: PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; MBC, mucinous breast cancer; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; IMPC, invasive micropapillary carcinoma; SD, standard deviation; TNM, tumor, node, metastasis system; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor.

Bold type indicates statistical significance.

TNM stage is according to the 7th AJCC cancer staging system.

Abbreviations: PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; MBC, mucinous breast cancer; SD, standard deviation; TNM, tumor, node, metastasis system; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer. Bold type indicates statistical significance. TNM stage is according to the 7th AJCC cancer staging system. Abbreviations: PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; MBC, mucinous breast cancer; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; IMPC, invasive micropapillary carcinoma; SD, standard deviation; TNM, tumor, node, metastasis system; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor. Bold type indicates statistical significance. TNM stage is according to the 7th AJCC cancer staging system.

Kaplan-Meier estimates of DFS and OS of MBC patients

DFS A. and OS B. compared between PMBC and MMBC patients. The comparison of DFS C. and OS D. of PMBC, MBC+DCIS+IDC, MBC+IDC, and MBC+IMPC patients. DFS of PMBC patients compared between subgroups of Ki-67 high (defined as ≥ 20%) versus Ki-67 low (defined as < 20%) E. DFS of MMBC patients compared between patient subgroups with or without anti-Her2 targeted therapy F..

Survival outcomes and prognostic factors of MBC subtypes

The 5-year DFS of PMBC and MMBC were 90.4% and 86.2%, whereas the 5-year OS were 99.0% and 98.7% respectively. The 5-year DFS and OS for MMBC subgroups were: 85.7% and 100.0% for MBC+DCIS+IDC, 83.5% and 97.6% for MBC+IDC, and 100.0% and 100.0% for MBC+IMPC. No significant difference was found in DFS or OS either between PMBC vs MMBC or among the above mentioned MMBC subgroups (Figure 2, Tables 3, 4). High Ki-67 index (defined as > 20%, p = 0.020) was identified as the significant DFS prognostic factor for PMBC, whereas anti-Her2 targeted therapy (p = 0.047) appeared to be the DFS predictor for MMBC (Tables 5, 6). DFS stratified by Ki-67 in PMBC and by anti-Her2 targeted therapy in MMBC both showed significant differences (Figure 2). ER, PR, hormone receptor status, immunophenotype and endocrine therapy might be potential DFS predictors according to univariate analysis. However, these factors were not significant in the multivariate analysis. None of the clinicopathological and treatment factors listed above could serve as OS predictors for MBC subtypes due to the limited OS events.
Figure 2

Kaplan-Meier estimates of DFS and OS of MBC patients

DFS A. and OS B. compared between PMBC and MMBC patients. The comparison of DFS C. and OS D. of PMBC, MBC+DCIS+IDC, MBC+IDC, and MBC+IMPC patients. DFS of PMBC patients compared between subgroups of Ki-67 high (defined as ≥ 20%) versus Ki-67 low (defined as < 20%) E. DFS of MMBC patients compared between patient subgroups with or without anti-Her2 targeted therapy F..

Table 3

Kaplan-Meier estimated DFS and OS rates compared between PMBC and MMBC

GroupNo. of patients5-year DFS (%)P5-year OS (%)P
PMBC11790.40.40599.00.765
MMBC8086.298.7

Abbreviations: PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; MMBC, mixed mucinous breast cancer; DFS, disease free survival; OS, overall survival.

Table 4

Kaplan-Meier estimated DFS and OS rates compared between PMBC, MBC+DCIS+IDC, MBC+IDC and MBC+IMPC

GroupNo. of patients5-year DFS (%)P5-year OS (%)P
PMBC11790.40.24099.00.784
MBC+DCIS+IDC2485.7100.0
MBC+IDC4583.597.6
MBC+IMPC9100.0100.0

Abbreviations: MBC, mucinous breast cancer; PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; MMBC, mixed mucinous breast cancer; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; IMPC, invasive micropapillary carcinoma; DFS, disease free survival; OS, overall survival.

Table 5

Univariate and multivariate Cox analysis of disease-free survival of patients with PMBC

VariablesUnivariateaMultivariateb
PcHR (95% CI)Pc
Age at diagnosis0.1700.258 (0.056-1.186)0.082
Tumor size0.4150.358 (0.023-5.662)0.466
Lymph node status0.3315.666 (0.358-89.609)0.218
TNM staged0.8312.546 (0.083-78.191)0.593
ER status0.6971512.053 (0-9.453E+138)0.963
PR status0.4960.247 (0.028-2.203)0.210
Hormone receptor status0.7410.004 (0-2.834E+133)0.973
HER2 status0.6311.796 (0.359-8.988)0.476
Ki-67 expression0.04658.722 (1.889-1825.766)0.020
Immunophenotype0.1110.169 (0.025-1.135)0.067
p530.8011.857 (0.676-5.106)0.230
Surgery0.0540.077 (0.005-1.227)0.070
Chemotherapy0.3790.420 (0.070-2.517)0.082
Radiotherapy0.7381.051 (0.095-11.576)0.070
Anti-Her2 targeted therapy0.8740.078 (0.004-1.629)0.466
Endocrine therapy0.9458.401 (0.402-175.734)0.218

Abbreviations: PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor.

Kaplan-Meier univariate analysis including all factors.

Adjusted by Cox proportional hazard regression model including all factors with method of enter.

Bold type indicates statistical significance.

TNM stage is according to the 7th AJCC cancer staging system.

Table 6

Univariate and multivariate Cox analysis of disease-free survival of patients with MMBC

VariablesUnivariateaMultivariateb
PcHR (95% CI)Pc
Pathologic types0.4600.344 (0.015-8.149)0.509
Age at diagnosis0.6061.083 (0.048-24.4280.960
Tumor size0.7640.052 (0.000-31.232)0.364
Lymph node status0.5730.000 (0.000-355.483)0.145
TNM staged0.6183154 (0.032-3126)0.170
ER status0.0000.004 (0.000-5.52)0.136
PR status0.0053.696 (0.039-347.957)0.573
Hormone receptor status0.0003.246 (0.004-2777)0.733
HER2 status0.5040.092 (0.002-3.521)0.199
Ki-67 expression0.30212.349 (0.005-33822)0.534
Immunophenotype0.0001.055 (0.055-20.270)0.971
p530.0672.025 (0.086-47.626)0.662
Surgery0.9620.025 (0.000-176.301)0.414
Chemotherapy0.2320.172 (0.001-23.738)0.483
Radiotherapy0.47327.030 (0.012-60963)0.403
Anti-Her2 targeted therapy0.0006977 (1.1410-42696079)0.047
Endocrine therapy0.0030.071 (0.001-3.380)0.180

Abbreviations: MMBC, mixed mucinous breast cancer; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor.

Kaplan-Meier univariate analysis including all factors.

Adjusted by Cox proportional hazard regression model including all factors with method of enter.

Bold type indicates statistical significance.

TNM stage is according to the 7th AJCC cancer staging system.

Abbreviations: PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; MMBC, mixed mucinous breast cancer; DFS, disease free survival; OS, overall survival. Abbreviations: MBC, mucinous breast cancer; PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; MMBC, mixed mucinous breast cancer; DCIS, ductal carcinoma in situ; IDC, invasive ductal carcinoma; IMPC, invasive micropapillary carcinoma; DFS, disease free survival; OS, overall survival. Abbreviations: PMBC, pure mucinous breast cancer; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor. Kaplan-Meier univariate analysis including all factors. Adjusted by Cox proportional hazard regression model including all factors with method of enter. Bold type indicates statistical significance. TNM stage is according to the 7th AJCC cancer staging system. Abbreviations: MMBC, mixed mucinous breast cancer; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor. Kaplan-Meier univariate analysis including all factors. Adjusted by Cox proportional hazard regression model including all factors with method of enter. Bold type indicates statistical significance. TNM stage is according to the 7th AJCC cancer staging system.

DISCUSSION

MBC is one of the most commonly seen special types of breast cancer [1, 2, 4, 8]. Experience in diagnosis and treatment of MBC was usually acquired from retrospective studies instead of prospective randomized trials. It was widely believed that MMBC had a poorer prognosis than PMBC [3, 4, 8–10]. However, these retrospective studies were mainly based on data from Caucasian, and mostly performed during the 1960s to 1980s, when anti-Her2 targeted therapy, most of the endocrine therapy, chemotherapy and radiation therapy were unavailable. Thus the poorer outcome of MMBC might be due to insufficient treatment. Additionally, MMBC is not a single disease. Whether MMBC subgroups have different survival outcomes remains unclear. A recent study reported differences in breast cancer epidemiology, clinical characteristics and prognosis between Chinese and Caucasian women [13, 14]. However, few studies have evaluated the survival outcome among MBC subtypes in Chinese women, who tend to develop breast cancer and MBC at a much younger age than Caucasian counterparts [1, 2, 5, 15, 16]. Although PMBC usually had normal diploid DNA stemline whereas MMBC harbored aneuploid DNA content, a recent study suggested that MBC subtypes based on gene expression profiling might be more complex than anticipated [17, 18]. Unsupervised clustering analysis showed that MMBC displayed similar patterns of genetic aberrations and preferentially clustered together with PMBC rather than with IDC [11]. A study with MBC cell line and xenograft model also showed that PMBC manifested phenotypic plasticity and could be converted by estrogen into MMBC with ILC [12]. This genotypic and phenotypic similarity between PMBC and MMBC provides explanation for their similar prognosis. Secretory mucins (MUC2 and MUC6) and the mucus might also act as a barrier to cancerous extension and decrease the aggressiveness of the tumor biology [8, 19]. In our study, the difference in lymph node (LN) metastasis between PMBC, MMBC and MMBC subtypes might be due to distinct tumor biology. However, the MBC were diagnosed at similar T stage and hence have no significant differences in pTNM stage. Our result on MBC survival coincided with the study from Park S et al. reporting similar 10-year DFS and OS between PMBC and MMBC [20]. Bae SY et al. reported similar DFS and different OS (p = 0.043), however, their study did not review pTNM stage, Ki-67, anti-Her2 targeted therapy [21]. Additionally, the age at diagnosis of MBC patients was much younger than contemporary IDC in Korean women, which was different from both Caucasian and Chinese [1, 2, 5, 20, 21]. Zhang M et al. reported better PMBC survival than MMBC in Chinese population [5]. However, most of the MMBC patients included in that study were diagnosed at a much later stage than PMBC, while 70.5% of PMBC patients received chemotherapy. There was no data concerning the Her2 status so that the similar percentage of anti-Her2 targeted therapy between MBC vs non-MBC or between PMBC vs MMBC would be difficult to interpret. Compared with IDC, IMPC usually has larger size, more metastatic lymph nodes, increased lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and more aggressive behavior [22]. Poorer survival was also observed for breast carcinoma containing IMPC component [22]. Notably, a special subtype of PMBC with micropapillary epithelial growth pattern was identified as invasive micropapillary mucinous carcinoma (IMPMC) [23], or mucinous carcinomas with a micropapillary pattern (MUMPC) [24]. This heterogeneous PMBC had more LN metastasis, higher Her2 expression, LVI, and a poorer prognosis than pure PMBC [23, 24]. Meanwhile, it showed decreased LN metastasis, lower nuclear grade, higher expression of ER and PR, less expression of Her2, and better prognosis compared to IMPC. Though controversial, it was proposed that PMBC, MUMPC/IMPMC and IMPC might represent clinical entities within a spectrum of heterogeneous diseases, with different percentage of mucin secretion and micropapillary components [23-25]. The MBC+IMPC in our study was different from MUMPC/IMPMC and did not exhibit higher LN metastasis, higher Her2 or Ki-67 expression, or poorer survival outcome. Our study had several limitations. Firstly, it was a single-center study with limited case number, and two patients with MBC+ILC had to be excluded from the comparison. Secondly, although this retrospective study reviewed MBC patients distributed during 32 years' time span, majority (86.8%) of patients was treated in the recent decade (2005-2014), so it would make more sense to analyze the 5-year short-term survival. There might still be significant difference in long-term 10-year prognosis between PMBC and MMBC, because MBC is basically luminal subtype and have shown late recurrences after 10 years [24, 26]. Thirdly, LN metastasis was not identified as the DFS predictor in our study, although it was identified in other studies to be candidate prognostic factor for PMBC [1, 2, 8, 21, 26, 27]. Fourthly, Ki-67 expression was only documented in 79.5% of the PMBC and 87.5% of the MMBC, while p53 status in more than half of the cases was unknown. In conclusion, our study revealed that MMBC had similar short-term survival as PMBC in Chinese patients, suggesting that intra-tumoral heterogeneity might not interfere with MBC prognosis in Chinese woman. Ki-67 proliferation index was identified as a DFS prognostic factor for PMBC, whereas anti-Her2 targeted therapy as the potential DFS predictor for MMBC. Further studies with increased cases number, prolonged follow-up and improved bio-markers need to be performed to gain a deeper understanding of MBC biology and prognosis with respect to intra- and inter-tumoral heterogeneity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ethics statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.

Patient selection, pathology review and follow-up

From January 1983 to December 2014, 244 consecutive MBC patients were treated primarily with breast cancer surgeries in PUMC Hospital according to the medical records searching. All patients' formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) pathological sections were reviewed and 28 patients with focal mucinous components < 50% of the total cancerous lesions were excluded from the study. All patients were followed by telephone call, by out-patient clinics records of follow-up examinations or by both measures. Another 19 patients who were lost to follow-up were also excluded. There were 197 MBC patients, including 117 PMBC and 80 MMBC, in the study cohort. The clinicopathological characteristics, treatment choice, DFS and OS were compared both between 117 PMBC vs 80 MMBC, and among all MBC subgroups, including 24 MMBC with DCIS and IDC (with or without other types of carcinoma), 45 with only IDC and 9 with IMPC. Two patients with MMBC and ILC were excluded from the comparison due to the small case number. DFS factors of PMBC and MMBC were identified respectively. Identification of prognostic factors for MMBC subgroups were not performed also due to the limited case numbers (Figure 1).

Statistical analysis

The quantitative variables were compared with t-test and the categorical variables were compared with chi-square tests. Survival outcomes including 5-year predicted DFS and OS were analyzed and compared by the Kaplan-Meier curve method. Kaplan-Meier univariate analyses and Cox multivariate analyses were performed to identify the prognostic factors for PMBC and MMBC respectively. The significance threshold was set at p < 0.05. SPSS software, version 18.0 (SPSS, Inc. Chicago, IL, US) was used for all of the statistical analyses.
  25 in total

1.  Outcome of pure mucinous breast carcinoma compared to infiltrating ductal carcinoma: a population-based study from China.

Authors:  A-Yong Cao; Min He; Zhe-Bin Liu; Gen-Hong Di; Jiong Wu; Jin-Song Lu; Guang-Yu Liu; Zhen-Zhou Shen; Zhi-Ming Shao
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 5.344

2.  Fine-needle aspiration cytology findings of an uncommon micropapillary variant of pure mucinous carcinoma of the breast: review of patients over an 8-year period.

Authors:  Wai-Kuen Ng
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-10-25       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Pure and mixed mucinous carcinomas of the breast: a clinicopathologic analysis of 61 cases with long-term follow-up.

Authors:  S Toikkanen; H Kujari
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.466

4.  Mucinous carcinoma of the breast: a pathologic study of 82 cases.

Authors:  S André; F Cunha; M Bernardo; J Meneses e Sousa; F Cortez; J Soares
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 3.454

5.  A retrospective review with long term follow up of 11,400 cases of pure mucinous breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Salomone Di Saverio; Juan Gutierrez; Eli Avisar
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2007-11-18       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 6.  Breast cancer in China.

Authors:  Lei Fan; Kathrin Strasser-Weippl; Jun-Jie Li; Jessica St Louis; Dianne M Finkelstein; Ke-Da Yu; Wan-Qing Chen; Zhi-Ming Shao; Paul E Goss
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 41.316

7.  Clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis of mucinous breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Ming Zhang; Xiao-Dan Teng; Xin-Xin Guo; Ji-Shuang Zhao; Zhi-Gao Li
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 4.553

8.  Invasive micropapillary mucinous carcinoma of the breast is associated with poor prognosis.

Authors:  Fangfang Liu; Mu Yang; Zhenhua Li; Xiaojing Guo; Yang Lin; Ronggang Lang; Beibei Shen; Gordon Pringle; Xinmin Zhang; Li Fu
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2015-05-08       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Mucinous carcinoma of the breast is genomically distinct from invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type.

Authors:  Magali Lacroix-Triki; Paula H Suarez; Alan MacKay; Maryou B Lambros; Rachael Natrajan; Kay Savage; Felipe C Geyer; Britta Weigelt; Alan Ashworth; Jorge S Reis-Filho
Journal:  J Pathol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 7.996

10.  Differences in breast cancer characteristics and outcomes between Caucasian and Chinese women in the US.

Authors:  Dan-Na Chen; Chuan-Gui Song; Qian-Wen Ouyang; Yi-Zhou Jiang; Fu-Gui Ye; Fang-Jing Ma; Rong-Cheng Luo; Zhi-Ming Shao
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2015-05-20
View more
  10 in total

1.  Palliative surgery for giant mucinous carcinoma of the breast in an elderly patient: A rare case report.

Authors:  Haruko Takuwa; Wakako Tsuji; Fumiaki Yotsumoto
Journal:  Mol Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-08-21

2.  Effect of postoperative radiotherapy in women with localized pure mucinous breast cancer after lumpectomy: a population-based study.

Authors:  Qiuping Mo; Yongzhen Wang; JinLan Shan; Xiaochen Wang
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2022-07-07       Impact factor: 4.309

3.  The clinical features and prognosis of patients with mucinous breast carcinoma compared with those with infiltrating ductal carcinoma: a population-based study.

Authors:  Xingtong Zhou; Zhibo Zheng; Yan Li; Weiwei Zhao; Yan Lin; Jieshi Zhang; Qiang Sun
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 4.430

4.  P53 and Ki-67 as prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Yunbao Pan; Yufen Yuan; Guoshi Liu; Yongchang Wei
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-24       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Omission of adjuvant radiotherapy following breast-conserving surgery for elderly women with early-stage pure mucinous breast carcinoma.

Authors:  San-Gang Wu; Feng-Yan Li; Jun Wang; Chen-Lu Lian; Juan Zhou; Zhen-Yu He
Journal:  Radiat Oncol       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.481

6.  The prognostic and predictive potential of Ki-67 in triple-negative breast cancer.

Authors:  Xiuzhi Zhu; Li Chen; Binhao Huang; Yue Wang; Lei Ji; Jiong Wu; Genhong Di; Guangyu Liu; Keda Yu; Zhimin Shao; Zhonghua Wang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  Evaluation of efficacy of chemotherapy for mucinous carcinoma: a surveillance, epidemiology, and end results cohort study.

Authors:  Hanwen Zhang; Ning Zhang; Yaming Li; Yiran Liang; Qifeng Yang
Journal:  Ther Adv Med Oncol       Date:  2020-12-18       Impact factor: 8.168

8.  Breast-conserving therapy shows better prognosis in mucinous breast carcinoma compared with mastectomy: A SEER population-based study.

Authors:  Ping Yu; Peng Liu; Yutian Zou; Xinhua Xie; Hailin Tang; Na Li; Xiaoming Xie; Feng Ye
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2020-06-08       Impact factor: 4.452

9.  Distribution and Clinical Utility of the 21-gene Recurrence Score in Pure Mucinous Breast Cancer Patients: a case-control study.

Authors:  Wei Wang; Xiaosong Chen; Lin Lin; Xiaochun Fei; David H Garfield; Jin Hong; Weiqi Gao; Siji Zhu; Jiayi Wu; Ou Huang; Jianrong He; Yafen Li; Li Zhu; Weiguo Chen; Kunwei Shen
Journal:  J Cancer       Date:  2018-08-06       Impact factor: 4.207

10.  Omission of Chemotherapy for the Treatment of Mucinous Breast Cancer: A Nationwide Study from the Korean Breast Cancer Society.

Authors:  Hyung Suk Kim; Jong Uk Lee; Tae Kyung Yoo; Byung Joo Chae; Donghee Son; Yun Jin Kim; Woo Chan Park
Journal:  J Breast Cancer       Date:  2019-09-30       Impact factor: 3.588

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.