N Kobayashi1, M Hikichi1, K Ushimado1, A Sugioka2, Y Kiriyama3, M Kuroda3, T Utsumi4. 1. Department of Breast Surgery, School of Medicine, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan. 2. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan. 3. Department of Diagnostic Pathology, School of Medicine, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan. 4. Department of Breast Surgery, School of Medicine, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Aichi, 470-1192, Japan. tutsumi@fujita-hu.ac.jp.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Stage shift is considered a major reason for more favorable outcomes in patients with screen-detected breast cancer. However, even after adjusting for clinical stage, unresolved issues concerning the reasons for a survival benefit associated with screening programs remain. This study aims to evaluate differences in subtype distribution and outcomes among patients with screen-detected and symptomatic invasive breast cancer and assess whether variations in subtype distribution could explain differences in prognosis. METHODS: Survival analysis was performed to estimate the likelihood of distant recurrence and death in 1132 patients. Subtypes were defined as luminal A [estrogen receptor (ER)+ and/or progesterone receptor (PR)+, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-, and Ki67 low], luminal B (HER2-) (ER+ and/or PR+, HER2-, and Ki67 high), luminal B (HER2+) (ER+ and/or PR+ and HER2+), HER2 overexpressing (ER-, PR-, and HER2+), and triple negative (ER-, PR-, and HER2-). RESULTS: Screen-detected cancers had favorable clinicopathological characteristics, such as smaller tumor size and a lower frequency of lymph node involvement. Women with screen-detected cancers had a survival advantage. Subtype distribution differed significantly among women with screen-detected and symptomatic cancer. Screen-detected cancers were more likely to be luminal A and less likely to be HER2 overexpressing or triple negative cancer compared with symptomatic cancers (luminal A 61.3 vs. 44.2%, HER2 overexpressing 4.0 vs. 8.0%, triple negative 8.0 vs. 15.9%). Node status, mode of detection, and subtype were independent prognostic factors in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in subtype distribution between screen-detected and symptomatic cancer could partially explain differences in outcomes.
PURPOSE: Stage shift is considered a major reason for more favorable outcomes in patients with screen-detected breast cancer. However, even after adjusting for clinical stage, unresolved issues concerning the reasons for a survival benefit associated with screening programs remain. This study aims to evaluate differences in subtype distribution and outcomes among patients with screen-detected and symptomatic invasive breast cancer and assess whether variations in subtype distribution could explain differences in prognosis. METHODS: Survival analysis was performed to estimate the likelihood of distant recurrence and death in 1132 patients. Subtypes were defined as luminal A [estrogen receptor (ER)+ and/or progesterone receptor (PR)+, humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-, and Ki67 low], luminal B (HER2-) (ER+ and/or PR+, HER2-, and Ki67 high), luminal B (HER2+) (ER+ and/or PR+ and HER2+), HER2 overexpressing (ER-, PR-, and HER2+), and triple negative (ER-, PR-, and HER2-). RESULTS: Screen-detected cancers had favorable clinicopathological characteristics, such as smaller tumor size and a lower frequency of lymph node involvement. Women with screen-detected cancers had a survival advantage. Subtype distribution differed significantly among women with screen-detected and symptomatic cancer. Screen-detected cancers were more likely to be luminal A and less likely to be HER2 overexpressing or triple negative cancer compared with symptomatic cancers (luminal A 61.3 vs. 44.2%, HER2 overexpressing 4.0 vs. 8.0%, triple negative 8.0 vs. 15.9%). Node status, mode of detection, and subtype were independent prognostic factors in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in subtype distribution between screen-detected and symptomatic cancer could partially explain differences in outcomes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Distant disease-free survival; Overall survival; Screening; Subtype
Authors: Stella Mook; Laura J Van 't Veer; Emiel J Rutgers; Peter M Ravdin; Anthonie O van de Velde; Flora E van Leeuwen; Otto Visser; Marjanka K Schmidt Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-02-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Yu Shen; Ying Yang; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Mark F Munsell; Anthony B Miller; Donald A Berry Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-08-17 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Heikki Joensuu; Tiina Lehtimäki; Kaija Holli; Liisa Elomaa; Taina Turpeenniemi-Hujanen; Vesa Kataja; Ahti Anttila; Mikael Lundin; Jorma Isola; Johan Lundin Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-09-01 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: István Pálka; Gyöngyi Kelemen; Katalin Ormándi; György Lázár; Tibor Nyári; László Thurzó; Zsuzsanna Kahán Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2008-03-06 Impact factor: 3.201
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: A Goldhirsch; E P Winer; A S Coates; R D Gelber; M Piccart-Gebhart; B Thürlimann; H-J Senn Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2013-08-04 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Zhenzhen Zhang; Grace Curran; Jackilen Shannon; Ellen M Velie; Veronica L Irvin; JoAnn E Manson; Michael S Simon; Duygu Altinok Dindar; Chelsea Pyle; Pepper Schedin; Fred K Tabung Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 6.575
Authors: Johanna Alanko; Minna Tanner; Ritva Vanninen; Anssi Auvinen; Jorma Isola Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Benjamin Walbaum; Klaus Puschel; Lidia Medina; Tomas Merino; Mauricio Camus; Dravna Razmilic; Maria Elena Navarro; Francisco Dominguez; Miguel Cordova-Delgado; Mauricio P Pinto; Francisco Acevedo; César Sánchez Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Irene Zarcos-Pedrinaci; Maximino Redondo; Javier Louro; Francisco Rivas-Ruiz; Teresa Téllez; Diego Pérez; Francisco Medina Cano; Kenza Machan; Laia Domingo; Maria Mar Vernet; Maria Padilla-Ruiz; Xavier Castells; Antonio Rueda; María Sala Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 4.452