Sebastian M Jud1, Reinhard Hatko2, Julius Emons1, Bianca Lauterbach1, Carolin C Hack1, Caroline Preuß1, Werner Adler3, Matthias W Beckmann1, Felix Heindl1. 1. Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center, European Metropolitan Area Erlangen-Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. 2. Freelance Computer Scientist, 85049 Ingolstadt, Germany. 3. Department of Biometry and Epidemiology, Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Risk factors for ipsilateral breast cancer tumor recurrence (IBTR) are well established and include grading, nodal status, and receptor status. Little is known about the influence of the local distance between the primary tumor and recurrences on changes in tumor characteristics and prognosis. METHODS: In a retrospective setting, we analyzed primary breast cancers and their recurrences. Localizations of primary and recurrent breast cancer were recorded to calculate the relative distance in pixels. Analysis was performed regarding tumor characteristics, relative distance between both, and their impact on breast cancer prognosis. RESULTS: In a cohort of 142 patients with ipsilateral recurrence, no statistically significant difference could be shown in the change in tumor characteristics depending on distance. Progesterone receptor (PR) and estrogene receptor (ER) status changed in 22.7% and 14.9% of cases, respectively. human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2, HER2) status changed in 18.3% of cases. Survival was in accordance with the literature, with luminal-A-like tumors as best and triple negative breast cancers (TNBC) as worst prognosis. With a threshold of 162 pixels, the survival was significantly better in the group with shorter distance. CONCLUSION: Change in tumor characteristics from primary breast cancer to recurrence occurs more often in PR than ER. In contrast to other work, in this dataset, recurrences with a larger distance to the primary tumor had a worse prognosis in univariate analysis. A Cox model might indicate the possibility that this influence is independent of other risk factors.
BACKGROUND: Risk factors for ipsilateral breast cancer tumor recurrence (IBTR) are well established and include grading, nodal status, and receptor status. Little is known about the influence of the local distance between the primary tumor and recurrences on changes in tumor characteristics and prognosis. METHODS: In a retrospective setting, we analyzed primary breast cancers and their recurrences. Localizations of primary and recurrent breast cancer were recorded to calculate the relative distance in pixels. Analysis was performed regarding tumor characteristics, relative distance between both, and their impact on breast cancer prognosis. RESULTS: In a cohort of 142 patients with ipsilateral recurrence, no statistically significant difference could be shown in the change in tumor characteristics depending on distance. Progesterone receptor (PR) and estrogene receptor (ER) status changed in 22.7% and 14.9% of cases, respectively. humanepidermal growth factor receptor 2 (ERBB2, HER2) status changed in 18.3% of cases. Survival was in accordance with the literature, with luminal-A-like tumors as best and triple negative breast cancers (TNBC) as worst prognosis. With a threshold of 162 pixels, the survival was significantly better in the group with shorter distance. CONCLUSION: Change in tumor characteristics from primary breast cancer to recurrence occurs more often in PR than ER. In contrast to other work, in this dataset, recurrences with a larger distance to the primary tumor had a worse prognosis in univariate analysis. A Cox model might indicate the possibility that this influence is independent of other risk factors.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast cancer; ipsilateral recurrence; prognosis; tumor characteristics
Authors: Aoife J Lowery; Malcolm R Kell; Ronan W Glynn; Michael J Kerin; Karl J Sweeney Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Y Okumura; R Nishimura; K Nakatsukasa; A Yoshida; N Masuda; M Tanabe; T Shien; S Tanaka; N Arima; Y Komoike; T Taguchi; T Iwase; H Inaji; M Ishitobi Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: A Recht; R Gray; N E Davidson; B L Fowble; L J Solin; F J Cummings; G Falkson; H C Falkson; S G Taylor; D C Tormey Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Katz; E A Strom; T A Buchholz; H D Thames; C D Smith; A Jhingran; G Hortobagyi; A U Buzdar; R Theriault; S E Singletary; M D McNeese Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Wallgren; M Bonetti; R D Gelber; A Goldhirsch; M Castiglione-Gertsch; S B Holmberg; J Lindtner; B Thürlimann; M Fey; I D Werner; J F Forbes; K Price; A S Coates; J Collins Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Valerie Panet-Raymond; Pauline T Truong; Cheryl Alexander; Mary Lesperance; Rachel E McDonald; Peter H Watson Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stefan Aebi; Shari Gelber; Stewart J Anderson; István Láng; André Robidoux; Miguel Martín; Johan W R Nortier; Alexander H G Paterson; Mothaffar F Rimawi; José Manuel Baena Cañada; Beat Thürlimann; Elizabeth Murray; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Charles E Geyer; Karen N Price; Alan S Coates; Richard D Gelber; Priya Rastogi; Norman Wolmark; Irene L Wapnir Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: E Touboul; L Buffat; Y Belkacémi; J P Lefranc; S Uzan; P Lhuillier; C Faivre; J Huart; J P Lotz; M Antoine; F Pène; J Blondon; V Izrael; A Laugier; M Schlienger; M Housset Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 1999-01-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Achim Wöckel; Jasmin Festl; Tanja Stüber; Katharina Brust; Mathias Krockenberger; Peter U Heuschmann; Steffi Jírů-Hillmann; Ute-Susann Albert; Wilfried Budach; Markus Follmann; Wolfgang Janni; Ina Kopp; Rolf Kreienberg; Thorsten Kühn; Thomas Langer; Monika Nothacker; Anton Scharl; Ingrid Schreer; Hartmut Link; Jutta Engel; Tanja Fehm; Joachim Weis; Anja Welt; Anke Steckelberg; Petra Feyer; Klaus König; Andrea Hahne; Traudl Baumgartner; Hans H Kreipe; Wolfram Trudo Knoefel; Michael Denkinger; Sara Brucker; Diana Lüftner; Christian Kubisch; Christina Gerlach; Annette Lebeau; Friederike Siedentopf; Cordula Petersen; Hans Helge Bartsch; Rüdiger Schulz-Wendtland; Markus Hahn; Volker Hanf; Markus Müller-Schimpfle; Ulla Henscher; Renza Roncarati; Alexander Katalinic; Christoph Heitmann; Christoph Honegger; Kerstin Paradies; Vesna Bjelic-Radisic; Friedrich Degenhardt; Frederik Wenz; Oliver Rick; Dieter Hölzel; Matthias Zaiss; Gudrun Kemper; Volker Budach; Carsten Denkert; Bernd Gerber; Hans Tesch; Susanne Hirsmüller; Hans-Peter Sinn; Jürgen Dunst; Karsten Münstedt; Ulrich Bick; Eva Fallenberg; Reina Tholen; Roswita Hung; Freerk Baumann; Matthias W Beckmann; Jens Blohmer; Peter Fasching; Michael P Lux; Nadia Harbeck; Peyman Hadji; Hans Hauner; Sylvia Heywang-Köbrunner; Jens Huober; Jutta Hübner; Christian Jackisch; Sibylle Loibl; Hans-Jürgen Lück; Gunter von Minckwitz; Volker Möbus; Volkmar Müller; Ute Nöthlings; Marcus Schmidt; Rita Schmutzler; Andreas Schneeweiss; Florian Schütz; Elmar Stickeler; Christoph Thomssen; Michael Untch; Simone Wesselmann; Arno Bücker; Andreas Buck; Stephanie Stangl Journal: Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.915