Chu Van Nguyen1, Quang Tien Nguyen2, Ha Thi Ngoc Vu3, Khoa Hong Pham4, Huyen Thi Phung5. 1. Department of Quan Su Pathology, National Cancer Hospital Vietnam. 2. National Cancer Hospital Vietnam. 3. Vietnam University of Traditional Medicine Vietnam. 4. Department of Quan Su Examination, National Cancer Hospital Vietnam. 5. Department of Quan Su Internal Medicine, National Cancer Hospital Vietnam.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Bhagarva surrogate molecular subtype definitions classify invasive breast cancer into seven the different subgroups based on immunohistochemical (IHC) criteria according to expression levels of markers as ER, PR, HER2, EGFR and/or basal cytokeratin (CK5/6) which are different in prognosis and responsiveness to adjuvant therapy. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to classify primary breast cancers and directly compares the prognostic significance of the intrinsic subtypes. METHODS: The current study was conducted on 522 breast cancer patients who had surgery, but had not received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, from 2011 to 2014. The clinicopathologic characteristics were recorded. IHC staining was performed for ER, PR, HER2, Ki67, CK5/6, EGFR and D2-40 markers. All breast cancer patients were stratified according to Bhagarva criteria. The followed-up patients' survival was analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier and Log-Rank models. RESULTS: The luminal A (LUMA) was observed at the highest rate (32.5%). Non-basal-like triple negative phenotype (TNB-) and Luminal A HER2-Hybrid (LAHH) were the least common (3.3% in both). LUMA and luminal B (LUMB) were significantly associated with better prognostic features compared to HER2, basal-like triple negative phenotype (TNB+) and TNB-. Statistically significant differences were demonstrated between overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and molecular subtypes (P<0.05), of which LUMB and LUMA had the highest rate of OS and DFS being 97.2 and 93.7%; and 97.2 and 90.5%, respectively. Conversely, HER2 revealed the worst prognosis with the lowest prevalence of OS and DFS (72.5 and 69.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The molecular subtypes had a distinct OS and DFS. The intrinsic stratification displayed inversely to clinicopathological features in breast cancer. IJCEP
BACKGROUND: The Bhagarva surrogate molecular subtype definitions classify invasive breast cancer into seven the different subgroups based on immunohistochemical (IHC) criteria according to expression levels of markers as ER, PR, HER2, EGFR and/or basal cytokeratin (CK5/6) which are different in prognosis and responsiveness to adjuvant therapy. PURPOSE: The present study aimed to classify primary breast cancers and directly compares the prognostic significance of the intrinsic subtypes. METHODS: The current study was conducted on 522 breast cancerpatients who had surgery, but had not received neoadjuvant chemotherapy, from 2011 to 2014. The clinicopathologic characteristics were recorded. IHC staining was performed for ER, PR, HER2, Ki67, CK5/6, EGFR and D2-40 markers. All breast cancerpatients were stratified according to Bhagarva criteria. The followed-up patients' survival was analyzed by using Kaplan-Meier and Log-Rank models. RESULTS: The luminalA (LUMA) was observed at the highest rate (32.5%). Non-basal-like triple negative phenotype (TNB-) and Luminal A HER2-Hybrid (LAHH) were the least common (3.3% in both). LUMA and luminal B (LUMB) were significantly associated with better prognostic features compared to HER2, basal-like triple negative phenotype (TNB+) and TNB-. Statistically significant differences were demonstrated between overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and molecular subtypes (P<0.05), of which LUMB and LUMA had the highest rate of OS and DFS being 97.2 and 93.7%; and 97.2 and 90.5%, respectively. Conversely, HER2 revealed the worst prognosis with the lowest prevalence of OS and DFS (72.5 and 69.9%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The molecular subtypes had a distinct OS and DFS. The intrinsic stratification displayed inversely to clinicopathological features in breast cancer. IJCEP
Authors: Daynna J Wolff; Adam Bagg; Linda D Cooley; Gordon W Dewald; Betsy A Hirsch; Peter B Jacky; Kathleen W Rao; P Nagesh Rao Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: Robert C Millikan; Beth Newman; Chiu-Kit Tse; Patricia G Moorman; Kathleen Conway; Lynn G Dressler; Lisa V Smith; Miriam H Labbok; Joseph Geradts; Jeannette T Bensen; Susan Jackson; Sarah Nyante; Chad Livasy; Lisa Carey; H Shelton Earp; Charles M Perou Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-06-20 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Fiona M Blows; Kristy E Driver; Marjanka K Schmidt; Annegien Broeks; Flora E van Leeuwen; Jelle Wesseling; Maggie C Cheang; Karen Gelmon; Torsten O Nielsen; Carl Blomqvist; Päivi Heikkilä; Tuomas Heikkinen; Heli Nevanlinna; Lars A Akslen; Louis R Bégin; William D Foulkes; Fergus J Couch; Xianshu Wang; Vicky Cafourek; Janet E Olson; Laura Baglietto; Graham G Giles; Gianluca Severi; Catriona A McLean; Melissa C Southey; Emad Rakha; Andrew R Green; Ian O Ellis; Mark E Sherman; Jolanta Lissowska; William F Anderson; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; Malcolm W R Reed; Elena Provenzano; Sarah-Jane Dawson; Alison M Dunning; Manjeet Humphreys; Douglas F Easton; Montserrat García-Closas; Carlos Caldas; Paul D Pharoah; David Huntsman Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-05-25 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: R Conforti; T Boulet; G Tomasic; E Taranchon; R Arriagada; M Spielmann; M Ducourtieux; J C Soria; T Tursz; S Delaloge; S Michiels; F Andre Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2007-05-21 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: François Bertucci; Pascal Finetti; Nathalie Cervera; Benjamin Esterni; Fabienne Hermitte; Patrice Viens; Daniel Birnbaum Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Huyen Thi Phung; Chu Van Nguyen; Nhung Thi Mai; Ha Thi Ngoc Vu; Khoa Hong Pham; Giang Le Tran Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022 Jan-Dec