Borderline Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancers in Black and White Women.
Journal
Journal of the National Cancer Institute
ISSN: 1460-2105
Titre abrégé: J Natl Cancer Inst
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7503089
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2020
01 07 2020
Historique:
received:
27
05
2019
revised:
27
09
2019
accepted:
15
10
2019
pubmed:
20
11
2019
medline:
23
4
2021
entrez:
20
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Some breast tumors expressing greater than 1% and less than 10% estrogen receptor (ER) positivity (ER-borderline) are clinically aggressive; others exhibit luminal biology. Prior ER-borderline studies included few black participants. Using the Carolina Breast Cancer Study (phase I: 1993-1996; 2: 1996-2001; 3: 2008-2013), a population-based study that oversampled black women, we compared ER-borderline (n = 217) to ER-positive (n = 1885) and ER-negative (n = 757) tumors. PAM50 subtype and risk of recurrence score (ROR-PT, incorporates subtype, proliferation, tumor size) were measured. Relative frequency differences (RFD) were estimated using multivariable linear regression. Disease-free interval (DFI) was evaluated by ER category and endocrine therapy receipt, overall and by race, using Kaplan Meier and Cox models. Statistical tests were two-sided. ER-borderlines were more frequently basal-like (RFD = +37.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 27.1% to 48.4%) and high ROR-PT (RFD = +52.4%, 95% CI = 36.8% to 68.0%) relative to ER-positives. Having a high ROR-PT ER-borderline tumor was statistically significantly associated with black race (RFD = +26.2%, 95% CI = 9.0% to 43.3%). Compared to ER-positives, DFI of ER-borderlines treated with endocrine therapy was poorer but not statistically significantly different (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.03, 95% CI = 0.89% to 4.65%), whereas DFI was statistically significantly worse for ER-borderlines without endocrine therapy (HR = 3.33, 95% CI = 1.84% to 6.02%). However, black women with ER-borderline had worse DFI compared to ER-positives, even when treated with endocrine therapy (HR = 2.77, 95% CI = 1.09% to 7.04%). ER-borderline tumors were genomically heterogeneous, with survival outcomes that differed by endocrine therapy receipt and race. Black race predicted high-risk ER-borderlines and may be associated with poorer endocrine therapy response.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Some breast tumors expressing greater than 1% and less than 10% estrogen receptor (ER) positivity (ER-borderline) are clinically aggressive; others exhibit luminal biology. Prior ER-borderline studies included few black participants.
METHODS
Using the Carolina Breast Cancer Study (phase I: 1993-1996; 2: 1996-2001; 3: 2008-2013), a population-based study that oversampled black women, we compared ER-borderline (n = 217) to ER-positive (n = 1885) and ER-negative (n = 757) tumors. PAM50 subtype and risk of recurrence score (ROR-PT, incorporates subtype, proliferation, tumor size) were measured. Relative frequency differences (RFD) were estimated using multivariable linear regression. Disease-free interval (DFI) was evaluated by ER category and endocrine therapy receipt, overall and by race, using Kaplan Meier and Cox models. Statistical tests were two-sided.
RESULTS
ER-borderlines were more frequently basal-like (RFD = +37.7%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 27.1% to 48.4%) and high ROR-PT (RFD = +52.4%, 95% CI = 36.8% to 68.0%) relative to ER-positives. Having a high ROR-PT ER-borderline tumor was statistically significantly associated with black race (RFD = +26.2%, 95% CI = 9.0% to 43.3%). Compared to ER-positives, DFI of ER-borderlines treated with endocrine therapy was poorer but not statistically significantly different (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.03, 95% CI = 0.89% to 4.65%), whereas DFI was statistically significantly worse for ER-borderlines without endocrine therapy (HR = 3.33, 95% CI = 1.84% to 6.02%). However, black women with ER-borderline had worse DFI compared to ER-positives, even when treated with endocrine therapy (HR = 2.77, 95% CI = 1.09% to 7.04%).
CONCLUSIONS
ER-borderline tumors were genomically heterogeneous, with survival outcomes that differed by endocrine therapy receipt and race. Black race predicted high-risk ER-borderlines and may be associated with poorer endocrine therapy response.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31742342
pii: 5631917
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz206
pmc: PMC7357313
doi:
Substances chimiques
Receptors, Estrogen
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
728-736Subventions
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : P30 ES010126
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : F30 CA236199
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : U01 CA179715
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : P50 CA058223
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : T32 CA057726
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
IARC Sci Publ. 1991;(95):159-76
pubmed: 1894319
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 May;109(1):123-39
pubmed: 17578664
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Mar 1;30(7):729-34
pubmed: 22291085
Ann Oncol. 2017 Oct 1;28(10):2420-2428
pubmed: 28961844
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Mar 10;27(8):1160-7
pubmed: 19204204
Breast Cancer. 2004;11(3):267-75
pubmed: 15550845
Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Aug;26(8):897-9
pubmed: 18688245
J Clin Oncol. 2011 Apr 20;29(12):1531-8
pubmed: 21422407
Histopathology. 1991 Nov;19(5):403-10
pubmed: 1757079
Ann Oncol. 2014 Feb;25(2):339-45
pubmed: 24347518
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Mar;25(3):470-8
pubmed: 26711328
Int J Cancer. 2000 Mar 20;89(2):111-7
pubmed: 10754487
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Feb;155(3):483-90
pubmed: 26846986
J Clin Oncol. 1999 May;17(5):1474-81
pubmed: 10334533
J Clin Oncol. 2007 May 20;25(15):2127-32
pubmed: 17513820
Am J Clin Pathol. 2005 Jan;123(1):21-7
pubmed: 15762276
Cancer. 2014 Jul 15;120(14):2174-82
pubmed: 24911404
Cancer. 1990 Oct 15;66(8):1663-70
pubmed: 2208020
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Jan;20(1):87-93
pubmed: 22875649
Ann Oncol. 2014 May;25(5):1004-11
pubmed: 24562447
Am J Clin Pathol. 2018 May 31;150(1):34-42
pubmed: 29741562
Epidemiol Infect. 2015 Nov;143(15):3292-9
pubmed: 26418350
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Nov 1;98(21):1571-81
pubmed: 17077359
Cancer. 2012 Mar 15;118(6):1498-506
pubmed: 21837669
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019 May 1;111(5):498-508
pubmed: 30239824
Oncologist. 2015 May;20(5):474-82
pubmed: 25908555
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Aug 1;31(22):2783-90
pubmed: 23816962
Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Mar;26(3):317-25
pubmed: 18278033
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 1;26(7):1059-65
pubmed: 18227529
Clin Breast Cancer. 2014 Aug;14(4):258-64
pubmed: 24325948
BMC Cancer. 2006 Dec 06;6:276
pubmed: 17150101
Am J Clin Pathol. 2005 Jan;123(1):16-20
pubmed: 15762275
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1995 Jul;35(1):51-60
pubmed: 7612904
Clin Breast Cancer. 2018 Feb;18(1):1-8
pubmed: 28712925
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 Feb 1;110(2):
pubmed: 28859290
JAMA. 2006 Jun 7;295(21):2492-502
pubmed: 16757721
J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jun 1;28(16):2784-95
pubmed: 20404251