Discordance between Primary Breast Cancer and Ipsilateral Breast Cancer Tumor Recurrence as a Function of Distance.
breast cancer
ipsilateral recurrence
prognosis
tumor characteristics
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 Dec 2020
13 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
30
10
2020
revised:
29
11
2020
accepted:
07
12
2020
entrez:
16
12
2020
pubmed:
17
12
2020
medline:
17
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33322204
pii: jcm9124033
doi: 10.3390/jcm9124033
pmc: PMC7764724
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
J Clin Oncol. 2000 Aug;18(15):2817-27
pubmed: 10920129
Cancer. 2006 Jan 1;106(1):35-41
pubmed: 16333848
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2018 Nov;78(11):1056-1088
pubmed: 30581198
Cancer. 2011 May 15;117(10):2035-43
pubmed: 21523714
Lancet Oncol. 2014 Feb;15(2):156-63
pubmed: 24439313
Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015 Apr;41(4):548-52
pubmed: 25682910
J Clin Oncol. 1999 Jun;17(6):1689-700
pubmed: 10561205
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Apr 1;21(7):1205-13
pubmed: 12663706
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Jun;133(3):831-41
pubmed: 22147079
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1999 Jan 1;43(1):25-38
pubmed: 9989511
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995 Jan 4;87(1):19-27
pubmed: 7666458
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Jan;50(2):277-89
pubmed: 24269135
Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2020 Mar;80(3):277-287
pubmed: 32139917
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2001;(4):CD002195
pubmed: 11687148
Cancer. 1989 May 15;63(10):1912-7
pubmed: 2702564
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Nov 1;22(21):4247-54
pubmed: 15452182
J Breast Cancer. 2015 Dec;18(4):386-93
pubmed: 26770246
Ann Surg Oncol. 2008 Nov;15(11):3227-31
pubmed: 18784962
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1990 Oct;19(4):833-42
pubmed: 2170305
Cancer. 2002 Nov 15;95(10):2059-67
pubmed: 12412158
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1991 Jul;21(2):293-8
pubmed: 2061106
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013 Apr;138(3):899-908
pubmed: 23479421
Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Oct;48(4):1363-1372
pubmed: 26910473