PAM50- and immunohistochemistry-based subtypes of breast cancer and their relationship with breast cancer mortality in a population-based study.
Breast cancer
Hormone receptor
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
Immunohistochemistry
PAM50
Survival analysis
Journal
Breast cancer (Tokyo, Japan)
ISSN: 1880-4233
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer
Pays: Japan
ID NLM: 100888201
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2021
Nov 2021
Historique:
received:
11
01
2021
accepted:
06
05
2021
pubmed:
19
5
2021
medline:
27
1
2022
entrez:
18
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We evaluated the prognostic ability of immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based vs. PAM50-based subtypes for breast cancer mortality in a population-based study of breast cancer. We included a total of 463 breast cancer cases from the population-based Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project (LIBCSP). IHC-based markers were abstracted from the medical records, while the PAM50-based intrinsic subtypes were assessed from tumor tissues using NanoString nCounter For IHC-based hormone receptor-positive (HR+) tumors (n = 361), 68.7% were classified as luminal subtypes by PAM50; for HR- tumors (n = 102), 95.1% were classified as non-luminal subtypes. Compared to HR+/HER2- subtype, HR- patients had significantly higher breast cancer mortality (HR-/HER2+: HR = 2.84, 95% CI = 1.58-5.11; triple-negative breast cancer: HR = 2.42, 95% CI = 1.44-4.06). Compared to luminal A, a higher mortality rate was observed for all other PAM50-based subtypes: luminal B (HR = 4.03, 95% CI = 1.97-8.22), HER2-enriched (HR = 6.82, 95% CI = 3.29-14.14) and basal-like (HR = 4.71, 95% CI = 2.24-9.93). Additional subtyping of HR+ patients by PAM50 provided future risk stratification where luminal B patients in this group had significant higher mortality than luminal A patients (HR = 3.93, 95% CI = 1.92-8.03). Similar results were also observed among 291 HR+/HER2- patients, but not among the HR- patients. Our study suggests that for HR+ patients, especially HR+/HER2- patients, additional PAM50-based subtyping would provide better prognostic stratification and improve disease management.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34003448
doi: 10.1007/s12282-021-01261-w
pii: 10.1007/s12282-021-01261-w
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1235-1242Subventions
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : NIH RO1 CA172460
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : UO1 ES019451
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : UO1CA/ES66572
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : UO1CA66572
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : NIH RO1 CA172460
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : UO1 ES019451
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : UO1CA/ES66572
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : UO1CA66572
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Japanese Breast Cancer Society.
Références
Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:2784–95.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6529
Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:3997–4013.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984
Blows FM, Driver KE, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, van Leeuwen FE, Wesseling J, et al. Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000279.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000279
Prat A, Cheang MC, Martin M, Parker JS, Carrasco E, Caballero R, et al. Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor-positive tumor cells within immunohistochemically defined luminal A breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:203–9.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.43.4134
Cejalvo JM, Pascual T, Fernandez-Martinez A, Braso-Maristany F, Gomis RR, Perou CM, et al. Clinical implications of the non-luminal intrinsic subtypes in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2018;67:63–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2018.04.015
Cheang MC, Voduc KD, Tu D, Jiang S, Leung S, Chia SK, et al. Responsiveness of intrinsic subtypes to adjuvant anthracycline substitution in the NCIC.CTG MA.5 randomized trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:2402–12.
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2956
Cardoso F, van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J, Slaets L, Viale G, Delaloge S, et al. 70-gene signature as an aid to treatment decisions in early-stage breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:717–29.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1602253
Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, Pritchard KI, Albain KS, Hayes DF, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373:2005–14.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1510764
Gnant M, Filipits M, Greil R, Stoeger H, Rudas M, Bago-Horvath Z, et al. Predicting distant recurrence in receptor-positive breast cancer patients with limited clinicopathological risk: using the PAM50 Risk of Recurrence score in 1478 postmenopausal patients of the ABCSG-8 trial treated with adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:339–45.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt494
Dowsett M, Sestak I, Lopez-Knowles E, Sidhu K, Dunbier AK, Cowens JW, et al. Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:2783–90.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.1558
Ohnstad HO, Borgen E, Falk RS, Lien TG, Aaserud M, Sveli MAT, et al. Prognostic value of PAM50 and risk of recurrence score in patients with early-stage breast cancer with long-term follow-up. Breast Cancer Res. 2017;19:120.
doi: 10.1186/s13058-017-0911-9
Chia SK, Bramwell VH, Tu D, Shepherd LE, Jiang S, Vickery T, et al. A 50-gene intrinsic subtype classifier for prognosis and prediction of benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:4465–72.
doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-12-0286
Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52.
doi: 10.1038/35021093
Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:10869–74.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.191367098
Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron JS, Nobel A, et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:8418–23.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0932692100
Harbeck N, Gnant M. Breast cancer. Lancet. 2017;389:1134–50.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31891-8
Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC, Leung S, Voduc D, Vickery T, et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1160–7.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.1370
Allott EH, Cohen SM, Geradts J, Sun X, Khoury T, Bshara W, et al. Performance of three-biomarker immunohistochemistry for intrinsic breast cancer subtyping in the AMBER consortium. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2016;25:470–8.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0874
Kim HK, Park KH, Kim Y, Park SE, Lee HS, Lim SW, et al. Discordance of the PAM50 intrinsic subtypes compared with immunohistochemistry-based surrogate in breast cancer patients: potential implication of genomic alterations of discordance. Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51:737–47.
doi: 10.4143/crt.2018.342
Jamshidi N, Yamamoto S, Gornbein J, Kuo MD. Receptor-based surrogate subtypes and discrepancies with breast cancer intrinsic subtypes: implications for image biomarker development. Radiology. 2018;289:210–7.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.2018171118
Gammon MD, Neugut AI, Santella RM, Teitelbaum SL, Britton JA, Terry MB, et al. The Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project: description of a multi-institutional collaboration to identify environmental risk factors for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2002;74:235–54.
doi: 10.1023/A:1016387020854
Rossner P Jr, Gammon MD, Zhang YJ, Terry MB, Hibshoosh H, Memeo L, et al. Mutations in p53, p53 protein overexpression and breast cancer survival. J Cell Mol Med. 2009;13:3847–57.
doi: 10.1111/j.1582-4934.2008.00553.x
Therneau MT, Grambsch MP. Statistics in medicine. Modeling survival data: extending the cox model. New York: Springer; 2000. p. xiii + 350.
Gordon M, Lumley T. forestplot: advanced forest plot using 'grid' graphics. 2020.
Callagy G, Cattaneo E, Daigo Y, Happerfield L, Bobrow LG, Pharoah PD, et al. Molecular classification of breast carcinomas using tissue microarrays. Diagn Mol Pathol. 2003;12:27–34.
doi: 10.1097/00019606-200303000-00004
Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, Gelber RD, Gnant M, Piccart-Gebhart M, et al. Tailoring therapies—improving the management of early breast cancer: St Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2015. Ann Oncol. 2015;26:1533–46.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv221
de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G Jr, Colozza M, Mano MS, Durbecq V, et al. Ki-67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involving 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer. 2007;96:1504–13.
doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603756