Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 299, Issue 2, pp 533–541 | Cite as

Influences of adjuvant treatments in hormone receptor positive breast cancer on receptor conversion in recurrent breast cancer

  • Tanja Nadine StueberEmail author
  • Claire Rachel Weiss
  • Achim Woeckel
  • Sebastian Haeusler
Gynecologic Oncology



To examine influences on the receptor status of a local cohort of patients with recurrent breast cancer after primary diagnosis of hormone receptor positive breast cancer.


We retrospectively analyzed 2078 female patients with primary hormone receptor positive breast cancer treated at the university hospital of Wuerzburg between 2000 and 2013. Main focus was on discordance in receptor status in recurrent disease.


196 patients with the primary diagnosis of hormone receptor positive breast cancer developed recurrent disease. 29.1% of patients revealed discordance in estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) or HER2 receptor (ER+ to : 33.3%; PgR+ to : 59.6%; HER2+ to : 8.8%; HER2 to +: 17.5%). Aggressive tumor biology such as low grading or involvement of axillary lymph nodes showed increased risk of receptor conversion in relapse. Premenopausal patients with adjuvant application of tamoxifen and the application of chemotherapy had a significantly lower risk for the development of ER negative recurrent disease. Receptor changes to ER and PgR negativity in recurrent disease showed a trend to worse overall survival (OS).


Histological analysis of recurrent disease is indispensable, since one-third of patients with hormone receptor positive breast cancer develop change in the receptor status.


Recurrent disease Breast cancer Receptor discordance Hormone receptor 



We would like to thank Professor Dr. Manfred Wischnewsky, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Bremen for statistical advice.

Author contribution

TNS: conceptualization, investigation, software, supervision, visualization, writing of original draft. CRW: data curation, software, formal analysis, methodology, writing parts of the original draft and editing. AW: conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, editing of the manuscript. SH: conceptualization, investigation, project administration, supervision, editing the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final manuscript including interpretation of data and review of the literature.


TN. Stueber was funded by the Interdisciplinary Center for Clinical Research at the University hospital of Wuerzburg and the Else Kroener-Fresenius-Stiftung

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

TN. Stueber: received fees from Roche Pharma; CR Weiss: none; A. Woeckel: received fees from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Amgen, Celgene, Eisai; S. Haeusler: received fees from Novartis and Roche Pharma.

Ethical approval

As the study consisted of the retrospective analysis of anonymized data according to the local ethics committee a special approval is generally not required.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    World Health Organization. Breast cancer-estimated incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. 2012 Available from:
  3. 3.
    Beatson GT (1896) On the treatment of inoperable cases of carcinoma of the mamma: suggestions for a new method of treatment, with illustrative cases. Trans Med Chir Soc Edinb. 15:153–179Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative G, Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Clarke M, Cutter D et al (2011) Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 378(9793):771–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davies C, Pan H, Godwin J, Gray R, Arriagada R, Raina V et al (2013) Long-term effects of continuing adjuvant tamoxifen to 10 years versus stopping at 5 years after diagnosis of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: ATLAS, a randomised trial. Lancet 381(9869):805–816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moulder S (2010) Intrinsic resistance to chemotherapy in breast cancer. Womens Health (Lond). 6(6):821–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindstrom LS, Karlsson E, Wilking UM, Johansson U, Hartman J, Lidbrink EK et al (2012) Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression. J Clin Oncol 30(21):2601–2608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dieci MV, Barbieri E, Piacentini F, Ficarra G, Bettelli S, Dominici M et al (2013) Discordance in receptor status between primary and recurrent breast cancer has a prognostic impact: a single-institution analysis. Ann Oncol 24(1):101–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schrijver W, Schuurman K, van Rossum A, Dutch Distant Breast CancerMetastases C, Peeters T, Ter Hoeve N et al (2017) Loss of steroid hormone receptors is common in malignant pleural and peritoneal effusions of breast cancer patients treated with endocrine therapy. Oncotarget 8(33):55550–55561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Timmer M, Werner JM, Rohn G, Ortmann M, Blau T, Cramer C et al (2017) Discordance and conversion rates of progesterone-, estrogen-, and HER2/neu-receptor status in primary breast cancer and brain metastasis mainly triggered by hormone therapy. Anticancer Res 37(9):4859–4865Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hirata T, Shimizu C, Yonemori K, Hirakawa A, Kouno T, Tamura K et al (2009) Change in the hormone receptor status following administration of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and its impact on the long-term outcome in patients with primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 101(9):1529–1536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parinyanitikul N, Lei X, Chavez-MacGregor M, Liu S, Mittendorf EA, Litton JK et al (2015) Receptor status change from primary to residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and analysis of survival outcomes. Clin Breast Cancer 15(2):153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Curtit E, Nerich V, Mansi L, Chaigneau L, Cals L, Villanueva C et al (2013) Discordances in estrogen receptor status, progesterone receptor status, and HER2 status between primary breast cancer and metastasis. Oncologist 18(6):667–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bogina G, Bortesi L, Marconi M, Venturini M, Lunardi G, Coati F et al (2011) Comparison of hormonal receptor and HER-2 status between breast primary tumours and relapsing tumours: clinical implications of progesterone receptor loss. Virchows Arch 459(1):1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang YF, Liao YY, Yang M, Peng NF, Xie SR, Xie YF (2014) Discordances in ER, PR and HER2 receptors between primary and recurrent/metastatic lesions and their impact on survival in breast cancer patients. Med Oncol 31(10):214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Turner NH, Di Leo A (2013) HER2 discordance between primary and metastatic breast cancer: assessing the clinical impact. Cancer Treat Rev 39(8):947–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Klein CA (2009) Parallel progression of primary tumours and metastases. Nat Rev Cancer 9(4):302–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karthik GM, Rantalainen M, Stalhammar G, Lovrot J, Ullah I, Alkodsi A et al (2017) Intra-tumor heterogeneity in breast cancer has limited impact on transcriptomic-based molecular profiling. BMC Cancer. 17(1):802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    German Cancer Society (DKG), German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG) (2017) Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Früherkennung, Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Gynecology and ObstetricsUniversity Hospital WuerzburgWuerzburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyCharité, Campus Virchow, University Hospital BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyUniversity of Regensburg, Hospital of the Order of St. John of God Regensburg-St. Hedwig ClinicRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations