Differences in clinicopatholgic characteristics and risk of mortality between the triple positive and ER+/PR+/HER2− breast cancer subtypes
- 42 Downloads
This study compared the demographic and clinicopathologic characteristics and risk of mortality between the triple positive (TP) and ER+/PR+/HER2− breast cancer subtypes.
Cases of first primary female invasive TP and ER+/PR+/HER2− breast cancer were obtained from the California Cancer Registry. Logistic regression analysis was used to compare differences in factors associated with the TP versus the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype. Cox regression was used to compute the adjusted risk of breast cancer-specific mortality of the TP versus ER+/PR+/HER2−.
The odds of TP versus ER+/PR+/HER2− were higher with advanced stage, high grade, low SES, ≤ 45 years of age (OR 1.48; CI 1.40–1.55), black (OR 1.11; CI 1.02–1.21), Asian/Pacific Islander (OR 1.15; CI 1.09–1.22), and uninsured (OR 1.42; CI 1.15–1.73). Unadjusted survival analysis indicated worse survival for the TP when compared with the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype. However, adjusted risk of mortality for the TP subtype was not statistically significantly worse than the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype.
Young age, advanced stage and grade, low SES, black and API race, and lack of health insurance are more common in the TP subtype than in the ER+/PR+/HER2− subtype. However the risk of mortality between these two subtypes is similar.
KeywordsBreast cancer Luminal B Triple positive Mortality Risk factors Population-based registry
We wish to thank Melissa Taylor and the staff at the Sutter Resource Library for their valuable assistance.
The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contract N01-PC-35136 awarded to the Northern California Cancer Center, contract N01-PC-35139 awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract N01-PC-54404 awarded to the Public Health Institute; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement 1U58DP00807-01 awarded to the Public Health Institute. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and endorsement by the State of California, Department of Public Health the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their contractors and subcontractors is not intended nor should be inferred.
CAP and VC equally contributed to the conceptualization, analysis, and writing of this manuscript.
This study was funded by Grant 947110-1107555 from the Sutter Medical Center Sacramento Foundation.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals
This research study involved analysis of existing data from the CCR without subject identifiers or intervention. Therefore, the study was categorized as Exempt from institutional review board oversight.
- 1.Parise CA, Bauer KR, Brown MM, Caggiano V (2009) Breast cancer subtypes as defined by the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) among women with invasive breast cancer in California, 1999–2004. Breast J 15:593–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V (2007) Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer 109:1721–1728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 11.Fritz AG (2000) International classification of diseases for oncology: ICD-O, 3rd edn. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp. vi, 239Google Scholar
- 12.California Department of Public, Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch (2008) Cancer reporting in California: abstracting and coding procedures for hospitals. California cancer reporting system standards, vol. I. California Department of Public, Cancer Surveillance and Research Branch, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
- 13.ICD10Data.com. http://www.icd10.com. Accessed Jan 2016
- 14.DAKO HERCEPTest® 2019 [March, 2019]; 11th: Available from: https://www.agilent.com/cs/library/packageinsert/public/PD04086US_01.pdf.
- 15.PathVision HER-2 DNA Probe Kit Package Insert. 2016 [March, 2019]; Available from: https://www.molecular.abbott/us/en/products/oncology/pathvysion-her-2-dna-probe-kit
- 16.American Community Survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/. Accessed Jan 2016
- 27.Hosmer D, Lemeshow S (1989) Applied logistic regression. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 28.IBM Corp (2012) IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, vol 21.0. IBM Corp., ArmonkGoogle Scholar
- 30.Alwan NAS, Mualla FH, Al Naqash M, Kathum S, Tawfiq FN, Nadhir S (2017) Clinical and pathological characteristics of triple positive breast cancer among Iraqi patients. Gulf J Oncol 1:51–60Google Scholar
- 40.Creighton CJ (2012) The molecular profile of luminal B breast cancer. Biologics 6:289–297Google Scholar