Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Molecular phenotype is associated with survival in breast cancer patients with spinal bone metastases

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Clinical & Experimental Metastasis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To aid in therapy selection for patients with spinal bone metastases (SBM), predictive models have been developed. These models consider SBM from breast cancer a positive predictive factor, but do not take phenotypes based on estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR) and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) receptors into account. The aim of this study was to ascertain whether receptors are associated with survival, when the disease has progressed up to SBM. All patients who were treated for SBM from breast cancer between 2005 and 2012 were included in this international multi-center retrospective study (n = 111). Reports were reviewed for ER, PR and HER2 status and subsequently subdivided into one of four categories; luminal A, luminal B, HER2 and triple negative. Survival time was calculated as the difference between start of treatment for SBM and date of death. Analysis was performed using the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank tests. Median follow-up was 3.7 years. Survival times in the luminal B and HER2 categories were not significantly different to the luminal A category and were joined into a single receptor positive category. Eighty-five patients (77 %) had a receptor positive phenotype and 25 (23 %) had a triple negative phenotype. Median survival time was 22.5 months (95 %CI 18.0–26.9) for the receptor positive category and 6.7 months (95 %CI 2.4–10.9) for the triple negative category (p < 0.001). Patients with SBM from breast cancer with a triple negative phenotype have a shorter survival time than patients with a receptor positive phenotype. Models estimating survival should be adjusted accordingly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bollen L, de Ruiter GCW, Pondaag W et al (2013) Risk factors for survival of 106 surgically treated patients with symptomatic spinal epidural metastases. Eur Spine J 22(6):1408–1416

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Leithner A, Radl R, Gruber G et al (2008) Predictive value of seven preoperative prognostic scoring systems for spinal metastases. Eur Spine J 17(11):1488–1495

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wibmer C, Leithner A, Hofmann G et al (2011) Survival analysis of 254 patients after manifestation of spinal metastases: evaluation of seven preoperative scoring systems. Spine 36(23):1977–1986

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wang M, Bünger CE, Li H et al (2012) Predictive value of Tokuhashi scoring systems in spinal metastases, focusing on various primary tumor groups: evaluation of 448 patients in the Aarhus spinal metastases database. Spine 37(7):573–582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tomita K, Kawahara N, Kobayashi T, Yoshida A, Murakami H, Akamaru T (2001) Surgical strategy for spinal metastases. Spine 26(3):298–306

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tokuhashi Y, Matsuzaki H, Oda H, Oshima M, Ryu J (2005) A revised scoring system for preoperative evaluation of metastatic spine tumor prognosis. Spine 30(19):2186–2191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Linden Y, Dijkstra S, Vonk E, Marijnen C, Leer J (2005) Prediction of survival in patients with metastases in the spinal column: results based on a randomized trial of radiotherapy. Cancer 103(2):320–328

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bauer HC, Wedin R (1995) Survival after surgery for spinal and extremity metastases. Prognostication in 241 patients. Acta Orthop Scand 66(2):143–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bollen L, van der Linden YM, Pondaag W et al (2014) Prognostic factors associated with survival in patients with symptomatic spinal bone metastases: a retrospective cohort study of 1043 patients. Neuro-oncology (Epub ahead of print)

  10. Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10869–10874

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Dawood S, Hu R, Homes M et al (2011) Defining breast cancer prognosis based on molecular phenotypes: results from a large cohort study. Breast Cancer Res 126(1):185–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vallejos C, Gómez H, Cruz W et al (2010) Breast cancer classification according to immunohistochemistry markers: subtypes and association with clinicopathologic variables in a Peruvian hospital database. Clin Breast Cancer 10(4):294–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Schemper M, Smith TL (1996) A note on quantifying follow-up in studies of failure time. Control Clin Trials 17(4):343–346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Harrell FE Jr, Lee KL, Mark DB (1996) Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15(4):361–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295(21):2492–2502

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L et al (2006) Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355(6):560–569

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Sciubba DM, Gokaslan ZL, Suk I et al (2007) Positive and negative prognostic variables for patients undergoing spine surgery for metastatic breast disease. Eur Spine J 16(10):1659–1667

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rades D, Douglas S, Schild SE (2013) A validated survival score for breast cancer patients with metastatic spinal cord compression. Strahlenther Onkol 189(1):41–46

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank V.T.H.B.M. Smit for his advice on pathology, breast cancer and molecular phenotypes.

Conflict of interest

The authors report no conflicts of interest and have no funding sources to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands

    L. Bollen & P. D. S. Dijkstra

  2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria

    C. Wibmer, A. Leithner & G. Bratschitsch

  3. Department of Orthopedic E, Aarhus University Hospital NBG, Aarhus, Denmark

    M. Wang & C. E. Bünger

  4. Department of Clinical Oncology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Y. M. van der Linden

  5. Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital NBG, Aarhus, Denmark

    A. B. Jensen

  6. Department of Medical Statistics and Bioinformatics, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    M. Fiocco

  7. Department of Neurosurgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    W. Pondaag

  8. Department of Pathology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands

    J. V. M. G. Bovée

Authors
  1. L. Bollen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. Wibmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Y. M. van der Linden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Leithner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. C. E. Bünger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. A. B. Jensen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. Fiocco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. G. Bratschitsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. W. Pondaag
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. J. V. M. G. Bovée
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. P. D. S. Dijkstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Bollen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bollen, L., Wibmer, C., Wang, M. et al. Molecular phenotype is associated with survival in breast cancer patients with spinal bone metastases. Clin Exp Metastasis 32, 1–5 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-014-9685-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-014-9685-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation