Advertisement

Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 25, Issue 11, pp 3158–3164 | Cite as

Breast Cancers of Special Histologic Subtypes Are Biologically Diverse

  • Audree B. Tadros
  • Hannah Y. Wen
  • Monica MorrowEmail author
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background/Objective

Cancers classified as “special histologic subtypes” are felt to have a good prognosis. We used the 21-gene Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® multigene assay to examine prognostic variation within special histologic subtypes. We also examined the Recurrence Score® (RS) distribution among the more common ductal (IDC) and lobular (ILC) cancers.

Methods

610,350 tumor specimens examined in the Genomic Health clinical laboratory from 2/2004 to 8/2017 were included. Specimen histology was classified centrally using a single H&E slide and World Health Organization criteria. RS distribution (low < 18, intermediate 18–30, and high ≥ 31) was compared among histologic subtypes.

Results

Median patient age was 60 years (IQR 51–67); 80% were node negative. Most patients had low RS results (59.2%); only 9.5% had high results. The lowest mean RS was seen in the papillary subtype (11); the highest in the IDC group (18.4). Mean RS for all special subtypes was lower than that of IDC patients. When the high RS threshold was decreased from 31 to 25, as used in the TAILORx and RxPONDER trials, the number of high RS-result patients increased from 9.5% to 16.8%. Patients with ILC had a lower mean RS result than patients with IDC, 16.5 versus 18.4.

Conclusion

There is substantial diversity in predicted prognosis among patients with cancers classified as special histologic subtypes, with 12–25% having intermediate RS results and 0.5–9% having high RS results. Pending further definition of the role of chemotherapy for patients with intermediate RS results by TAILORx and RxPONDER, the RS result may help to inform systemic therapy decisions in these patients.

Notes

Disclosures

The preparation of this manuscript was funded in part by NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant No. P30 CA008748 to Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and this study was presented in podium format at the 2018 Society of Surgical Oncology Annual Cancer Symposium, March 21–24, Chicago, IL. Monica Morrow is a consultant for Genomic Health.

References

  1. 1.
    Clayton F. Pure mucinous carcinomas of breast: morphologic features and prognostic correlates. Hum Pathol. 1986;17(1):34–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cooper HS, Patchefsky AS, Krall RA. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. Cancer. 1978;42(5):2334–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carstens PH, Greenberg RA, Francis D, Lyon H. Tubular carcinoma of the breast. A long term follow-up. Histopathology. 1985;9(3):271–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Page DL, Dixon JM, Anderson TJ, Lee D, Stewart HJ. Invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology. 1983;7(4):525–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fisher ER, Anderson S, Redmond C, Fisher B. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project protocol B-06. 10-year pathologic and clinical prognostic discriminants. Cancer. 1993;71(8):2507–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellis IO, Galea M, Broughton N, Locker A, Blamey RW, Elston CW. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology. 1992;20(6):479–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, et al. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(23):3726–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, Hortobagyi GN, Livingston RB, Yeh IT, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of the 21-gene recurrence score assay in postmenopausal women with node-positive, oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer on chemotherapy: a retrospective analysis of a randomised trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(1):55–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harris L, Fritsche H, Mennel R, Norton L, Ravdin P, Taube S, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology 2007 update of recommendations for the use of tumor markers in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(33):5287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramsey SD, Barlow WE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Tunis S, Baker L, Crowley J, et al. Integrating comparative effectiveness design elements and endpoints into a phase III, randomized clinical trial (SWOG S1007) evaluating oncotypeDX-guided management for women with breast cancer involving lymph nodes. Contemp Clin Trials. 2013;34(1):1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hassett MJ, Silver SM, Hughes ME, Blayney DW, Edge SB, Herman JG, et al. Adoption of gene expression profile testing and association with use of chemotherapy among women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(18):2218–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dinan MA, Mi X, Reed SD, Lyman GH, Curtis LH. Association Between Use of the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay and Receipt of Chemotherapy Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Early-Stage Breast Cancer, 2005–2009. JAMA Oncol. 2015;1(8):1098–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, Blair SL, Burstein HJ, Cyr A, et al. Invasive Breast Cancer Version 1.2016, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14(3):324–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris LN, Ismaila N, McShane LM, Andre F, Collyar DE, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al. Use of Biomarkers to Guide Decisions on Adjuvant Systemic Therapy for Women With Early-Stage Invasive Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(10):1134–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kurian AW, Bondarenko I, Jagsi R, Friese CR, McLeod MC, Hawley ST, et al. Recent Trends in Chemotherapy Use and Oncologists’ Treatment Recommendations for Early-Stage Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 (Epub ahead of print).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jasem J, Amini A, Rabinovitch R, Borges VF, Elias A, Fisher CM, Kabos P. 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay As a Predictor of Adjuvant Chemotherapy Administration for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: An Analysis of Use, Therapeutic Implications, and Disparity Profile. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(17):1995–2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tsai ML, Lillemoe TJ, Finkelstein MJ, Money JE, Susnik B, Grimm E, et al. Utility of Oncotype DX Risk Assessment in Patients With Invasive Lobular Carcinoma. Clin Breast Cancer. 2016;16(1):45–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bomeisl PE, Thompson CL, Harris LN, Gilmore HL. Comparison of Oncotype DX Recurrence Score by Histologic Types of Breast Carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2015;139(12):1546–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hanna MG, Bleiweiss IJ, Nayak A, Jaffer S. Correlation of Oncotype DX Recurrence Score with Histomorphology and Immunohistochemistry in over 500 Patients. Int J Breast Cancer. 2017;2017(1257078).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Turashvili G, Brogi E, Morrow M, Hudis C, Dickler M, Norton L, Wen HY. The 21-gene recurrence score in special histologic subtypes of breast cancer with favorable prognosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165(1):65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Felts JL, Zhu J, Han B, Smith SJ, Truica CI. An Analysis of Oncotype DX Recurrence Scores and Clinicopathologic Characteristics in Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. Breast J. 2017;23(6):677–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kelly CM, Krishnamurthy S, Bianchini G, Litton JK, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Hortobagyi GN, Pusztai L. Utility of oncotype DX risk estimates in clinically intermediate risk hormone receptor-positive, HER2-normal, grade II, lymph node-negative breast cancers. Cancer. 2010;116(22):5161–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lakhani SR. Lakhani, Sunil R., ed. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Breast. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2012.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2817–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Badve SS, Baehner FL, Gray RP, Childs BH, Maddala T, Liu ML, et al. Estrogen- and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(15):2473–81.  https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2007.13.6424.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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(21):2005–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pestalozzi BC, Zahrieh D, Mallon E, Gusterson BA, Price KN, Gelber RD, et al. Distinct clinical and prognostic features of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: combined results of 15 International Breast Cancer Study Group clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(18):3006–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rakha EA, Ellis IO. Lobular breast carcinoma and its variants. Semin Diagn Pathol. 2010;27(1):49–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Metzger Filho O, Giobbie-Hurder A, Mallon E, Gusterson B, Viale G, Winer EP, et al. Relative Effectiveness of Letrozole Compared With Tamoxifen for Patients With Lobular Carcinoma in the BIG 1-98 Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(25):2772–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Colleoni M, Rotmensz N, Maisonneuve P, Mastropasqua MG, Luini A, Veronesi P, et al. Outcome of special types of luminal breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(6):1428–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Orvieto E, Maiorano E, Bottiglieri L, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, Galimberti V, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: results of an analysis of 530 cases from a single institution. Cancer. 2008;113(7):1511–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guiu S, Wolfer A, Jacot W, Fumoleau P, Romieu G, Bonnetain F, Fiche M. Invasive lobular breast cancer and its variants: how special are they for systemic therapy decisions? Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2014;92(3):235–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dixon JM, Anderson TJ, Page DL, Lee D, Duffy SW. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology. 1982;6(2):149–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    du Toit RS, Locker AP, Ellis IO, Elston CW, Nicholson RI, Blamey RW. Invasive lobular carcinomas of the breast–the prognosis of histopathological subtypes. Br J Cancer. 1989;60(4):605–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    DiCostanzo D, Rosen PP, Gareen I, Franklin S, Lesser M. Prognosis in infiltrating lobular carcinoma. An analysis of “classical” and variant tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 1990;14(1):12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Audree B. Tadros
    • 1
  • Hannah Y. Wen
    • 2
  • Monica Morrow
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Breast Service, Department of SurgeryMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PathologyMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer CenterNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations