Annals of Surgical Oncology

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 3502–3509 | Cite as

Bioscore: A Staging System for Breast Cancer Patients that Reflects the Prognostic Significance of Underlying Tumor Biology

  • Elizabeth A. Mittendorf
  • Mariana Chavez-MacGregor
  • Jose Vila
  • Min Yi
  • Daphne Y. Lichtensztajn
  • Christina A. Clarke
  • Sharon H. Giordano
  • Kelly K. Hunt
Breast Oncology

Abstract

Background

Biologic factors guide treatment decisions and have a significant impact on prognosis for breast cancer patients. This study was undertaken to develop a staging system incorporating biologic factors in addition to standard anatomic factors in the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) pathologic stage (PS) to assess disease-specific survival (DSS).

Methods

Overall, 3327 patients treated with surgery as an initial intervention at MD Anderson Cancer Center from 2007 to 2013 were identified. Multivariate analyses of factors, including PS, T stage (T), nodal stage (N), grade (G), estrogen receptor (ER) status (E) and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) status (H) were performed to identify associations with DSS. A score of 0–4 was assigned for each factor by considering the hazard ratio magnitude. Multiple staging system models were then constructed: PS, PS + G, PS + G + E, PS + G + E + H, T + N, T + N + G, T + N + G + E, and T + N + G + E + H. Model performance was quantified using Harrell’s concordance index, and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was used to compare model fits. Comparable cases from California (n = 67,944) were used for validation.

Results

Median follow-up was 5.0 years (range 0.1–8.8) and 5-year DSS was 97.9% (95% confidence interval 97.3–98.4). Models incorporating grade, ER status, and HER2 status were most precise with identical C-index (0.81) and comparable AIC (994.9 for PS + G + E + H and 987.8 for T + N + G + E + H). Both models were externally validated.

Conclusions

These results confirm the importance of biologic factors in determining prognosis for breast cancer patients. We propose the Bioscore, which incorporates grade, ER and HER2 status with AJCC PS, to provide more refined stratification of breast cancer patients undergoing surgery as an initial intervention with respect to DSS.

Notes

Acknowledgement

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 HHSN261201000140C awarded to the Cancer Prevention Institute of California, contract HHSN261201000035C awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract HHSN261201000034C awarded to the Public Health Institute; and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Program of Cancer Registries, under agreement U58dP003862-01 awarded to the California Department of Public Health. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and endorsement by the State of California, Department of Public Health and National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or their contractors and subcontractors, is not intended nor should be inferred. This work was supported in part by a cancer center support grant from the National Cancer Institute to the University of Texas MDACC (CA016672). Analysis of cancer registry data was supported by the National Cancer Institute under contract HHSN261201000140C awarded to the Cancer Prevention Institute of California. Elizabeth A. Mittendorf is an R. Lee Clark Fellow of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, supported by the Jeanne F. Shelby Scholarship Fund. Sharon H. Giordano is supported by grants from the Cancer Prevention Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT RP140020) and the Komen for the Cure Foundation (SA150061).

Disclosures

Elizabeth A. Mittendorf, Mariana Chavez-MacGregor, Jose Vila, Min Yi, Daphne Y. Lichtensztajn, Christina A. Clarke, Sharon H. Giordano, and Kelly K. Hunt have no relevant financial disclosures to declare.

Supplementary material

10434_2017_6009_MOESM1_ESM.docx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 13 kb)
10434_2017_6009_MOESM2_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 16 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Amin MB, Edge SB, Greene F, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual (8th edition). 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Breast. National Comprehensive Cancer Network; 2016.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Coates AS, Winer EP, Goldhirsch A, 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(8):1533–46.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Harris LN, Ismaila N, McShane LM, 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Poznak C, Somerfield MR, Bast RC, et al. Use of biomarkers to guide decisions on systemic therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(24):2695–704.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yi M, Mittendorf EA, Cormier JN, et al. Novel staging system for predicting disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with surgery as the first intervention: time to modify the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(35):4654–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, 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(16):2784–95.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrell FE Jr, Califf RM, Pryor DB, Lee KL, Rosati RA. Evaluating the yield of medical tests. JAMA. 1982;247(18):2543–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Akaike H. New look at statistical-model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 1974;19:716–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Giuliano AE, Connolly JL, Edge SB, et al. Updates to the AJCC Breast TNM staging system: the 8th edition. CA Cancer J Clin. In press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Paik S, Hazan R, Fisher ER, et al. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project: prognostic significance of erbB-2 protein overexpression in primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8(1):103–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987;235(4785):177–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Buzdar AU, Ibrahim NK, Francis D, et al. Significantly higher pathologic complete remission rate after neoadjuvant therapy with trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and epirubicin chemotherapy: results of a randomized trial in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(16):3676–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Buzdar AU, Suman VJ, Meric-Bernstam F, et al. Fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide (FEC-75) followed by paclitaxel plus trastuzumab versus paclitaxel plus trastuzumab followed by FEC-75 plus trastuzumab as neoadjuvant treatment for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer (Z1041): a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(13):1317–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cobleigh MA, Vogel CL, Tripathy D, et al. Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has progressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(9):2639–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, et al. Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet. 2014;384(9938):164–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gianni L, Eiermann W, Semiglazov V, et al. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with trastuzumab followed by adjuvant trastuzumab versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy alone, in patients with HER2-positive locally advanced breast cancer (the NOAH trial): a randomised controlled superiority trial with a parallel HER2-negative cohort. Lancet. 2010;375(9712):377–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gianni L, Pienkowski T, Im YH, et al. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(1):25–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Perez EA, Romond EH, Suman VJ, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive breast cancer: planned joint analysis of overall survival from NSABP B-31 and NCCTG N9831. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(33):3744–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(16):1659–72.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353(16):1673–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mittendorf EA, Vila J, Tucker SL, et al. The Neo-Bioscore update for staging breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: incorporation of prognostic biologic factors into staging after treatment. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(7):929–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Albain KS, Barlow WE, Shak S, 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, et al. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):2817–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(21):2005–14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Surgical Oncology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth A. Mittendorf
    • 1
  • Mariana Chavez-MacGregor
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jose Vila
    • 1
  • Min Yi
    • 1
  • Daphne Y. Lichtensztajn
    • 4
  • Christina A. Clarke
    • 4
    • 5
  • Sharon H. Giordano
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kelly K. Hunt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Breast Surgical OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Breast Medical OncologyThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Health Services ResearchThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer CenterHoustonUSA
  4. 4.Cancer Prevention Institute of CaliforniaFremontUSA
  5. 5.Stanford Cancer InstituteStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations