Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Prognostic and Predictive Factors of Invasive Breast Cancer

  • Chapter
Breast Disease

Abstract

Invasive breast carcinomas comprise a heterogeneous group of lesions that differ in their molecular and pathologic features and clinical behavior. Some patients have long disease-free survival, whereas others experience the rapid development of recurrence and metastases that are fatal within a few years of the initial diagnosis. Many factors in individual tumors can be evaluated to stratify patients into subsets with varying risks of recurrence and response to different therapy modalities. This chapter describes the current standard prognostic and predictive factors of invasive breast carcinoma and discusses emerging data on molecular markers which can be considered in clinical practice.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Hortobagyi GN. Treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1998;339:974–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher B. Biological and clinical considerations regarding the use of surgery and chemotherapy in the treatment of primary breast cancer. Cancer. 1977;40(1 Suppl):574–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tabar L, Fagerberg G, Day NE, Duffy SW, Kitchin RM. Breast cancer treatment and natural history: new insights from results of screening. Lancet. 1992;339:412–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Eifel P, Axelson JA, Costa J, Crowley J, Curran WJ Jr, Deshler A, et al. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer, November 1–3, 2000. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(13):979–89.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mittendorf EA, Ballman KV, McCall LM, Yi M, Sahin AA, Bedrosian I, et al. Evaluation of the stage IB designation of the American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32:1–10.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, Thor AD, Allred DC, Clark GM, et al. Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;124(7):966–78.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, et al. Strategies for subtypes – dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(8):1736–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. National Institutes of Health NIH consensus conference. Treatment of early-stage breast cancer. JAMA. 1991;265:391–5.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Wilking N, Rutqvist LE, Carstensen J, Mattsson A, Skoog L. Prognostic significance of axillary nodal status in primary breast cancer in relation to the number of resected nodes. Stockholm Breast Cancer Study Group. Acta Oncol. 1992;31:29–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer. 1989;63:181–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher B, Bauer M, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Fisher ER, Cruz AB, et al. Relation of number of positive axillary nodes to the prognosis of patients with primary breast cancer. An NSABP Update. Cancer. 1983;52(9):1551–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nemoto T, Vana J, Bedwani RN, Baker HW, McGregor FH, Murphy GP. Management and survival of female breast cancer: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Cancer. 1980;45(12):2917–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Whitworth P, McMasters KM, Tafra L, Edwards MJ. State-of-the-art lymph node staging for breast cancer in the year 2000. Am J Surg. 2000;180(4):262–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tavassoli F, Eusebi V, editors. Tumors of the mammary gland, AFIP atlas of tumor pathology, vol. 4. Maryland: ARP Press; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  15. In Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, Fritz AG, Greene FL, Trotti A, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 7th ed. New York: Springer; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Badve S. Sentinel lymph node biopsy. In: Dabbs DJ, editor. Breast pathology. 1st ed. Elsevier/Saunders: Philadelphia; 2012. p. 93–116.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hoda SA. Invasive ductal carcinoma: assessment of prognosis with morphologic and biologic markers. In: Rosen’s breast pathology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, a Wolters Kluwer business; 2014. p. 413–68.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Weaver DL. Sentinel node biopsy and lymph node classification in the 7th edition staging manual. In: O’Malley FP, Pinde SE, Mulligan AM, editors. Breast pathology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2011. p. 295–305.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hartveit F, Samsonsen G, Tangen M, Halvorsen JF. Routine histological investigation of the axillary nodes in breast cancer. Clin Oncol. 1982;8(2):121–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hartveit F. The routine histological investigation of axillary lymph nodes for metastatic breast cancer. J Pathol. 1984;143(3):187–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ho A, Morrow M. The evolution of the locoregional therapy of breast cancer. Oncologist. 2011;16(10):1367–79.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Kingsley WB, Peters GN, Cheek JH. What constitutes adequate study of axillary lymph nodes in breast cancer. Ann Surg. 1985;201:311–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fisher B, Wolmark N, Bauer M, Redmond C, Gebhardt M. The accuracy of clinical nodal staging and of limited axillary dissection as a determinant of histologic nodal status in carcinoma of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1981;152:765–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Luz DA, Ribeiro Jr U, Chassot C, Collet E, Silva Fde S, Cecconello I, et al. Carnoy’s solution enhances lymph node detection: an anatomical dissection study in cadavers. Histopathology. 2008;53(6):740–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gregurek SF, Wu HH. Can GEWF solution improve the retrieval of lymph nodes from colorectal cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(1):83–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Morrow M, Evans J, Rosen PP, Kinne DW. Does clearing of axillary lymph nodes contribute to accurate staging of breast carcinoma? Cancer. 1984;53:1329–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lester SC, Bose S, Chen YY, Connolly JL, de Baca ME, Fitzgibbons PL, et al. Protocol for the examination of specimens from patients with invasive carcinoma of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(10):1515–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dowlatshahi K, Fan M, Anderson JM, Bloom KJ. Occult metastases in sentinel nodes of 200 patients with operable breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8(8):675–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Lawrence WD. Association of Directors of Anatomic and Surgical Pathology. ADASP recommendations for processing and reporting lymph node specimens submitted for evaluation of metastatic disease. Virchows Arch. 2001;439(5):601–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Neuman HB. Management of the axilla. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93(2):429–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Rao R, Euhus D, Mayo HG, Balch C. Axillary node interventions in breast cancer: a systematic review. JAMA. 2013;310(13):1385–94.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Thompson AM. New standards of care in the management of the axilla. Curr Opin Oncol. 2012;24(6):605–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Zarebczan Dull B, Neuman HB. Management of the axilla. Surg Clin North Am. 2013;93(2):429–44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Noguchi M, Morioka E, Ohno Y, Noguchi M, Nakano Y, Kosaka T. The changing role of axillary lymph node dissection for breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2013;20(1):41–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Giuliano AE, Hunt KK, Ballman KV, Beitsch PD, Whitworth PW, Blumencranz PW, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2011;305(6):569–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lyman GH, Giuliano AE, Somerfield MR, Benson 3rd AB, Bodurka DC, Burstein HJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology guideline recommendations for sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast cancer. American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(30):7703–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Mansel RE, Fallowfield L, Kissin M, Goyal A, Newcombe RG, Dixon JM, et al. Randomized multicenter trial of sentinel node biopsy versus standard axillary treatment in operable breast cancer: the ALMANAC Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(9):599–609. Erratum in: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(12):876.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Krag DN, Anderson SJ, Julian TB, Brown AM, Harlow SP, Costantino JP, et al. Sentinel-lymph-node resection compared with conventional axillary-lymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer: overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomized phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(10):927–33.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Weaver DL. Pathology evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer: protocol recommendations and rationale. Mod Pathol. 2010;23 Suppl 2:S26–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Turner RR, Giuliano AE, Hoon DS, Glass EC, Krasne DL. Pathologic examination of sentinel lymph node for breast carcinoma. World J Surg. 2001;25(6):798–805.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Cserni G. Evaluation of sentinel lymph nodes in breast cancer. Histopathology. 2005;46(6):697–702.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Cserni G. Surgical pathological staging of breast cancer by sentinel lymph node biopsy with special emphasis on the histological work-up of axillary sentinel lymph nodes. Breast Cancer. 2004;11(3):242–9; discussion 264–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Fritzsche FR, Reineke T, Morawietz L, Kristiansen G, Dietel M, Fink D, et al. Pathological processing techniques and final diagnosis of breast cancer sentinel lymph nodes. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:2892–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Weaver DL, Le UP, Dupuis SL, Weaver KA, Harlow SP, Ashikaga T, et al. Metastasis detection in sentinel lymph nodes: comparison of a limited widely spaced (NSABP protocol B-32) and a comprehensive narrowly spaced paraffin block sectioning strategy. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:1583–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Chen SL, Hoehne FM, Giuliano AE. The prognostic significance of micrometastases in breast cancer: a SEER population-based analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2007;14:3378–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Wu Y, Mittendorf EA, Kelten C, Tucker SL, Wei W, Middleton LP, et al. Occult axillary lymph node metastases do not have prognostic significance in early stage breast cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(6):1507–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Sahin AA, Guray M, Hunt KK. Identification and biologic significance of micrometastases in axillary lymph nodes in patients with invasive breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(6):869–78.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Galimberti V, Cole BF, Zurrida S, Viale G, Luini A, Veronesi P, et al. Axillary dissection versus no axillary dissection in patients with sentinel-node micrometastases (IBCSG 23–01): a phase 3 randomized controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(4):297–305.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Blamey RW, Hornmark-Stenstam B, Ball G, Blichert-Toft M, Cataliotti L, Fourquet A, et al. ONCOPOOL: a European database for 16,944 cases of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:56–71.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Shatat L, Gloyeske N, Madan R, O’Neil M, Tawfik O, Fan F. Microinvasive breast carcinoma carries an excellent prognosis regardless of the tumor characteristics. Hum Pathol. 2013;44(12):2684–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Lee AH, Pinder SE, Macmillan RD, Mitchell M, Ellis IO, Elston CW, et al. Prognostic value of lymphovascular invasion in women with lymph node negative invasive breast carcinoma. Eur J Cancer. 2006;42:357–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Lee A, DeLellis R, Silverman M, Heatley GJ, Wolfe H. Prognostic significance of peritumoral lymphatic and blood-vessel invasion in node-negative carcinoma of the breast. J Clin Oncol. 1990;8:1457–65.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Rosen PP. Tumor emboli in intramammary lymphatics in breast carcinoma. Pathologic criteria for diagnosis and clinical significance. Pathol Annu. 1983;18:215–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Van den Eynden GG, Van der Auwera I, Van Laere SJ, Colpaert CG, van Dam P, Dirix LY, et al. Distinguishing blood and lymph vessel invasion in breast cancer: a prospective immunohistochemical study. Br J Cancer. 2006;94:1643–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Tan PH, vande Vijver MJ, editors. World Health Organization classification of tumors. Pathology and genetics of tumors of the breast and female genital organs. 4th ed. Lyon: IARC Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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;20:479–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Pusztai L, Sotiriou C, Buchholz TA, Meric F, Symmans WF, Esteva FJ, et al. Molecular profiles of invasive mucinous and ductal carcinomas of the breast: a molecular case study. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2003;141:148–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Kulkarni N, Pezzi CM, Greif JM, Suzanne Klimberg V, Bailey L, et al. Rare breast cancer: 933 adenoid cystic carcinomas from the National Cancer Data Base. Ann Surg Oncol. 2013;20(7):2236–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Thompson K, Grabowski J, Saltzstein SL, Sadler GR, Blair SL. Adenoid cystic breast carcinoma: is axillary staging necessary in all cases? Results from the California Cancer Registry. Breast J. 2011;17(5):485–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Parl FF, Richardson LD. The histologic and biologic spectrum of tubular carcinoma of the breast. Hum Pathol. 1983;14:694–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Page DL, Dixon JM, Anderson TJ, Lee D, Stewart HJ. Invasive cribriform carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology. 1983;7:525–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Venable JG, Schwartz AM, Silverberg SG. Infiltrating cribriform carcinoma of the breast: a distinctive clinicopathologic entity. Hum Pathol. 1990;21:333–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Cabral AH, Recine M, Paramo JC, McPhee MM, Poppiti R, Mesko TW. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: an institutional experience and review of the literature. Breast J. 2003;4:298–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Anan K, Mitsuyama S, Tamae K, Nishihara K, Iwashita T, Abe Y, et al. Pathological features of mucinous carcinoma of the breast are favourable for breast-conserving therapy. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2001;27:459–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Scopsi L, Andreola S, Pilotti S, Bufalino R, Baldini MT, Testori A, et al. Mucinous carcinoma of the breast. A clinicopathologic, histochemical and immunocytochemical study with special reference to neuroendocrine differentiation. Am J Surg Pathol. 1994;18:702–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Winchester DJ, Chang HR, Graves TA, Menck HR, Bland KI, Winchester DP. A comparative analysis of lobular and ductal carcinoma of the breast: presentation, treatment and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg. 1998;186:416–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Cao AY, Huang L, Wu J, Lu JS, Liu GY, Shen ZZ, et al. Tumor characteristics and the clinical outcome of invasive lobular carcinoma compared to infiltrating ductal carcinoma in a Chinese population. World J Surg Oncol. 2012;10:152.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Dixon JM, Anderson TJ, Page DL, Lee D, Duffy SW. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology. 1982;6:149–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Mersin H, Yildirim E, Gulben K, Berberoglu U. Is invasive lobular carcinoma different from invasive ductal carcinoma? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2003;29:390–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. 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;60:605–9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Tse GMK, Ma TKF, Chu WCW, Lam WWM, Poon CSP, Chan W-C. Neuroendocrine differentiation in pure type mammary mucinous carcinoma is associated with favourable histologic and immunohistochemical parameters. Mod Pathol. 2004;17:568–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Tang F, Wei B, Tian Z, Gilcrease MZ, Huo L, Albarracin CT, et al. Invasive mammary carcinoma with neuroendocrine differentiation: histological features and diagnostic challenges. Histopathology. 2011;59(1):106–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Vingiani A, Maisonneuve P, Dell’orto P, Farante G, Rotmensz N, Lissidini G, et al. The clinical relevance of micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: a case-control study. Histopathology. 2013;63(2):217–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Walsh MM, Bleiweiss IJ. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: eighty cases of an underrecognized entity. Hum Pathol. 2001;32:583–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Zekioglu O, Erhan Y, Ciris M, Bayramoglu H, Ozdemir N. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: high incidence of lymph node metastasis with extranodal extension and its immunohistochemical profile compared with invasive ductal carcinoma. Histopathology. 2004;44:18–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Nassar H, Wallis T, Andea A, Dey J, Adsay V, Visscher D. Clinicopathologic analysis of invasive micropapillary differentiation in breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2001;14:836–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. DownsKelly E, Nayeemuddin KM, Albarracin C, Wu Y, Hunt KK, Gilcrease MZ. Matrix-producing carcinoma of the breast: an aggressive subtype of metaplastic carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33:534–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Lee H, Jung SY, Ro JY, Kwon Y, Sohn JH, Park IH, et al. Metaplastic breast cancer: clinicopathological features and its prognosis. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65(5):441–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Tse GM, Tan PH, Putti TC, Lui PC, Chaiwun B, Law BK. Metaplastic carcinoma of the breast: a clinicopathological review. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59:1079–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Anderson E. The role of oestrogen and progesterone receptors in human mammary development and tumorigenesis. Breast Cancer Res. 2002;4:197–201.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Allred CD. Commentary: hormone receptor testing in breast cancer: a distress signal from Canada. Oncologist. 2008;13:1134–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Blamey RW. Guidelines on endocrine therapy of breast cancer EUSOMA. Eur J Cancer. 2002;38:615–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Allred DC. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:1474–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Cui X, Schiff R, Arpino G, Osborne CK, Lee AV. Biology of progesterone receptor loss in breast cancer and its implications for endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7721–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Hammond MEH, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, 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;28:2784–95. Erratum in Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3543.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Goldstein NS, Ferkowicz M, Odish E, Mani A, Hastah F. Minimum formalin fixation time for consistent estrogen receptor immunohistochemical staining of invasive breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 2003;120:86–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. 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;25:5287–312.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Allred DC. Predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2000;17:1474–81.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Rhodes A, Jasani B, Barnes DM, Bobrow LG, Miller KD. Reliability of immunohistochemical demonstration of oestrogen receptors in routine practice: interlaboratory variance in the sensitivity of detection and evaluation of scoring systems. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53:125–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Umemura S, Itoh J, Itoh H, Serizawa A, Saito Y, Suzuki Y, et al. Immunohistochemical evaluation of hormone receptors in breast cancer: which scoring system is suitable for highly sensitive procedures? Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2004;12:8–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Leake R, Barnes D, Pinder S, Ellis I, Anderson L, Anderson T, et al. Immunohistochemical detection of steroid receptors in breast cancer: a working protocol on behalf of the UK Receptor Group, UK NEQAS, the Scottish Breast Cancer Pathology Group, and the Receptor and Biomarker Study Group of the EORTC. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53:634–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Ross JS, Slodkowska EA, Symmans WF, Pusztai L, Ravdin PM, Hortobagyi GN. The HER-2 receptor and breast cancer: ten years of targeted anti-HER-2 therapy and personalized medicine. Oncologist. 2009;14(4):320–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Sauter G, Lee J, Bartlett JMS, Slamon DJ, Press MF. Guidelines for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing: biologic and methodologic considerations. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:1323–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25:1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH, et al. Recommendations for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(31):3997–4013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. Hayes DF, Thor AD, Dressler LG, Weaver D, Edgerton S, Cowan D, et al. HER2 and response to paclitaxel in node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1496–506.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Muss HB, Thor AD, Berry DA, Kute T, Liu ET, Koerner F, et al. c-erbB-2 expression and response to adjuvant therapy in women with node- positive early breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1260–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, Goldhirsch A, Untch M, Smith I, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1659–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Dent S, Oyan B, Honig A, Mano M, Howell S. HER2-targeted therapy in breast cancer: a systematic review of neoadjuvant trials. Cancer Treat Rev. 2013;39(6):622–31.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Luporsi E, André F, Spyratos F, Martin PM, Jacquemier J, Penault-Llorca F, et al. Ki-67: level of evidence and methodological considerations for its role in the clinical management of breast cancer: analytical and critical review. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;132(3):895–915.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Polley MY, Leung SC, Gao D, Mastropasqua MG, Zabaglo LA, Bartlett JM, et al. An international study to increase concordance in Ki67 scoring. Mod Pathol. 2015;38:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG). Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1687–717.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  103. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, DeCillis A, Emir B, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen and chemotherapy for lymph node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;89(22):1673–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):747–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98(19):10869–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Goldstein LJ, Gray R, Badve S, Childs BH, Yoshizawa C, Rowley S, et al. Prognostic utility of the 21-gene assay in hormone receptor-positive operable breast cancer compared with classical clinicopathologic features. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(25):4063–71.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. 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 randomized trial. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(1):55–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast.pdf. Accessed on 1 Apr 2014.

  110. Gnant M, Harbeck N, Thomssen C. St. Gallen 2011: summary of the consensus discussion. Breast Care (Basel). 2011;6:136–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415(6871):530–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Ma XJ, Wang Z, Ryan PD, Isakoff SJ, Barmettler A, Fuller A, et al. A two-gene expression ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Cancer Cell. 2004;5(6):607–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(25):1999–2009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Buyse M, Loi S, van’t Veer L, Viale G, Delorenzi M, Glas AM, et al. Validation and clinical utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(17):1183–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Rutgers E, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Bogaerts J, et al. Baseline results of the EORTC 10041/MINDACT TRIAL (Microarray In Node 0–3 positive Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy). On behalf of the MINDACT TRANSBIG Studygroup. Elsevier. Abstract#2062. European Congress of Cancer Meeting; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC, Leung S, Voduc D, Vickery T, et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(8):1160–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Chia SK, Bramwell VH, Tu D, Shepherd LE, Jiang S, Vickery T, et al. A 50-gene intrinsic subtype classifier for prognosis and prediction of benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18(16):4465–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Dowsett M, Sestak I, Lopez-Knowles E, Sidhu K, Dunbier AK, Cowens JW, et al. Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(22):2783–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Naoi Y, Noguchi S. Multi-gene classifiers for prediction of recurrence in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer. 2015. Published online.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Martín M, González-Rivera M, Morales S, de la Haba-Rodriguez J, González-Cortijo L, Manso L, et al. Prospective study of the impact of the Prosigna assay on adjuvant clinical decision-making in unselected patients with estrogen receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor negative, node negative early-stage breast cancer. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;6:1129–37.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pathology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard Unit 85 (G1.3569C), Houston, TX, 77030, USA

    Yun Wu MD PhD & Aysegul A. Sahin MD

Authors
  1. Yun Wu MD PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Aysegul A. Sahin MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aysegul A. Sahin MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Faculty, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Adnan Aydiner

  2. Institute of Oncology, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Abdullah İğci

  3. Magee-Womens Hospital of UPMC, Pittsburg, California, USA

    Atilla Soran

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wu, Y., Sahin, A.A. (2016). Prognostic and Predictive Factors of Invasive Breast Cancer. In: Aydiner, A., İğci, A., Soran, A. (eds) Breast Disease. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22843-3_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22843-3_10

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22842-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22843-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation