Molecular subtypes of screen-detected breast cancer

被引:20
|
作者
Farshid, Gelareh [1 ,2 ]
Walters, David [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Adelaide, Royal Adelaide Hosp, SA Pathol, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
[2] Univ Adelaide, Discipline Med, SA Pathol, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
[3] Univ Adelaide, Dept Surg, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia
关键词
Breast cancer; HER2; Screening; Mammography; Molecular classification; INTERNATIONAL EXPERT CONSENSUS; HER2; AMPLIFICATION; PRIMARY THERAPY; SURVIVAL; MAMMOGRAPHY; EXPRESSION; CARCINOMA; COHORT;
D O I
10.1007/s10549-018-4899-3
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BackgroundDetection of breast cancers by mammographic screening confers a survival advantage of 20-50% compared to symptomatic presentations. The improved prognosis is only partly explained by stage migration. The distribution of the molecular subtypes of screen-detected breast cancer (SDBC) or their HER2 status has not been studied extensively. We wished to address these issues through the study of a large series of SDBC, with other presentations serving as controls.DesignDeidentified cases of female invasive cancer, diagnosed in Australia and New Zealand during 2005-2015, were retrieved from the BreastSurgANZ Quality Audit (BQA). Method of detection and selected patient, tumour and treatment data were assessed. Immunohistochemical surrogates for molecular subtypes were defined as Luminal A (ER+ and/or PR+, HER2-), Luminal B (ER+ and/or PR+, HER2+), HER2-enriched (ER-, PR- and HER2+) and basal-like (triple negative). Results were compared with the findings of controls and previous studies.Result100983 invasive cancers were diagnosed, including 32493 (32.7%) SDBC and 66907 (67.3%) with other presentations. The biomarker profile for SDBC versus other presentations in the same population was ER 89.3 versus 80.3%, PR 78.8 versus 69.8% and for HER2 11 versus 15.6%. The distribution of molecular subtypes was Luminal A 81.9 versus 70.74%, Luminal B 7.39 versus 9.52%, HER2-enriched 3.63 versus 6.06% and Basal-like 7.08 versus 13.68%. These differences were significant (p<0.0001).ConclusionMolecular profiles of SDBC are significantly different from those of symptomatic cancers, with over-representation of the Luminal A and proportionately lower rates of all other subtypes. We have shown, for the first time, significantly lower rates of HER2 positivity in SDBC. These differences may contribute to the better survival of SDBC and have implications for prognostication, targeted therapy decisions and for laboratory quality assurance programs in setting target ranges for proportions of ER-positive and HER2 results in heavily screened populations.
引用
收藏
页码:191 / 199
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Molecular Differences between Screen-Detected and Interval Breast Cancers Are Largely Explained by PAM50 Subtypes
    Li, Jingmei
    Ivansson, Emma
    Klevebring, Daniel
    Tobin, Nicholas P.
    Lindstrom, Linda Sofie
    Holm, Johanna
    Prochazka, Gabriela
    Cristando, Camilla
    Palmgren, Juni
    Tornberg, Sven
    Humphreys, Keith
    Hartman, Johan
    Frisell, Jan
    Rantalainen, Mattias
    Lindberg, Johan
    Hall, Per
    Bergh, Jonas
    Gronberg, Henrik
    Czene, Kamila
    CLINICAL CANCER RESEARCH, 2017, 23 (10) : 2584 - 2592
  • [22] Incidence and Risk Factors of Interval and Screen-Detected Breast Cancer
    Zhang, Yuqi
    Rodriguez, Juan
    Mao, Xinhe
    Grassmann, Felix
    Tapia, Jose
    Eriksson, Mikael
    Hall, Per
    Czene, Kamila
    JAMA ONCOLOGY, 2025,
  • [23] TREATMENT OF THE AXILLA IN PATIENTS WITH SCREEN-DETECTED BREAST-CANCER
    WALLS, J
    BOGGIS, CRM
    WILSON, M
    ASBURY, DL
    ROBERTS, JV
    BUNDRED, NJ
    MANSEL, RE
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1993, 80 (04) : 436 - 438
  • [24] Initiators and promoters for the occurrence of screen-detected breast cancer and the progression to clinically-detected interval breast cancer
    Yen, Amy Ming-Fang
    Wu, Wendy Yi-Ying
    Tabar, Laszlo
    Duffy, Stephen W.
    Smith, Robert A.
    Chen, Hsiu-Hsi
    JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2017, 27 (03) : 98 - 106
  • [25] The operative management of screen-detected breast cancers
    Crawford, MD
    Biankin, AV
    Rickard, MT
    Coleman, MJ
    West, R
    Niesche, FW
    Renwick, SR
    AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2000, 70 (03): : 168 - 173
  • [26] Predictor of sentinel node positivity in screen-detected invasive breast cancer
    Bichoo, Raouef Ahmed
    Elahi, Mohammed Bilal
    Dumitru, Dorin
    Ihsan, Naila Bint
    Khalifa, Eiman
    Sarker, Masuma
    Mahapatra, Tapan K.
    Wooler, Brendan Paul
    Kneeshaw, Peter
    Grover, Kartikae
    CANCER RESEARCH, 2022, 82 (04)
  • [27] Age-dependent characteristics of screen-detected patients with breast cancer
    Takei, H
    Iino, Y
    Horiguchi, J
    Maemura, M
    Koibuchi, Y
    Horii, Y
    Nagaoka, H
    Matsumoto, H
    Ishikita, T
    Yokoe, T
    Morishita, Y
    ANTICANCER RESEARCH, 1998, 18 (4B) : 2833 - 2836
  • [28] Radiological review of prior screening mammograms of screen-detected breast cancer
    Tone Hovda
    Kaitlyn Tsuruda
    Solveig Roth Hoff
    Kristine Kleivi Sahlberg
    Solveig Hofvind
    European Radiology, 2021, 31 : 2568 - 2579
  • [29] Radiological review of prior screening mammograms of screen-detected breast cancer
    Hovda, Tone
    Tsuruda, Kaitlyn
    Hoff, Solveig Roth
    Sahlberg, Kristine Kleivi
    Hofvind, Solveig
    EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 2021, 31 (04) : 2568 - 2579
  • [30] Mammographic breast density in relation to interval versus screen-detected cancer
    Mandelson, MT
    Oestreicher, N
    Porter, PL
    Taplin, SH
    White, E
    CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION, 2000, 9 (02) : 233 - 233