Incorporating Tumor Characteristics to the American Joint Committee on Cancer Breast Cancer Staging System

Oncologist - Tập 22 Số 11 - Trang 1292-1300 - 2017
Mariana Chávez‐MacGregor1,2, Elizabeth A. Mittendorf3, Christina A. Clarke4,5, Daphne Y. Lichtensztajn4, Kelly K. Hunt3, Sharon H. Giordano1,2
1Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas USA
2Department of Health Services Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
3Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA
4Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, California, USA
5Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California, USA

Tóm tắt

Abstract Background The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) breast cancer staging system provides important prognostic information. The recently published eighth edition incorporates biological markers and recommends the use of a complex “prognostic stage.” In this study, we assessed the relationship between stage, breast cancer subtype, grade, and outcome in a large population-based cohort and evaluated a risk score system incorporating tumor characteristic to the AJCC anatomic staging system. Materials and Methods Patients diagnosed with primary breast cancer stage I–IV between 2005–2008 were identified in the California Cancer Registry. For patients with stage I–III disease, pathologic stage was recorded. For patients with stage IV disease, clinical stage was utilized. Five-year breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) rates were determined for each potential tumor size-node involvement-metastases (TNM) combination according to breast cancer subtype. A risk score point-based system using grade, estrogen receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status was designed to complement the anatomic AJCC staging system. Survival probabilities between groups were compared using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were used. Results Among 43,938 patients, we observed differences in 5-year BCSS and OS for each TNM combination according to breast cancer subtype. The most favorable outcomes were seen for hormone receptor-positive tumors followed closely by HER2-positive tumors, with the worst outcomes observed for triple negative breast cancer. Our risk score system separated patients into four risk groups within each stage category (all p < .05). Conclusion Our simple risk score system incorporates biological factors into the AJCC anatomic staging system, providing accurate prognostic information.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Slamon, 1987, Human breast cancer: Correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene, Science, 235, 177, 10.1126/science.3798106

Piccart, 2001, The predictive value of HER2 in breast cancer, Oncology, 61, 73, 10.1159/000055405

Romond, 2005, Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer, N Engl J Med, 353, 1673, 10.1056/NEJMoa052122

2011, Relevance of breast cancer hormone receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: Patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials, Lancet, 378, 771, 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60993-8

Slamon, 2011, Adjuvant trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer, N Engl J Med, 365, 1273, 10.1056/NEJMoa0910383

Poznak, 2015, 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, 33, 2695, 10.1200/JCO.2015.61.1459

Harris, 2016, 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, 34, 1134, 10.1200/JCO.2015.65.2289

Rakha, 2010, Breast cancer prognostic classification in the molecular era: The role of histological grade, Breast Cancer Res, 12, 207, 10.1186/bcr2607

Rakha, 2008, Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma, J Clin Oncol, 26, 3153, 10.1200/JCO.2007.15.5986

Elston, 1991, Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: Experience from a large study with long-term follow-up, Histopathology, 19, 403, 10.1111/j.1365-2559.1991.tb00229.x

Hammond, 2010, 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, 28, 2784, 10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6529

Wolff, 2013, 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, 31, 3997, 10.1200/JCO.2013.50.9984

2015

Edge, 2010

Yi, 2011, 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, 29, 4654, 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.3174

Mittendorf, 2016, The neo-bioscore update for staging breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy: Incorporation of prognostic biologic factors into staging after treatment, JAMA Oncol, 2, 929, 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.6478

Mittendorf, 2011, Validation of a novel staging system for disease-specific survival in patients with breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, J Clin Oncol, 29, 1956, 10.1200/JCO.2010.31.8469

Jeruss, 2008, Combined use of clinical and pathologic staging variables to define outcomes for breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy, J Clin Oncol, 26, 246, 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.5352

Veronesi, 2009, Rethinking TNM: A breast cancer classification to guide to treatment and facilitate research, Breast J, 15, 291, 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2009.00719.x

Park, 2011, Clinical relevance of TNM staging system according to breast cancer subtypes, Ann Oncol, 22, 1554, 10.1093/annonc/mdq617

Hortobagyi, 2017, Breast, 8th

Giuliano, 2017, Breast cancer-Major changes in the American Joint Committee on Cancer eighth edition cancer staging manual, CA Cancer J Clin, 10.3322/caac.21393

Telli, 2011, Asian ethnicity and breast cancer subtypes: A study from the California Cancer Registry, Breast Cancer Res Treat, 127, 471, 10.1007/s10549-010-1173-8

Bauer, 2007, Data quality assessment of HER2 in the Sacramento region of the California Cancer Registry, J Registry Manage, 34, 4

Parise, 2009, Breast cancer subtypes as defined by the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) among women with invasive breast cancer in California, 1999–2004. Breast, J, 15, 593

2015, Cancer Facts and Figures

Brito, 2001, Long-term results of combined-modality therapy for locally advanced breast cancer with ipsilateral supraclavicular metastases: The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience, J Clin Oncol, 19, 628, 10.1200/JCO.2001.19.3.628

Prat, 2015, Clinical implications of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer, Breast, 24, 26, 10.1016/j.breast.2015.07.008

Giordano, 2004, Is breast cancer survival improving?, Cancer, 100, 44, 10.1002/cncr.11859

Coates, 2015, 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, 26, 1533, 10.1093/annonc/mdv221

Shen, 2009, Patterns of treatment for early stage breast cancers at the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center from 1997 to 2004, Cancer, 115, 2041, 10.1002/cncr.24271

Paik, 1990, 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, 8, 103, 10.1200/JCO.1990.8.1.103

Ross, 2009, The HER-2 receptor and breast cancer: Ten years of targeted anti-HER-2 therapy and personalized medicine, The Oncologist, 14, 320, 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0230

Schwartz, 2014, Histologic grade remains a prognostic factor for breast cancer regardless of the number of positive lymph nodes and tumor size: A study of 161 708 cases of breast cancer from the SEER Program, Arch Pathol Lab Med, 138, 1048, 10.5858/arpa.2013-0435-OA

Sparano, 2016, A 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer, N Engl J Med, 374, 1387

Veronesi, 2006, Rethinking TNM: Breast cancer TNM classification for treatment decision-making and research, Breast, 15, 3, 10.1016/j.breast.2005.11.011

Vila, 2017, Combining clinical and pathologic staging variables has prognostic value in predicting local-regional recurrence following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer, Ann Surg, 265, 574, 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001492

Symmans, 2007, Measurement of residual breast cancer burden to predict survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, J Clin Oncol, 25, 4414, 10.1200/JCO.2007.10.6823

Symmans, 2017, Long-term prognostic risk after neoadjuvant chemotherapy associated with residual cancer burden and breast cancer subtype, J Clin Oncol, 35, 1049, 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.1010

Cortazar, 2014, Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: The CTNeoBC pooled analysis, Lancet, 384, 164, 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8

Dahlstrom, 2016, Proposed staging system for patients with HPV-related oropharyngeal cancer based on nasopharyngeal cancer N categories, J Clin Oncol, 34, 1848, 10.1200/JCO.2015.64.6448

Huang, 2015, Refining American Joint Committee on Cancer/Union for International Cancer Control TNM stage and prognostic groups for human papillomavirus-related oropharyngeal carcinomas, J Clin Oncol, 33, 836, 10.1200/JCO.2014.58.6412

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Oncologist

Tập 22 Số 11

1292-1300

Thông tin tác giả