Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast with the “triple-negative” phenotype: prognostic implications of EGFR immunoreactivity

  • Clinical trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Invasive ductal carcinomas (IDC) of the breast with the triple negative phenotype (steroid hormone receptor absent, negative HER2 status) are characterized by poor clinical outcome. Additional tumor markers might allow identification of patients at higher risk. We evaluated clinical and biological features of 284 consecutive patients with pT1-3, pN1-3 M0 triple-negative IDC. Median follow-up was 70 months (interquartile range 59–94 months). Statistically significant worse disease-free and overall survival were observed in multivariate analysis, for patients with EGFR immunoreactivity in ≥50% invasive tumor cells (HR 2.39, 95% CI, 1.32–4.34, P = 0.004 for DFS; HR 2.34, 95% CI, 1.20–4.59 P = 0.01 for OS). Age ≥ 70 years and PVI were additional independent predictors of reduced overall survival. EGFR immunoreactivity significantly correlates with worse prognosis in patients with triple-negative IDC, supporting further studies on the correlation between the degree of EGFR expression and outcome of triple negative breast cancer.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747–752. doi:10.1038/35021093

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:10869–10874. doi:10.1073/pnas.191367098

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Yehiely F, Moyano JV, Evans JR et al (2006) Deconstructing the molecular portrait of basal-like breast cancer. Trends Mol Med 12:537–544. doi:10.1016/j.molmed.2006.09.004

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Abd El-Rehim DM, Pinder SE, Paish CE et al (2004) Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma. J Pathol 203:661–671. doi:10.1002/path.1559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R et al (2006) Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 19:264–271. doi:10.1038/modpathol.3800528

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Abd El-Rehim DM, Ball G, Pinder SE et al (2005) High-throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well-characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses. Int J Cancer 116:340–350. doi:10.1002/ijc.21004

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR et al (2007) Prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer 109:25–32. doi:10.1002/cncr.22381

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 13:4429–4434. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-3045

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K et al (2004) Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 10:5367–5374. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W et al (2006) REporting recommendations for tumor MARKer prognostic studies (REMARK). Breast Cancer Res Treat 100:229–235. doi:10.1007/s10549-006-9242-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Japaze H, Emina J, Diaz C, Schwam RJ et al (2005) ‘Pure’ invasive apocrine carcinoma of the breast: a new clinicopathological entity? Breast 14:3–10. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2004.06.003

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Azoulay S, Laé M, Fréneaux P, Merle S et al (2005) KIT is highly expressed in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast, a basal-like carcinoma associated with a favorable outcome. Mod Pathol 8:1623–1631

    Google Scholar 

  13. Orlando L, Renne G, Rocca A et al (2005) Are all high-grade breast cancers with no steroid receptor hormone expression alike? The special case of the medullary phenotype. Ann Oncol 16:1094–1099. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi213

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Viale G et al (2003) A randomized comparison of sentinel-node biopsy with routine axillary dissection in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 349:546–553. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa012782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gennari R, Curigliano G, Rotmensz N et al (2004) Breast carcinoma in elderly women: features of disease presentation, choice of local and systemic treatments compared with younger postmenopausal patients. Cancer 101:1302–1310. doi:10.1002/cncr.20535

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Senn HJ et al (1995) Meeting highlights: international consensus panel on the treatment of primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 87:1441–1445. doi:10.1093/jnci/87.19.1441

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD et al (1998) Meeting highlights: international consensus panel on the treatment of primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 90:1601–1608. doi:10.1093/jnci/90.21.1601

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Colleoni M, Liman HJ, Castiglione-Gertsch M et al (2002) Duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer: a joint analysis of two randomised trials investigating three versus six courses of CMF. Br J Cancer 86:1705–1714. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6600334

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fisher B, Brown AM, Dimitrov NV et al (1990) Two months of doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide with and without interval reinduction therapy compared with 6 months of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in positive-node breast cancer patients with tamoxifen-nonresponsive tumors: results from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B 15. J Clin Oncol 8:1483–1496

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Levine MN, Bramwell VH, Pritchard KL et al (1998) Randomized trial of intensive cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy compared with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil in premenopausal women with node-positive breast cancer. National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trial Group. J Clin Oncol 16:2651–2658

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Veronesi U, Paganelli G, Galimberti V et al (1997) Sentinel-node biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph nodes. Lancet 349:1864–1867. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)01004-0

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Elston CW, Ellis IO (2002) 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. C Histopathology 41(3A):154–161. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2559.2002.14691.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rosen PP, Oberman H (1993) Tumors of the mammary gland. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tsuda H, Takarabe T, Hasegawa F, Fukutomi T, Hirohashi S (2000) Large, central acellular zones indicating myoepithelial tumor differentiation in high-grade invasive ductal carcinomas as markers of predisposition to lung and brain metastases. Am J Surg Pathol 24:197–202. doi:10.1097/00000478-200002000-00005

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Colleoni M, Orvieto E, Nolè F et al (1999) Prediction of response to primary chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 35:574–579. doi:10.1016/S0959-8049(99)00005-2

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Banerjee S, Reis-Filho JS, Ashley S et al (2006) Basal-like breast carcinomas: clinical outcome and response to chemotherapy. J Clin Pathol 59:729–735. doi:10.1136/jcp.2005.033043

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Ribeiro-Silva A, Ramalho LN, Garcia SB et al (2005) p63 correlates with both BRCA1 and cytokeratin 5 in invasive breast carcinomas: further evidence for the pathogenesis of the basal phenotype of breast cancer. Histopathology 47:458–466. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02249.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol 8:235–244. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70074-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD (2007) Progress and promise: highlights of the international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2007. Ann Oncol 18:1133–1144. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdm271

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Nieto Y, Nawaz F, Jones RB et al (2007) Prognostic significance of overexpression and phosphorylation of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and the presence of truncated EGFRvIII in locoregionally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:4405–4413. doi:10.1200/JCO.2006.09.8822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cheang MCU, Voduc D, Bajdik C et al (2008) Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 14:1368–1376. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1658

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Guix M, s Granja N, Meszoely I et al (2008) Short preoperative treatment with Erlotinib inhibits tumor cell proliferation in hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:897–906. doi:10.1200/JCO.2007.13.5939

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN et al (2007) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med 131:18

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Stendahl M, Ryden L, Nordenskjold B (2006) High progesterone receptor expression correlates to the effect of adjuvant tamoxifen in premenopausal breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 12:4614–4618. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-0248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Khalifa MA, Rowsell CH, Gladdy RA, Ko YJ, Hanna S, Smith A et al (2006) Expression of epidermal growth factor receptor in primary colorectal adenocarcinoma predicts expression in recurrent disease. Am J Clin Pathol 125:229–233

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Hirsch FR, Dziadzuszko R, Thatcher N et al (2008) Epidermal growth factor receptor immunohistochemistry. Cancer 112:1114–1121. doi:10.1002/cncr.23282

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Hirsch FR, Varella-Garcia M, Bunn PA Jr et al (2003) Epidermal growth factor receptor in non-small cell lung cancer carcinomas: correlation between gene copy number and protein expression and impact on prognosis. J Clin Oncol 1521:3798–3807

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Torrisi R, Rotmensz N, Bagnardi V et al (2007) HER2 status in early breast cancer: relevance of cell staining patterns, gene amplification and polysomy 17. Eur J Cancer 43:2339–2344. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2007.07.033

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Dellapasqua S, Colleoni M, Castiglione M et al (2007) New criteria for selecting elderly patients for breast cancer adjuvant treatment studies. Oncologist 12:952–959. doi:10.1634/theoncologist.12-8-952

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Colleoni M, Rotmensz N, Maisonneuve P et al (2007) Prognostic role of the extent of peritumoral vascular invasion in operable breast cancer. Ann Oncol 18:1632–1640. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdm268

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Van de Rijn M, Perou CM, Tibshirani R et al (2002) Expression of cytokeratins 17 and 5 identifies a group of breast carcinomas with poor clinical outcome. Am J Pathol 161:1991–1996

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Jumppanen M, Gruvberger-Saal S, Kauraniemi P et al (2007) Basal like phenotype is not associated with patient survival in estrogen-receptor-negative breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res 9:R16. doi:10.1186/bcr1649

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Colpaert C, Vermeulen P, Jeuris W et al (2001) Early distant relapse in “node-negative” breast cancer patients is not predicted by occult axillary lymph node metastases, but by the features of the primary tumours. J Pathol 193:442–449. doi:10.1002/path.829

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Fulford LG, Easton DF, Reis-Filho JS et al (2006) Specific morphological features predictive for the basal phenotype in grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma of breast. Histopathology 49:22–34. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02453.x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Putti TC, El-Rehim DM, Rakha EA et al (2005) Estrogen receptor-negative breast carcinomas: a review of morphology and immunophenotypical analysis. Mod Pathol 18:26–35. doi:10.1038/modpathol.3800255

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Siziopikou KP, Cobleigh M (2007) The basal subtype of breast carcinomas may represent the group of breast tumors that could benefit from EGFR-targeted therapies. Breast 16:104–107. doi:10.1016/j.breast.2006.09.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Pathology, European Institute of Oncology, 20141, Milan, Italy

    Giuseppe Viale & Luca Bottiglieri

  2. University of Milan School of Medicine, Milan, Italy

    Giuseppe Viale & Paolo Veronesi

  3. Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

    Nicole Rotmensz & Patrick Maisonneuve

  4. Research Unit in Medical Senology, European Institute of Oncology, 20141, Milan, Italy

    Emilia Montagna, Rosalba Torrisi, Anna Cardillo, Elisabetta Campagnoli & Marco Colleoni

  5. Department of Medicine, European Institute of Oncology, 20141, Milan, Italy

    Emilia Montagna, Rosalba Torrisi, Anna Cardillo, Elisabetta Campagnoli, Aron Goldhirsch & Marco Colleoni

  6. Division of Senology, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

    Alberto Luini, Paolo Veronesi & Mattia Intra

Authors
  1. Giuseppe Viale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicole Rotmensz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Patrick Maisonneuve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Luca Bottiglieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emilia Montagna
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alberto Luini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Paolo Veronesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Mattia Intra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Rosalba Torrisi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Anna Cardillo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Elisabetta Campagnoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Aron Goldhirsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Marco Colleoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giuseppe Viale.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Viale, G., Rotmensz, N., Maisonneuve, P. et al. Invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast with the “triple-negative” phenotype: prognostic implications of EGFR immunoreactivity. Breast Cancer Res Treat 116, 317–328 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0206-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0206-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation