17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Molecular profiles of screen detected vs. symptomatic breast cancer and their impact on survival: results from a clinical series

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Stage shift is widely considered a major determinant of the survival benefit conferred by breast cancer screening. However, factors and mechanisms underlying such a prognostic advantage need further clarification. We sought to compare the molecular characteristics of screen detected vs. symptomatic breast cancers and assess whether differences in tumour biology might translate into survival benefit.

          Methods

          In a clinical series of 448 women with operable breast cancer, the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used to estimate the likelihood of cancer recurrence and death. The Cox proportional hazard model was used for the multivariate analyses including mode of detection, age at diagnosis, tumour size, and lymph node status. These same models were applied to subgroups defined by molecular subtypes.

          Results

          Screen detected breast cancers tended to show more favourable clinicopathological features and survival outcomes compared to symptomatic cancers. The luminal A subtype was more common in women with mammography detected tumours than in symptomatic patients (68.5 vs. 59.0%, p=0.04). Data analysis across categories of molecular subtypes revealed significantly longer disease free and overall survival for screen detected cancers with a luminal A subtype only (p=0.01 and 0.02, respectively). For women with a luminal A subtype, the independent prognostic role of mode of detection on recurrence was confirmed in Cox proportional hazard models (p=0.03). An independent role of modality of detection on survival was also suggested (p=0.05).

          Conclusions

          Molecular subtypes did not substantially explain the differences in survival outcomes between screened and symptomatic patients. However, our results suggest that molecular profiles might play a role in interpreting such differences at least partially.

          Further studies are warranted to reinterpret the efficacy of screening programmes in the light of tumour biology.

          Related collections

          Most cited references18

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Role of detection method in predicting breast cancer survival: analysis of randomized screening trials.

          Screening mammography detects breast cancers earlier than those detected symptomatically, and so mammographically detected breast cancers tend to have better prognoses. The so-called stage shift that results from screen detection is subject to lead-time and length biases, and so earlier detection may not translate into longer survival. We used data from three large breast cancer screening trials--Health Insurance Plan (HIP) of New York and two Canadian National Breast Cancer Screening Studies (CNBSS)--to investigate survival benefits of breast cancer screening beyond stage shift. We also address whether method of detection is an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer. The HIP trial randomly assigned approximately 62,000 women to screening and control groups. The two CNBSS trial cohorts CNBSS-1 and CNBSS-2 included a total of 44,970 women in the screening group and 44,961 in the control group. After adjusting for stage and other tumor characteristics in a Cox proportional hazards model, survival distributions were compared by method of breast cancer detection with both univariate and multivariable analyses. All P values are two-sided. Breast cancers detected by screening mammography had a shift in stage distribution to earlier stages (for HIP, P < .001; for CNBSS-1, P = .03; and for CNBSS-2, P < .001). After adjusting for tumor size, lymph node status, and disease stage in a Cox proportional hazards model, method of detection was a statistically significant independent predictor of disease-specific survival. Patients with interval cancers had a 53% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 17% to 100%) greater hazard of death from breast cancer than patients with screen-detected cancers, and patients with cancer in the control groups had a 36% (95% CI = 10% to 68%) greater hazard of death than patients with screen-detected cancer. There was an apparent survival benefit beyond stage shift for patients with screen-detected breast cancers compared with patients with breast cancers detected otherwise. Method of detection appears to be an important prognostic factor, even after adjusting for known tumor characteristics. This finding suggests that clinical trialists should routinely collect information about method of detection.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Risk for distant recurrence of breast cancer detected by mammography screening or other methods.

            Selection of systemic adjuvant therapies for women diagnosed as having breast cancer is based on risk estimations for cancer recurrence. In such estimations, tumors detected by mammography screening are considered to be associated with a similar risk of recurrence as tumors of similar size found by other methods. To compare the risk of recurrence and survival among women with cancerous tumors detected by mammography screening compared with other methods (outside of screening). Retrospective study comparing clinical, histopathological, and biological features of cancerous tumors detected by mammography screening compared with tumors detected outside of screening. Women diagnosed as having breast cancer in 1991 or 1992 were identified from the Finnish Cancer Registry (n = 2842). The median follow-up time was 9.5 years. Cancer biological variables were analyzed from tumor tissue microarrays using immunohistochemistry or in situ hybridization and included ERBB2, TP53, and MK167 expression and ERBB2 amplification data. Univariate and multivariate analyses of potential risk factors for distant recurrence of breast cancer and 10-year survival. Of the 1983 women with unilateral invasive breast cancer, data on tumor diameter were available for 1918 women. Women with cancerous tumors detected by mammography screening had better estimated 10-year distant disease-free survival than women with tumors found outside of screening (tumor size of 30 mm [n = 315] 68% vs 50% [P =.12], respectively). In a Cox multivariate model that included cancer biological factors, the relative hazard ratio for distant recurrence among women with tumors detected outside of screening (HR, 1.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-3.11) was significantly higher than among women with tumors detected by mammography screening (P =.01). Breast cancer diagnosis by mammography screening was an independent prognostic variable reducing the relative HR for distant recurrence. This effect was equal to or greater than the effect of 1-cm decrease in tumor diameter (HR, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-1.31). Cancerous tumors detected by mammography screening are associated with a better prognosis than tumors of similar size found outside of screening. The risk of distant metastases is overestimated for women diagnosed as having cancer by mammography screening unless the method of detection is taken into account in risk estimations.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Independent prognostic value of screen detection in invasive breast cancer.

              Mammographic screening has led to a proportional shift toward earlier-stage breast cancers at presentation. We assessed whether the method of detection provides prognostic information above and beyond standard prognostic factors and investigated the accuracy of predicted overall and breast cancer-specific survival by the computer tool Adjuvant! among patients with screen-detected, interval, and nonscreening-related carcinomas. We studied 2592 patients with invasive breast cancer who were treated at the Netherlands Cancer Institute from January 1, 1990, through December 31, 2000. Overall and breast cancer-specific survival probabilities among patients with mammographically screen-detected (n = 958), interval (n = 417), and nonscreening-related (n = 1217) breast carcinomas were compared. Analyses were adjusted for clinicopathologic characteristics and adjuvant systemic therapy. Because of gradual implementation of population-based screening in the Netherlands, analyses were stratified a priori according to two periods of diagnosis. All statistical tests were two-sided. Screen detection was associated with reduced mortality (adjusted hazard ratio for all-cause mortality = 0.74, 95% confidence interval = 0.63 to 0.87, P < .001, and adjusted hazard ratio for breast cancer-specific mortality = 0.62, 95% confidence interval = 0.50 to 0.78, P < .001, respectively) compared with nonscreening-related detection. The absolute adjusted reduction in breast cancer-specific mortality was 7% at 10 years. The prognostic value of the method of detection was independent of the period of diagnosis and was similar across tumor size and lymph node status categories, indicating its prognostic value beyond stage migration. Adjuvant! underestimated breast cancer-specific survival in patients with screen-detected (-3.2%) and interval carcinomas (-5.4%). Screen detection was found to be independently associated with better prognosis for overall and breast cancer-specific survival and to provide prognostic information beyond stage migration among patients with invasive breast cancer. We propose that the method of detection should be taken into account when estimating individual prognosis.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BMC Cancer
                BioMed Central
                1471-2407
                2013
                10 January 2013
                : 13
                : 15
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Epidemiology Unit, National Cancer Institute G. Pascale Foundation, Via Mariano Semmola, Naples 80131, Italy
                [2 ]Scientific Direction-Division of Medical Oncology B, Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Via Elio Chianesi 53, Rome 00144, Italy
                [3 ]Breast Unit, National Cancer Institute G. Pascale Foudation, Via Mariano Semmola, Naples 80131, Italy
                [4 ]Medical Oncology, National Cancer Institute G. Pascale Foundation, Via Mariano Semmola, Naples 80131, Italy
                [5 ]Pathology Unit, National Cancer Institute G Pascale Foundation, Via Mariano Semmola, Naples 80131, Italy
                Article
                1471-2407-13-15
                10.1186/1471-2407-13-15
                3598199
                23305429
                218b9853-876d-48eb-819a-767be0d1532a
                Copyright ©2013 Crispo et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 11 June 2012
                : 30 October 2012
                Categories
                Research Article

                Oncology & Radiotherapy
                breast cancer,mode of detection,screening,molecular categories,survival outcomes

                Comments

                Comment on this article