Journal List > J Korean Surg Soc > v.79(1) > 1011150

TOOLS
Lee, Kim, Jung, Park, and Park: Clinicopathological Feature and Recurrence Pattern of Triple Negative Breast Cancer
Original Article
Journal of the Korean Surgical Society

Journal of the Korean Surgical Society 2010; 79(1): 14-19.

Published online: 25 June 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4174/jkss.2010.79.1.14

Clinicopathological Feature and Recurrence Pattern of Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Kyung Keun Lee, M.D., Jin Young Kim, M.D., Jin Hyang Jung, M.D., Ji Young Park, M.D.1, Ho Yong Park, M.D.

Department of Surgery, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.

1Department of Pathology, Kyungpook National University School of Medicine, Daegu, Korea.

Corresponding author (phy123@knu.ac.kr)

Received 15 January 2010       Accepted 10 March 2010

Copyright © 2010 The Korean Surgical Society

Abstract

Purpose

Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC; estrogene receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative, and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative) are very aggressive tumors with high risk of recurrence and poor prognosis. We have compared the clinical characteristics, recurrence rate and pattern between TNBC and nonTNBC.

Methods

A study was done among 879 patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer and received surgery from January 1999 to December, 2005 at Kyungpook National University Hospital. Medical records and pathological reports were reviewed. TNBC was defined as ER(-), PR(-), HER2(-). NonTNBC was defined as having any one of them positive.

Results

Of the 879 patients, 81 (9.2%) cases were TNBC. As compared with nonTNBC, TNBC had no significant difference in age of diagnosis (P=0.478), tumor size (P=0.961), axillary lymph node metastasis (P=0.398), stage (P=0.341), histological type (P=0.550), operation method (P=0.053) and chemotherapy (P=0.971). In histological classification TNBC had significantly a high histologic grade, compared to nonTNBC (P<0.001). The median follow-up period was 53 months. There have been 56 local recurrences, 70 distant metastases, 10 distant metastasis with local recurrence and 66 deaths. There was no significant difference in recurrence rate and mortality rate between the two groups. But, average time to recurrence was significantly shorter in TNBC than nonTNBC.

Conclusion

TNBC had shorter time interval to recurrence compared to nonTNBC and had higher histological grade (mostly grade 3). Therefore, in TNBC, careful treatment and follow-up are important. Further long-term investigations with larger groups of patients will be necessary.

Keywords: Triple negative breast cancer, Clinicopathologic feature, Recurrence

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1
Overall survivals and disease free survivals of the patients. *Non TN = non-triple-negative group; †TN = triple-negative group.
jkss-79-14-g001
Table 1
Comparison of clinicopathologic characteristics between triple-negative group and nontriple-negative group
jkss-79-14-i001

*LN = lymph node; †IDC = invasive ductal carcinoma; ‡ILC = invasive lobular carcinoma.

Table 2
Comparison of treatment modality between triple-negative group and nontriple-negative group
jkss-79-14-i002
Table 3
Comparison of recurrence between triple-negative group and nontriple-negative group
jkss-79-14-i003

References

1. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000. 406:747–752.
2. 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. 98:10869–10874.
3. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, et al. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2004. 10:5367–5374.
4. Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC. Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol. 2007. 8:235–244.
5. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, Hanna WM, Kahn HK, Sawka CA, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007. 13:4429–4434.
6. Siziopikou KP, Cobleigh M. The basal subtype of breast carcinomas may represent the group of breast tumors that could benefit from EGFR-targeted therapies. Breast. 2007. 16:104–107.
7. Yuli C, Shao N, Rao R, Aysola P, Reddy V, Oprea-llies G, et al. BRCA1a has antitumor activity in TN breast, ovarian and prostate cancers. Oncogene. 2007. 26:6031–6037.
8. Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R, Tretiakova MS, Olopade OI, Moore DT, et al. Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2006. 19:264–271.
9. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, Dressler LG, Cowan D, Conway K, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA. 2006. 295:2492–2502.
10. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer. 2007. 109:1721–1728.
11. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, Lee AH, Robertson JF, Ellis IO. Prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer. 2007. 109:25–32.
12. Sasa M, Bando Y, Takahashi M, Hirose T, Nagao T. Screening for basal marker expression is necessary for decision of therapeutic strategy for triple-negative breast cancer. J Surg Oncol. 2008. 97:30–34.
13. Yin WJ, Lu JS, Di GH, Lin YP, Zhou LH, Liu GY, et al. Clinicopathological features of the triple-negative tumors in Chinese breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009. 115:325–333.
14. Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, Kearney T, Higgins SA, Weidhaas J, et al. Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006. 24:5652–5657.
15. Kang SP, Martel M, Harris LN. Triple negative breast cancer: current understanding of biology and treatment options. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008. 20:40–46.
TOOLS
Similar articles