DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Prognostic Impact of Synchronous Ipsilateral Multiple Breast Cancer: Survival Outcomes according to the Eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging and Molecular Subtype

  • Chu, Jinah (Department of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Bae, Hyunsik (Department of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Seo, Youjeong (Department of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Cho, Soo Youn (Department of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Kim, Seok-Hyung (Department of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine) ;
  • Cho, Eun Yoon (Department of Pathology and Translational Genomics, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine)
  • 투고 : 2018.07.31
  • 심사 : 2018.10.02
  • 발행 : 2018.11.15

초록

Background: In the current American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system of breast cancer, only tumor size determines T-category regardless of whether the tumor is single or multiple. This study evaluated if tumor multiplicity has prognostic value and can be used to subclassify breast cancer. Methods: We included 5,758 patients with invasive breast cancer who underwent surgery at Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea, from 1995 to 2012. Results: Patients were divided into two groups according to multiplicity (single, n=4,744; multiple, n=1,014). Statistically significant differences in lymph node involvement and lymphatic invasion were found between the two groups (p<.001). Patients with multiple masses tended to have luminal A molecular subtype (p<.001). On Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, patients with multiple masses had significantly poorer disease-free survival (DFS) (p=.016). The prognostic significance of multiplicity was seen in patients with anatomic staging group I and prognostic staging group IA (p=.019 and p=.032, respectively). When targeting patients with T1-2 N0 M0, hormone receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative cancer, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis also revealed significantly reduced DFS with multiple cancer (p=.031). The multivariate analysis indicated that multiplicity was independently correlated with worse DFS (hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.03 to 1.47; p=.025). The results of this study indicate that tumor multiplicity is frequently found in luminal A subtype, is associated with frequent lymph node metastasis, and is correlated with worse DFS. Conclusions: Tumor multiplicity has prognostic value and could be used to subclassify invasive breast cancer at early stages. Adjuvant chemotherapy would be necessary for multiple masses of T1-2 N0 M0, hormone-receptor-positive, and HER2-negative cancer.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Qualheim RE, Gall EA. Breast carcinoma with multiple sites of origin. Cancer 1957; 10: 460-8. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(195705/06)10:3<460::AID-CNCR2820100307>3.0.CO;2-E
  2. Bendifallah S, Werkoff G, Borie-Moutafoff C, et al. Multiple synchronous (multifocal and multicentric) breast cancer: clinical implications. Surg Oncol 2010; 19: e115-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suronc.2010.06.001
  3. Yerushalmi R, Kennecke H, Woods R, Olivotto IA, Speers C, Gelmon KA. Does multicentric/multifocal breast cancer differ from unifocal breast cancer? An analysis of survival and contralateral breast cancer incidence. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009; 117: 365-70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0265-1
  4. Egan RL. Multicentric breast carcinomas: clinical-radiographicpathologic whole organ studies and 10-year survival. Cancer 1982; 49: 1123-30. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(19820315)49:6<1123::AID-CNCR2820490610>3.0.CO;2-R
  5. Tot T. Axillary lymph node status in unifocal, multifocal, and diffuse breast carcinomas: differences are related to macrometastatic disease. Ann Surg Oncol 2012; 19: 3395-401. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2346-y
  6. Duraker N, Caynak ZC. Axillary lymph node status and prognosis in multifocal and multicentric breast carcinoma. Breast J 2014; 20: 61-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12205
  7. Cabioglu N, Ozmen V, Kaya H, et al. Increased lymph node positivity in multifocal and multicentric breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208: 67-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2008.09.001
  8. Andea AA, Bouwman D, Wallis T, Visscher DW. Correlation of tumor volume and surface area with lymph node status in patients with multifocal/multicentric breast carcinoma. Cancer 2004; 100: 20-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11880
  9. Joergensen LE, Gunnarsdottir KA, Lanng C, Moeller S, Rasmussen BB. Multifocality as a prognostic factor in breast cancer patients registered in Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG) 1996-2001. Breast 2008; 17: 587-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2008.06.004
  10. Coombs NJ, Boyages J. Multifocal and multicentric breast cancer: does each focus matter? J Clin Oncol 2005; 23: 7497-502. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.02.1147
  11. Vlastos G, Rubio IT, Mirza NQ, et al. Impact of multicentricity on clinical outcome in patients with T1-2, N0-1, M0 breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2000; 7: 581-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02725337
  12. Rezo A, Dahlstrom J, Shadbolt B, et al. Tumor size and survival in multicentric and multifocal breast cancer. Breast 2011; 20: 259-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2011.01.005
  13. Lynch SP, Lei X, Chavez-MacGregor M, et al. Multifocality and multicentricity in breast cancer and survival outcomes. Ann Oncol 2012; 23: 3063-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mds136
  14. Pedersen L, Gunnarsdottir KA, Rasmussen BB, Moeller S, Lanng C. The prognostic influence of multifocality in breast cancer patients. Breast 2004; 13: 188-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2003.11.004
  15. Tot T, Gere M, Pekar G, et al. Breast cancer multifocality, disease extent, and survival. Hum Pathol 2011; 42: 1761-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2011.02.002
  16. Giuliano AE, Edge SB, Hortobagyi GN. Eighth edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 2018; 25: 1783-5. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-018-6486-6
  17. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. 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 2010; 28: 2784-95. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.25.6529
  18. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, et al. 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. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014; 138: 241-56. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2013-0953-SA
  19. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, et al. Strategies for subtypes: dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2011. Ann Oncol 2011; 22: 1736-47. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr304
  20. Litton JK, Eralp Y, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, et al. Multifocal breast cancer in women < or =35 years old. Cancer 2007; 110: 1445-50. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22928
  21. Boyages J, Jayasinghe UW, Coombs N. Multifocal breast cancer and survival: each focus does matter particularly for larger tumours. Eur J Cancer 2010; 46: 1990-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.03.003
  22. Neri A, Marrelli D, Megha T, et al. “Clinical significance of multifocal and multicentric breast cancers and choice of surgical treatment: a retrospective study on a series of 1158 cases”. BMC Surg 2015; 15: 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2482-15-1
  23. O'Daly BJ, Sweeney KJ, Ridgway PF, et al. The accuracy of combined versus largest diameter in staging multifocal breast cancer. J Am Coll Surg 2007; 204: 282-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.11.005
  24. Weissenbacher TM, Zschage M, Janni W, et al. Multicentric and multifocal versus unifocal breast cancer: is the tumor-node-metastasis classification justified? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010; 122: 27-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-0917-9
  25. Ustaalioglu BO, Bilici A, Kefeli U, et al. The importance of multifocal/multicentric tumor on the disease-free survival of breast cancer patients: single center experience. Am J Clin Oncol 2012; 35: 580-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/COC.0b013e31822d9cd6
  26. Fish EB, Chapman JA, Link MA. Assessment of tumor size for multifocal primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1998; 5: 442-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02303863
  27. Moon HG, Han W, Kim JY, et al. Effect of multiple invasive foci on breast cancer outcomes according to the molecular subtypes: a report from the Korean Breast Cancer Society. Ann Oncol 2013; 24: 2298-304. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt187
  28. Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 2005-14. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1510764

피인용 문헌

  1. The subgross morphology of breast carcinomas: a single-institution series of 2033 consecutive cases documented in large-format histology slides vol.476, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02641-6
  2. Synchronous Multiple Breast Cancers—Do We Need to Reshape Staging? vol.56, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56050230
  3. Editorial for “Synchronous Breast Cancer: Phenotypic Similarities on MRI” vol.52, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27102
  4. Multicentre prospective cohort study of unmet supportive care needs among patients with breast cancer throughout their cancer treatment trajectory in Penang: a PenBCNeeds Study protocol vol.11, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044746