Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Biomarker expression and St Gallen molecular subtype classification in primary tumours, synchronous lymph node metastases and asynchronous relapses in primary breast cancer patients with 10 years’ follow-up

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

Abstract

Molecular profiles of asynchronous breast cancer metastases are of clinical relevance to individual patients’ treatment, whereas the role of profiles in synchronous lymph node metastases is not defined. The present study aimed to assess individual biomarkers and molecular subtypes according to the St Gallen classification in primary breast tumours, synchronous lymph node metastases and asynchronous relapses and relate the results to 10-year breast cancer mortality (BCM). Tissue microarrays were constructed from archived tissue blocks of primary tumours (N = 524), synchronous lymph node metastases (N = 147) and asynchronous relapses (N = 36). The samples were evaluated by two independent pathologists according to oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), Ki67 and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) by immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridisation. The expression of biomarkers and molecular subtypes in the primary tumour was compared with that in the synchronous lymph node metastases and relapses, and related to 10-year BCM. Discordances were found between primary tumours and relapses (ER: p = 0.006, PR: p = 0.04, Ki67: p = 0.02, HER2: p = 0.02, St Gallen subtypes: p = 0.07) but not between primary tumours and metastatic lymph node. Prognostic information was gained by the molecular subtype classification in primary tumours and nodal metastases; triple negative subtype had the highest BCM compared with the luminal A subtype (primary tumours: HR 4.0; 95 % CI 2.0–8.2, p < 0.001, lymph node metastases: HR 3.5; 95 % CI 1.3–9.7, p = 0.02). When a shift in subtype inherence between primary tumour and metastatic lymph node was identified, the prognosis seemed to follow the subtype of the lymph node. Molecular profiles are not stable throughout tumour progression in breast cancer. Prognostic information for individual patients appears to be available from the analysis of biomarker expression in synchronous metastatic lymph nodes. The study supports biomarker analysis also in asynchronous relapses.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sleeman JP, Nazarenko I, Thiele W (2011) Do all roads lead to Rome? Routes to metastasis development. Int J Cancer 128(11):2511–2526

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Klein CA (2009) Parallel progression of primary tumours and metastases. Nat Rev Cancer 9(4):302–312

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Stoecklein NH, Klein CA (2010) Genetic disparity between primary tumours, disseminated tumour cells, and manifest metastasis. Int J Cancer 126(3):589–598

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Strien L, Leidenius M, von Smitten K, Heikkila P (2010) Concordance between HER-2 and steroid hormone receptor expression between primary breast cancer, sentinel node metastases, and isolated tumor cells. Pathol Res Pract 206(4):253–258

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jensen JD, Knoop A, Ewertz M, Laenkholm AV (2012) ER, HER2, and TOP2A expression in primary tumor, synchronous axillary nodes, and asynchronous metastases in breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 132(2):511–521

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Markiewicz A, Ahrends T, Welnicka-Jaskiewicz M, Seroczynska B, Skokowski J, Jaskiewicz J, Szade J, Biernat W, Zaczek AJ (2012) Expression of epithelial to mesenchymal transition-related markers in lymph node metastases as a surrogate for primary tumor metastatic potential in breast cancer. J Transl Med 10:226

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Falck AK, Ferno M, Bendahl PO, Ryden L (2010) Does analysis of biomarkers in tumor cells in lymph node metastases give additional prognostic information in primary breast cancer? World J Surg 34(7):1434–1441

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Amir E, Miller N, Geddie W, Freedman O, Kassam F, Simmons C, Oldfield M, Dranitsaris G, Tomlinson G, Laupacis A et al (2012) Prospective study evaluating the impact of tissue confirmation of metastatic disease in patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 30(6):587–592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson AM, Jordan LB, Quinlan P, Anderson E, Skene A, Dewar JA, Purdie CA (2010) Prospective comparison of switches in biomarker status between primary and recurrent breast cancer: the Breast Recurrence In Tissues Study (BRITS). Breast Cancer Res 12(6):R92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lindstrom LS, Karlsson E, Wilking UM, Johansson U, Hartman J, Lidbrink EK, Hatschek T, Skoog L, Bergh J (2012) Clinically used breast cancer markers such as estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 are unstable throughout tumor progression. J Clin Oncol 30(21):2601–2608

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Houssami N, Macaskill P, Balleine RL, Bilous M, Pegram MD (2011) HER2 discordance between primary breast cancer and its paired metastasis: tumor biology or test artefact? Insights through meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129(3):659–674

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. (Swebcg) SBCG: National guidelines (2012)

  13. Davies C, Godwin J, Gray R, Clarke M, Cutter D, Darby S, McGale P, Pan HC, Taylor C, Wang YC et al (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(9793):771–784

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Yin W, Jiang Y, Shen Z, Shao Z, Lu J (2011) Trastuzumab in the adjuvant treatment of HER2-positive early breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 6(6):e21030

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dowsett M, Procter M, McCaskill-Stevens W, de Azambuja E, Dafni U, Rueschoff J, Jordan B, Dolci S, Abramovitz M, Stoss O et al (2009) Disease-free survival according to degree of HER2 amplification for patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy with or without 1 year of trastuzumab: the HERA Trial. J Clin Oncol 27(18):2962–2969

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, Pollack JR, Ross DT, Johnsen H, Akslen LA et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, Hastie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10869–10874

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Blows FM, Driver KE, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, van Leeuwen FE, Wesseling J, Cheang MC, Gelmon K, Nielsen TO, Blomqvist C et al (2010) Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases from 12 studies. PLoS Med 7(5):e1000279

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Callagy G, Cattaneo E, Daigo Y, Happerfield L, Bobrow LG, Pharoah PD, Caldas C (2003) Molecular classification of breast carcinomas using tissue microarrays. Diagn Mol Pathol 12(1):27–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J, Watson M, Davies S, Bernard PS, Parker JS et al (2009) Ki67 index, HER2 status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(10):736–750

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, Hernandez-Boussard T, Livasy C, Cowan D, Dressler L et al (2004) Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 10(16):5367–5374

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. van Diest PJ, van der Wall E, Baak JP (2004) Prognostic value of proliferation in invasive breast cancer: a review. J Clin Pathol 57(7):675–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dowsett M, Nielsen TO, A’Hern R, Bartlett J, Coombes RC, Cuzick J, Ellis M, Henry NL, Hugh JC, Lively T et al (2011) Assessment of Ki67 in breast cancer: recommendations from the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer working group. J Natl Cancer Inst 103(22):1656–1664

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Guiu S, Michiels S, Andre F, Cortes J, Denkert C, Di Leo A, Hennessy BT, Sorlie T, Sotiriou C, Turner N et al (2012) Molecular subclasses of breast cancer: how do we define them? The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group Statement. Ann Oncol 23(12):2997–3006

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Brouckaert O, Laenen A, Vanderhaegen J, Wildiers H, Leunen K, Amant F, Berteloot P, Smeets A, Paridaens R, Christiaens MR et al (2012) Applying the 2011 St Gallen panel of prognostic markers on a large single hospital cohort of consecutively treated primary operable breast cancers. Ann Oncol 23(10):2578–2584

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Falck AK, Bendahl PO, Ingvar C, Isola J, Jonsson PE, Lindblom P, Lovgren K, Rennstam K, Ferno M, Ryden L (2012) Analysis of and prognostic information from disseminated tumour cells in bone marrow in primary breast cancer: a prospective observational study. BMC Cancer 12:403

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Wolff AC, Mangu PB, Temin S (2010) American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Oncol Pract 6(4):195–197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Wolff AC (2011) Clinical Notice for American Society of Clinical Oncology-College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations on ER/PgR and HER2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 29(15):e458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ (2011) 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 22(8):1736–1747

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Jatoi I, Hilsenbeck SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK (1999) Significance of axillary lymph node metastasis in primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17(8):2334–2340

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Joensuu H, Pylkkanen L, Toikkanen S (1998) Long-term survival in node-positive breast cancer treated by locoregional therapy alone. Br J Cancer 78(6):795–799

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. D’Andrea MR, Limiti MR, Bari M, Zambenedetti P, Montagutti A, Ricci F, Pappagallo GL, Sartori D, Vinante O, Mingazzini PL (2007) Correlation between genetic and biological aspects in primary non-metastatic breast cancers and corresponding synchronous axillary lymph node metastasis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 101(3):279–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Feng Y, Sun B, Li X, Zhang L, Niu Y, Xiao C, Ning L, Fang Z, Wang Y, Cheng J et al (2007) Differentially expressed genes between primary cancer and paired lymph node metastases predict clinical outcome of node-positive breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 103(3):319–329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Liedtke C, Broglio K, Moulder S, Hsu L, Kau SW, Symmans WF, Albarracin C, Meric-Bernstam F, Woodward W, Theriault RL et al (2009) Prognostic impact of discordance between triple-receptor measurements in primary and recurrent breast cancer. Ann Oncol 20(12):1953–1958

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Simmons C, Miller N, Geddie W, Gianfelice D, Oldfield M, Dranitsaris G, Clemons MJ (2009) Does confirmatory tumor biopsy alter the management of breast cancer patients with distant metastases? Ann Oncol 20(9):1499–1504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Marusyk A, Polyak K (2010) Tumor heterogeneity: causes and consequences. Biochim Biophys Acta 1805(1):105–117

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuukasjarvi T, Karhu R, Tanner M, Kahkonen M, Schaffer A, Nupponen N, Pennanen S, Kallioniemi A, Kallioniemi OP, Isola J (1997) Genetic heterogeneity and clonal evolution underlying development of asynchronous metastasis in human breast cancer. Cancer Res 57(8):1597–1604

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Torres L, Ribeiro FR, Pandis N, Andersen JA, Heim S, Teixeira MR (2007) Intratumor genomic heterogeneity in breast cancer with clonal divergence between primary carcinomas and lymph node metastases. Breast Cancer Res Treat 102(2):143–155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Becker TE, Ellsworth RE, Deyarmin B, Patney HL, Jordan RM, Hooke JA, Shriver CD, Ellsworth DL (2008) The genomic heritage of lymph node metastases: implications for clinical management of patients with breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 15(4):1056–1063

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Sleeman JP, Cady B, Pantel K (2012) The connectivity of lymphogenous and hematogenous tumor cell dissemination: biological insights and clinical implications. Clin Exp Metastasis 29(7):737–746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Camp RL, Charette LA, Rimm DL (2000) Validation of tissue microarray technology in breast carcinoma. Lab Invest 80(12):1943–1949

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, Dowsett M, Fitzgibbons PL, Hanna WM, Langer A 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(1):18–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Klintman M, Bendahl PO, Grabau D, Lovgren K, Malmstrom P, Ferno M (2010) The prognostic value of Ki67 is dependent on estrogen receptor status and histological grade in premenopausal patients with node-negative breast cancer. Mod Pathol 23(2):251–259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Romero Q, Bendahl PO, Klintman M, Loman N, Ingvar C, Ryden L, Rose C, Grabau D, Borgquist S (2011) Ki67 proliferation in core biopsies versus surgical samples—a model for neo-adjuvant breast cancer studies. BMC Cancer 11:341

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. http://svfp.se/files/docs/kvast/.../D_Gruppens_kvast_brost_2013.docKdb

Download references

Acknowledgments

The study was supported by funds from the Swedish Breast Cancer Organisation (BRO), the Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, the Gunnar Nilsson Cancer Foundation, the Mrs. Berta Kamprad Foundation, Stig and Ragna Gorthons Stiftelse, Skåne County Council’s Research and Development Foundation and Governmental Funding of Clinical Research within the National Health Service (ALF). The authors would like to acknowledge Kristina Lövgren, Division of Oncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, for technical support in the construction of TMAs and Sara Baker, Division of Oncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, for technical support in the scanning procedure.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Surgery, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, 22185, Lund, Sweden

    Anna-Karin Falck & Lisa Rydén

  2. Department of Surgery, Hospital of Helsingborg, 25187, Helsingborg, Sweden

    Anna-Karin Falck

  3. Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Barngatan 2B, Lund University, 22185, Lund, Sweden

    Pär-Ola Bendahl, Gunilla Chebil & Mårten Fernö

  4. Molecular and Immunological Pathology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Linköping University, Department of Clinical Pathology and Clinical Genetics, Östergötland County Council, 58183, Linköping, Sweden

    Hans Olsson

  5. Department of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital, 22185, Lund, Sweden

    Lisa Rydén

Authors
  1. Anna-Karin Falck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pär-Ola Bendahl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gunilla Chebil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hans Olsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mårten Fernö
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Lisa Rydén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Rydén.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Falck, AK., Bendahl, PO., Chebil, G. et al. Biomarker expression and St Gallen molecular subtype classification in primary tumours, synchronous lymph node metastases and asynchronous relapses in primary breast cancer patients with 10 years’ follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat 140, 93–104 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2617-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2617-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation