Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Differential expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval and screen-detected breast cancers: does age or family history matter?

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

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare tumor expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval breast cancers and screen-detected breast cancers overall, and according to age at diagnosis and familial risk. Tissue micro-arrays were constructed from 98 breast cancers (47 interval and 51 screen-detected) diagnosed in women in the Cancer Genetics Network. Arrays were immuno-stained to compare protein expression of six biomarkers including estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER/PR), Her2/neu, EGFR, cytokeratin 5/6, and Ki67. Fisher’s Exact test was used to compare expression between interval and screen-detected cancers. Interval cancers were larger (P = 0.04), higher stage (P < 0.001), and more likely to have lobular histology (P = 0.01) than screen-detected cancers. Overall, interval cancers more often overexpressed EGFR (P = 0.01) and were somewhat more likely to be ER− (55% vs. 43%, P = 0.3), and triple negative (ER−/PR−/Her2−) (21 vs. 12%, P = 0.26). A greater difference in the proportion of interval versus screen-detected tumors that were ER− (53 vs. 35%; P = 0.29), PR− (35 vs. 21%; P = 0.25) and EGFR+ (17 vs. 0%; P = 0.02) was evident among women over 50. There was a trend toward differential expression among women with familial risk for PR− (P = 0.005) and triple negative status (P = 0.02). This study provides new data indicating that EGFR may be important in the etiology of interval cancer and be a possible therapeutic target. Our data also suggest that biological differences between interval and screen-detected cancers are more defined in older women. Future studies to confirm this finding and to elucidate novel markers for characterizing interval cancers may be more beneficial to this subgroup.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT et al (1999) Breast tumor characteristics as predictors of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 91(23):2020–2028

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gilliland FD, Joste N, Stauber PM et al (2000) Biologic characteristics of interval and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 92(9):743–749

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Crosier M, Scott D, Wilson RG, Griffiths CD, May FE, Westley BR (2001) High expression of the trefoil protein TFF1 in interval breast cancers. Am J Pathol 159(1):215–221

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Raja MA, Hubbard A, Salman AR (2001) Interval breast cancer: is it a different type of breast cancer? Breast 10(2):100–108

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Crane CE, Luke CG, Rogers JM, Playford PE, Roder DM (2002) An analysis of factors associated with interval as opposed to screen-detected breast cancers, including hormone therapy and mammographic density. Breast 11(2):131–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson A et al (1996) Screening interval cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 199(3):811–817

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Klemi PJ, Toikkanen S, Rasanen O, Parvinen I, Joensuu H (1997) Mammography screening interval and the frequency of interval cancers in a population-based screening. Br J Cancer 75(5):762–766

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cowan WK, Angus B, Cray JC, Lunt LG, Ramedan Al-Tamimi S (2000) A study of interval breast cancer within the NHS breast screening programme. J Clin Path 53:140–146

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang H, Bjurstam N, Bjorndal H et al (2001) Interval cancers in the Norwegian breast cancer screening program: frequency, characteristics and use of HRT. Int Jr Cancer 94:594–598

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Groenendijk RPR, Bult P, Noppen AM, Boetes C, Ruers TJM, Wobbes T (2003) Mitotic activity in interval breast cancers. Eur J Surg Oncol 29:29–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Collett K, Stefansson IM, Eide J et al (2005) A basal epithelial phenotype is more frequent in interval breast cancers compared with screen-detected tumors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14(5):1108–1112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Brekelmans CT, van Gorp JM, Peeters PH, Collette HJ (1996) Histopathology and growth rate of interval breast carcinoma. Characterization of different subgroups. Cancer 78(6):1220–1228

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Crosier M, Scott D, Wilson RG, Griffiths CD, May FE, Westley BR (1999) Differences in Ki67 and c-erbB2 expression between screen-detected and true interval breast cancers. Clin Cancer Res 5(10):2682–2688

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Anttinen J, Kuopio T, Nykanen M, Tirjjeki H, Saari U, Juhola M (2003) Her-2/neu oncogene amplification and protein over-expression in interval and screen-detected breast cancers. Anticancer Res 23(5):4213–4218

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Collett K, Stefansson IM, Eide J et al (2005) A basal epithelial phenotype is more frequent in interval breast cancers compared with screen-detected tumors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarker Prev 14(5):1108–1112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Van’t Veer L et al (2002) A gene expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 347:1999–2009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rimawi MF, Shetty PB, Weiss HL et al (2010) Epidermal growth factor receptor expression in breast cancer association with biologic phenotype and clinical outcomes. Cancer 116:1234–1242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lowery JT, Byers T, Hokanson JE, Kittelson J, Lewin J, Risendal B, Singh M, Mouchawar J (2010) Complementary approaches to assessing risk factors for interval breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control 68(21):8993–8997

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nixon AJ, Neeuberg D, Hayes DF (1994) Relationship of patient age to pathologic features of the tumor and prognosis for patients with stage I or II breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 12:888–894

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E (2004) Factors contributing to mammography failure in women aged 40–49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst 96(19):1432–1440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Agrup M, Stal O, Olsen K, Wingren S (2000) C-erbB-2 overexpression and survival in early onset breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 63:23–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Easton DF, Bishop DT, Ford D, Crodkford GP (1993) Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: results from 214 families. The breast cancer linkage consortium. Am J Hum Genet 52:678–701

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Phillips KA (2000) Immunophenotypic and pathologic differences between BRCA1 and BRCA2 hereditary breast cancers. J Clin Oncol 18:107–112

    Google Scholar 

  24. Anton-Culver H, Ziogas A, Bowen D et al (2003) The cancer genetics network: recruitment results and pilot studies. Community Genet 6(3):171–177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hoos A, Urist MJ, Stojadinovic A et al (2001) Validation of tissue microarrays for immunohistochemical profiling of cancer specimens using the exampl of human fibroblastic tumors. Am J Pathol 158(4):1245–1251

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lear-Kaul KC, Yoon HR, Kleinschmidt-DeMasters BK, McGavran L, Singh M (2003) Her2-neu status in breast cancer metastasis to the central nervous system. Arch Pathol Lab Med 127(11):1451–1457

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D et al (2009) Ki67 index, Her2 status, prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 101(10):736–750

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Emerson JD, Colditz GA (1983) Use of stastical analysis. N Eng J Med 309:709–713

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Van der Vegt B, Wesseling J, Pijnappel R (2010) Aggressiveness of ‘true’ interval invasive ductal carcinomas of the breast in postmenopausal women. Modern Pathology 23:629–636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bezwoda WR, Esser JD, Danwey R, Kessel I, Rad MM, Lange M (1991) The value of estrogen and progesterone receptor determinations in advanced breast cancer. Cancer 68:867–872

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Dickson RB, Lippman ME (1995) Molecular basis of breast cancer. In: Mendelsohn J, Howley PH, Israel MA (eds) The molecular basis of cancer, 2nd edn. WB Sanders Co., Philadelphia, PA

  32. Badve S, Dabbs DJ, Schnitt SJ et al (2010) Basal-like and triple-negative breast cancers: a critical review with an emphasis on the implications for pathologists and oncologists. Modern Pathology November 12:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  33. Burness ML, Grushko TA, Olopade OI (2010) Epidermal growth factor receptor in triple-negative and basal-like breast cancer: promising clinical target or only a marker? Cancer J 16(1):23–32

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Reis-Filho JS, Tutt AN (2008) Triple negative tumours: a critical review. Histopathology 52(1):108–118

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M et al (2006) Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24(36):5652–5657

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V (2007) 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 tumor registry. Cancer 109(9):1721–1728

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Parise CA, Bauer KR, Brown MM, Caggiano V (2009) Breast cancer subtypes as defined by the estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and the human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) among women with invasive breast cancer in California, 1999–2004. Breast J 15(6):593–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Domingo L, Sala M, Servitja S et al (2010) Phenotypic characterization and risk factors for interval breast cancers in a population-based breast cancer screening program in Barcelona, Spain. Cancer Causes Control

  39. McCann J, Britton PD, Warren RML, Hunnam G (2001) Radiological peer review of interval cancers in the East Anglian breast screening programme: what are we missing? Jr Med Screen 8(2):77–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Ma L, Fishell E, Wright B, Hanna W, Allan S, Boyd NF (1992) Case-control study of factors associated with failure to detect breast cancer by mammography. J Natl Cancer Inst 84:781–785

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CH et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina breast cancer study. JAMA 295(21):2492–2502

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang D, Salto-Tellez M, Do E, Putti TC, Kiay ES (2003) Evaluation of Her2/neu onogene status in breast tumors on tissue microarrays. Hum Pathol 34(4):362–368

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levom WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL (1987) Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science 235(4785):177–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Gower-Thomas K, Fielder H, Branston L, Greening S, Beer H, Rogers C (2002) Reviewing interval cancers: time well spent? Clin Radiol 57:384–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Cancer Genetics Network, funding for which was provided by the National Cancer Institute (Grant No. CA078174), and the Tissue Procurement Core of the University of Colorado Cancer Center Support Grant #P30 CA046934.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Colorado School of Public Health, University of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, Bldg 500, MS F-538, P.O. Box 6508, Aurora, CO, 80045-0508, USA

    Jan T. Lowery, Tim Byers, John Kittelson & John E. Hokanson

  2. Kaiser Permanente, Aurora, CO, USA

    Judy Mouchawar

  3. Diversified Radiology of Colorado, Denver, CO, USA

    John Lewin

  4. Department of Pathology, Veterans Administration Medical Center, Denver, CO, USA

    Dan Merrick

  5. University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO, USA

    Lisa Hines

  6. Department of Pathology, Stony Brook University Medical Center, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY, USA

    Meenakshi Singh

Authors
  1. Jan T. Lowery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Byers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Kittelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. John E. Hokanson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Judy Mouchawar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. John Lewin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Dan Merrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lisa Hines
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Meenakshi Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan T. Lowery.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lowery, J.T., Byers, T., Kittelson, J. et al. Differential expression of prognostic biomarkers between interval and screen-detected breast cancers: does age or family history matter?. Breast Cancer Res Treat 129, 211–219 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1448-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1448-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation