Abstract
Background:
As age advances breast cancer appears to change its biological characteristics, however, very limited data are available to define the precise differences between older and younger patients.
Methods:
Over 36 years (1973–2009), 1758 older (⩾70 years) women with early operable primary breast cancer were managed in a dedicated clinic. In all, 813 underwent primary surgery and 575 good quality tumour samples were available for biological analysis. The pattern of biomarkers was analysed using indirect immunohistochemistry on tissue microarrays. Comparison was made with a previously characterised series of younger (<70 years) patients.
Results:
There was high expression of oestrogen receptor (ER), PgR, Bcl2, Muc1, BRCA1 and 2, E-cadherin, luminal cytokeratins, HER3, HER4, MDM2 and 4 and low expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2, Ki67, p53, EGFR and CK17. Oestrogen receptor and axillary stage appeared as independent prognostic factors. Unsupervised partitional clustering showed six biological clusters in older patients, five of which were common in the younger patients, whereas the low ER luminal cluster was distinct in the older series. The luminal phenotype showed better breast cancer-specific survival, whereas basal and HER2-overexpressing tumours were associated with poor outcome.
Conclusion:
Early operable primary breast cancer in older women appears as a distinct biological entity, with existence of a novel cluster. Overall older women showed less aggressive tumour biology and ER appeared as an independent prognostic factor alongside the time-dependent axillary stage. These biological characteristics may explain the differences in clinical outcome and should be considered in making therapeutic decisions.
Similar content being viewed by others
Main
Age is an important risk factor of breast cancer and one-third of cases occur in women aged >70 years (Office for National Statistics, 2006; Jemal et al, 2009). Older patients tend to present with comorbidities and a considerable proportion eventually die from non-breast cancer causes (Fleming et al, 1999; Yancik et al, 2001). Available data suggest changing biology with advancing age, for example, increased oestrogen receptor (ER) positivity and decreased human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2 expression (Diab et al, 2000). However, there is limited literature precisely delineating any biological differences because of a lack of, or under-representation of, older women in related studies. Most studies are based on registry databases with non-standardised laboratory protocols with a lack of long-term clinical data.
We have recently reported on the conventional pathological features and their correlation with long-term clinical outcome in older women with early operable primary breast cancer, regardless of primary therapy (Syed et al, 2011a).
This study aimed to analyse tumour biology in the same population treated by primary surgery and to correlate it with long-term clinical outcome. Comparison was also made with their younger counterparts (Abd El-Rehim et al, 2005; Aleskandarany et al, 2011). The focus of this study was on biomarkers analysed using tissue microarrays (TMAs) and partitional clustering analysis, rather than conventional pathological features as reported (Syed et al, 2011a).
Patients and methods
Study patients
Over 36 years (1973–2009), 1758 older (⩾70 years) women with early operable primary breast cancer (T0-2, N0-1, M0) were managed in a dedicated clinic with clinical information available from diagnosis till death/last follow-up. In all, 813 patients underwent primary surgery (with optimal adjuvant therapy as per unit policy at the time (Syed et al, 2011a). After excluding 238 tumour samples that were checked and confirmed to have insufficient materials, a total of 575 good quality formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded surgical specimens were available for TMA construction. All patients were managed following the same management guidelines (which obviously evolved with time because of the long period that the study covered), 267 (46.6%) patients received adjuvant endocrine therapy and 105 (18.3%) received postoperative radiotherapy. None of these patients received chemotherapy.
For comparison, a previously characterised disease stage-matched series of younger (<70 years) patients (N=1809) was retrieved from the unit’s database (Abd El-Rehim et al, 2005; Rakha et al, 2008; Aleskandarany et al, 2011). Conventional pathological parameters, as part of standard reporting for surgical specimens, included size, grade (Elston and Ellis, 1991) and axillary stage (according to number of positive nodes, 1=0 positive, 2=1–3 positive and 3=⩾4 positive). The prognostic significance of biomarkers was analysed for disease-free survival, calculated from diagnosis to first recurrence (including any recurrence and/or cancer in the contralateral breast) and breast cancer-specific survival, calculated from diagnosis to death from breast cancer. Owing to the ‘bias’ in terms of selection for adjuvant systemic therapy across both age groups (e.g., chemotherapy was not standard in the older series as opposed to the younger series in cases of poor prognostic tumours), thus subgroup analysis based on adjuvant systemic therapy was not carried out.
TMA construction
Tissue microarrays of formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour sections were constructed as described (Camp et al, 2000). Briefly, 0.6 mm diameter cores of the representative part of the tumour blocks were implanted in the TMA blocks using Beecher’s manual tissue microarrayer (MP06 Beecher Instruments Inc., Sun Prairie, WI, USA).
Immunohistochemistry (IHC)
Twenty-five biomarkers (ER, PgR, HER2, HER3, HER4, EGFR, BRCA1 and 2, p53, Ki67, Bcl2, Muc1, E-cadherin, basal and luminal cytokeratins, including CK5, CK5/6, CK7/8, CK14, CK17, CK18 and CK19, MDM2 and 4, VEGF, CD44 and LKB1) were analysed using indirect IHC by StreptAvidin Biotin Complex and EnVision methods as described (Abd El-Rehim et al, 2005; Aleskandarany et al, 2011).
Scoring
Immunohistochemistry staining of biomarkers was assessed by the percentage of cells stained as well as McCarty’s immunohistochemical scoring (H-score; range 0–300; Howell et al, 1984). The cutoffs of the percentage of cells were used to define positivity/negativity (Table 1). Uncategorical H-scores were used for cluster analysis for all biomarkers except HER2, where Herceptest scoring was used.
Cluster analysis
The biological pattern was characterised by partitional clustering method as described (Soria et al, 2010), using R (R 2.11.1, a free software environment) clustering software.
Statistical analysis
The X-tile Bio-informatics software was used to define cutoffs (Camp et al, 2004). The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS, version 16.0, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for data collection and analysis. Chi-squared test was used for comparisons of biomarker expression between groups. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan–Meier methods with application of log-rank and generalised Wilcoxon tests as appropriate. The Cox-regression model was used for multivariate analysis. A P-value of <0.05 was considered significant.
Results were reported as per Reporting Recommendations for Tumour Marker Prognostic Studies (REMARK) criteria (McShane et al, 2005).
Ethical consideration
The study was approved by the local research ethics committee.
Results
Biology in older women
Overall pattern
There were high expression of ER, PgR, BRCA1/2, HER3/4, VEGF, Bcl2, E-cadherin, Muc1, luminal cytokeratins, MDM2, MDM4 and LKB1 and low expression of HER2, p53, EGFR, Ki67, CD44 and basal cytokeratins (Table 1).
Prognostic significance
The median follow-up for all patients was 60 months (longest=160) and for surviving patients it was 63 months (longest=160). The prognostic significance of the biomarkers is described below according to disease-free and breast cancer-specific survival.
Disease-free survival
Expression of ER, PgR, Muc1 and Bcl2 was associated with better disease-free survival, whereas p53 was associated with poor outcome. Patients having tumours with lower grade and axillary stage, and smaller size had better disease-free survival (Table 1, Figure 1).
Multivariate analysis including ER, PgR, Muc1, Bcl2, p53, grade, axillary stage and pathological size showed ER (HR=2.95, 95% CI=1.30–6.71, P=0.01) and axillary stage (HR=5.57, 95% CI=2.86–10.8, P<0.001) as independent predictors.
Breast cancer-specific survival
Positive expression of ER, PgR, Bcl2, CK19 and Muc1 was associated with significantly better survival, and so was the absence of HER2, EGFR, Ki67, p53 and CK17. Among the conventional markers, lower grade and axillary stage, and smaller pathological size were associated with better survival on univariate analysis (Table 1, Figure 2).
On multivariate analysis, only ER (HR=5.76, 95% CI=1.35–24.6, P=0.01) and axillary stage (HR=10.1, 95% CI=3.67–27.73, P<0.001) showed independent prognostic significance.
Biological characterisation
Including 19 biomarkers cluster indices suggested six clusters, with bi-plots of the pattern shown in Figure 3. The minimum number of biomarkers and maximum sample size to reproduce the same clusters were determined using the unsupervised cluster tree. Seven biomarkers (Figure 3C) appeared as key drivers. The remaining biomarkers were included one by one to reproduce the same clusters as had been produced by the 19 biomarkers. Eventually, the same clusters were produced by 12 biomarkers: ER, PgR, HER2, Bcl2, CK5, CK7/8, CK18, CK5/6, CK19, p53, Muc1 and E-cadherin. Box plots in Figure 4 present their expression pattern. High ER expression was seen in clusters 1 and 2 and the rest showed low/negative ER expression:
Cluster 1 (luminal A) showed high hormone receptors, luminal cytokeratins, Bcl2, Muc1 and HER3, and low expression of HER2, p53, EGFR, CD44, E-cadherin and basal cytokeratins.
Cluster 2 (luminal B) differed from cluster 1 only in PgR expression (low instead of high).
Cluster 3 (normal-like) showed low expression of all biomarkers.
Cluster 4 (low ER luminal) had high expression of luminal cytokeratins, Muc1 and HER3 and low expression of the remaining biomarkers.
Cluster 5 (basal-like) had high expression of basal cytokeratins and HER3, and low expression of luminal cytokeratins.
Cluster 6 (HER2-overexpressing) showed also high luminal cytokeratins, Muc1 and HER3 and negative hormone receptor expression.
Long-term clinical outcome
The ER and luminal cytokeratins expressing clusters (1 and 2) were associated with the longest breast cancer-specific survival, followed by the low ER luminal and all low expressions/normal-like clusters (3 and 4; Figure 4). The basal-like (cluster 5) and HER2-overexpressing (cluster 6) tumours were associated with the worst prognosis.
Comparison with younger patients
Expression pattern of biomarkers
Expression of the 12 key biomarkers (ER, PgR, Her2, Bcl2, CK5, CK7/8, CK18, CK5/6, CK19, p53, Muc1 and E-cadherin) in older women were compared with a younger cohort (Table 2). Breast carcinomas in older women showed significantly higher positivity for ER, CK5/6, CK5,CK18, p53 and Bcl2 and lower expression of CK7/8 and E-cadherin. There was no significant difference in the expression of PgR, HER2 and CK 19. The difference in Muc1 expression only reached borderline significance.
Biological clusters
The panel of 12 biomarkers was used to reproduce clusters in the younger series. Cluster indices and bi-plots indicated only five clusters as opposed to six observed in the older series (Figure 4). The pattern of these five clusters was essentially identical to clusters 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 in the older series. Cluster 3 showed a pattern of ER, PgR and HER2 similar to that seen in the basal-like low-p53 cluster in younger patients but they were different mainly in the expression of basal cytokerations. However, the triple-negative pattern in this all low expression normal-like cluster suggests its linkage with the basal phenotype. The pattern noted in cluster 4, showing low ER and PgR with high luminal cytokeratin expression, was not seen in the younger series.
Both luminal types were characterised by high hormone receptor expression in both age groups, however, the median expression was considerably higher in older women (average H-score nearly 300 vs 150 in younger patients). In both age groups, PgR remained the differentiating point between luminal A and B clusters. High-p53 basal-like tumours in both age groups showed similar characteristics with low hormone receptor expression. CK19 expression, however, was higher in older women. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-overexpressing group was identical in both age groups except in the patterns of ER and PgR, where in older women, they were almost negative and in younger patients both showed low expression.
Discussion
High expression of good prognostic biomarkers (ER, PgR, Bcl2 and Muc1) and low expression of poor prognostic biomarkers (HER2, Ki67, p53 and EGFR) were seen in the older series. There was also high expression of breast cancer-related genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, and luminal cytokeratins, E-cadherin, HER3, HER4, LKB1, MDM2 and MDM4, and low expression of stem cell marker and basal cytokeratins. Biological characterisation found six distinct patterns including a novel cluster, which was not observed in the younger patients. It possessed high luminal cytokeratins and low expression of hormone receptors and basal cytokeratins and has never been reported in the literature. The five clusters (luminal A, luminal B, basal, normal-like and HER2-overexpressing) were similar in both age groups. Oestrogen receptor, PgR, HER2, Bcl2, CK17, CK19, Muc1, p53, Ki67, EGFR, grade, pathological size and axillary stage were shown to be prognostic factors on univariate analysis, whereas only ER and axillary stage had independent prognostic significance. When combined, the three luminal phenotypes, regardless of ER, were associated with better breast cancer-specific survival as compared with other types, where basal and HER2-overexpressing tumours were associated with poor outcome.
This study, from a single centre with long-term clinical outcome with analysis of a large number of biomarkers, has the potential to provide a robust data set. The analysis was based on IHC analysis of surgical specimens. This, however, may be a caveat in terms of representation of the older population. Given that there is a higher proportion of patients with ER-positive tumours undergoing primary endocrine therapy instead of surgery, as opposed to those with ER-negative tumours where most of the time surgery would have been performed, the tumours in this cohort would be expected to have relatively more ER-negative disease when compared with the whole group of older women with primary breast cancer. This should be considered when projecting the conclusion to the whole elderly population.
The high expression of ER, PgR, Bcl2, CK7/8 and CK18 and low expression of HER2, Ki67, p53, CK5/6, CK14 and EGFR are in keeping with the literature (Diab et al, 2000; Eppenberger-Castori et al, 2002; Daidone et al, 2003; Pappo et al, 2007; Cheung et al, 2008; Durbecq et al, 2008; Ma et al, 2009; Tse et al, 2009) and supporting the theory of less aggressive tumour biology in older women. With the possible relative over-representation of ER-negative tumours as explained, it would be entirely conceivable that breast cancer in the overall older population is even less aggressive than shown here. The comprehensive analysis of further biomarkers including Muc1, cytokeratins, E-cadherin, breast cancer-related genes, stem cell markers, HER3 and HER4 is a new addition to the literature.
The prognostic significance of ER, regardless of age, has long been recognised (Allan et al, 1985; Akhtar et al, 1991; Ciatto et al, 1996). Bcl2 also appeared as an important prognostic factor in this study. Bcl2 expression has been reported to have strong prognostic significance in studies focusing on younger patients. A meta-analysis of 17 studies of breast cancer (N=5892) has shown Bcl2 as an independent prognostic factor (Callagy et al, 2008). Studies have also shown its prognostic significance independent of adjuvant therapy and Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) (Callagy et al, 2006; Dawson et al, 2010). However, in our study Bcl2 was a prognostic factor on univariate analysis only, where ER and the time-dependent axillary stage seemed to produce more powerful impact. The prognostic significance of Bcl2 could be utilised in older women to predict response to primary endocrine therapy and anti-Bcl2 therapy (O’Brien et al, 2007) could potentially be used in high-risk/hormone-resistant tumours as adjuvant/primary therapy.
Another important biomarker observed in our cohort is Muc1. This has already been recognised as an immunogen and a vaccine has been produced (Gilewski et al, 2000). Its prognostic significance in our study is in keeping with the literature (Rakha et al, 2005). A small study from a single centre (N=243); aged 27–89 years) with a median follow-up of 26 months has shown highly significant association of Muc1 with disease-free and overall survival (van der Vegt et al, 2007). Another study reported a significant reduction of Muc1 expression after 3 weeks of neoadjuvant tamoxifen (Hanson et al, 2001). It would therefore be interesting to evaluate its role in patients who receive primary endocrine therapy. Given the high expression of Muc1, the utilisation of Muc1 vaccine could be explored as a potential adjuvant/primary therapy in older patients, especially in those who present with high-risk/ER-negative tumours.
Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 showed its prognostic significance on univariate analysis only. Previous studies have shown an association with shorter disease-free and overall survival regardless of age (Knoop et al, 2001; Tsutsui et al, 2002; Kim et al, 2008; Linderholm et al, 2009). Trastuzumab has been in clinical practice for a few years, however, because of the lack of robust data focusing on older women it has not yet received wide acceptance in this population. Currently available studies on trastuzumab analysed its efficacy in combination with chemotherapy (Marty et al, 2005; Romond et al, 2005; Viani et al, 2007), which is again controversial from older patients’ perspective. Robust data for its short-term use or as monotherapy are urgently required (Syed et al, 2011b). Other biomarkers including PgR, Ki67, p53 and EGFR also showed prognostic significance on univariate analysis, but were absorbed into ER in multivariate analysis. EGFR has recently received much attention as a therapeutic target in triple-negative disease, where it may have a role to play in older women (Tan et al, 2008; Kim et al, 2009; Lee et al, 2010). Further studies may give some insights into this. The conventional prognostic factors including grade, pathological size and axillary stage have been recognised as independent prognostic factors in younger patients and used to compute the NPI (Haybittle et al, 1982). Similar prognostic significance was seen in the older series in this study.
A limited number of studies characterised breast cancer using IHC, and most were restricted to younger (<70 years) patients. Studies that include older patients did not stratify them and also older women were under-represented (8–14%; Durbecq et al, 2008; Vallejos et al, 2010). Data are scarce in characterising breast cancer using IHC focusing on older women and correlating them with long-term clinical outcome. The number and panel of biomarkers used in studies tend to vary, however, the key drivers remain the same including ER, PgR, HER2, basal and luminal cytokeratins, EGFR and p53. Given these, our study is unique and important for being a large series from a single centre, characterising breast cancer specifically in older women, correlating the biology with long-term clinical outcome and also comparing them with the younger series from the same unit.
The five common clusters found in both age groups are in keeping with the literature (Sorlie et al, 2003). Both gene array and IHC studies have reported similar patterns (Sorlie et al, 2003; Abd El-Rehim et al, 2004). The low ER luminal cluster appears novel in the older cohort, with distinct biological pattern and associated breast cancer-specific survival. A third luminal cluster was previously reported on gene array and IHC studies (Sorlie et al, 2003; Sotiriou et al, 2003; Soria et al, 2010), but they classified luminal as ER-positive phenotype and that cluster was not further characterised and later on absorbed in the other two luminal types (A and B). The low ER luminal may be unique to older patients, and possibly has developed as a result of age-related changes in tumour biology. The reason that it was not noted in previous studies could be due to their small sample size with minimal representation of older patients.
Before we conclude that this cluster is novel and specific to older women, one consideration is the configuration of biomarkers, which may impact on the possibility of its detection in younger patients. Therefore, the clusters were reproduced in younger patients managed in the same unit, using the same methods and the same list of biomarkers, hence further supporting its novelty and specific existence in the older population. Having said that, it is still possible that this group might exist in younger patients but is probably too small to manifest itself as a cluster and as such may have merged into the luminal clusters.
This cluster, being ER, PgR and HER2-negative may be considered as basal-like by simple definition. However, as previously described, CK5/6 and EGFR expression is most prevalent in the basal phenotype (Nielson et al, 2004; Livasy et al, 2006). The low p53 expression in this cluster is atypical in the basal category and the very high expression of luminal cytokeratins justifies its grouping with the luminal class. Interestingly, the survival of the group was in between the classical luminal and basal phenotypes.
The basal clusters have recently been subgrouped according top 53 phenotypes by our group (Soria et al, 2010; Biganzoli et al, 2011). The characterisation of the younger series in this study showed the same classification, whereas the normal-like cluster in the older patients appeared different from the basal-like low p53 cluster seen in the younger patients in the expression of basal cytokeratins. It is possible that the overall low expression of basal biomarkers in older women has influenced this pattern. A review of the histological types of the normal-like cluster in the older series here showed typical basal type with apocrine and metaplastic varieties. Thus, it can be assumed that the normal-like phenotype in older women is a subgroup of basal-like tumours. This observation warrants further investigation.
Another interesting finding is that in older women there was high expression of hormone receptors and luminal cytokeratins as compared with their younger counterparts.
Each defined cluster showed different breast cancer-specific survival pattern where excellent outcome was observed with luminal A cluster and worst in HER2-overexpressing cluster. The pattern of clinical outcome in our series is consistent with the literature, where regardless of age luminal phenotype was reported to be associated with the best outcome and the HER2 and basal-like clusters with poor outcome (Sorlie et al, 2003; Calza et al, 2006; Vallejos et al, 2010).
Conclusion
Breast cancer in older women appears as a distinct biological entity with an additional novel cluster associated with distinct clinical outcome, when compared with their younger counterparts. Even within the apparently similar clusters the expression pattern differs in the two age groups where the older patients show higher expression of good prognostic factors further supporting the clinical observation that the majority of older women tend to get less aggressive tumours. Oestrogen receptor expression and the time-dependent axillary stage have been shown to be independent prognostic factors; ER status can now be easily obtained from needle core biopsies and provides a very reliable indication of prognosis allowing management decision be made.
Change history
19 March 2013
This paper was modified 12 months after initial publication to switch to Creative Commons licence terms, as noted at publication
References
Abd El-Rehim D, Ball G, Pinder S, Rakha E, Paish C, Robertson J, Macmillan D, Blamey R, Ellis I (2005) High-throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well-characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses. Int J Cancer 116: 340–350
Abd El-Rehim D, Pinder S, Paish C, Bell J, Blamey R, Robertson J, Nicholson R, Ellis I (2004) Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma. J Pathol 203 (2): 661–671
Akhtar S, Allan S, Rodger A, Chetty U, Smyth J, Leonard R (1991) A 10-year experience of tamoxifen as primary-treatment of breast-cancer in 100 elderly and frail patients. Eur J Surg Oncol 17: 30–35
Aleskandarany M, Rakha E, Macmillan R, Powe D, Ellis I, Green A (2011) MIB1/Ki-67 labelling index can classify grade 2 breast cancer into two clinically distinct subgroups. Breast Cancer Res Treat 127 (3): 591–599
Allan SG, Rodger A, Smyth JF, Leonard RC, Chetty U, Forrest AP (1985) Tamoxifen as primary treatment of breast cancer in elderly or frail patients: a practical management. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 290 (6465): 358
Biganzoli E, Coradini D, Ambrogi F, Garibaldi JM, Lisboa P, Soria D, Green AR, Pedriali M, Piantelli M, Querzoli P, Demicheli R, Boracchi P, Nenci I, Ellis IO, Alberti S (2011) p53 status identifies two subgroups of triple-negative breast cancers with distinct biological features. Jpn J Clin Oncol 41 (2): 172–179
Callagy G, Pharoah P, Pinder S, Hsu F, Nielsen T, Ragaz J, Ellis I, Huntsman D, Caldas C (2006) Bcl-2 is a prognostic marker in breast cancer independently of the Nottingham Prognostic Index. Clin Cancer Res 12 (8): 2468–2475
Callagy G, Webber M, Pharoah P, Caldas C (2008) Meta-analysis confirms BCL2 is an independent prognostic marker in breast cancer. Biomed Central Cancer 8: 153
Calza S, Hall P, Auer G, Bjöhle J, Klaar S, Kronenwett U, Liu ET, Miller L, Ploner A, Smeds J, Bergh J, Pawitan Y (2006) Intrinsic molecular signature of breast cancer in a population-based cohort of 412 patients. Breast Cancer Res 8 (4): R34
Camp R, Charette L, Rimm D (2000) Validation of tissue microarray technology in breast carcinoma. Lab Invest 80: 1943–1949
Camp R, Dolled-Filhart M, Rimm D (2004) X-tile: a new bio-informatics tool for biomarker assessment and outcome-based cut-point optimization. Clin Cancer Res 10 (21): 7252–7259
Cheung K, Wong A, Parker H, Li V, Winterbottom L, Morgan D, Ellis I (2008) Pathological features of primary breast cancer in the elderly based on needle core biopsies-A large series from a single centre. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 67: 263–267
Ciatto S, Cirillo A, Confortini M, Cardillo C (1996) Tamoxifen as primary treatment of breast cancer in elderly patients. Neoplasma 43–45
Daidone M, Coradini D, Martelli G, Veneroni S (2003) Primary breast cancer in elderly women: biological profile and relation with clinical outcome. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 45: 313–325
Dawson S, Makretsov N, Blows F, Driver K, Provenzano E, Le Quesne J, Baglietto L, Severi G, Giles G, McLean C, Callagy G, Green A, Ellis I, Gelmon K, Turashvili G, Leung S, Aparicio S, Huntsman D, Caldas C, Pharoah P (2010) BCL2 in breast cancer: a favourable prognostic marker across molecular subtypes and independent of adjuvant therapy received. Br J Cancer 103: 668–675
Diab S, Elledge R, Clark G (2000) Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of elderly women with breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 92 (7): 550–556
Durbecq V, Ameye L, Veys I, Paesmans M, Desmedt C, Sirtaine N, Sotiriou C, Bernard-Marty C, Nogaret J, Piccart M, Larsimont D (2008) A significant proportion of elderly patients develop hormone-dependant "luminal-B" tumours associated with aggressive characteristics. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 67 (1): 80–92
Elston C, Ellis I (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19 (5): 403–410
Eppenberger-Castori S, Moore D, Thor A, Edgerton S, Keung W, Eppenberger U, Benz C (2002) Age- associated biomarker profiles of human breast cancer. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 34: 1318–1330
Fleming S, Rastogi A, Dmitrienko A, Johnson K (1999) A comprehensive prognostic index to predict survival based on multiple comorbidities: a focus on breast cancer. Med Care 37 (6): 601–614
Gilewski T, Adluri S, Ragupathi G, Zhang S, Yao TJ, Panageas K, Moynahan M, Houghton A, Norton L, Livingston PO (2000) Vaccination of high-risk breast cancer patients with mucin-1 (MUC1) keyhole limpet hemocyanin conjugate plus QS-21. Clin Cancer Res 6 (5): 1693–1701
Hanson J, BroweIl D, Cunliffe W, Varma J, Allen A, Hemming D, Shenton B, Young J, Higgs M, Brotherick I, Pearson J (2001) MUC1 expression in primary breast cancer: the effect of tamoxifen treatment. Breast Cancer Res Treat 67 (3): 215–222
Haybittle J, Blamey R, Elston C, Johnson J, Doyle P, Campbell F, Nicholson R, Griffiths K (1982) A prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 45 (3): 361–366
Howell A, Barnes DM, Harland RN, Redford J, Bramwell VH, Wilkinson MJ, Swindell R, Crowther D, Sellwood RA (1984) Steroid-hormone receptors and survival after first relapse in breast cancer. Lancet 1 (8377): 588–591
Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun M (2009) Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 59 (4): 225–249
Kim J, Hwang T, Kang S, Lee S, Bae Y (2009) Prognostic significance of basal markers in triple-negative breast cancers. J Breast Cancer 4–13
Kim Y, Won Y, Park K, Song B, Kim J, Oh S, Jeon H, Jung S, Park W (2008) Prognostic significance of HER2 gene amplification according to stage of breast cancer. J Korean Med Sci 23 (3): 414–420
Knoop A, Bentzen S, Nielsen M, Rasmussen B, Rose C (2001) Value of epidermal growth factor receptor, HER2, p53, and steroid receptors in predicting the efficacy of tamoxifen in high-risk postmenopausal breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 19 (14): 3376–3384
Lee K, Kim J, Jung J, Park J, Park H (2010) Clinicopathological feature and recurrence pattern of triple negative breast cancer. J Korean Surg Soc 14–19
Linderholm B, Bergqvist J, Hellborg H, Johansson U, Linderholm M, von Schoultz E, Elmberger G, Skoog L, Bergh J (2009) Shorter survival-times following adjuvant endocrine therapy in oestrogen- and progesterone-receptor positive breast cancer overexpressing HER2 and/or with an increased expression of vascular endothelial growth factor. Med Oncol 26 (4): 480–490
Livasy C, Karaca G, Nanda R, Tretiakova M, Olopade O, Moore D, Perou C (2006) Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Modern Pathol 19 (2): 264–271
Ma C, Zhou Q, Nie X, Liu G, Di G, Wu J, Lu J, Yang W, Chen J, Shao Z, Shen K, Shen Z (2009) Breast cancer in Chinese elderly women: pathological and clinical characteristics and factors influencing treatment patterns. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 71 (3): 258–265
Marty M, Cognetti F, Maraninchi D, Snyder R, Mauriac L, Tubiana-Hulin M, Chan S, Grimes D, Anton A, Lluch A, Kennedy J, O'Byrne K, Conte P, Green M, Ward C, Mayne K, Extra J (2005) Randomized phase II trial of the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab combined with docetaxel in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer administered as first-line treatment: The M77001 study group. J Clin Oncol 23: 4265–4274
McShane LM, Altman DG, Sauerbrei W, Taube SE, Gion M, Clark GM Diagnostics SSotN-EWGoC (2005) Reporting recommendations for tumor marker prognostic studies. J Clin Oncol 23 (36): 9067–9072
Nielson T, hsu F, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, Hernandez-Boussard T, Livasy C, Cowan D, dressler L, Aksan L, Ragaz J, Gown A, Gilks C, Rijn M, Perou C (2004) Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 10: 5367–5374
O'Brien S, Moore JO, Boyd TE, Larratt LM, Skotnicki A, Koziner B, Chanan-Khan AA, Seymour JF, Bociek RG, Pavletic S, Rai KR (2007) Randomized phase III trial of fludarabine plus cyclophosphamide with or without oblimersen sodium (Bcl-2 antisense) in patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. J Clin Oncol 25 (9): 1114–1120
Office for National Statistics (2006) Cancer Statistics Registration. Her Majesty’s stationary office: London
Pappo I, Karni T, Sandbank J, Dinur I, Sella A, Stahl-Kent V, Wasserman I, Halevy A (2007) Breast cancer in elderly: histological, hormonal and surgical characteristics. Breast 16: 60–67
Rakha E, Boyce R, Abd El-Rehim D, Kurien T, Green A, Paish E, Robertson J, Ellis I (2005) Expression of mucins (MUC1, MUC2, MUC3, MUC4, MUC5AC and MUC6) and their prognostic significance in human breast cancer. Mod Pathol 18: 1295–1304
Rakha E, El-Sheikh S, Kandil M, El-Sayed M, Green A, Ellis I (2008) Expression of BRCAI protein in breast cancer and its prognostic significance. Hum Pathol 39 (6): 857–865
Romond E, Perez E, Bryant J, Suman V, Geyer C, Davidson N, Tan-Chiu E, Martino S, Paik S, Kaufman P, Swain S, Pisansky T, Fehrenbacher L, Kutteh L, Vogel V, Visscher D, Yothers G, Jenkins R, Brown A, Dakhil S, Mamounas E, Lingle W, Klein P, Ingle J, Wolmark N (2005) Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Eng J Med 353 (16): 1673–1684
Soria D, Garibaldi J, Ambrogi F, Green A, Powe D, Rakha E, Macmillan R, Blamey R, Ball G, Lisboa P, Etchells T, Boracchi P, Biganzoli E, Ellis I (2010) A methodology to identify consensus classes from clustering algorithms applied to immunohistochemical data from breast cancer patients. Comp Biol Med 40 (3): 318–330
Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron J, Nobel A, Deng S, Johnsen H, Pesich R, Geisler S, Demeter J, Perou C, Lønning P, Brown P, Børresen-Dale A, Botstein D (2003) Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100 (14): 8418–8423
Sotiriou C, Neo S, McShane L, Korn E, Long P, Jazaeri A, Martiat P, Fox S, Harris A, Liu E (2003) Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100 (18): 10393–10398
Syed B, Johnston S, Wong D, Green A, Winterbottom L, Kennedy H, Simpson N, Morgan D, Ellis I, Cheung K (2011a) Long-term (37 years) clinical outcome of older women with early operable primary breast cancer managed in a dedicated clinic. Ann Oncol 23 (6): 1465–1471
Syed B, Leonard R, Ellis I, Cheung K (2011b) HER2 positive primary breast cancer in older women: clinical significance and therapeutic challenge. In HER2 and Cancer: Mechanism, Testing and Targeted Therapy Williams SI, Rogers CE, (eds) Vol. 1, Chapter 5 pp 123–143. Nova Publishers: New York
Tan D, Marchio C, Jones R, Savage K, Smith I, Dowsett M, Reis J (2008) Triple negative breast cancer: molecular profiling and prognostic impact in adjuvant anthracycline-treated patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 111 (1): 27–44
Tse G, Tan P, Lau K, de Andrade V, Lui P, Vong J, Chaiwun B, Lam C, Yu A, Moriya T (2009) Breast cancer in the elderly: a histological assessment. Histopathology 55 (4): 441–451
Tsutsui S, Ohno S, Murakami S, Hachitanda Y, Oda S (2002) Prognostic value of c-erbB2 expression in breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 79 (4): 216–223
Vallejos C, Gómez H, Cruz W, Pinto J, Dyer R, Velarde R, Suazo J, Neciosup S, León M, de la Cruz M, Vigil C (2010) Breast cancer classification according to immunohistochemistry markers: subtypes and association with clinicopathologic variables in a peruvian hospital database. Clin Breast Cancer 10 (4): 294–300
van der Vegt B, de Roos M, Peterse J, Patriarca C, Hilkens J, de Bock G, Wesseling J (2007) The expression pattern of MUC1 (EMA) is related to tumour characteristics and clinical outcome of invasive ductal breast carcinoma. Histopathology 51 (3): 322–335
Viani G, Afonso S, Stefano E, De Fendi L, Soares F (2007) Adjuvant trastuzumab in the treatment of her-2-positive early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published randomized trials. Biomed Central Cancer 7: 153
Yancik R, Wesley MN, Ries LA, Havlik RJ, Edwards BK, Yates JW (2001) Effect of age and comorbidity in postmenopausal breast cancer patients aged 55 years and older. J Am Med Assoc 285 (7): 885–892
Acknowledgements
The project was carried out as part of BMS’s PhD funded by Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences Jamshoro/Higher Education Commission of Pakistan. The results of the study have been presented at the Annual Scientific Meetings of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in 2010 and 2011.
Author contributions
BMS manuscript is part of BMS’s PhD project, she collected data, did all laboratory work, analysed data and written the manuscript. ECP, DS, JG, LM contributed in data collection and analysis and writing the manuscript. ARG, DALM, IOE, KLC conceived concept of study, provided overall supervision during conduct of the study, have written and approved final version of the manuscript for submission.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Additional information
This work is published under the standard license to publish agreement. After 12 months the work will become freely available and the license terms will switch to a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Rights and permissions
From twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Syed, B., Green, A., Paish, E. et al. Biology of primary breast cancer in older women treated by surgery: with correlation with long-term clinical outcome and comparison with their younger counterparts. Br J Cancer 108, 1042–1051 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.601
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.601
Keywords
This article is cited by
-
Assessment of the Androgen Receptor in Older Women with Primary Breast Cancer: Association with a Panel of Biomarkers and Breast Cancer Specific Survival
Advances in Therapy (2023)
-
Characteristics and chronologically changing patterns of late-onset breast cancer in Korean women of age ≥ 70 years: A hospital based-registry study
BMC Cancer (2022)
-
Survival outcomes for breast conserving surgery versus mastectomy among elderly women with breast cancer
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (2022)
-
A case-case analysis of women with breast cancer: predictors of interval vs screen-detected cancer
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment (2022)
-
Clinicopathological characteristics, practical treatments, prognosis, and clinical issues of older breast cancer patients in Japan
Breast Cancer (2021)