PROFILE OF SURROGATE MARKERS OF MOLECULAR SUBTYPES USING THE EXPRESSION PATTERN OF ER, PR, AND HER2/NEU RECEPTORS IN OPERABLE BREAST CANCER

VISHAL VERMA; HIREMATH RN; SHARANJIT SINGH BASRA; NIRAJ CHOUREY; POOJA SINHA

doi:10.22159/ajpcr.2021.v14i9.42526

Authors

VISHAL VERMA Surgical specialist, New Delhi, India.
HIREMATH RN Public Health Specialist, Bengaluru, India.
SHARANJIT SINGH BASRA Surgical specialist, Amritsar, Punjab, India.
NIRAJ CHOUREY Gynecologist, Babina, Uttar Pradesh, India,
POOJA SINHA Department of Obstetrics and Gynecologist, Pandit Bhagwat Dayal Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, Haryana, India.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22159/ajpcr.2021.v14i9.42526

Keywords:

Surrogate markers, Molecular subtypes, Breast cancer

Abstract

Objective: The present study was planned with an aim to study the profile of surrogate markers of molecular subtypes using the expression pattern of ER, PR, and HER2/NEU receptors in operable breast cancer so that most effective and advantageous treatment can be offered for better surgical outcomes.

Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was carried out in one of the tertiary care centers in Central UP. All patients presenting to the center with early and locally advanced breast cancer with age bracket between 18 and 75 years during 2-year period and willing to participate in the study were included in the sample size. Clinical staging was done using the standard TNM criteria and all the specimens were subjected to immunohistochemical evaluation for surrogate molecular subtyping

Results: Out of 94 cases enrolled in the study, a total of 32 (34.4%) were identified as luminal A, 3 (3.2%) were identified as luminal B, 35 (37.6%) were identified as HER2 positive, and remaining 23 (24.7%) were identified as triple negative. Statistically, there was no significant difference among groups with respect to age (p=0.958) and BMI (p=0.332). However, there was a significant difference among groups with respect to clinical stage (p=0.031), clinical nodal involvement (p=0.014), pathological staging (p=0.006), and pathological nodal involvement (p=0.023). Among those with nodal involvement, all the cases had involvement of one node except for one patient in Group I who had involvement of thrMost of the luminal A cases (81.3%) were clinically Stage 1 or 2. All the luminal B cases were clinically Stage 2 or 3 (100%). Almost half (48.8%) of Her2-negative cases were Stage 3 or 4. Majority of triple-negative cases were Stage 3 or 4 (65.2%). Clinically, nodal involvement was seen to be maximum in Her2-negative and triple-negative groups (54.3% and 52.2% of cases, respectively). Pathologically, most of the luminal A (83.9%), Her2 negative (81.8%), and all the luminal B cases were Stage 2. Pathologically, nodal involvement was seen in 16.1% of luminal A, 42.4% of Her2-negative, and 50% of triple-negative cases.

Conclusion: The findings of the present study provided a glimpse of expression pattern of ER, PR, and HER2/NEU receptors in operable breast cancer based on which most effective and advantageous treatment can be offered for better surgical outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P. Estimating the world cancer burden: Globocan 2000. Int J Cancer 2001;94:153-6.

Igene H. Global health inequalities and breast cancer: An impending public health problem for developing countries. Breast J 2008;14:428-34.

Howlader N, Altekruse SF, Li CI, Chen VW, Clarke CA, Ries LA, et al. US incidence of breast cancer subtypes defined by joint hormone receptor and HER2 status. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106:dju055.

Wang C, Tran DA, Fu MZ, Chen W, Fu SW, Li X. Estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 receptor markers in endometrial cancer. J Cancer 2020;11:1693-701.

Malone ER, Oliva M, Sabatini PJ, Stockley TL, Siu LL. Molecular profiling for precision cancer therapies. Genome Med 2020;12:8.

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. J Am Med Assoc 2006;295:2492-502.

Ma XJ, Wang Z, Ryan PD, Isakoff SJ, Barmettler A, Fuller A, et al. A two-gene expression ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Cancer Cell 2004;5:607-16.

Tamimi RM, Baer HJ, Marotti J, Galan M, Galaburda L, Fu Y, et al. Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2008;10:R67.

Caudle AS, Yu TK, Tucker SL, Bedrosian I, Litton JK, Gonzalez Angulo AM, et al. Local-regional control according to surrogate markers of breast cancer subtypes and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients undergoing breast conserving therapy. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14:R83.

Dominici LS, Mittendorf EA, Wang X, Liu J, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK, et al. Implications of constructed biologic subtype and its relationship to locoregional recurrence following mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res 2012;14:R82.

Rattan B, Manjari M, Kahlon SK, Kalra N, Bhalla A, Paul S. The immunohistochemical expression of the oestrogen receptor (ER), HER-2/NEU and cytokeratin 8/18 and 5/6 in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Diagn Res 2012;6:1495-8.

Margalit DN, Sreedhara M, Chen YH, Catalano PJ, Nguyen PL, Golshan M, et al. Microinvasive breast cancer: ER, PR, and HER-2/ neu status and clinical outcomes after breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2013;20:811-8.

Purdie CA, Quinlan P, Jordan LB, Ashfield A, Ogston S, Dewar JA, et al. Progesterone receptor expression is an independent prognostic variable in early breast cancer: A population-based study. Br J Cancer 2014;110:565-72.

Li A, Zhou S, Li M, Xu Y, Shui RH, Yu BH, et al. Clinicopathologic characteristics of oestrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-negative/her2-negative breast cancer according to a novel definition of negative progesterone receptor status: A large population-based study from China. PLoS One 2015;10:e0125067.

Kumar De S, Shashikala P, Pruthvi D, Kavita GU, Nandyal SN, Shwetha JH. Estrogen, progesterone and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 in malignant breast lesions: A 5 year study in a tertiary care hospital of Karnataka. India J Pathol Oncol 2015;2:230-5.

Harbeck N, Jakesz R. St. Gallen 2007: Breast cancer treatment consensus report. Breast Care 2007;2:130-4.

Alnegheimish NA, Alshatwi RA, Alhefdhi RM, Arafah MM, AlRikabi AC, Husain S. Molecular subtypes of breast carcinoma in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Med J 2016;37:506-12.

Stephenson GD, Rose DP. Breast cancer and obesity: An update. Nutr Cancer 2003;45:1-16.

Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Greenlee RT, Mukesh BN. Breast cancer subtypes based on ER/PR and her2 expression: Comparison of clinicopathologic features and survival. Clin Med Res 2009;7:4-13.

Maisonneuve P, Disalvatore D, Rotmensz N, Curigliano G, Colleoni M, Dellapasqua S, et al. Proposed new clinicopathological surrogate definitions of luminal A and luminal B (HER2-negative) intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. Breast Cancer Res 2014;16:R65.

Cherbal F, Gaceb H, Mehemmai C, Saiah I, Bakour R, Rouis AO, et al. Distribution of molecular breast cancer subtypes among Algerian women and correlation with clinical and tumor characteristics: A population-based study. Breast Dis 2015;35:95-102.

Kumar N, Patni P, Agarwal A, Khan MA, Parashar N. Prevalence of molecular subtypes of invasive breast cancer: A retrospective study. MJAFI 2015;71:254-8.

Ligibel J. Obesity and breast cancer. Oncology (Williston Park) 2011;25:994-100056.