浸润性导管癌的ihc -乳腺癌亚型以导管内成分为主作为一个无关紧要的预后因素:一项来自韩国的基于登记的研究

Jung Sun Lee , Minkyung Oh , SeungSang Ko , Min Ho Park , Se Jeong Oh , Jeong-Yoon Song , SeokWon Kim , The Korean Breast Cancer Society
{"title":"浸润性导管癌的ihc -乳腺癌亚型以导管内成分为主作为一个无关紧要的预后因素:一项来自韩国的基于登记的研究","authors":"Jung Sun Lee ,&nbsp;Minkyung Oh ,&nbsp;SeungSang Ko ,&nbsp;Min Ho Park ,&nbsp;Se Jeong Oh ,&nbsp;Jeong-Yoon Song ,&nbsp;SeokWon Kim ,&nbsp;The Korean Breast Cancer Society","doi":"10.1016/j.ctrc.2016.03.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Invasive ductal carcinoma with predominant intraductal component (DCIS-IDC) has a favorable survival outcome. However, whether subtypes of DCIS-IDC have prognostic significance remains unknown. We assessed the prognostic value of immunohistochemical subtypes in DCIS-IDC compared with DCIS or IDC without predominant intraductal component.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We retrospectively studied 37,049 early breast cancer patients enrolled in the Korean Breast Cancer Registry between January 1993 and February 2011. We categorized DCIS, DCIS-IDC and IDC by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expressions, such as luminal A, B, HER2 and Triple negative breast cancer(TNBC). Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to estimate associations between subtypes and survival.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 8346 patients (26.3%) had DCIS, 20,427 (64.4%) had IDC and 2938 (9.3%) had DCIS-IDC. Luminal A type was the most predominant type in all three groups (DCIS=66.5%, IDC=64.7%, DCIS-IDC=46.9%). HER2 subtype was more frequent in DCIS-IDC (27.0%) than in IDC (8.3%) and DCIS (13.3%) (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001). TNBC subtype was more frequent in IDC (18.0%) than in DCIS (8.5%) and DCIS-IDC (12.7%) (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001). Breast cancer subtypes showed significant differences in breast cancer specific survival in IDC. HER2/neu typed DCIS showed a poor prognostic effect in overall survival, but no differences were observed in DCIS-IDC before or after adjusted by adjuvant treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Different distribution of subtypes and indistinct prognostic effects in DCIS-IDC indicates that DCIS-IDC is a distinct clinical and biological entity from pure IDC or pure DCIS.</p></div><div><h3>MicroAbstract</h3><p>Through a large-sized, registery-based study, we reported differences of IHC-breast cancer subtypes or outcomes in pure IDC, pure DCIS and mixed DCIS-IDC cases with a predominant DCIS component (more than 80% of tumor was DCIS). IHC-breast cancer subtypes of invasive ductal carcinoma with predominant intraductal component were not significant prognostic factor unlike either pure IDC or DCIS.</p></div><div><h3>Clinical Practice points</h3><p>We subdivide breast cancer into pure IDC (64%), pure DCIS (26%) and mixed DCIS-IDC cases (9%) with a predominant DCIS component (more than 80% of tumor was DCIS). Within IDC, they observed differences in outcome that correlated with phenotype, among approximately 37,000 cases entered into the Korean cancer registry.</p><p>They did not observe statistical differences in outcome with phenotypes for the DCIS-IDC group.</p><p>This study supports that there is a biologic difference between DCIS-IDC cases compared to pure DCIS or pure IDC.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":90461,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment communications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ctrc.2016.03.008","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"IHC-breast cancer subtypes of invasive ductal carcinoma with predominant intraductal component as an insignificant prognostic factor: A register-based study from Korea\",\"authors\":\"Jung Sun Lee ,&nbsp;Minkyung Oh ,&nbsp;SeungSang Ko ,&nbsp;Min Ho Park ,&nbsp;Se Jeong Oh ,&nbsp;Jeong-Yoon Song ,&nbsp;SeokWon Kim ,&nbsp;The Korean Breast Cancer Society\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ctrc.2016.03.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Invasive ductal carcinoma with predominant intraductal component (DCIS-IDC) has a favorable survival outcome. However, whether subtypes of DCIS-IDC have prognostic significance remains unknown. We assessed the prognostic value of immunohistochemical subtypes in DCIS-IDC compared with DCIS or IDC without predominant intraductal component.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We retrospectively studied 37,049 early breast cancer patients enrolled in the Korean Breast Cancer Registry between January 1993 and February 2011. We categorized DCIS, DCIS-IDC and IDC by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expressions, such as luminal A, B, HER2 and Triple negative breast cancer(TNBC). Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to estimate associations between subtypes and survival.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In total, 8346 patients (26.3%) had DCIS, 20,427 (64.4%) had IDC and 2938 (9.3%) had DCIS-IDC. Luminal A type was the most predominant type in all three groups (DCIS=66.5%, IDC=64.7%, DCIS-IDC=46.9%). HER2 subtype was more frequent in DCIS-IDC (27.0%) than in IDC (8.3%) and DCIS (13.3%) (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001). TNBC subtype was more frequent in IDC (18.0%) than in DCIS (8.5%) and DCIS-IDC (12.7%) (<em>p</em>&lt;0.001). Breast cancer subtypes showed significant differences in breast cancer specific survival in IDC. HER2/neu typed DCIS showed a poor prognostic effect in overall survival, but no differences were observed in DCIS-IDC before or after adjusted by adjuvant treatments.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Different distribution of subtypes and indistinct prognostic effects in DCIS-IDC indicates that DCIS-IDC is a distinct clinical and biological entity from pure IDC or pure DCIS.</p></div><div><h3>MicroAbstract</h3><p>Through a large-sized, registery-based study, we reported differences of IHC-breast cancer subtypes or outcomes in pure IDC, pure DCIS and mixed DCIS-IDC cases with a predominant DCIS component (more than 80% of tumor was DCIS). IHC-breast cancer subtypes of invasive ductal carcinoma with predominant intraductal component were not significant prognostic factor unlike either pure IDC or DCIS.</p></div><div><h3>Clinical Practice points</h3><p>We subdivide breast cancer into pure IDC (64%), pure DCIS (26%) and mixed DCIS-IDC cases (9%) with a predominant DCIS component (more than 80% of tumor was DCIS). Within IDC, they observed differences in outcome that correlated with phenotype, among approximately 37,000 cases entered into the Korean cancer registry.</p><p>They did not observe statistical differences in outcome with phenotypes for the DCIS-IDC group.</p><p>This study supports that there is a biologic difference between DCIS-IDC cases compared to pure DCIS or pure IDC.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":90461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer treatment communications\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ctrc.2016.03.008\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer treatment communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213089616300202\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer treatment communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213089616300202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:浸润性导管癌以导管内成分为主(DCIS-IDC)具有良好的生存预后。然而,DCIS-IDC亚型是否具有预后意义尚不清楚。我们评估了DCIS-IDC中免疫组织化学亚型与DCIS或不含主要导管内成分的IDC的预后价值。方法回顾性研究1993年1月至2011年2月在韩国乳腺癌登记处登记的37,049例早期乳腺癌患者。我们根据雌激素受体、孕激素受体和人表皮生长因子受体2 (HER2)的表达(如luminal A、B、HER2和三阴性乳腺癌(TNBC))对DCIS、DCIS-IDC和IDC进行了分类。多变量Cox回归分析用于估计亚型与生存率之间的关系。结果DCIS 8346例(26.3%),IDC 20427例(64.4%),DCIS-IDC 2938例(9.3%)。三组均以Luminal A型为主(DCIS=66.5%, IDC=64.7%, DCIS-IDC=46.9%)。HER2亚型在DCIS-IDC中的发生率(27.0%)高于IDC(8.3%)和DCIS (13.3%) (p < 0.001)。TNBC亚型在IDC中的发生率(18.0%)高于DCIS(8.5%)和DCIS-IDC (12.7%) (p < 0.001)。乳腺癌亚型在IDC中乳腺癌特异性生存率存在显著差异。HER2/新型DCIS对总生存期的预后影响较差,但经辅助治疗调整前后的DCIS- idc无差异。结论DCIS-IDC不同的亚型分布和不明确的预后影响表明DCIS-IDC与单纯IDC或单纯DCIS是一个不同的临床和生物学实体。通过一项大规模的、基于登记的研究,我们报道了纯IDC、纯DCIS和以DCIS为主的混合DCIS-IDC病例(超过80%的肿瘤为DCIS)中ihc -乳腺癌亚型或结局的差异。浸润性导管癌的ihc -乳腺癌亚型与单纯的IDC或DCIS不同,以导管内成分为主的浸润性导管癌并不是显著的预后因素。临床实践要点我们将乳腺癌细分为纯IDC(64%)、纯DCIS(26%)和以DCIS为主的DCIS-IDC混合病例(9%)(超过80%的肿瘤为DCIS)。在IDC中,他们观察到与表型相关的结果差异,在大约37,000例进入韩国癌症登记处的病例中。他们没有观察到DCIS-IDC组结果与表型的统计学差异。本研究支持DCIS-IDC病例与单纯DCIS或单纯IDC存在生物学差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
IHC-breast cancer subtypes of invasive ductal carcinoma with predominant intraductal component as an insignificant prognostic factor: A register-based study from Korea

Background

Invasive ductal carcinoma with predominant intraductal component (DCIS-IDC) has a favorable survival outcome. However, whether subtypes of DCIS-IDC have prognostic significance remains unknown. We assessed the prognostic value of immunohistochemical subtypes in DCIS-IDC compared with DCIS or IDC without predominant intraductal component.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 37,049 early breast cancer patients enrolled in the Korean Breast Cancer Registry between January 1993 and February 2011. We categorized DCIS, DCIS-IDC and IDC by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expressions, such as luminal A, B, HER2 and Triple negative breast cancer(TNBC). Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to estimate associations between subtypes and survival.

Results

In total, 8346 patients (26.3%) had DCIS, 20,427 (64.4%) had IDC and 2938 (9.3%) had DCIS-IDC. Luminal A type was the most predominant type in all three groups (DCIS=66.5%, IDC=64.7%, DCIS-IDC=46.9%). HER2 subtype was more frequent in DCIS-IDC (27.0%) than in IDC (8.3%) and DCIS (13.3%) (p<0.001). TNBC subtype was more frequent in IDC (18.0%) than in DCIS (8.5%) and DCIS-IDC (12.7%) (p<0.001). Breast cancer subtypes showed significant differences in breast cancer specific survival in IDC. HER2/neu typed DCIS showed a poor prognostic effect in overall survival, but no differences were observed in DCIS-IDC before or after adjusted by adjuvant treatments.

Conclusions

Different distribution of subtypes and indistinct prognostic effects in DCIS-IDC indicates that DCIS-IDC is a distinct clinical and biological entity from pure IDC or pure DCIS.

MicroAbstract

Through a large-sized, registery-based study, we reported differences of IHC-breast cancer subtypes or outcomes in pure IDC, pure DCIS and mixed DCIS-IDC cases with a predominant DCIS component (more than 80% of tumor was DCIS). IHC-breast cancer subtypes of invasive ductal carcinoma with predominant intraductal component were not significant prognostic factor unlike either pure IDC or DCIS.

Clinical Practice points

We subdivide breast cancer into pure IDC (64%), pure DCIS (26%) and mixed DCIS-IDC cases (9%) with a predominant DCIS component (more than 80% of tumor was DCIS). Within IDC, they observed differences in outcome that correlated with phenotype, among approximately 37,000 cases entered into the Korean cancer registry.

They did not observe statistical differences in outcome with phenotypes for the DCIS-IDC group.

This study supports that there is a biologic difference between DCIS-IDC cases compared to pure DCIS or pure IDC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信