Molecular profiles of screen detected vs. symptomatic breast cancer and their impact on survival: results from a clinical series
- PMID: 23305429
- PMCID: PMC3598199
- DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-13-15
Molecular profiles of screen detected vs. symptomatic breast cancer and their impact on survival: results from a clinical series
Abstract
Background: Stage shift is widely considered a major determinant of the survival benefit conferred by breast cancer screening. However, factors and mechanisms underlying such a prognostic advantage need further clarification. We sought to compare the molecular characteristics of screen detected vs. symptomatic breast cancers and assess whether differences in tumour biology might translate into survival benefit.
Methods: In a clinical series of 448 women with operable breast cancer, the Kaplan-Meier method and the log-rank test were used to estimate the likelihood of cancer recurrence and death. The Cox proportional hazard model was used for the multivariate analyses including mode of detection, age at diagnosis, tumour size, and lymph node status. These same models were applied to subgroups defined by molecular subtypes.
Results: Screen detected breast cancers tended to show more favourable clinicopathological features and survival outcomes compared to symptomatic cancers. The luminal A subtype was more common in women with mammography detected tumours than in symptomatic patients (68.5 vs. 59.0%, p=0.04). Data analysis across categories of molecular subtypes revealed significantly longer disease free and overall survival for screen detected cancers with a luminal A subtype only (p=0.01 and 0.02, respectively). For women with a luminal A subtype, the independent prognostic role of mode of detection on recurrence was confirmed in Cox proportional hazard models (p=0.03). An independent role of modality of detection on survival was also suggested (p=0.05).
Conclusions: Molecular subtypes did not substantially explain the differences in survival outcomes between screened and symptomatic patients. However, our results suggest that molecular profiles might play a role in interpreting such differences at least partially.Further studies are warranted to reinterpret the efficacy of screening programmes in the light of tumour biology.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Differences in subtype distribution between screen-detected and symptomatic invasive breast cancer and their impact on survival.Clin Transl Oncol. 2017 Oct;19(10):1232-1240. doi: 10.1007/s12094-017-1660-z. Epub 2017 Apr 13. Clin Transl Oncol. 2017. PMID: 28409323
-
Mode of detection: an independent prognostic factor for women with breast cancer.J Med Screen. 2016 Jun;23(2):89-97. doi: 10.1177/0969141315604006. Epub 2015 Nov 17. J Med Screen. 2016. PMID: 26582492
-
Comparison between screen-detected and symptomatic breast cancers according to molecular subtypes.Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Jan;131(2):527-40. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1836-0. Epub 2011 Oct 30. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012. PMID: 22042364
-
Using tumor phenotype, histological tumor distribution, and mammographic appearance to explain the survival differences between screen-detected and clinically detected breast cancers.APMIS. 2014 Aug;122(8):699-707. doi: 10.1111/apm.12294. APMIS. 2014. PMID: 25046200 Review.
-
Favourable prognostic factors of subsequent screen-detected breast cancers among women aged 50-69.Eur J Cancer Prev. 2012 Nov;21(6):499-506. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e328350b0f4. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2012. PMID: 22273849 Review.
Cited by
-
Residual lymph node tumour burden following removal of a single axillary sentinel lymph with macrometastatic disease in women with screen-detected invasive breast cancer.BJS Open. 2021 Mar 5;5(2):zraa022. doi: 10.1093/bjsopen/zraa022. BJS Open. 2021. PMID: 33688940 Free PMC article.
-
Differences in subtype distribution between screen-detected and symptomatic invasive breast cancer and their impact on survival.Clin Transl Oncol. 2017 Oct;19(10):1232-1240. doi: 10.1007/s12094-017-1660-z. Epub 2017 Apr 13. Clin Transl Oncol. 2017. PMID: 28409323
-
Cancer overdiagnosis: a challenge in the era of screening.J Natl Cancer Cent. 2022 Dec;2(4):235-242. doi: 10.1016/j.jncc.2022.08.005. Epub 2022 Aug 21. J Natl Cancer Cent. 2022. PMID: 36568283 Free PMC article.
-
Long term trends of breast cancer incidence according to proliferation status.BMC Cancer. 2022 Dec 21;22(1):1340. doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10438-1. BMC Cancer. 2022. PMID: 36544164 Free PMC article.
-
Associations between sociodemographic and clinicopathological factors and breast cancer subtypes in a population-based study.Cancer Causes Control. 2015 Dec;26(12):1737-50. doi: 10.1007/s10552-015-0667-4. Epub 2015 Sep 16. Cancer Causes Control. 2015. PMID: 26376894 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Törnberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2006. - PubMed
-
- Vainio H, Bianchini F, editor. Breast Cancer Screening. Lyon, France: IARC Press; 2002. IARC Handbooks of Cancer Prevention; Vol 7.
-
- Ministry of Health. Recommendations for oncologic screenings: prevention of breast cancer, cervical cancer and colorectal cancer. 2006.
-
- Smith R. International programmes for the detection of breast cancer. Salud Publica Mex. 2011;53(5):394–404. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical