Background: In estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) negative breast cancers, the progesterone receptor (PR) is an independent prognostic marker. Little is known about the prognostic value of PR by tumor grade. We assessed this in two independent datasets. Patients and Methods: Women with primary operable, invasive ER+ HER-2 negative breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2012, treated at University Hospitals Leuven, were included. We assessed the association of PR status and subtype (grade 1–2 vs. grade 3) with distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and breast cancer-specific survival. The interaction between PR status and subtype was investigated, and associations of PR status by subtype were calculated. The BIG 1-98 data set was used for validation. Results: In total, 4,228 patients from Leuven and 5,419 from BIG 1-98 were analyzed. In the Leuven cohort, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of PR-positive versus PR-negative tumors for DRFI was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.89). For the interaction with subtype (p =.34), the HR of PR status was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.61–1.01) in luminal A-like and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46–0.76) in luminal B-like tumors. In luminal A-like tumors, observed 5-year cumulative incidences of distant recurrence were 4.1% for PR-negative and 2.8% for PR-positive tumors, and in luminal B-like 18.7% and 9.2%, respectively. In the BIG 1-98 cohort, similar results were observed; for the interaction with subtype (p =.12), the adjusted HR of PR status for DRFI was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.57–1.35) in luminal A-like and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43–0.77) in luminal B-like tumors. Observed 5-year cumulative incidences were similar. Conclusion: PR positivity may be more protective against metastatic relapse in luminal B-like versus luminal A-like breast cancer, but no strong conclusions can be made. In absolute risk, results suggest an absent PR is clinically more important in high compared with low proliferative ER+ HER-2 negative tumors. Implications for Practice: An absent progesterone receptor (PR) predicts a worse outcome in women treated for an estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancer. As low proliferative tumors lacking PR are now also classified high risk, the prognostic value of PR across risk groups was studied. Despite a negative test for interaction of the prognostic value of PR by tumor grade, the magnitude of an absent PR on breast cancer relapse is much larger in high than in low proliferative breast cancers.

Prognostic Value of the Progesterone Receptor by Subtype in Patients with Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER-2 Negative Breast Cancer / K. Van Asten, L. Slembrouck, S. Olbrecht, L. Jongen, O. Brouckaert, H. Wildiers, G. Floris, E. Van Limbergen, C. Weltens, A. Smeets, R. Paridaens, A. Giobbie-Hurder, M.M. Regan, G. Viale, B. Thürlimann, I. Vergote, E. Christodoulou, B. Van Calster, P. Neven. - In: THE ONCOLOGIST. - ISSN 1083-7159. - 24:2(2019), pp. 165-171. [10.1634/theoncologist.2018-0176]

Prognostic Value of the Progesterone Receptor by Subtype in Patients with Estrogen Receptor-Positive, HER-2 Negative Breast Cancer

G. Viale;
2019

Abstract

Background: In estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) negative breast cancers, the progesterone receptor (PR) is an independent prognostic marker. Little is known about the prognostic value of PR by tumor grade. We assessed this in two independent datasets. Patients and Methods: Women with primary operable, invasive ER+ HER-2 negative breast cancer diagnosed between 2000 and 2012, treated at University Hospitals Leuven, were included. We assessed the association of PR status and subtype (grade 1–2 vs. grade 3) with distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and breast cancer-specific survival. The interaction between PR status and subtype was investigated, and associations of PR status by subtype were calculated. The BIG 1-98 data set was used for validation. Results: In total, 4,228 patients from Leuven and 5,419 from BIG 1-98 were analyzed. In the Leuven cohort, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of PR-positive versus PR-negative tumors for DRFI was 0.66 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.89). For the interaction with subtype (p =.34), the HR of PR status was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.61–1.01) in luminal A-like and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.46–0.76) in luminal B-like tumors. In luminal A-like tumors, observed 5-year cumulative incidences of distant recurrence were 4.1% for PR-negative and 2.8% for PR-positive tumors, and in luminal B-like 18.7% and 9.2%, respectively. In the BIG 1-98 cohort, similar results were observed; for the interaction with subtype (p =.12), the adjusted HR of PR status for DRFI was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.57–1.35) in luminal A-like and 0.58 (95% CI, 0.43–0.77) in luminal B-like tumors. Observed 5-year cumulative incidences were similar. Conclusion: PR positivity may be more protective against metastatic relapse in luminal B-like versus luminal A-like breast cancer, but no strong conclusions can be made. In absolute risk, results suggest an absent PR is clinically more important in high compared with low proliferative ER+ HER-2 negative tumors. Implications for Practice: An absent progesterone receptor (PR) predicts a worse outcome in women treated for an estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancer. As low proliferative tumors lacking PR are now also classified high risk, the prognostic value of PR across risk groups was studied. Despite a negative test for interaction of the prognostic value of PR by tumor grade, the magnitude of an absent PR on breast cancer relapse is much larger in high than in low proliferative breast cancers.
Age; Breast cancer; Luminal; Progesterone receptor; Prognostic value; Subtype; Oncology; Cancer Research
Settore MED/08 - Anatomia Patologica
2019
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/628410
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 3
  • Scopus 25
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 22
social impact