Open Access

Higher locoregional recurrence rate for triple-negative breast cancer following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery and radiotherapy

  • Chi Zhang1,
  • Shuang Wang4,
  • Hayley P Israel2,
  • Sherry X Yan2,
  • David P Horowitz1,
  • Seth Crockford2,
  • Daniela Gidea-Addeo1,
  • K S Clifford Chao1,
  • Kevin Kalinsky3 and
  • Eileen P Connolly1Email author
SpringerPlus20154:386

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1116-2

Received: 22 June 2015

Accepted: 25 June 2015

Published: 30 July 2015

Abstract

Background

Breast cancer subtype, determined by expression of estrogen/progesterone receptor (ER/PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2, is predictive for prognosis. The importance of subtype to locoregional recurrence (LRR) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is unknown, particularly after adjuvant radiotherapy (RT).

Methods

We retrospectively identified 160-breast cancer patients registered at Columbia University Medical Center from 1999 to 2012 treated with NAC, surgery and adjuvant RT.

Results

Patients were grouped by receptor status: hormone receptor positive (HR+) [(ER or PR+)/HER2−; n = 75], HER2+ (n = 46), or triple-negative (TNBC) [ER (−) PR (−) HER2 (−); n = 36]. The median follow-up was 28 months. 92.0% received an anthracycline-taxane based NAC and 80.4% of HER2+ patients received trastuzumab. All underwent surgical resection followed by RT. 15.6% had a pathologic complete response (pCR): 26% of HER2+, 5% of HR+, and 25% of TN. The actuarial rate of DM was 13.8% for the entire cohort, with equivalent rates by subtypes in non-pCR patients. The overall rate of LRR was 8%. However, the LRR rate was significantly higher for TNBC patients (22.2%) than HER2+ (5.6%) (p = 0.025) or HR+ (3.0%) (p = 0.037) in non-pCR group. In the pCR group, two patients had recurrence; one LRR and one a DM, both had TNBC. All LRR occurred in or near the radiation field.

Conclusions

TNBC patients with < pCR to NAC have a significantly higher LRR rate as compared to other subtypes even with surgery and adjuvant RT. Our data support a need to further intensify local therapy in TNBC patients.

Keywords

Triple-negative breast cancer Locoregional recurrence rate Neoadjuvant chemotherapy Radiation

Background

Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC), i.e., tumors negative for ER, PR and HER2, comprise 15–20% of breast cancers in the United States but account for a disproportionate share of morbidity and mortality (Boyle 2012). Gene expression studies using microarrays have identified four common subtypes of breast cancer that are not apparent using traditional histopathologic methods: luminal A, luminal B, HER2 positive, and basal-type (Perou et al. 2000; Sorlie et al. 2001, 2003). Most TNBCs are high-grade invasive ductal carcinomas, approximately 80% of which display a basal-like pattern when analyzed by gene expression (mRNA) microarray (Rakha et al. 2008; Lehmann et al. 2011). A fraction (>60%) of tumors with borderline ER expression (1 to 10%) is also classified as basal-like (Deyarmin et al. 2013).

TNBC predicts for poorer overall survival (OS) and distant metastasis (DM) following treatment (Abdulkarim et al. 2011; Haffty et al. 2006; Nguyen et al. 2008; Dent et al. 2007). Whether TNBC is associated with higher rates of locoregional recurrence (LRR) is controversial, previous studies combined patients with or without adjuvant RT and reported rates of LRR from 4 to 29% (Abdulkarim et al. 2011; Haffty et al. 2006; Nguyen et al. 2008; Dent et al. 2007; Millar et al. 2009; Dominici et al. 2012; Liedtke et al. 2008). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) is increasingly being used in women with locally advanced breast cancer or high-risk early stage disease (White and Mamounas 2014). Numerous reports on the chemosensitivity, and prognosis of different subtypes of breast cancers to NAC have been published with poorer overall outcome again observed in TNBCs (Rouzier et al. 2005; Meyers et al. 2011; Esserman et al. 2012; Rastogi et al. 2008; Mieog et al. 2007; von Minckwitz et al. 2012; Berry et al. 2006; Hugh et al. 2009; Saigal et al. 2013; Caudle et al. 2012; Carey et al. 2007; Nielsen et al. 2004). Nonetheless, the correlation between subtypes of breast cancer and rates of LRR in the setting of NAC is not well characterized. We thus have conducted a single institutional retrospective study comparing the LRR rate of TNBCs with other subtypes of breast cancer for patients treated with trimodality therapy: NAC, surgery and all with adjuvant RT.

Methods

End points and statistical methods

LRR was defined as first site of failure being locoregional to primary site, which includes the chest wall/intact breast, ipsilateral axilla, internal mammary nodes, or SCV fossa. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time from the date of surgery to earliest occurrence of LRR or DM. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from diagnosis to date of death due to any cause. A pCR to NAC was defined as no residual invasive disease in the breast or axilla at surgery.

All statistical analyses were conducted with SPSS software (IBM SPSS 21) and SAS software 9.2. Rates of LRR-free, progression-free, and overall survival (OS) were calculated by the Kaplan–Meier method, with comparisons among groups performed with log-rank tests. Cox regression analyses were used for multivariate analysis. Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests were used for analysis with categorical variables. All P values were two-sided with α = 0.05.

Patient population

This study was conducted under an institutional review board approved protocol (IRB-AAAJ8512) at Columbia University Medical Center. A waiver for consent to participate was granted for all patients involved by the IRB for this retrospective studies. Under this approved protocol (IRB-AAAJ8512), we retrospectively identified all breast cancer patients registered at Radiation Oncology at CUMC from 1999 to 2012. Only patients who were treated with NAC, surgery and adjuvant RT were included.

Breast cancer subtype classification

Basal-like subtype was largely hormonal receptor negative (HR−) (ER−/PR−and HER2−, the HER2 enriched subtype was HR− and HER2+, and the luminal subtype (luminal A and B combined) was ER+ (Carey et al. 2007; Nielsen et al. 2004). For this study, three subtypes are defined: (1) Hormonal receptor positive (HR+) (ER+ and/or PR+), and HER2/neu non-amplified (HER2−) tumors representing luminal types (luminal A and the majority of luminal B); (2) HER2+ tumors representing HER2 enriched and a minority of luminal B; (3) Triple negative (ER−, PR−, and HER2−) breast cancers representing basal-like tumors. Tumors were considered HER2+ if they were 3+ by IHC or positive for HER2/neu gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization.

Results

Demographics

Table 1 illustrates the patient characteristics and the treatments of the tumors applied. 160 patients were treated with NAC, surgery and adjuvant RT diagnosed between year 1999 and 2012. 75 patients had HR+/HER2− tumors, 46 patients had HER2+ tumors and 36 patients had TNBCs. Three patients had no HER2 status reported thus were not grouped into either of the subtypes. Of the 46 patients with HER2+ disease, 9 were HR+/HER2+ with the rest HR−/HER2+. Median age at diagnosis was 52 years, not significantly different among the three subtypes. Our cohort had a high percentage of black and Hispanic patients, all together 44.4% (16.9 and 27.5% respectively). The percentage was even higher for TNBCs, 58.4% black and Hispanic (27.8 and 30.6% respectively).
Table 1

Demographics and tumor characteristics

Variables

Total

HR+/HER2−

HER2+

TN

P

Age at diagnosis, median (range)

52 years (25–85)

52 (26–85)

50 (27–73)

50 (31–84)

 

 ≤50 years

75

(46.9%)

33

(44.0%)

23

(50.0%)

19

(52.8%)

0.64

 >50 years

85

(53.1%)

42

(56.0%)

23

(50.0%)

17

47.2%)

 

Race/ethnicity

 White, non-Hispanic

59

(36.9%)

29

(38.7%)

19

(41.3%)

9

(25.0%)

0.29

 Black, non-Hispanic

27

(16.9%)

10

(13.3%)

7

(15.2%)

10

(27.8%)

 

 Hispanic

44

(27.5%)

18

(24.0%)

14

(30.4%)

11

(30.6%)

 

 Other or unknown

30

(18.8%)

18

(24.0%)

6

(13.0%)

6

(16.7%)

 

Laterality

 Left

80

(50.0%)

42

(56.0%)

20

(43.4%)

17

(47.2%)

0.42

 Right

79

(49.4%)

33

(44.0%)

25

(54.3%)

19

(52.8%)

 

 Bilateral

1

(0.6%)

0

(0%)

1

(2.2%)

0

(0%)

 

Pathology

 IDC

128

(80.0%)

52

(69.3%)

40

(87.0%)

33

(91.7%)

0.02

 ILC

15

(9.4%)

13

(17.3%)

1

(2.2%)

1

(2.8%)

 

 Mixed

14

(8.8%)

8

(10.7%)

5

(10.9%)

1

(2.8%)

 

 Other

3

(1.9%)

2

(2.7%)

0

(0%)

1

(2.8%)

 

Chemotherapy

 chemo (AC/T backbone)

100

(62.5%)

46

(61.3%)

25

(54.3%)

28

(77.8%)

0.04*

 non-AC/T backbone

50

(31.2%)

23

(30.7%)

20

(43.4%)

6

(16.7%)

 

 Unspecified

10

(6.2%)

6

(8.0%)

1

(2.2%)

2

(5.6%)

 

Trastuzumab received

 

37 of 46

(80.4%)

N/A

37 of 46

(80.4%)

N/A

N/A

Surgery

 Mastectomy

114

(71.3%)

59

(78.7%)

32

(69.6%)

22

(61.1%)

0.23

 Lumpectomy

44

(27.5%)

15

(20.0%)

14

(30.4%)

14

(38.9%)

 

 ALND onlya

2

(1.3%)

1

(1.3%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

 

Radiation

 Breast only (2 fields)

19

(11.9%)

7

(9.3%)

6

(13.0%)

6

(16.7%)

0.51

 CW/breast + axillary + SCV LNs (3 or 4 fields)

112

(70.0%)

52

(69.3%)

32

(69.6%)

25

(69.4%)

 

 CW/breast + axillary + SCV + IMN (deep tangents or 5 fields or IMRT)

13

(8.1%)

5

(6.7%)

4

(8.7%)

4

(11.1%)

 

 Unspecified

16

(10.0%)

11

(14.7%)

4

(8.7%)

1

(2.8%)

 

 Boost to tumor cavity and/or scar

91

(56.9%)

43

(57.3%)

21

(45.6%)

27

(75.0%)

0.03

Stage (clinical)

 I

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

0.46*

 II

78

(48.8%)

38

(50.7%)

19

(41.3%)

20

(55.6%)

 

 III

71

(44.3%)

31

(41.3%)

23

(50.0%)

15

(41.7%)

 

 IVb

3

(1.9%)

1

(1.3%)

2

(4.3%)

0

(0%)

 

 Unknown

8

(5.0%)

5

(6.7%)

2

(4.3%)

1

(2.8%)

 

Stage (pathologic)

 pCR (total)

25

(15.6%)

4

(5.3%)

12

(26.1%)

9

(25.0%)

0.001

 T0

19

(11.9%)

4

(5.3%)

8

(17.4%)

6

(16.7%)

 

 Tis

6

(3.7%)

0

(0%)

4

(8.7%)

3

(8.3%)

 

 I

25

(15.6%)

8

(10.7%)

10

(21.7%)

7

(19.4%)

0.07*

 II

49

(30.6%)

26

(34.7%)

10

(21.7%)

12

(33.3%)

 

 III

59

(36.9%)

37

(49.3%)

12

(26.1%)

8

(22.2%)

 

 IV

1

(0.6%)

0

(0%)

1

(2.2%)

0

(0%)

 

 Unknown

1

(0.6%)

0

(0%)

1

(2.2%)

0

(0%)

 

* P values were calculated with the unknown or unspecified group excluded. All P-values were calculated using Pearson’s Chi-squared tests.

aTwo patients had only axillary nodal dissection due to no clinical evidence of primary cancer found in the breast.

bThree patients presented with likely stage IV disease with one patient having lung nodules on CT scan, one with adrenal uptake and the other patient with sternal uptake on PET scan, all resolved after NAC, thus were treated definitively afterward.

62.5% of the cohort received Adriamycin/Cyclophosphamide/Taxol (AC/T) as NAC while 31.2% had AC only, T only, CMF or other types. Patients with TNBCs had a significantly higher rate (77.8%) of receiving AC/T backboned NAC than other subtypes (p = 0.04). 80.4% of HER2+ patients received Trastuzumab. 27.5% patients had lumpectomy following NAC. 71.3% had modified radical mastectomy including 16 cases of skin or nipple sparing mastectomy.

All patients received RT, for 144 patients (90%) all details of RT setups are known. All patients had radiation to chest wall after mastectomy or the whole breast after lumpectomy. 78.1% patients received regional nodal irradiation covering axillary and supraclavicular nodes using three- or four-field technique, including 8.1% of patients with internal mammary nodes irradiated. TNBC patients had a higher rate (75%) of receiving boost RT to scar or tumor cavity than the other subtypes (p = 0.03). The majority of patients were treated using 3D conformal radiation techniques with only 5% treated with inverse planning intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT).

Response to NAC

A majority of the patients presented with clinical stage II and III cancer (Table 1). Down staging of the disease was observed after NAC. 25 patients (15.6%) achieved pCR with no invasive disease identified from surgery in primary breast or axilla. HR+/HER2− patients had significant lower ratio of achieving pCR (5.3%) comparing with HER2 + (26.1%) (p = 0.001) and TNBCs (25%) (p = 0.003). Another 25 (15.6%) patients had pathologic stage I disease after NAC, again with a much lower rate (about half) in HR +/HER2- subtype comparing with the other two subtypes.

Treatment outcomes and survivals

After a median follow-up of 28 months (5 months–13.7 years), the 3-year OS was 85.4%; the 3-year progression-free survival (PFS) was 68.5%. The 3-year OS was 100% for patients who achieved pCR after NAC compared to 82.7% for patients without pCR (p = 0.06). The 3-year PFS was 87.5% for pCR vs. 65.2% for non-pCR patients (p = 0.08). Only one patient (cT2 cN1 M0) with pCR had LRR that occurred 26 months after finishing RT. Another patient (cT2 cN3 M0) with pCR had DM to the brain 2 months after RT. Both had TNBC, received AC/T followed by lumpectomy and axillary lymph node dissection. The patient with LRR had RT to the whole breast while the patient with DM received RT to whole breast, full axillary and supraclavicular nodes. Patients with non-pCR had poorer prognosis with a total of 11 LRRs including two patients with concurrent LRR and DM, and 19 patients with DM as the first site of failure. For the entire cohort, LRRs occurred within 29 months after surgery (median time to LRR was 13 months).

In the overall cohort, significantly higher rate of LRR was shown in TNBCs (19.4%) compared to HR+/HER2− (5.33%) (p = 0.037) and HER2+ (2.18%) (p = 0.019) (Table 2). The difference was even more prominent for non-pCR patients. LRR rate in TNBCs was 22.2 vs. 5.6% in HR+/HER2− (p = 0.025) and 2.9% in HER2+ groups (p = 0.037). Interestingly, no significant difference was found in DM among the subtypes as the first site of failure (p = 0.73).
Table 2

Incidences of LRR, DM and death from all causes among different subtypes

Events

Incidences

Subtypes

P**

TNBC is defined as ER/PR positive staining in <1% cells

 

Alla (n = 157)

HR+/HER2− (ER/PR ≥1%) (n = 75)

HER2+ (n = 46)

TN (ER/PR <1%) (n = 36)

P

 LRR

12b

(7.6%)

4

(5.3%) (p = 0.037)π

1

(2.2%) (p = 0.019)π

7

(19.4%)

0.014

 DM

22

(14.0%)

11

(14.7%) (p = 0.78)π

5

(10.9%) (p = 0.52)π

6

(16.7%)

0.73

 Death

21

(13.4%)

8

(10.7%) (p = 1.0)π

7

(15.2%) (p = 0.75)π

4

(11.1%)

0.77

 

Non-pCR (n = 132)

HR+/HER2− (ER/PR ≥1%) (n = 71)

HER2+ (n = 34)

TN (ER/PR <1%) (n = 27)

P

 LRR

11

(8.3%)

4

(5.6%) (p = 0.025)π

1

(3.0%) (p = 0.037)π

6

(22.2%)

0.023

 DM

21

(15.9%)

11

(15.5%) (p = 0.76)π

5

(14.7%) (p = 0.74)π

5

(18.5%)

0.90

 Death

19

(14.4%)

8

(11.3%) (p = 0.73)π

7

(20.6%) (p = 0.74)π

4

(14.8%)

0.40

TNBC is defined as ER/PR positive staining in <10% cells

 

Alla (n = 157)

HR+/HER2− (ER/PR ≥10%) (n = 68)

HER2+ (n = 46)

TN (ER/PR <10%) (n = 43)

P

 LRR

12b

(7.6%)

2

(2.9%) (p = 0.003)π

1

(2.2%) (p = 0.006)π

9

(20.9%)

0.001

 DM

22

(14.0%)

9

(13.2%) (p = 0.59)π

5

(10.9%) (p = 0.37)π

8

(18.6%)

0.59

 Death

21

(13.4%)

5

(7.3%) (p = 0.21)π

7

(15.2%) (p = 1.0)π

7

(16.3%)

0.27

 

Non-pCR (n = 132)

HR+/HER2− (ER/PR ≥10%) (n = 64)

HER2+ (n = 34)

TN (ER/PR< 10%) (n = 34)

P

 LRR

11

(8.3%)

2

(3.3%) (p = 0.003)π

1

(2.9%) (p = 0.027)π

8

(23.5%)

0.002

 DM

21

(15.9%)

9

(14.8%) (p = 0.41)π

5

(14.7%) (p = 0.75)π

7

(20.6%)

0.68

 Death

19

(14.4%)

5

(7.8%) (p = 0.10)π

7

(20.6%) (p = 1.0)π

7

(20.6%)

0.11

Triple negative breast cancer was defined as ER and PR positive staining either in <1% cells or in <10% cells as shown respectively.

All LRR and DM are counted as first site of failure.

** P values are obtained using Fisher’s exact tests with two degree-of-freedom.

P values are calculated using Fisher’s exact tests comparing with TN subtype.

aThere were three patients who had no HER2 status documented.

bTwo of the LRR occurred simultaneously with DM.

The above analyses were conducted by defining HR− as both ER <1% and PR <1% based on the current standard (Hammond et al. 2010). Due to reports that weakly ER/PR+ disease harbors a significant portion of basal-like tumors (Deyarmin et al. 2013), we reanalyzed the LRR rates redefining TNBC subtype as being both ER and PR <10% and HER2− (Table 2). The results showed two additional cases of LRR in the TNBCs (<10%) as additional 7 cases (originally in HR+/HER2− group) were included in the redefined TNBC subtype. The redefined TNBCs (<10%) had even higher rate (23.5%) of LRR in non-pCR patients when comparing to HR+/HER2− (3.3%) (p = 0.003) and HER2+ subtypes (2.9%) (p = 0.027). In non-pCR group, the highest rate of DM was seen in TNBCs (20.6%), compared with HR+/HER2− (14.8%) and HER2+ subtypes (14.7%) but the difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.41 and p = 0.75, respectively). No statistically significant difference was found among the subtypes of the crude death rate for the entire cohort or non-pCR patients by definition of HR <1% or <10%.

We reviewed the radiation field setup and individual RT plans delivered to all patients with LRR. The pattern of failure was summarized in Table 3. All LRRs occurred either in or near radiation fields. The only LRR in the pCR group occurred 28 months after lumpectomy and whole breast RT (5,000 cGy followed by 1,000 cGy boost to tumor bed). The patient recurred with a skin nodule in the inframammary fold within the RT field but not near the lumpectomy margin. Of the 11 LRRs in non-pCR patients, seven occurred in the intact breasts (after lumpectomy) or chest wall (after mastectomy) and four of them occurred in the irradiated regional nodal area.
Table 3

Pattern of failure and locations of LRR

 

LRR

DM

In-field

Near-field

Out-field

pCR

1

0

0

1a

Non-PCR

10

1

0

21b

aThis patient had brain metastasis 2 months after RT (5 months after surgery).

bLung metastases 9, brain 6, bone 4, Liver 4, contralateral axilla 1, retrosternal 1. A few patients had simultaneous DM in multiple organs.

Using Kaplan–Meier analyses, we have further compared the LRR-free, DM-free, Progression-free and overall survivals among different subtypes in non-pCR patients (Fig. 1). Log-rank studies showed significantly higher risk of LRR in TNBCs (HR <1%) comparing to HR+/HER2− (p = 0.033) and HER2+ subtypes (p = 0.02). DM-free survival curve showed relatively early onset of DM in TNBCs but the difference was not significant among subtypes (p = 0.6). PFS again did not show statistically significant difference among subtypes (p = 0.2) likely due to similar DM rates in different subtypes. Median OS time has not been reached in our study. Although the 3- or 5-year OS rates among different subtypes are not different significantly, it is noted that HER2+ patients have relatively later occurrence of death.
Fig. 1

Comparisons of survivals between subtypes in non-pCR patients. a Locoregional-recurrence-free survival (LRR-Free Survival). b Distant-metastasis-free survival (DM-Free Survival). c Progress-free survival. d Overall survival. P values shown here are from comparisons among all three subtypes.

14 patients were identified among the 160 in our database with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC); two with stage IV and the remaining stage III at diagnosis. 8/14 have HER2+ disease, 5/14 are HR+ (>1%)/HER2-, and one patient with TNBC (HR <1%). 13/14 had modified radical mastectomy, one patient had no ALND performed due to chest wall and nerve involvement of the tumor and eventually had local recurrence in chest wall. All patients received adjuvant RT to chest wall and axilla (ranging from 5,000 to 5,040 cGy) and SCV (4,500–5,040 cGy), with seven patients receiving boost dose of RT to the scar (1,000–2,000 cGy). Three patients had LRR, including the patient with TNBC; the other two had HR+ (<10%)/HER2− and HER2+ disease. Five patients had DM as first relapse, three with HR +/HER2- and two with HER2+ disease. Seven patients died over a median of 29 months after diagnosis (range 11.9–55.6).

Risk factors for LRR

Univariate analysis (UVA) of the patients’ and tumor characteristics showed the following factors predicting higher risk of LRR: subtype (p = 0.019), race/ethnicity (p = 0.014), surgical pathologic grade (post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy) (p = 0.005) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI) (p = 0.021). Age (≤50 vs. >50 years) (p = 0.068), clinical staging (p = 0.24), pathologic stage (p = 0.31), mitotic index (p = 0.29), type of chemotherapy (p = 0.75), margin status (p = 1.0) and grade of tumor from biopsy (pre-NAC) (p = 0.34) did not show significant correlations with higher risks of LRR per UVA. Multivariate analysis (MVA) confirmed that TNBCs were associated with significantly higher risk of LRR with hazard ratio (HR) being 3.33 compared with non-TNBCs (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04–10.70, p = 0.043) (Table 4). With LRR and DM included in PFS calculations, TNBCs was again seen with worse PFS (HR 1.94, CI 0.92–4.09) but results from MVA were not statistically significant (p = 0.083). There was a significantly higher risk of LRR (p = 0.014) and progression (p = 0.001) in patients with high grade of tumor at surgery in MVA.
Table 4

Cox regression analyses on LRR and PFS

MVA variants

LRR

PFS

Hazard ratio (95%CI)

P

Hazard ratio (95%CI)

P

TN vs. not TN

3.33 (1.04–10.70)

0.043

1.94 (0.92–4.09)

0.083

Surgical pathologic grade

 Grade 3 vs. othera

6.93 (1.48–32.53)

0.014

3.70 (1.66–8.22)

0.001

 Age >50 vs. ≤50 years

0.46 (0.12–1.77)

0.26

0.91 (0.43–1.94)

0.81

aThis includes grade 1, 2 and the patients who had pCR after NAC.

Discussion

Numerous studies have reported that TNBC is associated with a poor prognosis. Recently, more attention has been paid to patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Whether the rate of LRR in certain subtypes of breast cancer is higher, particularly in TNBCs, is unknown, partly due to the heterogeneity of patients and their treatment regimens reported in prior studies (Abdulkarim et al. 2011; Haffty et al. 2006; Nguyen et al. 2008; Dent et al. 2007; Millar et al. 2009; Dominici et al. 2012; Liedtke et al. 2008; Rouzier et al. 2005; Panoff et al. 2011; Bauer et al. 2007). In our patient cohort comprised mainly of clinical stage IIb to III disease, every patient received a course of NAC, surgery and radiation. About two-thirds of the patients (62.5%) received AC/T backboned NAC. The majority of patients had mastectomy (71.3%). 78.1% patients received extensive RT covering chest wall or intact breast, axillary and supraclavicular nodes.

Our retrospective study revealed that TNBCs are associated with significantly increased LRR rate comparing to other subtypes. Our data showed an accumulated incidence of 19.2% LRR in TNBCs, much higher than other subtypes (4.1% in non-TNBC group). Results were significant by UVA and MVA. All LRRs occurred within 28 months after surgery (median time to LRR in TNBC group is 3.6 vs. 5 months in non-TNBCs, p > 0.05). The overall DM (first site of failure) rates were similar among subtypes. The LRR rate of TNBCs in our patient population is slightly higher compared to the other studies. For example, the studies from Caudle et al. showed 10.5% 5-year LRR in TNBCs after NAC, lumpectomy and adjuvant RT while only 3% in luminal A type (Caudle et al. 2012). The relatively higher percentage of lower clinical stages at presentation (71% clinical stage I/II disease) in that study may explain the low incidence of LRR. Another study from University of North Carolina reported an overall 14% LRR rate of TNBCs but only 4% in non-TNBCs with a median follow up of 55 months (Meyers et al. 2011). However, not all patients in these studies received adjuvant RT.

Another explanation for the higher incidence of LRR in our data may be the significantly higher proportion of non-White patients in our cohort, which is not seen in other studies (Meyers et al. 2011; Caudle et al. 2012). 44.4% patients in our study were non-White, including black non-Hispanic (16.9%) and Hispanic (27.5%), while 36.9% are White non-Hispanic. The study from Meyers et al. (2011) included a much higher proportion of White patients (62%). Patients with TNBCs are significantly more likely to be African Americans and Hispanics and this is reported to confer worse prognosis, including mortality (Deyarmin et al. 2013; Carey et al. 2006; Lund et al. 2009; Vona-Davis and Rose 2009; Maskarinec et al. 2011; Wu et al. 2013). We have confirmed this finding by showing a significant difference of cumulative mortality in our Hispanic (27.3%), black non-Hispanic (14.8%) and white non-Hispanic group (6.8%) (p = 0.02) (Table 5). In addition, a significantly higher cumulative incidence of LRR was seen in black non-Hispanic patients (22.2%) comparing to white non-Hispanics (p = 0.02), correlating with the higher rate of mortality. This was not observed in Hispanic patients, LRR rate 6.8 vs. 5.1% in White non-Hispanics (p = 1.0). The LRR reached an exceptionally high rate of 40% in black non-Hispanic patients with TNBCs, with four incidences out of a total of ten patients. The LRR rate in Hispanic patients with TNBCs was 18%, with two incidences out of a total of 11 patients. The LRR rate in White non-Hispanics was 11%, with one LRR out of a total of nine patients. Hispanic patients showed a somewhat higher rate of DM than the other groups but the difference was not statistically significant. Overall, our data suggested that both black and Hispanic patients had worse prognosis in survival than White non-Hispanic patients, consistent to previous reports. We have, for the first time, reported the significantly increased risk of LRR in black non-Hispanic patients, particularly high in black non-Hispanics with TNBCs (40% LRR).
Table 5

Incidences of LRR, DM and death among different races/ethnicities

Events

All Cohort (160)

White non-Hispanic (59)

Black non-Hispanic (27)

Hispanic (44)

Other and unknowna (30)

P**

LRR

12

(7.5%)

3

(5.1%)

6

(22.2%) (p = 0.02)

3

(6.8%) (p = 1.0)

0

(0%)

0.04

DM

22

(13.8%)

8

(13.6%)

3

(11.1%) (p = 1.0)

10

(22.7%) (p = 0.30)

1

(3.3%)

0.39

Death

21

(13.1%)

4

(6.8%)

4

(14.8%) (p = 0.25)

12

(27.3%) (p = 0.006)

1

(3.3%)

0.02

** P values are calculated via Fisher’s exact tests, two degree-of-freedom, without the “other and unknown” group.

P values are calculated using Fisher’s exact tests comparing with White non-Hispanic.

aOther and unknown: 24 patients self-identified as other, three are Asians, and three are unknown.

Deyarmin et al. recently showed that low-ER-staining (1–10%) tumors were clinicopathologically more similar to ER-negative than to ER-positive tumors (Deyarmin et al. 2013). Using molecular subtyping, 62% of the low-staining tumors were classified as basal like and 27% as HER2 enriched. In our study, the rate of LRR in TNBC group was more prominent if using the definition of hormonal receptor positivity being ≥10% of stained cells instead of the ASCO/CAP guideline of being ≥1%. The crude relative risks of LRR of TNBCs vs. non-TNBCs increased from 4.7 (HR <1%) to 7.9 (HR <10%). Our data may serve as an indirect evidence to support the claim of Deyarmin et al. that “10%” could be a more accurate threshold to define ER-positivity.

Further followup of patients with LRR revealed that local failure led to high risk of DM and cancer-specific death. Of the ten patients with LRR as the only site of first failure, eight developed DM with a median time interval of 7 months after LRR (range 1–12 months). One patient was lost to follow up after treatment and the other one had a suspicious bony metastasis but lost to follow up before DM was confirmed. Two of the eight patients (25%) died shortly after DM was diagnosed (both within 1 month). Our results indicate the importance of the locoregional control for improving overall prognosis.

After NAC, 15.6% patients overall achieved pCR. Among them, 25% TNBCs had pCR while only 5.3% in HR+/HER2− group had pCR, consistent to other reports that luminal A responded less to NAC comparing to other subtypes (Meyers et al. 2011; Rastogi et al. 2008; Mieog et al. 2007). In TNBCs, higher percentage (38.9%) received lumpectomy likely due to better response to NAC. However, we do not think that lumpectomy contributes to higher rate of LRR. Only one patient out of a total of 14 after lumpectomy developed LRR, while six LRR (3 locally, 2 locoregionally and 1 in regional nodes) occurred out of 23 TNBCs after mastectomy (p = 0.22). Our results indicated that lumpectomy is a valid surgical approach for TNBC patients without risks of increasing LRR in selected patients with good responses to NAC.

Conclusion

In conclusion our study is the first to report an increased risk for LRR in TNBC patients following NAC in a cohort in which all patients received adjuvant RT. The risk of LRR is particularly high in African Americans with TNBC. The majority of patients received RT to chest wall/breast and regional lymph nodes, with more than half (including the majority of TNBC patients) receiving an additional boost dose of RT to the tumor bed and/or surgical scar. In spite of adjuvant RT, the incidence of LRR in TNBCs remains high. TNBC are reported to have an enriched content of cancer stem cells, which likely convey higher radioresistance (Atkinson et al. 2013), this may explain the high rate of LRR in those with <pCR. Given the importance of locoregional control in preventing future DM, our data indicate the need for intensification of therapy in TNBCs with <pCR to NAC. Options include adding radiosensitizing agents during radiation course and/or additional adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery. Identification of potential resistant subgroups of TNBCs to RT will also shed light on how to pre-select patients for treatment intensification.

Abbreviations

TNBC: 

triple-negative breast cancer

ER: 

estrogen receptor

PR: 

progesterone receptor

HER-2: 

human epidermal growth factor receptor-2

NAC: 

neoadjuvant chemotherapy

pCR: 

pathologic complete response

RT: 

radiation therapy

LRR: 

locoregional recurrence

DM: 

distant metastasis

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

CZ and EPC carried out conception generation and experimental design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the manuscript and revising the manuscript. SW carried out statistical analysis of the data, revising the manuscript. HPI, SXY and SC carried out acquisition of data. DPH, DG and KSC carried out revising the manuscript. KK carried out concept generation and experimental design, acquisition of data and revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Radiation Oncology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center
(2)
Columbia University School of Medicine
(3)
Department of Medical Oncology, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center
(4)
Department of Biostatistics, Columbia University School of Medicine

References

  1. Abdulkarim BS, Cuartero J, Hanson J, Deschenes J, Lesniak D, Sabri S (2011) Increased risk of locoregional recurrence for women with T1-2N0 triple-negative breast cancer treated with modified radical mastectomy without adjuvant radiation therapy compared with breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 29(21):2852–2858View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson RL, Yang WT, Rosen DG, Landis MD, Wong H, Lewis MT et al (2013) Cancer stem cell markers are enriched in normal tissue adjacent to triple negative breast cancer and inversely correlated with DNA repair deficiency. Breast Cancer Res BCR 15(5):R77View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V (2007) Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative, progesterone receptor (PR)-negative, and HER2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California cancer Registry. Cancer 109(9):1721–1728View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry DA, Cirrincione C, Henderson IC, Citron ML, Budman DR, Goldstein LJ et al (2006) Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 295(14):1658–1667View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyle P (2012) Triple-negative breast cancer: epidemiological considerations and recommendations. Ann Oncol Off J Eur Soc Med Oncol ESMO 23(Suppl 6):vi7–vi12View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, Dressler LG, Cowan D, Conway K et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA J Am Med Assoc 295(21):2492–2502View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, Gatti L, Moore DT, Collichio F et al (2007) The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res 13(8):2329–2334View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Caudle AS, Yu TK, Tucker SL, Bedrosian I, Litton JK, Gonzalez-Angulo AM et al (2012) 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 BCR 14(3):R83View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, Hanna WM, Kahn HK, Sawka CA et al (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res 13(15 Pt 1):4429–4434View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Deyarmin B, Kane JL, Valente AL, van Laar R, Gallagher C, Shriver CD et al (2013) Effect of ASCO/CAP guidelines for determining ER status on molecular subtype. Ann Surg Oncol 20(1):87–93View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Dominici LS, Mittendorf EA, Wang X, Liu J, Kuerer HM, Hunt KK et al (2012) Implications of constructed biologic subtype and its relationship to locoregional recurrence following mastectomy. Breast Cancer Res BCR 14(3):R82View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Esserman LJ, Berry DA, Cheang MC, Yau C, Perou CM, Carey L et al (2012) Chemotherapy response and recurrence-free survival in neoadjuvant breast cancer depends on biomarker profiles: results from the I-SPY 1 TRIAL (CALGB 150007/150012; ACRIN 6657). Breast Cancer Res Treat 132(3):1049–1062View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, Kearney T, Higgins SA, Weidhaas J et al (2006) Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 24(36):5652–5657View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S et al (2010) American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med 134(7):e48–72Google Scholar
  15. Hugh J, Hanson J, Cheang MC, Nielsen TO, Perou CM, Dumontet C et al (2009) Breast cancer subtypes and response to docetaxel in node-positive breast cancer: use of an immunohistochemical definition in the BCIRG 001 trial. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 27(8):1168–1176View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X, Sanders ME, Chakravarthy AB, Shyr Y et al (2011) Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Investig 121(7):2750–2767View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR, Andre F, Tordai A, Mejia JA et al (2008) Response to neoadjuvant therapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 26(8):1275–1281View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Lund MJ, Trivers KF, Porter PL, Coates RJ, Leyland-Jones B, Brawley OW et al (2009) Race and triple negative threats to breast cancer survival: a population-based study in Atlanta, GA. Breast Cancer Res Treat 113(2):357–370View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Maskarinec G, Sen C, Koga K, Conroy SM (2011) Ethnic differences in breast cancer survival: status and determinants. Women’s Health 7(6):677–687View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyers MO, Klauber-Demore N, Ollila DW, Amos KD, Moore DT, Drobish AA et al (2011) Impact of breast cancer molecular subtypes on locoregional recurrence in patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 18(10):2851–2857View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Mieog JS, van der Hage JA, van de Velde CJ (2007) Preoperative chemotherapy for women with operable breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (2):CD005002Google Scholar
  22. Millar EK, Graham PH, O’Toole SA, McNeil CM, Browne L, Morey AL et al (2009) Prediction of local recurrence, distant metastases, and death after breast-conserving therapy in early-stage invasive breast cancer using a five-biomarker panel. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 27(28):4701–4708View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Nguyen PL, Taghian AG, Katz MS, Niemierko A, Abi Raad RF, Boon WL et al (2008) Breast cancer subtype approximated by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER-2 is associated with local and distant recurrence after breast-conserving therapy. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 26(14):2373–2378View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z et al (2004) Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res 10(16):5367–5374View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Panoff JE, Hurley J, Takita C, Reis IM, Zhao W, Sujoy V et al (2011) Risk of locoregional recurrence by receptor status in breast cancer patients receiving modern systemic therapy and post-mastectomy radiation. Breast Cancer Res Treat 128(3):899–906View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797):747–752View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO (2008) Basal-like breast cancer: a critical review. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 26:2568–2581View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Rastogi P, Anderson SJ, Bear HD, Geyer CE, Kahlenberg MS, Robidoux A et al (2008) Preoperative chemotherapy: updates of National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocols B-18 and B-27. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 26(5):778–785View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, Ibrahim N, Cristofanilli M, Anderson K et al (2005) Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res Off J Am Assoc Cancer Res 11(16):5678–5685View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Saigal K, Hurley J, Takita C, Reis IM, Zhao W, Rodgers SE et al (2013) Risk factors for locoregional failure in patients with inflammatory breast cancer treated with trimodality therapy. Clin Breast Cancer 13(5):335–343View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H et al (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(19):10869–10874View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron JS, Nobel A et al (2003) Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100(14):8418–8423View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Blohmer JU, Costa SD, Eidtmann H, Fasching PA et al (2012) Definition and impact of pathologic complete response on prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in various intrinsic breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 30(15):1796–1804View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Vona-Davis L, Rose DP (2009) The influence of socioeconomic disparities on breast cancer tumor biology and prognosis: a review. J Women’s Health 18(6):883–893View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. White J, Mamounas E (2014) Locoregional radiotherapy in patients with breast cancer responding to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: a paradigm for treatment individualization. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol 32:494–495View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu Y, Sarkissyan M, Elshimali Y, Vadgama JV (2013) Triple negative breast tumors in African-American and Hispanic/Latina women are high in CD44+, low in CD24+, and have loss of PTEN. PLoS One 8(10):e78259View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zhang et al. 2015