Sung Hyuna, Garcia-Closas Montserrat, Chang-Claude Jenny, Blows Fiona M, Ali H Raza, Figueroa Jonine, Nevanlinna Heli, Fagerholm Rainer, Heikkilä Päivi, Blomqvist Carl, Giles Graham G, Milne Roger L, Southey Melissa C, McLean Catriona, Mannermaa Arto, Kosma Veli-Matti, Kataja Vesa, Sironen Reijo, Couch Fergus J, Olson Janet E, Hallberg Emily, Olswold Curtis, Cox Angela, Cross Simon S, Kraft Peter, Tamimi Rulla M, Eliassen A Heather, Schmidt Marjanka K, Bolla Manjeet K, Wang Qin, Easton Douglas, Howat William J, Coulson Penny, Pharoah Paul D P, Sherman Mark E, Yang Xiaohong R
Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Bethesda, 20850 MD, USA.
Division of Breast Cancer Research, Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Rd, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5NG London, UK.
Br J Cancer. 2016 Feb 2;114(3):298-304. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2015.437. Epub 2015 Dec 17.
Luminal A breast cancer defined as hormone receptor positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) negative is known to be heterogeneous. Previous study showed that luminal A tumours with the expression of basal markers ((cytokeratin (CK) 5 or CK5/6) or epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)) were associated with poorer prognosis compared with those that stained negative for basal markers. Prompted by this study, we assessed whether tumour characteristics and risk factors differed by basal marker status within luminal A tumours.
We pooled 5040 luminal A cases defined by immunohistochemistry (4490 basal-negative ((CK5 (or CK5/6))- and EGFR-) and 550 basal-positive ((CK5 (or CK5/6+)) or EGFR+)) from eight studies participating in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. Case-case comparison was performed using unconditional logistic regression.
Tumour characteristics and risk factors did not vary significantly by the expression of basal markers, although results suggested that basal-positive luminal tumours tended to be smaller and node negative, and were more common in women with a positive family history and lower body mass index.
Most established breast cancer risk factors were similar in basal-positive and basal-negative luminal A tumours. The non-significant but suggestive differences in tumour features and family history warrant further investigations.
管腔A型乳腺癌被定义为激素受体阳性且人表皮生长因子受体2（HER2）阴性，已知其具有异质性。先前的研究表明，与基底标志物染色阴性的管腔A型肿瘤相比，表达基底标志物（细胞角蛋白（CK）5或CK5/6或表皮生长因子受体（EGFR））的管腔A型肿瘤预后较差。受该研究启发，我们评估了管腔A型肿瘤内肿瘤特征和危险因素是否因基底标志物状态而异。
我们汇总了来自乳腺癌协会联盟的八项研究中通过免疫组织化学定义的5040例管腔A型病例（4490例基底阴性（CK5（或CK5/6）和EGFR阴性）和550例基底阳性（CK5（或CK5/6+）或EGFR阳性））。采用无条件逻辑回归进行病例对照比较。
尽管结果表明基底阳性的管腔肿瘤往往较小且无淋巴结转移，在有家族史阳性和较低体重指数的女性中更常见，但肿瘤特征和危险因素并未因基底标志物的表达而有显著差异。
大多数已确定的乳腺癌危险因素在基底阳性和基底阴性的管腔A型肿瘤中相似。肿瘤特征和家族史方面虽无显著但有提示性的差异值得进一步研究。
