Immunohistochemical Tumor Characteristics of Breast Cancer according to Participation in the Mammography Screening Program

Abstract

Background Breast cancer detected in participants of the German Mammography Screening Program (MSP) shows a favorable distribution of prognostic parameters and hormone receptor status compared to cancer in non-participants, even including interval cancers. The aim of our study is to examine the distribution of intrinsic breast cancer subtypes considering the proliferation marker Ki-67 in participants and non-participants in a population-based setting and to evaluate the association between Ki-67 and tumour characteristics.

Methods Population based data from the Epidemiological Cancer Registry Lower Saxony is analysed in this retrospectiv observational study. 1115 cases of breast cancer (in situ and invasive, year of diagnosis 2014) among women aged 50–69 years and residing in the regions of two screening units of Lower Saxony are included (n = 285 634 biennially entitled women). The group of the participants containes cancers that are detected by screening or in the interval of 24 month after a negative screening. The group of non-participants includes all breast cancers without match with screening data.

Results Considering cases with invasive breast cancer (n = 953) tumours detected in screening participants are more often diagnosed in early T stage (T1, p < 0,0001), HER2 negativ (p = 0,0336), with lower Ki-67 percentage scores (p < 0,0003) and without loco-regional lymph node involvement (p < 0,0001), compared to tumours in non-participants – even including interval cancers. Regarding grading both groups show less differences (p = 0,1718), because interval cancer are more comparable with cancers in non-participants. We find distinct differences in distribution of the intrinsic suptypes between both groups (p < 0,0003): especially in category Luminal A (38,4 % vs. 26,7 %), but also in the categories Luminal A or B (26,7 vs. 22,1 %), Luminal B (21,1 vs. 30,6 %), HER2 enriched (5,1 vs. 7,8 %) und triple-negative (8,8 vs. 12,8 %). Ki-67 is associated with all analysed prognostic factors, first of all with grading (p < 0,0001).

Discussion According to the S3-Guidelines an adjuvant chemotherapy can be avoided in the majority of Luminal A type breast cancers. Assuming that both groups received a guideline-based therapy MSP participants (including interval cancers) could be treated with less aggressive systemic therapy compared with cancers in non-participants. Our results indicate for both groups that Ki-67 is a prognostic marker, which is not independent of other histopathological factors.

Key words

breast cancer - mammography screening - intrinsic subtypes - Ki-67 - cancer registry

Schlüsselwörter

Mammakarzinom - Mammografie-Screening - intrinsische Subtypen - Ki-67 - Krebsregister

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
10. Juni 2022

• References

• 1 Robert Koch-Institut und die Gesellschaft der epidemiologischen Krebsregister in Deutschland e. V., Hrsg. Krebs in Deutschland für 2017/2018. 13. Ausgabe. 2021 DOI: 10.25646/8353
• 2 Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition--summary document. Ann Oncol 2008; 19: 614-622 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdm481.
• 3 Walters S, Maringe C, Butler J. et al. Breast cancer survival and stage at diagnosis in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK, 2000-2007: a population-based study. Br J Cancer 2013; 108: 1195-1208 DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2013.6.
• 4 Malek D, Kaab-Sanyal V. Implementation of the German Mammography Screening Program (German MSP) and First Results for Initial Examinations, 2005–2009. Breast Care (Basel) 2016; 11: 183-187 DOI: 10.1159/000446359.
• 5 Urbschat I, Gnas L, Pauly F. et al. Brustkrebs-T-Stadienverteilung von Screeningfällen, Intervallkarzinomen, früheren und Nichtteilnehmerinnen des MSP: Eine Auswertung des EKN. Das Gesundheitswesen 2017; 79: 773 DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1605975.
• 6 Braun B, Khil L, Tio J. et al. Differences in breast cancer characteristics by mammography screening participation or non-participation. Deutsches Aerzteblatt Online 2018; DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2018.0520.
• 7 Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie (Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft, Deutsche Krebshilfe, AWMF). S3-Leitlinie Früherkennung, Diagnose, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms, Version 4.3. 2020 Im Internet (Stand: 06.07.2020): http://www.leitlinienprogramm-onkologie.de/leitlinien/mammakarzinom
• 8 Harbeck N, Gnant M. Breast cancer. Lancet 2017; 389: 1134-1150 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31891-8.
• 9 Viale G, Regan MM, Mastropasqua MG. et al. Predictive value of tumor Ki-67 expression in two randomized trials of adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy for node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 207-212 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djm289.
• 10 Inwald EC, Klinkhammer-Schalke M, Hofstadter F. et al. Ki-67 is a prognostic parameter in breast cancer patients: results of a large population-based cohort of a cancer registry. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2013; 139: 539-552 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2560-8.
• 11 Petrelli F, Viale G, Cabiddu M. et al. Prognostic value of different cut-off levels of Ki-67 in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 64,196 patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2015; 153: 477-491 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-015-3559-0.
• 12 Untch M, Fasching PA, Brucker SY. et al. Treatment of Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Evidence, Controversies, Consensus: German Expert Opinions on the 17th International St. Gallen Consensus Conference. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd 2021; 81: 637-653 DOI: 10.1055/a-1483-2782.
• 13 AGO. Diagnostik und Therapie früher und fortgeschrittener Mammakarzinome. 2021 Im Internet (Stand: 02.08.2021): http://www.ago-online.de
• 14 van Luijt PA, Heijnsdijk EA, Fracheboud J. et al. The distribution of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) grade in 4232 women and its impact on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening. Breast Cancer Res 2016; 18: 47 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-016-0705-5.
• 15 Bucchi L, Barchielli A, Ravaioli A. et al. Screen-detected vs clinical breast cancer: the advantage in the relative risk of lymph node metastases decreases with increasing tumour size. Br J Cancer 2005; 92: 156-161 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602289.
• 16 Fracheboud J, Otto SJ, van Dijck JA. et al. Decreased rates of advanced breast cancer due to mammography screening in The Netherlands. Br J Cancer 2004; 91: 861-867 DOI: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6602075.
• 17 Urbschat I, Kieschke J, Hecht G. Programm-Screening: Brustkrebsinzidenz, Tumorstadienverteilung und Intervallkarzinomhäufigkeit nach Einführung des Mammografie-Screening-Programms in Niedersachsen. Niedersächsisches Ärzteblatt 3/2014: 44–47
• 18 Cianfrocca M, Goldstein LJ. Prognostic and predictive factors in early-stage breast cancer. Oncologist 2004; 9: 606-616 DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.9-6-606.
• 19 Kolben T, Harbeck N, Wuerstlein R. et al. Endocrine sensitivity is decisive for patient outcome in small node-negative breast cancers (BC) (pT1a,b) – results from the Munich Cancer Registry. Breast 2015; 24: 24-31 DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.10.007.
• 20 Weigel S, Batzler WU, Decker T. et al. First epidemiological analysis of breast cancer incidence and tumor characteristics after implementation of population-based digital mammography screening. Rofo 2009; 181: 1144-1150 DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1109831.
• 21 Gluz O, Nitz UA, Christgen M. et al. West German Study Group Phase III PlanB Trial: First Prospective Outcome Data for the 21-Gene Recurrence Score Assay and Concordance of Prognostic Markers by Central and Local Pathology Assessment. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34: 2341-2349 DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.5383.
• 22 Degenhardt T, Harbeck N, Würstlein R. Individuelle Tumortherapie beim Mammakarzinom – Möglichkeiten der Vermeidung von Über- und Untertherapie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung zielgerichteter Therapien. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Onkologie 2015; 47: 57-65
• 23 Arima N, Nishimura R, Osako T. et al. Ki-67 index value and progesterone receptor status can predict prognosis and suitable treatment in node-negative breast cancer patients with estrogen receptor-positive and HER2-negative tumors. Oncol Lett 2019; 17: 616-622 DOI: 10.3892/ol.2018.9633.
• 24 Gerdes J, Schwab U, Lemke H. et al. Production of a mouse monoclonal antibody reactive with a human nuclear antigen associated with cell proliferation. Int J Cancer 1983; 31: 13-20 DOI: 10.1002/ijc.2910310104.
• 25 van Dooijeweert C, van Diest PJ, Ellis IO. Grading of invasive breast carcinoma: the way forward. Virchows Arch 2021; DOI: 10.1007/s00428-021-03141-2.
• 26 Kanyilmaz G, Yavuz BB, Aktan M. et al. Prognostic Importance of Ki-67 in Breast Cancer and Its Relationship with Other Prognostic Factors. Eur J Breast Health 2019; 15: 256-261 DOI: 10.5152/ejbh.2019.4778.
• 27 Ragab HM, Samy N, Afify M. et al. Assessment of Ki-67 as a potential biomarker in patients with breast cancer. J Genet Eng Biotechnol 2018; 16: 479-484 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgeb.2018.03.002.
• 28 Liang Q, Ma D, Gao RF. et al. Effect of Ki-67 Expression Levels and Histological Grade on Breast Cancer Early Relapse in Patients with Different Immunohistochemical-based Subtypes. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 7648 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-64523-1.
• 29 Fasching PA, Gass P, Haberle L. et al. Prognostic effect of Ki-67 in common clinical subgroups of patients with HER2-negative, hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2019; 175: 617-625 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-019-05198-9.
• 30 Nielsen TO, Leung SCY, Rimm DL. et al. Assessment of Ki67 in Breast Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the International Ki67 in Breast Cancer Working Group. J Natl Cancer Inst 2021; 113: 808-819 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa201.
• 31 Cabioglu N, Gurdal SO, Kayhan A. et al. Poor Biological Factors and Prognosis of Interval Breast Cancers: Long-Term Results of Bahcesehir (Istanbul) Breast Cancer Screening Project in Turkey. JCO Glob Oncol 2020; 6: 1103-1113 DOI: 10.1200/GO.20.00145.
• 32 Domingo L, Salas D, Zubizarreta R. et al. Tumor phenotype and breast density in distinct categories of interval cancer: results of population-based mammography screening in Spain. Breast Cancer Res 2014; 16: R3 DOI: 10.1186/bcr3595.
• 33 Caldarella A, Puliti D, Crocetti E. et al. Biological characteristics of interval cancers: a role for biomarkers in the breast cancer screening. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2013; 139: 181-185 DOI: 10.1007/s00432-012-1304-1.
• 34 Alanko J, Tanner M, Vanninen R. et al. Triple-negative and HER2-positive breast cancers found by mammography screening show excellent prognosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2021; 187: 267-274 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-06060-z1.
• 35 Urbschat I, Kieschke J, Schlanstedt-Jahn U. et al. Beiträge bevölkerungsbezogener Krebsregister zur Evaluation des bundesweiten Mammographie-Screenings – Erste Ergebnisse zu Brustkrebsinzidenz und T-Stadienverteilung von Teilnehmerinnen des Mammographie-Screenings Weser-Ems (MSWE) im bevölkerungsbezogenen Vergleich. Gesundheitswesen 2005; 67: 448-454 DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-858515.
• 36 Garrido MV, Zentner A, Busse R. et al. Systematischer Review internationaler Evaluationen von Mammographie-Screening-Programmen – Strategien zur Kontrolle von Bias. TU Berlin und ZI KVB. 2010
• 37 Czwikla J, Langner I, Schüssler F. et al. Soziodemografische und gesundheitliche Unterschiede in der Teilnahme am deutschen Mammografie-Screening-Programm. Gesundheitswesen 2019; 81 (08) 739 DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1694587.
• 38 Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft. https://krebsgesellschaft.de/onko-internetportal/basis-informationen-krebs/basis-informationen-krebs-allgemeine-informationen/erblicher-brustkrebs-wenn-der-k.html (Zugegriffen: 27.01.2022)
• 39 Orientierungshilfe für bildgebende Verfahren. Empfehlung der Strahlenschutzkommission vom 27.06.2019. https://www.ssk.de/SharedDocs/Beratungsergebnisse/2019/2019-06-27Orientie.html (Zugegriffen: 27.01.2022)
• 40 Urbschat I, Schnakenberg R, Jopp C. et al. Validierung einer Fragebogenerhebung zum Diagnoseanlass von Brustkrebs anhand von Krebsregisterdaten, DGEpi. 2015 http://www.krebsregister-niedersachsen.de/dateien/veröffentlichungen/Poster/DGEPI%202015_Poster_final.pdf (Zugegriffen: 27.01.2022)