Clinical Characteristics of Different Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer in Young Patients

Shu Wang
2013-01-01
Abstract:Objective To investigate the clinical characteristics and prognosis of different molecular subtypes of breast cancer in young patients. Methods The clinical data of 77 young breast cancer patients (≤35 years old) treated in Department of Breast Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, from May 2003 to December 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. Of these 77 patients, 69 were diagnosed as having invasive cancers, then they were categorized into four molecular subtypes: luminal A, luminal B, HER-2 over-expressing and triple negative, based on immunohistochemistry (IHC) of ER, PR, HER-2 expression. The clinical characteristics and prognosis of different molecular subtypes were analyzed. One-way ANOVA was used for quantitative data, and nonparametric rank test or Fisher’s exact test was used for qualitative data. Results The number of young breast cancer patients accounted for 7.2%(77/1065) of this group in the same period (1065 patients), including 38 (49.4%, 38/77) in T3 stage (5 cm), and 37 (48.1%, 37/77) with axillary lymph node metastases. The proportions of clinical stage Ⅱ and Ⅲ were 42.9% (33/77) and 35.1% (27/77) respectively. Sixty-nine patients had invasive carcinoma among the 77 young patients, including 34 patients (49.3%, 34/69) in luminal A subtype, 8 (11.6%,8/69) in luminal B subtype, 12 (17.4%,12/69) in HER-2 over-expressing subtype, and 15 (21.7%,15/69) in triple negative subtype. There were no statistically significant differences among different molecular subtypes regarding the age, tumor size, lymph node metastasis, clinical stage, lymph vascular invasion, tumor grade, and p53 status (P0.050). Conclusions The clinical stage of young breast cancer patients is more advanced, but there are no significant differences in clinicopathologic characteristics among different molecular subtypes. Furthermore, whether the molecular subtype is valuable to guide the individualized treatment of young breast cancer patients still needs further confirmation.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?