Abstract
Introduction
Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) of the breast poses a high risk of locoregional recurrence, and postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) may be beneficial in IMPC. Hence, we determined the clinical value of PORT in IMPC patients.
Patients and methods
We assessed clinicopathological factors extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004–2013). Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regressions were performed to assess the independent prognostic factors on breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS).
Results
Of the 881 study patients, 444 (50.4%) and 437 (49.6%) underwent breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy (MAST), respectively, of whom 357 (80.4%) and 153 (35.0%) underwent PORT, respectively. Patients with young age, large tumor size, or advanced nodal stage were more likely to undergo MAST and PORT compared with MAST alone. Patients with progesterone receptor-positive disease were more likely to receive BCS and PORT compared with BCS alone. The 5-year BCSS and OS were 95.7% and 90.9%, respectively. On multivariate analyses, tumor size, histological grade, and estrogen receptor status were independent predictors of BCSS and OS. The types of surgical procedures (MAST vs. BCS) were not an independent predictor of survival outcomes. Patients who underwent MAST with or without PORT had similar BCSS and OS in the multivariate analyses. Those who underwent BCS plus PORT did not have better BCSS and OS than those who underwent BCS alone. In the low-, intermediate-, and high-risk groups, PORT was not associated with better BCSS and OS than non-PORT groups in patients who received BCS or MAST.
Conclusion
IMPC has favorable BCSS and OS. Regardless of the types of surgical procedures (MAST or BCS), PORT groups were not inferior to non-PORT groups on BCSS and OS.
Introduction
Invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) is a rare histological subtype of breast carcinoma, accounting for 3%–6% of all invasive breast cancers.Citation1 IMPC was first described in 1993, and the World Health Organization classified IMPC as an independent breast tumor in 2003.Citation1,Citation2 It is generally accepted that IMPC is associated with a higher probability of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and regional lymph node metastasis (66%–90%) than invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC).Citation3–Citation10 Abnormal expression of several markers, including MUC1, N-cadherin, E-cadherin, and CD44, may be related to the highly aggressive tumor biology, resulting in lymph node metastases, high recurrence rates, and short disease-free survival.Citation11–Citation21 However, whether IMPC histology is an independent prognostic factor in breast cancer remains controversial. Several studies have reported that there is no significant difference in outcomes between IMPC and IDC patients matched for lymph node status.Citation22–Citation24 Two population-based studies that contributed to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database have also confirmed that survival outcomes are similar for the IMPC and IDC subtypes.Citation25,Citation26
Postoperative radiotherapy (PORT) is an important adjuvant therapy in breast cancer patients after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or in high-risk patients after mastectomy (MAST).Citation27,Citation28 Several studies have found that the locoregional recurrence (LRR) rate of IMPC is higher than that of IDC,Citation10,Citation29 possibly because unlike IDC, IMPC is associated with several high risk factors for LRR, including LVI and lymph node metastasis. Therefore, PORT may play an important role in IMPC. However, the clinical value of PORT in patients with IMPC remains unclear. In this study, we used the SEER database to determine the clinical value of PORT in patients with IMPC.
Patients and methods
Patients
The study population consisted of patients with pathologically proven IMPC of the breast treated between 2004 and 2013, according to the current SEER program.Citation30 The inclusion criteria for this study were as follows: 1) women with localized or regional IMPC of the breast; 2) IMPC as the primary cancer diagnosis; 3) treated with local surgery including MAST and BCS; 4) availability of data on whether postoperative beam radiation was performed; and 5) availability of data on ethnicity, tumor size, histological grade, nodal stage, and estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) statuses. This study was approved by the ethics committee of The First Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen University and Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center.
Clinicopathological factors
The following clinicopathological factors were extracted from the SEER database: age at diagnosis, ethnicity, tumor size (T stage), histological grade, lymph node staging (N stage), surgical procedures, and hormone receptor status. Lymph node stage was based on the number of metastatic lymph nodes, according to the current Union for International Cancer Control/American Joint Committee on Cancer staging system.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical software package (version 21.0; IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). The χ2 test and Fisher’s exact probability test were used to evaluate differences between qualitative variables. Breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) and overall survival (OS) rates were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the risk factors for BCSS and OS by using the Cox proportional hazards model. For all statistical analyses, a p value of <0.05 was considered as significant.
Results
Patient characteristics and treatment
In total, 881 patients with IMPC of the breast were included in this study. The characteristics of the patients are listed in . The median age was 59 years (range, 25–95 years). Of the 881 patients, 511 (58.0%) had T1 stage disease. The median tumor size was 18 mm. A total of 344 (39.0%) patients had poorly differentiated or undifferentiated tumors, and 462 (52.4%) patients had node-positive disease. ER and PR positivity was observed in 90.0% and 77.0% of patients, respectively.
Table 1 Clinicopathological characteristics of the study patients
A total of 444 (50.4%) and 437 (49.6%) patients underwent BCS and MAST, respectively. In each group, 357 (80.4%) and 153 (35.0%) patients received PORT, respectively. Patients with younger age (≤49 years), larger tumors (T2–3 stages), and advanced nodal stage (N2–3 stages) were more likely to have received MAST and PORT compared to patients who received MAST alone. In BCS groups, patients with PR-positive disease were more likely to receive BCS with PORT. There were no significant differences in age, ethnicity, tumor size, tumor grade, nodal stage, and ER status between patients who received BCS alone and those who received BCS with PORT.
Factors influencing patient survival
The median follow-up was 39 months (range, 0–119 months). A total of 64 patients died, including 31 patients who died of breast cancer-related disease. The 5-year BCSS and OS rates were 95.7% and 90.9%, respectively. Univariate analyses revealed that age, tumor size, histological grade, nodal stage, ER status, and PR status were prognostic factors for BCSS and OS (). Patients who had received MAST had significantly worse BCSS and OS than those who had received BCS.
Table 2 Univariate prognostic analyses
On multivariate analyses, tumor size, histological grade, and ER status were found to be independent prognostic factors for BCSS and OS (). The types of surgical procedures were not an independent prognostic factor for survival outcomes. Patients who had undergone MAST had similar BCSS and OS rates in the multivariate analyses, regardless of whether PORT was performed. In addition, patients who received BCS plus PORT did not show improved BCSS and OS compared to patients who received BCS alone.
Table 3 Multivariate prognostic analyses
Clinical value of PORT
We further classified patients into the following subgroups to determine the clinical value of PORT in IMPC: low-risk group (T1–2N0; n = 410), intermediate-risk group (T1–2N1; n = 266), and high-risk group (T3N0 and T1–3N2–3; n = 205). Our results indicated that in patients who had undergone BCS, PORT did not improve BCSS (log-rank test: low-risk group, p = 0.072; intermediate-risk group, p = 0.764; high-risk group, p = 0.564) or OS (log-rank test: low-risk group, p = 0.402; intermediate-risk group, p = 0.734; high-risk group, p = 0.413). Similarly, in patients who had undergone MAST, PORT was not associated with better survival in the low-risk group (log-rank test: BCSS, p = 0.537; OS, p = 0.394), intermediate-risk group (log-rank test: BCSS, p = 0.981; OS, p = 0.896), or high-risk group (log-rank test: BCSS, p = 0.127; OS, p = 0.069).
Discussion
Owing to the low incidence of IMPC and the small sample sizes of previous studies, the clinical value of PORT for IMPC of the breast remains unclear. In this study, we used population-based analyses to examine the role of PORT in patients with IMPC and found that PORT did not improve the survival of patients in the overall cohort or in different subgroups based on recurrence risk, regardless of the types of surgical procedures.
LRR is a major factor in determining the use of PORT in breast cancer. Yu et alCitation29 found that regardless of adjuvant PORT, IMPC patients had a significantly higher 5-year LRR rate than IDC patients (20.9% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.0024). A study by Chen and DingCitation9 included 95 patients with IMPC, of whom 74 patients underwent MAST and 21 underwent BCS; PORT was performed depending on the indications in individual patients. The 5-year LRR rates in the entire cohort and in node-positive patients were 28.6% and 35.8%, respectively, which were significantly higher than the rates in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (10.2% and 18.3%, respectively). The 5-year LRR rates in patients with N0-, N1-, N2-, and N3-stage diseases were ~10%, 20%, 40%, and 50%, respectively,Citation9 which were significantly higher than the rates reported for IDC in prospective studies.Citation27,Citation28 As the N2 and N3 stages are absolute indications for PORT, the LRR rate was high in the study by Chen and Ding.Citation9 However, a retrospective multicenter case–control study from Korea found that regardless of PORT, the LRR rate was significantly higher in IMPC than in IDC (8.2% vs. 3.7%, p = 0.03).Citation10 Other studies have not found differences in LRR between the IMPC and IDC subtypes.Citation24,Citation31 Thus, the reported LRR rates of IMPC vary widely, and this may have an impact on the use of PORT. Owing to the limitations of the SEER database, we were unable to obtain the LRR data of the patients. Although more than half of the patients had lymph node metastases, the 5-year BCSS was 95.7% in our study, which is similar to that reported in the two previous SEER studies.Citation25,Citation26 These results suggest that IMPC patients have favorable survival outcomes, which are not inferior to those of IDC patients.Citation25,Citation26
To date, no study has specifically aimed to determine the value of PORT in patients with IMPC. In a retrospective multicenter case–control study from Korea, of the 2, 17, and 75 patients with N0-, N1-, and N2–3-stage diseases who underwent breast/chest wall radiotherapy with or without regional lymph node radiotherapy, a total of 0, 1, and 12 patients developed LRR, which was significantly higher than the LRR rates in patients with IDC (p = 0.03). However, PORT was not associated with reduced LRR in IMPC (p = 0.94).Citation10 Yu et alCitation29 included 72 IMPC patients, of whom 71.3% received PORT; the 5-year LRR rate was 20.9% in the entire cohort. A study from China included 100 patients with IMPC, of whom 72% received PORT, and 11.2% of the entire cohort developed LRR.Citation32 Li et alCitation24 included 33 patients with IMPC, all of whom underwent MAST; 78.2% were lymph node positive, and 42.4% of all patients received PORT, but only one patient developed LRR. Vingiani et alCitation31 included 49 patients with IMPC, of whom 87.8% received PORT; the LRR rate was 6.1%. We were unable to obtain the LRR data of patients who had undergone PORT in the abovementioned three studies. A SEER study by Chen et alCitation25 found that PORT was an independent predictor of disease-specific survival and OS in IMPC. However, the impact of PORT after specific types of surgical procedures and in specific risk factor-based groups was not further analyzed.
In the present study, univariate analysis showed similar survival in patients who underwent BCS alone and in those who underwent BCS plus PORT; patients who underwent MAST with or without PORT had poorer survival than those who underwent BCS plus PORT. Selection bias might account for this finding, as patients with adverse prognostic factors, such as younger age, large tumors, and advanced nodal stage, were more likely to undergo MAST with or without PORT. After adjustments for age, tumor size, tumor grade, nodal stage, ER status, and PR status in the multivariate analyses, patients who underwent BCS alone and those who underwent MAST with or without PORT had similar BCSS and OS to those who underwent BCS plus PORT. Studies on IDC have demonstrated that the improved local control rate in PORT groups is sequentially translated to improvement in the survival rate of patients with distant metastases.Citation27,Citation28 However, the BCSS and OS rates were similar in the PORT and non-PORT groups in our study, regardless of the type of surgical procedures. In addition, PORT did not improve the survival of patients after BCS or MAST in the low-risk, intermediate-risk, and high-risk groups.
The reasons why PORT did not improve survival in patients after BCS or in high-risk patients after MAST remain unknown. Possible explanations are as follows: 1) we could not obtain the patterns of LRR in the SEER database. However, IMPC is associated with several risk factors for LRR, including LVI and high probability of lymph node metastasis. In randomized studies of breast cancer, especially for patients who have undergone BCS, individual studies often find significant differences in local recurrence, but not in OS.Citation33,Citation34 Survival changes due to addition of PORT are often only seen with larger meta-analyses;Citation35,Citation36 2) although IMPC includes several high risk factors for LRR, the risk of distant metastasis is not higher in IMPC compared to IDC,Citation3,Citation10,Citation24,Citation29,Citation32 which suggests that IMPC has a special biological behavior; and 3) the vast majority of IMPC patients in this study had ER-positive disease and may have benefited from endocrine therapy, which may have reduced the potential risk of LRR.
Similar to a previous SEER study,Citation25 approximately half of the patients in our study underwent BCS, and the BCSS and OS rates in the BCS and MAST groups were similar. Studies have shown that MAST is the most common type of surgical procedure in IMPC and that the types of surgical procedures were not associated with survival outcomes.Citation9,Citation24,Citation37 However, in a retrospective multicenter case–control study from Korea (n = 267), 57.7% of patients underwent BCS, and BCS patients were found to have better LRR control rates than MAST patients (96.7% vs. 86.5%, p = 0.03).Citation10 Therefore, the survival outcomes of BCS were not inferior to those of MAST in patients with IMPC of the breast.
We need to acknowledge several limitations of our study. First, retrospective studies have inherent bias. Second, detailed histopathological data, including LVI status and resection margin status, were unavailable in the SEER database. Data on the use of systemic therapies (i.e., chemotherapy or endocrine therapy) were also lacking in the SEER database. In addition, the target volume and radiation dose were not recorded, and the patterns of LRR in patients with and without PORT were also unknown. Finally, it has been shown that there are many inaccuracies in the SEER databases, with high rates of underreporting for PORT receipt.Citation38 However, the primary strength of this study is that we investigated the role of PORT in patients with IMPC of the breast, by using a large population-based database. Therefore, this study population is more diversified and potentially more generalizable than retrospective studies from single institutions.
Conclusion
IMPC has favorable BCSS and OS rates. Regardless of the types of surgical procedures (MAST or BCS), PORT groups were not inferior to non-PORT groups on BCSS and OS in IMPC patients. Further prospective large-scale studies are necessary to confirm the clinical value of PORT in IMPC.
Acknowledgments
This work was partly supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (No. 2016J01635), Science and Technology Planning Projects of Xiamen Science & Technology Bureau (No. 3502Z20174070), and Guangdong Medical Research Foundation (No. A2017023).
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.
References
- TavassoliFADevileePPathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. World Health Organization Classification of TumoursLyonIARC Press20033536
- SiriaunkgulSTavassoliFAInvasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breastMod Pathol1993666606628302807
- ZekiogluOErhanYCirisMBayramogluHOzdemirNInvasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: high incidence of lymph node metastasis with extranodal extension and its immunohistochemical profile compared with invasive ductal carcinomaHistopathology2004441182314717664
- Luna-MoréSde los SantosFBretónJJCañadasMAEstrogen and progesterone receptors, c-erbB-2, p53, and Bcl-2 in thirty-three invasive micropapillary breast carcinomasPathol Res Pract1996192127328685038
- KurodaHSakamotoGOhnisiKItoyamaSClinical and pathologic features of invasive micropapillary carcinomaBreast Cancer200411216917415550863
- De la CruzCMoriyaTEndohMInvasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathological and immunohistochemical studyPathol Int2004542909614720138
- PettinatoGManivelCJPanicoLSparanoLPetrellaGInvasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathologic study of 62 cases of a poorly recognized variant with highly aggressive behaviorAm J Clin Pathol2004121685786615198358
- GuoXJChenLLangRGFanYFuLRelationship between lymph node metastasis and pathologic features of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of breastZhonghua Bing Li Xue Za Zhi2006351812 Chinese16608641
- ChenHLDingAComparison of invasive micropapillary and triple negative invasive ductal carcinoma of the breastBreast201524672373126392199
- YuJIChoiDHHuhSJDifferences in prognostic factors and failure patterns between invasive micropapillary carcinoma and carcinoma with micropapillary component versus invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: retrospective multicenter case-control study (KROG 13-06)Clin Breast Cancer2015155353361e1225776197
- AcsGEspositoNNRakosyZLarongaCZhangPJInvasive ductal carcinomas of the breast showing partial reversed cell polarity are associated with lymphatic tumor spread and may represent part of a spectrum of invasive micropapillary carcinomaAm J Surg Pathol201034111637164620975342
- NagiCGuttmanMJafferSN-cadherin expression in breast cancer: correlation with an aggressive histologic variant – invasive micropapillary carcinomaBreast Cancer Res Treat200594322523516258702
- LimMGAdsayNVGrignonDJOsunkoyaAOE-cadherin expression in plasmacytoid, signet ring cell and micropapillary variants of urothelial carcinoma: comparison with usual-type high-grade urothelial carcinomaMod Pathol201124224124720818341
- KubaSOhtaniHYamaguchiJIncomplete inside-out growth pattern in invasive breast carcinoma: association with lymph vessel invasion and recurrence-free survivalVirchows Arch2011458215916921221635
- LiYSKanekoMSakamotoDGTakeshimaYInaiKThe reversed apical pattern of MUC1 expression is characteristics of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breastBreast Cancer2006131586316518063
- GongYSunXHuoLWileyELRaoMSExpression of cell adhesion molecules, CD44s and E-cadherin, and microvessel density in invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breastHistopathology2005461243015656882
- LiWLiuFLeiTThe clinicopathological significance of CD44+/CD24−/low and CD24+ tumor cells in invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breastPathol Res Pract20102061282883420977976
- MoritaniSIchiharaSHasegawaMSerous papillary adenocarcinoma of the female genital organs and invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast. Are WT1, CA125, and GCDFP-15 useful in differential diagnosis?Hum Pathol200839566667118339419
- WeiJCuiLLiuFE-selectin and Sialyl Lewis X expression is associated with lymph node metastasis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breastInt J Surg Pathol201018319320018611928
- LiuFLangRWeiJIncreased expression of SDF-1/CXCR4 is associated with lymph node metastasis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breastHistopathology200954674175019438749
- CuiLFGuoXJWeiJOverexpression of TNF-alpha and TNFRII in invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathological correlationsHistopathology200853438138818764880
- NassarHWallisTAndeaADeyJAdsayVVisscherDClinicopathologic analysis of invasive micropapillary differentiation in breast carcinomaMod Pathol200114983684111557778
- PaterakosMWatkinWGEdgertonSMMooreDH2ndThorADInvasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: a prognostic studyHum Pathol199930121459146310667424
- LiGYangSYaoJInvasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast had poor clinical characteristics but showed no difference in prognosis compared with invasive ductal carcinomaWorld J Surg Oncol201614120727492008
- ChenACPaulinoACSchwartzMRPopulation-based comparison of prognostic factors in invasive micropapillary and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breastBr J Cancer2014111361962224921921
- ChenACPaulinoACSchwartzMRPrognostic markers for invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: a population-based analysisClin Breast Cancer201313213313923246269
- FisherBAndersonSBryantJTwenty-year follow-up of a ran-domized trial comparing total mastectomy, lumpectomy, and lumpectomy plus irradiation for the treatment of invasive breast cancerN Engl J Med2002347161233124112393820
- OvergaardMHansenPSOvergaardJPostoperative radiotherapy in high-risk premenopausal women with breast cancer who receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group 82b TrialN Engl J Med1997337149499559395428
- YuJIChoiDHParkWDifferences in prognostic factors and patterns of failure between invasive micropapillary carcinoma and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: matched case-control studyBreast201019323123720304650
- Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program [homepage on the Internet]SEER*Stat Database: Incidence - SEER 18 Regs Research Data + Hurricane Katrina Impacted Louisiana Cases, Nov 2016 Sub (1973–2014) varying) - Linked To County Attributes - Total U.S., 1969–2015 CountiesNational Cancer Institute, DCCPS, Surveillance Research Program, Surveillance Systems Branch released April 2017, based on the November 2016 submission. Available from: https://seer.cancer.gov/data/Accessed March 4, 2017
- VingianiAMaisonneuvePDell’ortoPThe clinical relevance of micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: a case-control studyHistopathology201363221722423763700
- ChenLFanYLangRGBreast carcinoma with micropapillary features: clinicopathologic study and long-term follow-up of 100 casesInt J Surg Pathol200816215516318417672
- KillanderFKarlssonPAndersonHNo breast cancer subgroup can be spared postoperative radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery. Fifteen-year results from the Swedish Breast Cancer Group randomised trial, SweBCG 91 RTEur J Cancer201667576527614164
- Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative GroupFavourable and unfavourable effects on long-term survival of radiotherapy for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trialsLancet200035592171757177010832826
- EBCTCG (Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group)McGalePTaylorCEffect of radiotherapy after mastectomy and axillary surgery on 10-year recurrence and 20-year breast cancer mortality: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 8135 women in 22 randomised trialsLancet201438399352127213524656685
- Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG)DarbySMcGalePEffect of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery on 10-year recurrence and 15-year breast cancer death: meta-analysis of individual patient data for 10,801 women in 17 randomised trialsLancet201137898041707171622019144
- LiuYHuangXBiRYangWShaoZSimilar prognoses for invasive micropapillary breast carcinoma and pure invasive ductal carcinoma: a retrospectively matched cohort study in ChinaPLoS One201499e10656425188383
- JagsiRAbrahamsePHawleySTGraffJJHamiltonASKatzSJUnderascertainment of radiotherapy receipt in surveillance, epidemiology, and end results registry dataCancer2012118233334121717446