Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC), a term first coined by Lee and Tannenbaum in 1924, is an aggressive form of breast cancer that accounts for approximately 1% to 6% of all cases in the United States. Over the years, various clinical definitions have been used to describe IBC. The most widely used is the definition introduced by the American Joint Committee on Cancer, which states that IBC "is a clinicopathologic entity characterized by diffuse erythema and edema (peau d'orange) of the breast, often without an underlying palpable mass."
Two varieties of IBC have been identified in the literature. Primary IBC refers to a de novo presentation in which IBC develops in a previously otherwise normal breast. Secondary IBC is a term used to describe a situation where a previously diagnosed noninflammatory invasive breast cancer acquires inflammatory features or when an inflammatory recurrence occurs at the site of a mastectomy for a noninflammatory breast cancer. For the purposes of this review, we will use the term IBC to mean primary IBC.
IBC is a rare distinct epidemiologic form of locally advanced breast cancer. In a recent analysis of the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, Hance et al assessed data from 180,224 histologically confirmed invasive breast cancer patients between the years 1988 to 2000. They found that women with IBC comprised approximately 2% of all breast cancer cases in this population, tended to present at a younger age, and were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation. Patients with IBC also had a shorter survival (median: 2.9 years) than women with noninflammatory breast cancer, accounting for 7% of all breast cancer-specific deaths.
Due to the rarity of IBC, few epidemiologic studies have addressed the etiology of IBC and most are retrospective. Factors such as age at menarche, menopausal status, smoking, and alcohol consumption have not been consistently associated with IBC.[5,6] In a small retrospective study by Chang et al, high body mass index (BMI > 26.65 kg/m2) was associated with an increased risk for IBC compared to non-IBC patients (odds ratio = 2.40, 95% confidence interval = 1.05-5.73). These observations require further prospective validation before determining their value.
Clinical Characteristics and Classification of IBC
Unlike other forms of invasive breast cancer that usually present with a painless mass, IBC is associated with a variety of clinical presentations, making the diagnosis somewhat difficult. In 1956, Haagensen recognized this problem and established a set of clinical diagnostic criteria that are still in use. Clinical characteristics of IBC (Table 1) include a painful, tender, rapidly enlarging breast, and edema and erythema of the skin of the breast (Figure 1). More often than not, a breast mass is not palpable. Other changes associated with IBC include a "peau d'orange" (skin of an orange) appearance of the overlying skin of the breast, reflecting the exaggerated appearance of hair follicle pits that occur secondary to skin edema. Flattening, crusting, and retraction of the nipple can also occur as the disease progresses.
Unfortunately, most of the clinical characteristics associated with IBC are nonspecific, resulting in a significant number of cases that are initially diagnosed as mastitis or breast abscess. This leads to delays in appropriate investigation and, together with the rapid rate of disease progression (usually less than 2 months) that is pathognomonic of IBC, a significant proportion of patients present with advanced disease. Supporting studies have shown that the involvement of ipsilateral axillary and supraclavicular lymph nodes is common, with up to one-third of patients also presenting with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis.[1,2,4,9] According to the AmericanJoint Committee on Cancer, IBC is classified as a T4d tumor, thus classifying all IBC patients as stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV, depending on nodal status and the presence of distant metastases.
Molecular Biology of IBC
The designation of "inflammatory" in IBC derives from breast skin changes that resemble an acute inflammatory process. However, a true state of inflammation is not present in IBC. The skin changes are secondary to invasion of the dermal lymphatic vessels by tumor emboli,[1,2] which is a typical pathologic feature described in IBC. These emboli are believed to obstruct lymphatic drainage, thereby contributing to the observed clinical signs of erythema and edema.
Since the diagnosis of IBC is made on clinical grounds, absence of dermal lymphatic invasion does not exclude the diagnosis. Additional pathologic characteristics (Table 2) include high-grade, negative-hormone-receptor status[10,11] and overexpression of HER2—all factors that predict for a poor outcome. Other molecular features of IBC include mutation of the p53 suppressor gene, overexpression of E-cadherin, and an increased expression of proangiogenic factors.
IBC tumors are known to be highly vascular neoplasms with prominent features of angiolymphatic invasion manifested pathologically by increased microvessel density, high endothelial cell proliferation, and expression of angiogenic factors (basic fibroblast growth factor [bFGF], vascular endothelial growth factor [VEGF], interleukin [IL]-6 and IL-8).[14-16] The IBC animal xenograft model WIBC-9 has also been shown to overexpress other angiogenic factors such as Ang-1, Tie-1, and Tie-2, compared to noninflammatory breast xenografts (SK-BR3). Lymphangiogenic factors such as VEGF-C, VEGF-D, VEGFR-3, Prox-1, and lymphatic vessel endothelial receptor 1 has also been shown to be strongly expressed in IBC.
The role of p27kip1, a cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor that is thought to be involved in the induction of apoptosis, cell adhesion, promotion of cell differentiation, and regulation of drug resistance, has recently been evaluated in patients with IBC. M.D. Anderson Cancer Center researchers evaluated the role of p27kip1 in 38 IBC patients who had received primary systemic chemotherapy. In this study, p27kip1 was downregulated in the majority of patients (84.2%) and predicted for poor outcome.
Diagnostic imaging plays an important role in the staging of breast tumors. In patients with IBC, the characteristic mammographic changes include skin thickening (with associated stromal or trabecular thickening), diffusely increased breast density, and an overall increase in the size of the breast.[20,21] An underlying mass is usually not present or may be obscured by surrounding changes in the breast. Microcalcifications may also be observed but are often masked by the increased breast density. Similarly, ultrasound of the breast in an IBC patient typically shows skin thickening with associated underlying tissue edema and dilated lymphatics. Unlike such changes on mammograms, underlying masses and associated regional lymphadenopathy are more easily visible by ultrasound.
Importantly, both imaging modalities cannot distinguish IBC from other breast conditions such as mastitis, locally advanced breast cancer with skin changes, and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. It is therefore important that clinical history, imaging, and pathologic evidence of invasive carcinoma be used together to make a diagnosis of IBC.
Other imaging techniques such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and positron-emission tomography (PET) scanning have not been studied extensively in IBC patients. MRI is increasingly being used in the diagnosis and staging of patients with breast cancers due to its increased sensitivity for invasive breast cancer, lack of ionizing radiation, and superior characterization of enhancing parenchyma. MRI has also been useful in characterizing tumor physiology and in monitoring the response of breast tumors to primary systemic chemotherapy.[23,24] PET is rapidly emerging as a technique for comprehensive staging; however, its superiority over other imaging modalities has yet to be proven.
1. Lee BJ, Tannenbaum EN: Inflammatory carcinoma of the breast. Surg Gynecol Obstet 39:580-595, 1924.
2. Jaiyesimi IA, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi G: Inflammatory breast cancer: A review. J Clin Oncol 10:1014-1024, 1992.
3. Breast, in Green FL, Page DL, Flemming ID, et al (eds): AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th ed, pp 225-281. New York, Springer-Verlag, 2002.
4. Hance KW, Anderson WF, Devesa SS, et al Trends in inflammatory breast carcinoma incidence and survival: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program at the National Cancer Institute. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:966-975, 2005.
5. Anderson WF, Schairer C, Chen BE, et al: Epidemiology of inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). Breast Dis 22:9-23, 2005-2006.
6. Chang S, Buzdar AU, Hursting SD: Inflammatory breast cancer and body mass index. J Clin Oncol 16:3731-3735, 1998.
7. Haagensen CD: Inflammatory carcinoma, in Diseases of the Breast, pp 488-498. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 1956.
8. Leitch A: Peau d'orange in acute mammary carcinoma: Its cause and diagnostic value. Lancet 1:861-863, 1909.
9. Merajver SD, Weber BL, Cody R, et al: Breast conservation and prolonged chemotherapy for locally advanced breast cancer: The University of Michigan experience. J Clin Oncol 15:2873-2881, 1997.
10. Paradiso A, Tommasi S, Brandi M, et al: Cell kinetics and hormonal receptor status in inflammatory breast carcinoma: Comparison with locally advanced disease. Cancer 64:1922-1927, 1989.
11. Kleer CG, van Golen KL, Merajver SD: Molecular biology of breast cancer metastasis inflammatory breast cancer: clinical syndrome and molecular determinants. Breast Cancer Res 2:423-429, 2000.
12. Turpin E, Bieche I, Berthaeau P, et al: The increased incidence of ERBB2 over expression and TP53 mutation in inflammatory breast cancer. Oncogene 21:7593-7597, 2002.
13. Kleer CG, van Golen KL, Braun T, et al: Persistent E-cadherin expression in inflammatory breast cancer. Mod Pathol 14:458-464, 2002.
14. Colpaert CG, Vermeulen PB, Benoy I, et al: Inflammatory breast cancer shows angiogenesis with high endothelial proliferation rate and strong E-cadherin expression. Br J Cancer 88:718-725, 2003.
15. Van der Auwera I, Van Laere SJ, Van Den Eynden GG, et al: Increased angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis in inflammatory versus noninflammatory breast cancer by real-time reverse transcriptase-PCR gene expression quantification. Clin Cancer Res 10:7965-7971, 2004.
16. Kleer CG, Van Golen KL, Merajver SD: Molecular biology of breast cancer metastasis. Inflammatory breast cancer: Clinical syndrome and molecular determinants. Breast Cancer Res 2:423-429, 2000.
17. Shirakawa K, Tsuda H, Heike Y, et al: Absence of endothelial cells, central necrosis and fibrosis are associated with aggressive inflammatory breast cancer. Cancer Res 61:445-451, 2001.
18. Van der Auwera I, Van den Eynden GG, Copaert CG, et al: Tumor lymphangiogenesis in inflammatory breast carcinoma: A histomorphometric study. Clin Cancer Res 11:7637-7642, 2005.
19. Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Guarneri V, Gong Y, et al: Downregulation of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor p27kip1 might correlate with poor disease-free and overall survival in inflammatory breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 7:326-330, 2006.
20. Kushwaha AC, Whitman GJ, Stelling CB, et al: Primary inflammatory carcinoma of the breast: Retrospective review of mammographic finding. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:535-538, 2000.
21. Gunhan-Bilgen I, Ustun EE, Memis A: Inflammatory breast carcinoma: mammographic, ultrasonagraphic, clinical and pathologic findings in 142 cases. Radiology 223:829-838, 2002.
22. Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Bick U, Bradley WG, et al: International investigation of breast MRI: Results of a multicentre study concerning diagnostic parameters for contrast-enhanced MRI based on 519 histopathologically correlated lesions. Eur Radiol 11:531-546, 2001.
23. Rieber A, Brambs HJ, Gabelmann A, et al: Breast MRI for monitoring response of primary breast cancer to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 12:1711-1719, 2002.
24. Rosen EL, Blackwell KL, Baker JA, et al: Accuracy of MRI in the detection of residual breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:1275-1282, 2003.
25. Giordano S, Hortobagyi G: Locally advanced breast cancers: Role of medical oncology, in Bland KI, Copeland EM (eds): The Breast, 3rd ed, pp 1283-1300. Philadelphia, WB Saunders, 2004.
26. Low J, Berman A, Steinber S, et al: Long term follow up for locally advanced and inflammatory breast cancer patients treated with multimodality therapy. J Clin Oncol 22:4065-4074, 2004.
27. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group: Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: An overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 365:1687-1717, 2005.
28. Ueno NT, Buzdar AU, Singletary SE, et al:Combined modality treatment of inflammatory breast carcinoma: Twenty years of experience at M.D. Anderson Center. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 40:321-329, 1997.
29. Cristofanilli M, Gonzalez-Anugulo AM, Buzdar AU, et al: Paclitaxel improves the prognosis in estrogen receptor negative inflammatory breast cancer: The M.D. Anderson Cancer Center experience. Clin Breast Cancer 4:415-419, 2004.
30. Slamon DJ, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S, et al: Human breast cancer: Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpress HER2. N Engl J Med 344:783-792, 2001.
31. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Procter M, Leyland-Jones B, et al: Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:1659-1684, 2005.
32. Romond EH, Perez EA, Bryant J, et al: Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:1673-1684, 2005.
33. Hurley J, Dolini P, Reis I, et al: Docetaxel, cisplatin, and trastuzumab as primary systemic chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:1831-1838, 2006.
34. Van Pelt AE, Mohsin S, Elledge RM, et al: Neoadjuvant trastuzumab and docetaxel in breast cancer: Preliminary results. Clin Breast Cancer 4:348-353, 2003.
35. Geyer CE, Forster J, Lindquist D, et al: Lapatinib plus capecitabine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355:2733-2743, 2006.
36. Burris HA 3rd, Hurwitz HI, Dees EC et al: Phase I safety, pharmacokinetics, and clinical activity study of lapatinib (GW572016), a reversible dual inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic carcinomas. J Clin Oncol 23:5305-5313, 2005.
37. Spector NL, Blackwell K, Hurley J,
et al: EGF103009, a phase II trial of lapatinib monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory inflammatory breast cancer (IBC): Clinical activity and biologic predictors of response (abstract 502). J Clin Oncol 24(18S):3s,
38. Cristofanilli M, Boussen H, Baselga J, et al: A phase II combination study of lapatinib and paclitaxel as a neoadjuvant therapy in patients with newly diagnosed inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) (abstract 1). Breast Cancer Res Treat 100(suppl 1):S5, 2006.
39. Wedam S, Low J, Yang X, et al: A pilot study to evaluate response and angiognesis after treatment with bevacizumab in patients with inflammatory breast cancer (abstract 578). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 23:21, 2004.
40. Overmoyer B, Robertson K, Persons M, et al: A phase I pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of SU5416 and doxorubicin (ADR) in inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) (abstract 391). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 20:99a, 2001.
41. Jonston SR, Hickish T, Ellis P, et al: Phase II study of the efficacy and tolerability of two dosing regimens of the farnesyl transferase inhibitor, R115777, in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:2492-2499, 2003.
42. National Cancer Institute: Phase Ib/II neoadjuvant study of tipifarnib, docetaxel, and capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors or stage IIIA or IIIB breast cancer (last modified 8/11/06). Available at www.cancer.gov/search/ViewClinicalTrials. aspx?cdrid=331694&version=HealthProfessional &protocolsearchid=1863425. Accessed March 26, 2007.
43. Liauw SL, Benda RK, Morris CG, et al: Inflammatory breast carcinoma: Outcomes with trimodality therapy for nonmetastatic disease. Cancer 100:920-928, 2004.
44. Perez CA, Fields JN, Fracasso PM, et al: Mangement of locally advanced carcinoma of the breast. II. Inflammatory carcinoma. Cancer 74:466-476, 1994.
45. Flemming RY, Asmar L, Buzdar AU, et al: Effectiveness of mastectomy by response to induction chemotherapy for control in inflammatory breast carcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 4:452-461, 1997.
46. Stearns V, Ewing CA, Slack R, et al: Sentinel lymphadenopathy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer may reliably represent the axilla except for inflammatory breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 9:235-242, 2002.
47. Liao Z, Strom EA, Buzdar AU, et al: Locoregional irradiation for inflammatory breast cancer: Effectiveness of dose escalation in decreasing recurrence. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 47:1191-2000, 2000.
48. van Golen KL, Davies S, Wu ZF, et al: A novel putative low-affinity insulin-like growth factor-binding protein LIBC (lost in inflammatory breast cancer), and RhoC GTPase correlate with the inflammatory breast cancer phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 5:2511-2519, 1995.
49. van Golen KL, Wu ZF, Qiao XT et al: Rhoc GTPase overexpression modulates induction of angiogenic factors in breast cells. Neoplasia 2:418-425, 2000.