Different Strategies May Be Necessary for Single Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer

Article

This suggestion is based on statistically significant distinctions observed in survival rates of patients with single hormone receptor-positive breast cancer vs double hormone receptor-positive/double hormone receptor-negative breast cancer.

Statistically significant distinctions between survival rates of patients with single hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (BC) versus double hormone receptor-positive/double hormone receptor-negative BC were observed in this study published in JAMA Network Open.1

These results suggest that different approaches might be necessary for patients with single hormone-receptor positive tumors to guarantee optimal treatment and maximum benefits from therapies. 

“This study represents the largest analysis to date, to our knowledge, focusing on single hormone receptor-positive BC,” the authors wrote. “We provide novel insights in the epidemiology of single hormone receptor-positive subtypes.” 

Using the SEER database, 823,399 patients with breast cancer (818,002 women and 5,397 men) diagnosed between 1990 and 2015 were identified. The percentages of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/progesterone receptor (PR)-positive, ER-positive/PR-negative, ER-negative/PR-positive, and ER-negative/PR-negative cases were 67.2%, 12.2%, 1.6% and 19.0%, respectively. Single hormone receptor-positive subtypes showed distinct clinical characteristics when compared with double hormone receptor-positive/double hormone receptor-negative subtypes.

Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analysis indicated that patients with ER-positive/PR-negative (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.34-1.38) and ER-negative/PR-positive (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.55-1.67) tumors had worse BC-specific survival (BCSS) than patients with the ER-positive/PR-positive subtype. Comparatively, patients with ER-positive/PR-negative (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.24-1.29) and ER-negative/PR-positive (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.03-1.11) tumors had better BCSS than those with the ER-negative/PR-negative subtype. The BCSS was statistically significantly worse in individuals with ER-negative/PR-positive tumors than in those with ER-positive/PR-negative tumors (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.14-1.23).

“We propose 2 possible reasons for these changes. The incidence of the 4 subtypes may have changed over time,” the authors wrote. “Alternatively, tumors that might be detected as ER-negative and/or PR-negative may have subsequently been classified as ER-positive and/or PR positive with the development of immunohistochemical techniques.” 

ER-positive/PR-negative tumors are more common in older and postmenopausal women, and this was indicated in the present study as well; ER-positive/PR-negative tumors were most frequent in patients 60 years or older, whereas ER-negative/PR-positive tumors were most frequent in those aged 30 to 49 years. However, researchers also found statistically significant differences in sex and race among the 4 subtypes, a finding which has not been previously reported.

Furthermore, the researchers suggested that their findings indicate that adjuvant endocrine therapy should be limited to hormone receptor-positive BC, based on evidence that demonstrated that additional hormone therapy is not beneficial in patients with the ER-negative/PR-negative subtype. However, the value of single hormone receptor-positive for assessing the benefit from endocrine therapy remains unknown. Results from this study, in addition to prior assessments, suggests that the combination of endocrine therapy and chemotherapy may be a rational treatment for ER-negative/PR-positive disease. 

In an editorial written by Vasily Giannakeas, MPH, a research analyst at ICES Ontario, Giannakeas noted there is a chance that misclassification occurred in determining hormone receptor status in this study cohort.2 She indicated that the idea that the ER-negative/PR-positive subtype is a real category is challenged by the decline in proportions from 4.5% to 1.0% from 1990 to 2016.

“When there is a gray zone, there is bound to be misclassification,” Giannakeas wrote. “In the case of hormone receptor status, technologies and protein expression cutoff values varied during the study period (1990-2015).”

The editorial author also suggested that it will remain a challenge to personalize treatments for patients with ER-negative/PR-cancer, given that this subtype only currently constitutes about 1% of all breast cancers. 

References:

1. Li Y, Yan D, Yin X, et al. Clinicopathological Characteristics and Breast Cancer-Specific Survival of Patients With Single Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. JAMA Network Open. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18160.

2. Giannakeas V. Single Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer – Signal or Noise? JAMA Network Open. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.18176.

Recent Videos
Paolo Tarantino, MD, discusses the potential utility of agents such as datopotamab deruxtecan and enfortumab vedotin in patients with breast cancer.
Paolo Tarantino, MD, highlights strategies related to screening and multidisciplinary collaboration for managing ILD in patients who receive T-DXd.
Pegulicianine-guided breast cancer surgery may allow practices to de-escalate subsequent radiotherapy, says Barbara Smith, MD, PhD.
Barbara Smith, MD, PhD, spoke about the potential use of pegulicianine-guided breast cancer surgery based on reports from the phase 3 INSITE trial.
Carey Anders, MD, an expert on breast cancer
Related Content