Prognostic Factors Affecting Postmastectomy Locoregional Recurrence in Patients with Early Breast Cancer: Are Intrinsic Subtypes Effective?

Abstract

The results of this study suggest that the extranodal invasion and negative ER status should potentially be considered when evaluating the risk of LRR. The predictive power of intrinsic subtypes for LRR is less than that of classical pathological indicators. This information may be useful in planning management of LRR in early breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy.

Clinical implications of first and multiple locoregional breast cancer recurrences

“…Except of ER status at second recurrence, the tendency was clearly the change from positive to negative hormone receptor status. This again confirms that among other things a negative hormone receptor status is associated with LRR, possibly due to the missing employment of endocrine therapy [15][16][17].…”

“…At initial diagnosis 67.5 % were hormone receptor positive and 75.3 % at second relapse. An increase of negative receptor status might have been expected, as this is known as a risk factor and independent predictor for recurrence [15][16][17]. Patients with negative hormone receptor status probably died earlier in the course of events, whereas ER and PR-positive patients survived and lived longer to see further recurrence.…”

Locoregional recurrence after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review by receptor phenotype

“…Forty-nine studies were excluded from the analysis following intensive review of the full text ( Fig. 1), resulting in 15 suitable studies included in this review ( Table 1) [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25].…”

Impact of age, intrinsic subtype and local treatment on long-term local-regional recurrence and breast cancer mortality among low-risk breast cancer patients

“…Some studies observed that HER2 þ and/or Basal subtype tumors have a significantly higher risk of local failure than LumA tumors [12,15,16,28,30], whereas others found no such association [19,29,[31][32][33][34]. Only few studies have more than five years of observation time [9,12,19].…”