BACKGROUND Intrinsic molecular subtypes define distinct biological breast cancers and can be used to further improve diagnosis and risk allocation.METHODS The Copenhagen Breast Cancer Genomics Study (CBCGS) prospectively included women diagnosed with breast cancer at Rigshospitalet from 2014 to 2021. Eligible patients were females with a primary invasive breast cancer (T1c, if N0M0; otherwise, any T, any N, or any M stage) and no prior malignancy. All patients underwent molecular profiling with the CIT256 and PAM50 molecular profile.RESULTS In the study period, 2,816 patients were included in the CBCGS. Molecular subtyping showed an increase in nonluminal (molecular-apocrine, luminal C, and Basal-like) as compared with luminal (luminal A, luminal B, and Normal-like) subtypes with increasing stage from I to IV. Across all stages, we found a significant difference in survival among subtypes; 91% of patients with LumA were alive at 5 years compared with 91% for LumB, 84% for LumC, 82% for mApo, and 80% for Basal-like. We identified 442 tumors (16%) that were discordant in subtype between CIT256 and IHC. Discordant subtype proved to be a risk factor of death among patients with IHC luminal breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 2.08; 95% CI, 1.51–2.86) in a multivariable Cox regression analysis. Discordance occurred more often among patients with N3, stage IV, or grade III disease.CONCLUSION Our findings indicate that molecular subtypes are a predominant classification for survival. Assessment is particularly crucial for patients with IHC luminal breast cancer with known high-risk factors, since they are at an increased risk of harboring an aggressive molecular subtype.
Tobias Berg, Maj-Britt Jensen, Alan Celik, Maj-Lis Talman, Maria Anna Misiakou, Ann Søegaard Knoop, Finn Cilius Nielsen, Bent Ejlertsen, Maria Rossing
Usage data is cumulative from April 2024 through July 2024.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 793 | 74 |
192 | 17 | |
Figure | 179 | 0 |
Table | 116 | 0 |
Supplemental data | 115 | 1 |
Citation downloads | 37 | 0 |
Totals | 1,432 | 92 |
Total Views | 1,524 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.