J. Clin. Oncol. 2015-06-20
Identification of a Low-Risk Luminal A Breast Cancer Cohort That May Not Benefit From Breast Radiotherapy.   
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE
To determine the prognostic and predictive value of intrinsic subtyping by using immunohistochemical (IHC) biomarkers for ipsilateral breast relapse (IBR) in participants in an early breast cancer randomized trial of tamoxifen with or without breast radiotherapy (RT).
PATIENTS AND METHODS
IHC analysis of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), cytokeratin 5/6, epidermal growth factor receptor, and Ki-67 was conducted on 501 of 769 available blocks. Patients were classified as luminal A (n = 265), luminal B (n = 165), or high-risk subtype (luminal HER2, n = 22; HER2 enriched, n = 13; basal like, n = 30; or triple-negative nonbasal, n = 6). Median follow-up was 10 years.
RESULTS
Classification by subtype was prognostic for IBR (10-year estimates: luminal A, 5.2%; luminal B, 10.5%; high-risk subtypes, 21.3%; P < .001). Luminal subtypes seemed to derive less benefit from RT (luminal A hazard ratio [HR], 0.40; luminal B HR, 0.51) than high-risk subtypes (HR, 0.13); however, the overall subtype-treatment interaction term was not significant (P = .26). In an exploratory analysis of women with clinical low-risk (age older than 60 years, T1, grade 1 or 2) luminal A tumors (n = 151), 10-year IBR was 3.1% versus 11.8% for the high-risk cohort (n = 341; P = .0063). Clinical low-risk luminal A patients had a 10-year IBR of 1.3% with tamoxifen versus 5.0% with tamoxifen plus RT (P = .42). Multivariable analysis showed that RT (HR, 0.31; P < .001), clinical risk group (HR, 2.2; P = .025), and luminal A subtype (HR, 0.25; P < .001) were significantly associated with IBR.
CONCLUSION
IHC subtyping was prognostic for IBR but was not predictive of benefit from RT. Further studies may validate the exploratory finding of a low-risk luminal A group who may be spared breast RT.

Related Questions


Would a high result give you pause about omission of RT? If yes what level is sufficiently high?

If a patient meets all omission criteria per CALGB and PRIME except age would you consider omitting RT? Is there any evidence for such an approach?