Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Current Oncology logoLink to Current Oncology
. 2011 Aug;18(4):e173–e179. doi: 10.3747/co.v18i4.738

Triple-negative breast cancers: an updated review on treatment options

KB Reddy ✉
PMCID: PMC3149549  PMID: 21874107

Abstract

Morphologic features of tumour cells have long been validated for the clinical classification of breast cancers and are regularly used as a “gold standard” to ascertain prognostic outcome in patients. Identification of molecular markers such as expression of the receptors for estrogen (er) and progesterone (pgr) and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (her2) has played an important role in determining targets for the development of efficacious drugs for treatment and has also offered additional predictive value for the therapeutic assessment of patients with breast cancer. More recent technical advancements in identifying several cancer-related genes have provided further opportunities to identify specific subtypes of breast cancer. Among the subtypes, tumours with triple-negative cells are identified using specific staining procedures for basal markers such as cytokeratin 5 and 6 and the absence of er, pgr, and her2 expression. Patients with triple-negative breast cancers therefore have the disadvantage of not benefiting from currently available receptor-targeted systemic therapy. Optimal conditions for the therapeutic assessment of women with triple-negative breast tumours and for the management of their disease have yet to be validated in prospective investigations. The present review discusses the differences between triple-negative breast tumours and basal-like breast tumours and also the role of mutations in the BRCA genes. Attention is also paid to treatment options available to patients with triple-negative breast tumours.

Keywords: Triple-negative breast tumours, epidermal growth factor receptor, chemotherapy

1. INTRODUCTION

Tumours in the breast have long been classified according to their morphologic features, histologic type, and grade (severity). Identification of molecular markers such as expression of the estrogen (er) and progesterone receptors (pgr) and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (her2) has offered additional predictive value for the therapeutic assessment of women diagnosed with breast cancer1–4. More recently, gene expression analysis using dna microarray technology has identified additional breast tumour subtypes that were not apparent using traditional histopathologic methods. Based on gene expression profiles, breast cancer can be classified into 5 main groups5–8:

  • Luminal A

  • Luminal B

  • Basal-like

  • her2

  • Normal breast–like6–9

Most breast cancers originate from the inner (“luminal”) cells that line the mammary ducts. Luminal A and luminal B tumours are similar in that both are typically er+ or pgr+, or both. However, they are dissimilar in that the A type is usually her2– and the B type is more likely to be her2+ and lymph node–positive.

Women with luminal A tumours are often diagnosed at a younger age. They tend to have the best prognosis, with relatively high rates of overall survival and relatively low rates of recurrence. Those with luminal B tumours tend to have a higher tumour grade and a poorer prognosis10,11 (Table i).

TABLE I.

Microarray-based breast tumour classification

A—Subtype (hormone and her2 receptor status)
  Luminal A (er+ or pgr+ or both, her2–)
  Luminal B (er+ or pgr+ or both, her2+)
  her2+ (er–, pgr–, her2+)
  Basal-like (er–, pgr–, her2+)
  Triple-negative tumours (er–, pgr–, her2–)
  Normal breast-like (tumours that do not fall into any of the foregoing categories)
B—“Triple-negative tumours” encompasses:
  Basal-like breast tumours
  Normal breast–like tumours
  brca1-deficient breast tumours
Open in a new tab

er = estrogen receptor; pgr = progesterone receptor; her2 = human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; brca1 = protein encoded by the breast cancer 1 gene.

Basal-like tumours originate in the outer (“basal”) cells that line the mammary ducts. Their incidence has been estimated to be between 13% and 25%12–14. These tumours are diagnosed more frequently among younger women and are associated with hereditary BRCA1-related breast cancers. They are often aggressive15–17 and are associated with a prognosis poorer than those for the luminal A, luminal B, and normal breast–like types11,16. Metastatically, they seems to disseminate to the axillary nodes and, less frequently, to bone18. In a population-based study, basal-like breast cancer was suggested to be more prevalent among premenopausal African American women (39% vs. 16% in non–African American women and 14% in postmenopausal African American women)11.

The mechanism or mechanisms by which basal-like breast cancer metastasizes to the brain is not currently clear. However, the incidence of brain metastasis among patients with her2+ or cytokeratin 14 tumours has been documented18,19. Data developed by sequencing primary breast tumours, brain metastases, matched normal tissue, and a mouse xenograft developed from the primary tumour identified 50 point mutations and small insertions or deletions that were present in the tumour genomes but not in the matched normal tissue20. The increased incidence of brain metastases in patients with her2+ metastatic breast cancer has been documented, and a targeted therapeutic—namely, lapatinib (Tykerb: GlaxoSmithKline, Mississauga, ON)—has shown promise in the treatment of progressive her2+ brain metastases refractory to trastuzumab (Herceptin: Genentech, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.)19,21.

The her2 tumours are named for their status as her2+. They tend to be er–, pgr–, and lymph node–positive, with poorer grades. They may contain p53 mutations. The her2+ tumours have relatively poor prognoses and are prone to early and frequent relapse and to distant metastasis11,16,22.

The normal breast–like tumours are those that do not fall into any of the other categories. They account for 6%–10% of all breast cancers11,16. These tumours are usually small and typically have a good prognosis10,11. They are more common in postmenopausal than in premenopausal women10.

From a clinical and therapeutic point of view, tumours in the breast can be divided into three main groups:

  • Hormone receptor–positive breast tumours, which are treated with a number of hormone receptor–targeted therapies such as tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, fulvestrant (Faslodex: AstraZeneca, London, U.K.), and ovarian suppression [oophorectomy or analogs of luteinizing-hormone releasing-hormone and gonadotropin-releasing hormone such as goserelin (Zoladex: AstraZeneca) or leuprolide (Lupron: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, U.S.A.)] with or without chemotherapy

  • her2-positive breast tumours, which are managed with her2-directed therapies such as trastuzumab (and lapatinib in some cases) with or without chemotherapy

  • Basal and triple-negative breast tumours, which are resistant to the existing er, pgr, and her2-targeted therapies because of loss of target receptors; hence, chemotherapy appears to be the only available treatment modality

2. TRIPLE-NEGATIVE AND BASAL-LIKE TUMOUR CELLS

Triple-negative breast cancer is a recent term derived from tumours that are characterized by the absence of er, pgr, and her2. Triple-negative disease is diagnosed more frequently in younger and premenopausal women11,23–26 and is highly prevalent in African American women27,28. It remains unclear whether this racial association is related to germ-line genetic factors, exposure to environmental factors, or a combination of both.

Triple-negative and basal-like tumour cells proliferate at a higher rate, exhibit central necrosis with a pushing border, and are identified mostly using simple immunohistochemical staining for the expression of cytokeratins 5 and 6 (ck5/6), er, pgr, her2, and vimentin8,17,29. In about 60% of cases, these tumour cells express the receptor for epidermal growth factor (egfr)17,30–32 and may also contain mutations in the p53 gene10,11,33.

If expression profiling analysis using the intrinsic gene list is considered the “gold standard” for identification, triple-negative tumours and a great preponderance of tumours overall do not express er, pgr, and her217,34. However, among basal-like tumours, 5%–45% were reported to be er+, and 14% were shown to be her2+9. Furthermore, during investigations of the expression of basal cks and egfr in separate cohorts of triple-negative tumours, only 56%–84% expressed those markers25,26. In addition, patients with triple-negative tumours that express a basal-like tumour phenotype have a significantly shorter disease-free survival than do patients with triple-negative tumours lacking the expression of basal-like tumour markers25,26. When triple-negative and basal-like tumours were analyzed by gene expression profiling, 71% of triple-negative tumours showed a basal-like phenotype, and 77% of basal-like tumours showed a triple-negative phenotype35. Although the terminology relating to triple-negative and basal-like tumours tends to be used interchangeably, it is not entirely interchangeable or synonymous. Caution should therefore be exercised not to equate these tumour types.

From a pathologist’s point of view, triple-negative tumours and basal-like tumours are predominantly of high histologic grade23,25,26. Approximately 10% of triple-negative tumours have been shown to be of grade 123. In random cohort studies of 148 Nigerian patients, 66.9% were premenopausal women with a mean age of 43.8 years when diagnosed with triple-negative tumours. Overall, 87 of the patients (59%) were thought to have a basal-like tumour36. Among triple-negative tumours, most recurrences are observed during the 1st and 3rd years after therapy. Most deaths take place in the first 5 years, even after a strict therapeutic regimen23,26. Additional data also suggest that, compared with control patients having non-basal-like or non-triple-negative tumours, patients with triple-negative tumours and basal-like tumours experience significantly shorter survival after the first metastatic event18,23,37. Although triple-negative tumours and basal-like tumours share some characteristics, a careful analysis of microarray-based expression profiles suggests that triple-negative tumours also encompass phenotypes of normal breast–like tumours, and in most studies, normal breast–like tumours have been shown to cluster together with basal-like and her2 tumours in the er-negative arm6,8,16,22.

3. TRIPLE-NEGATIVE AND BRCA-MUTANT TUMOUR CELLS

Hereditary breast cancers account for only 5%–10% of all breast cancer cases. However, individuals carrying mutations in the BRCA gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2) have a 40%–80% chance of developing breast cancer. Thus, identification of BRCA mutations has been used as one of the strongest breast cancer predictors38–41. By contrast, the incidence of sporadic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are in the ranges 4%–29% and 0.6%–16% respectively39. In nonfamilial cancer cohorts in the United States, mutation frequencies are 0.6% for BRCA1 and 0.9% for BRCA242. However, U.S. Ashkenazi families have much higher frequencies of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, at 28.6% and 15.6% respectively42–44.

The contribution of BRCA mutations to the development of breast cancer within any specific population depends on prevalence and penetrance power. Mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes occur with different frequencies in individuals of different ethnicities living in different geographic regions in the world. For example, 64% of high-risk families in Poland are reported to carry BRCA1 mutations (1 in 9 are recurring mutations), but rarely any BRCA2 mutations45. In Sweden, 34% of high-risk families carry BRCA1 mutations, but only 2% carry BRCA2 mutations46. By contrast, 32% of high-risk Sardinian families carry mutations in BRCA2, and 11%, mutations in BRCA147. Interestingly, dna microarray and immunohistochemical analyses revealed that 80%–90% of breast cancers in women with germ-line mutations in BRCA1 are triple-negative (er–, pgr–, her2–)26,48–52. The extent to which the BRCA1 pathway contributes to the behavior of triple-negative cancers is an area of active research.

Among triple-negative tumours, the incidence of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations was reported to be approximately 12.5%. In the United States, approximately 3.3% of woman with triple-negative tumours show BRCA1 mutations; however, the incidence of triple-negative breast tumours in nonfamilial BRCA mutations is not currently clear. In some triple-negative tumours of high histologic grade, brca1 protein levels have been shown to be significantly lower, suggesting that the brca1 pathway may be dysfunctional in these tumour cells50,52. Several lines of evidence suggest a link between basal-like breast cancer and brca1 deficiency51. The functions of brca1 are diverse, and one is the repair of double-stranded dna breaks by the potentially error-free mechanism of homologous recombination50. Lack of brca1 could result in dna repair by more error-prone mechanisms such as nonhomologous end-joining and single-strand annealing, resulting in genomic instability and therefore cancer predisposition53. Most BRCA1-associated tumours are triple-negative, and the patients in which they arise have a poor outcome54. Clustering analyses of microarray expression profiling data have shown that familial BRCA1 mutant tumours tend to fall into a basal-like category, suggesting similar carcinogenic pathways or causes in these cancer subtypes55.

4. TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR TRIPLE-NEGATIVE TUMOURS

Patients with triple-negative breast cancer do not benefit from hormonal or trastuzumab-based therapies because of the loss of target receptors such as er, pgr, and her2. Hence, surgery and chemotherapy, individually or in combination, appear to be the only available modalities. However, some studies have identified certain receptors as targets for new therapeutic drugs—for example, cell-surface receptors such as egfr and c-Kit, both of which have been shown to play a major role in the progression of triple-negative tumours. Nielsen et al.17 observed the expression of c-Kit in 31% of basal-like tumour cells and also in 11% of non-basal-like tumour cells. In addition, some available reports suggest that because brca1 deficient breast tumours share features and behavior associated with the basal-like tumours, the therapies that effectively target basal-like tumours should also be highly effective in the treatment of brca1-deficient breast cancer and triple-negative tumours.

Mutations in the BRCA1 gene have been demonstrated to lead to error-prone dna repair, resulting in genomic instability and thus predisposition to carcinogenesis. This phenomenon could be relevant to the control of proliferation in brca1-related, triple-negative, and basal-like tumour cells. Data from several in vitro studies have indicated that breast tumour cells with BRCA1 mutations are extremely sensitive to drugs that induce cross links (mitomycin-C and platinum) and single- and double-strand breaks (etoposide and bleomycin) in dna56–58. Furthermore, single-strand breaks in dna are repaired by the base-excision repair pathway in which poly(adp–ribose) polymerase 1 (parp1) enzyme is one of the essential components. Cells null for brca1 were shown to be incapable of repairing dna strand breaks59, and inhibition of parp1 resulted in enhanced apoptotic processes60,61. Thus, brca1-null cells were reported to more sensitive to chemo- and radiotherapies. By contrast, these cells were shown to be resistant to mitotic-spindle poisons such as taxanes and vinorelbine62. Previous observations provided strong circumstantial evidence that the brca1 and parp1 pathways could be dysfunctional in a significant subgroup of triple-negative and basal-like breast tumours and, therefore, that those pathways could be targeted for therapy60,63. Because ionizing radiation also induces dna strand breaks, additional local or regional radiotherapy may possibly be of particular benefit for patients with triple-negative cancer. In addition, drugs such as carboplatin, cisplatin, parp1 inhibitors, and docetaxel could be very useful in the management of patients with advanced triple-negative cancers.

Approximately 66% of breast cancer patients with triple-negative tumour cells and basal-like tumour cells have been reported to express egfr17,25,64. Inhibition of egfr might be a useful therapeutic strategy. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of humanized anti-egfr monoclonal antibodies and egfr tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with triple-negative breast cancer are currently under way65.

Numerous phase i and ii clinical trials for the treatment or management of patients with triple-negative breast tumours are under way. The strategies used in those trials are broadly divided into these five groups14,66:

  • Agents that damage DNA Drugs (such as cisplatinum31, etoposide, and bleomycin) and ionizing radiation might control the proliferation of, and induce cell death in, triple-negative breast tumour cells. The high priority of these agents is based on the brca1 pathway and dna repair dysfunction seen in triple-negative breast cancer, which may confer enhanced sensitivity to agents that damage dna.

  • Agents that target EGFR Overexpression of egfr in triple-negative and basal-like tumour cells is well established17,25,64. At least a couple of phase ii clinical trials are using cetuximab (antibody treatment), which targets the expression of egfr or its signalling pathways. One of the egfr-inhibitor phase ii clinical trials, by U.S. Oncology Research, is evaluating weekly gefitinib (Iressa: AstraZeneca) plus carboplatin, with or without cetuximab, in treating patients with metastatic breast cancer.

  • Agents that inhibit PARP1 Phase i clinical trials using parp1 inhibitors have been successfully completed, and phase ii studies have begun. The data from these studies have already indicated that parp1 inhibitors could protect against the nephrotoxicity of cisplatin and the cardiotoxicity of doxorubicin67,68, thus potentially helping to provide additional chemotherapeutic efficacy. The parp1 inhibitors effectively disarm the ability of cancer cells to repair themselves and cause the death of those cells. Importantly, parp inhibition, which kills cancer cells, spares identical normal cells that lack cancer-related alterations such as those from mutated BRCA1 and BRCA2. In combination with chemotherapy, parp1 inhibitor (BSI-201) shows promise in the treatment of triple-negative tumours not harbouring BRCA mutations.

  • Agents that inhibit c-Kit The efficacy of imatinib, a drug that inhibits c-Kit tyrosine kinase, is being evaluated in patients with triple-negative and basal-like tumours. However, the immunohistochemical detection of c-Kit overexpression does not guarantee a positive response to imatinib in patients with metastatic disease because most commercially available antibodies for c-Kit recognize total c-Kit and do not distinguish the activated or phosphorylated version, which is the actual target of imatinib.

  • Agents that inhibit second messengers (Ras, mek/erk, mammalian target of rapamycin, heat shock proteins, and anti–vascular endothelial growth factor, among others) Many components of the proliferation pathway are overexpressed or mutated in cancer cells and therefore represent potential targets.

Triple-negative cancers are reported to respond to neoadjuvant chemotherapy9,66,69, but overall, survival in patients with such tumours is still poor, and management of these patients may require more aggressive intervention. The data obtained from various investigations using triple-negative tumour cells suggest that patients with these breast cancers are more likely to benefit from chemotherapeutic agents in development that use a strategy of inhibiting dna repair. Researchers are pursuing new treatments and drug combinations. A full list of clinical trials for women with triple-negative breast cancer can be found at ClinicalTrials.gov using this search locator: clinicaltrials.gov/ct/search;jsessionid=725A3C38DB5590FD2ABB39D62E9BC227?term=ER-negative%20%B1%20breast%20%B1%20cancer&submit=Search.

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported in part by grant RO1 CA118089 (to KBR) from the National Institutes of Health and by the Department of Pathology, Wayne State University. The author thanks Dr. Vijaylaxmi (The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX) for helpful discussions.

Footnotes

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

The author has no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

7. REFERENCES

  • 1.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 randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365:1687–717. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66544-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:2137–50. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.2308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Konecny G, Pauletti G, Pegram M, et al. Quantitative association between her-2/neu and steroid hormone receptors in hormone receptor–positive primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:142–53. doi: 10.1093/jnci/95.2.142. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Slamon DJ, Godolphin W, Jones LA, et al. Studies of the her-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian cancer. Science. 1989;244:707–12. doi: 10.1126/science.2470152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Brenton JD, Carey LA, Ahmed AA, Caldas C. Molecular classification and molecular forecasting of breast cancer: ready for clinical application? J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:7350–60. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.03.3845. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52. doi: 10.1038/35021093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Reis–Filho JS, Westbury C, Pierga JY. The impact of expression profiling on prognostic and predictive testing in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59:225–31. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2005.028324. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10869–74. doi: 10.1073/pnas.191367098. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, et al. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:5678–85. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-2421. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Calza S, Hall P, Auer G, et al. Intrinsic molecular signature of breast cancer in a population-based cohort of 412 patients. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:R34. doi: 10.1186/bcr1517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA. 2006;295:2492–502. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.21.2492. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Dairkee SH, Ljung BM, Smith H, Hackett A. Immunolocalization of a human basal epithelium specific keratin in benign and malignant breast disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1987;10:11–20. doi: 10.1007/BF01806130. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gusterson B. Do “basal-like” breast cancers really exist? Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9:128–34. doi: 10.1038/nrc2571. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Rakha EA, Reis–Filho JS, Ellis IO. Basal-like breast cancer: a critical review. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2568–81. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.1748. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Abd El-Rehim DM, Pinder SE, Paish CE, et al. Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma. J Pathol. 2004;203:661–71. doi: 10.1002/path.1559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L, et al. Concordance among gene-expression–based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:560–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa052933. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, et al. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:5367–74. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0220. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Fulford LG, Reis–Filho JS, Ryder K, et al. Basal-like grade iii invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: patterns of metastasis and long-term survival. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9:R4. doi: 10.1186/bcr1636. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bendell JC, Domchek SM, Burstein HJ, et al. Central nervous system metastases in women who receive trastuzumab-based therapy for metastatic breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2003;97:2972–7. doi: 10.1002/cncr.11436. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ding L, Ellis MJ, Li S, et al. Genome remodelling in a basal-like breast cancer metastasis and xenograft. Nature. 2010;464:999–1005. doi: 10.1038/nature08989. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lin NU, Carey LA, Liu MC, et al. Phase ii trial of lapatinib for brain metastases in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1993–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.12.3588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hu Z, Fan C, Oh DS, et al. The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genomics. 2006;7:96. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-7-96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:4429–34. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-3045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, et al. Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5652–7. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.06.5664. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, Lee AH, Robertson JF, Ellis IO. Prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer. 2007;109:25–32. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22381. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Tischkowitz M, Brunet JS, Bégin LR, et al. Use of immunohistochemical markers can refine prognosis in triple negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:134. doi: 10.1186/1471-2407-7-134. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (er)–negative, progesterone receptor (pr)–negative, and her2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California Cancer Registry. Cancer. 2007;109:1721–8. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22618. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Morris GJ, Naidu S, Topham AK, et al. Differences in breast carcinoma characteristics in newly diagnosed African-American and Caucasian patients: a single-institution compilation compared with the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Cancer. 2007;110:876–84. doi: 10.1002/cncr.22836. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R, et al. Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:264–71. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.3800528. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Reis–Filho JS, Milanezi F, Steele D, et al. Metaplastic breast carcinomas are basal-like tumours. Histopathology. 2006;49:10–21. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2006.02467.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Reis–Filho JS, Tutt AN. Triple negative tumours: a critical review. Histopathology. 2008;52:108–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2559.2007.02889.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Irvin WJ, Jr, Carey LA. What is triple-negative breast cancer? Eur J Cancer. 2008;44:2799–805. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2008.09.034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kim MJ, Ro JY, Ahn SH, Kim HH, Kim SB, Gong G. Clinicopathologic significance of the basal-like subtype of breast cancer: a comparison with hormone receptor and her2/neu-overexpressing phenotypes. Hum Pathol. 2006;37:1217–26. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2006.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Jimenez RE, Wallis T, Visscher DW. Centrally necrotizing carcinomas of the breast: a distinct histologic subtype with aggressive clinical behavior. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25:331–7. doi: 10.1097/00000478-200103000-00007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bertucci F, Finetti P, Cervera N, et al. How basal are triple-negative breast cancers? Int J Cancer. 2008;123:236–40. doi: 10.1002/ijc.23518. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Olopade OI, Ikpatt FO, Dignam JJ, et al. “Intrinsic gene expression” subtypes correlated with grade and morphometric parameters reveal a high proportion of aggressive basal-like tumors among black women of African ancestry [abstract 9509] J Clin Oncol. 2004;22 [Available online at: www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=1263; cited May 29, 2011] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Harris LN, Broadwater G, Lin NU, et al. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer in relation to paclitaxel response and outcomes in women with metastatic disease: results from calgb 9342. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:R66. doi: 10.1186/bcr1622. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Easton DF, Ford D, Bishop DT. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet. 1995;56:265–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Fackenthal JD, Olopade OI. Breast cancer risk associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 in diverse populations. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7:937–48. doi: 10.1038/nrc2054. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Schubert EL, Lee MK, Mefford HC, et al. BRCA2 in American families with four or more cases of breast or ovarian cancer: recurrent and novel mutations, variable expression, penetrance, and the possibility of families whose cancer is not attributable to BRCA1 or BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet. 1997;60:1031–40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Schubert EL, Mefford HC, Dann JL, Argonza RH, Hull J, King MC. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish families with breast and ovarian cancer. Genet Test. 1997;1:41–6. doi: 10.1089/gte.1997.1.41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Rubin SC, Blackwood MA, Bandera C, et al. BRCA1, BRCA2,, and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer gene mutations in an unselected ovarian cancer population: relationship to family history and implications for genetic testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;178:670–7. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70476-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Moslehi R, Chu W, Karlan B, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation analysis of 208 Ashkenazi Jewish women with ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Gene. 2000;66:1259–72. doi: 10.1086/302853. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Moslehi R, Russo D, Phelan C, Jack E, Antman K, Narod S. An unaffected individual from a breast/ovarian cancer family with germline mutations in both BRCA1 and BRCA2. Clin Genet. 2000;57:70–3. doi: 10.1034/j.1399-0004.2000.570111.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Górski B, Jakubowska A, Huzarski T, et al. A high proportion of founder BRCA1 mutations in Polish breast cancer families. Int J Cancer. 2004;110:683–6. doi: 10.1002/ijc.20162. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Bergman A, Flodin A, Engwall Y, et al. A high frequency of germline BRCA1/2 mutations in western Sweden detected with complementary screening techniques. Fam Cancer. 2005;4:89–96. doi: 10.1007/s10689-004-5812-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Palomba G, Pisano M, Cossu A, et al. Spectrum and prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in Sardinian patients with breast carcinoma through hospital-based screening. Cancer. 2005;104:1172–9. doi: 10.1002/cncr.21298. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Breuer A, Kandel M, Fisseler–Eckhoff A, et al. BRCA1 germline mutation in a woman with metaplastic squamous cell breast cancer. Onkologie. 2007;30:316–18. doi: 10.1159/000101515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Kandel MJ, Stadler Z, Masciari S, et al. Prevalence of BRCA1 mutations in triple negative breast cancer (bc) [abstract 508] J Clin Oncol. 2006;24 [Available online at: www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=40&abstractID=34683; cited May 29, 2011] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A. Hallmarks of “BRCAness” in sporadic cancers. Nat Rev Cancer. 2004;4:814–19. doi: 10.1038/nrc1457. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Turner NC, Reis–Filho JS. Basal-like breast cancer and the BRCA1 phenotype. Oncogene. 2006;25:5846–53. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1209876. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Turner NC, Reis–Filho JS, Russell AM, et al. BRCA1 dysfunction in sporadic basal-like breast cancer. Oncogene. 2007;26:2126–32. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1210014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Venkitaraman AR. Cancer susceptibility and the functions of brca1 and brca2. Cell. 2002;108:171–82. doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00615-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Stoppa–Lyonnet D, Ansquer Y, Dreyfus H, et al. Familial invasive breast cancers: worse outcome related to BRCA1 mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18:4053–9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2000.18.24.4053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:8418–23. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0932692100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Bhattacharyya A, Ear US, Koller BH, Weichselbaum RR, Bishop DK. The breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1 is required for subnuclear assembly of Rad51 and survival following treatment with the dna cross-linking agent cisplatin. J Biol Chem. 2000;275:23899–903. doi: 10.1074/jbc.C000276200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Moynahan ME, Cui TY, Jasin M. Homology-directed dna repair, mitomycin-C resistance, and chromosome stability is restored with correction of a BRCA1 mutation. Cancer Res. 2001;61:4842–50. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Dawson SJ, Provenzano E, Caldas C. Triple negative breast cancers: clinical and prognostic implications. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45(suppl 1):27–40. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(09)70013-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A. Targeting the dna repair defect of BRCA tumours. Curr Opin Pharmacol. 2005;5:388–93. doi: 10.1016/j.coph.2005.03.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, et al. Targeting the dna repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 2005;434:917–21. doi: 10.1038/nature03445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Tutt AN, Lord CJ, McCabe N, et al. Exploiting the dna repair defect in BRCA mutant cells in the design of new therapeutic strategies for cancer. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 2005;70:139–48. doi: 10.1101/sqb.2005.70.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Quinn JE, Kennedy RD, Mullan PB, et al. BRCA1 functions as a differential modulator of chemotherapy-induced apoptosis. Cancer Res. 2003;63:6221–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Bryant HE, Schultz N, Thomas HD, et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(adp–ribose) polymerase. Nature. 2005;434:913–17. doi: 10.1038/nature03443. [Erratum in: Nature 2007;447:346] [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Reis–Filho JS, Milanezi F, Carvalho S, et al. Metaplastic breast carcinomas exhibit egfr, but not her2, gene amplification and overexpression: immunohistochemical and chromogenic in situ hybridization analysis. Breast Cancer Res. 2005;7:R1028–35. doi: 10.1186/bcr1341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Carey L, Mayer E, Marcom P, et al. TBCRC 001: egfr inhibition with cetuximab in metastatic triple negative (basal-like) breast cancer [abstract 307] Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;106(suppl 1):S32. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC. Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol. 2007;8:235–44. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(07)70074-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Mason KA, Valdecanas D, Hunter NR, Milas L. INO-1001, a novel inhibitor of poly(adp–ribose) polymerase, enhances tumor response to doxorubicin. Invest New Drugs. 2008;26:1–5. doi: 10.1007/s10637-007-9072-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Racz I, Tory K, Gallyas F, Jr, et al. BGP-15—a novel poly(adp– ribose) polymerase inhibitor—protects against nephrotoxicity of cisplatin without compromising its antitumor activity. Biochem Pharmacol. 2002;63:1099–111. doi: 10.1016/S0006-2952(01)00935-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:2329–34. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Current Oncology are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES