Editorial
Stratifying triple-negative breast cancer: which definition(s) to use?
-
* Corresponding author: Carey K Anders canders@med.unc.edu
1 Department of Human Pathology, Integrated Therapies in Oncology Unit, University of Messina, Via Consolare Valeria N.1 98125 Messina, Italy
2 Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, 170 Manning Drive, CB 7305, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7305, USA
3 Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, University of North Carolina, 170 Manning Drive, CB 7305, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7305, USA
Breast Cancer Research 2011, 13:105 doi:10.1186/bcr2852
See related research by Keam et al., http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/13/2/R22
Published: 1 April 2011Abstract
Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) have increased rates of pathologic complete response following neoadjuvant chemotherapy, yet have poorer prognosis compared with non-TNBC. Known as the triple-negative paradox, this highlights the need to dissect the biologic and clinical heterogeneity within TNBC. In the present issue, Keam and colleagues suggest two subgroups of TNBC exist based on the proliferation-related marker Ki-67, each with differential response and prognosis following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. To place results into context, we review several definitions available under the TNBC umbrella that may stratify TNBC into clinically relevant subgroups.