Clinical pathological and epidemiological study of triple negative breast cancer


  • Arun Ajay Department of Surgery, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India
  • Priya Radhakrishnan Department of Surgery, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India



Triple Negative Breast Cancer, TNBC, non-TNBC, lymph node status in TNBC, epidemiology of TNBC


Background: Worldwide breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed life threatening cancer in women and a leading cause of cancer death among women. In Kerala, India around 30% of cancer-affected women have carcinoma breast. Breast carcinomas which do not express estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2/neu) receptors are known as triple negative breast carcinomas (TNBC). They are extremely aggressive with poor prognosis. Here the authors described the clinical pathological and epidemiological characters of triple negative breast carcinomas in a tertiary care hospital in Kerala, India and compare with non-TNBC.

Methods: It was a cross sectional comparative study. Clinical, pathological and epidemiological characteristics of 75 cases of TNBC were compared with that of 225 cases of non-TNBC presented in Department of General Surgery, Government medical college, Kozhikode, Kerala, India between a period from March 2014 to October 2015 (20 months). Patients were recruited after obtaining an informed consent. ER, PR, HER-2/neu status were determined by immunohistochemical staining. Data obtained were statistically analyzed using SPSS software.

Results: Triple negative breast carcinoma was significantly associated with a younger age (mean age 43.67 years), early age of menarche. Commonly seen in premenopausal age group (78.7%). Patients with the triple-negative carcinoma had relatively large tumors (mean size 4.45cm compared to 3.14cm) and a high rate of node positivity (86.67%). More advanced stage at diagnosis with high grade tumor characteristics. Most common histopathology was invasive ductal carcinoma (98.7%) but no statistical difference was noted with non-TNBC.

Conclusions: No significant difference was noted between TNBC and non TNBC on comparing family history, parity, age at 1st child birth, OCP use. The outcome of the disease following treatment was unable to study due to short time frame of the study.

Author Biographies

Arun Ajay, Department of Surgery, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India



Priya Radhakrishnan, Department of Surgery, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India






Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747-52.

Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD. 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.

Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:4429-34.

Krishnamurthy S, Poornima R, Challa VR, Goud YG. Triple negative breast cancer- our experience and review. Indian J Surg Oncol. 2012;3:12-6.

Rao C, Shetty J, Prasad KH. Immunohistochemical profile and morphology in triple-negative breast cancers. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7:1361-5.

Yang XR, Chang J, Goode EL. Associations of breast cancer risk factors with tumor subtypes: a pooled analysis from the Breast Cancer Association Consortium studies. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103:250-63.

Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA. 2006;295(21):2492-502.

Kwan ML, Kushi LH, Weltzien E. Epidemiology of breast cancer subtypes in two prospective cohort studies of breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res. 2009;11:R31.

Phipps AI, Chlebowski RT, Prentice R. Body size, physical activity, and risk of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:454-63.

Dolle JM, Daling JR, White E. Risk factors for triple-negative breast cancer in women under the age of 45 years. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:1157-66.

Millikan RC, Newman B, Tse CK, Moorman PG, Conway K, Smith LV, et al. Epidemiology of basal-like breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treatment. 2008;109(1):123-39.

Ma H, Wang Y, Sullivan-Haley J. Use of four biomarkers to evaluate the risk of breast cancer subtypes in the Women’s contraception and reproductive experiences study. Breast feeding and contraception use. Cancer Res. 2010;70:575-87

Li CY, Zhang S, Zhang XB, Wang P, Hou GF, Zhang J. Clinicopathological and prognostic characteristics of triple- negative breast cancer (TNBC) in Chinese patients: A retrospective study. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14:3779-84.

Ishikawa Y, Horiguchi J, Toya H. Triple-negative breast cancer: histological subtypes and immunohistochemical and clinicopathological features. Cancer Sci. 2011;102:656-62

Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R. Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:264-71.

Gogia A, Raina V, Deo SV, Shukla NK, Mohanti BK. Triple-negative breast cancer: An institutional analysis. Indian J Cancer. 2014;51(2):163.

Crutcher CL, Cornwell LB, Chagpar AB. Effect of triple-negative status on surgical decision making. ASCO; 2010.

Lowery AJ, Kell MR, Glynn RW, Kerin MJ, Sweeney KJ. Locoregional recurrence after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review by receptor phenotype. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;133(3):831-41.




How to Cite

Ajay, A., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2017). Clinical pathological and epidemiological study of triple negative breast cancer. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 5(6), 2657–2661.



Original Research Articles