Triple-negative breast cancer, so called because it lacks expression of the estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2, is often, but not always, a basal-like breast cancer. This review focuses on its origin, molecular and clinical characteristics, and treatment.

A basal epithelial phenotype is found in not more than 15% of all invasive breast cancers. Microarray studies have shown that this phenotype is associated with breast cancers that express neither estrogen receptor (ER) nor erbB-2 (HER2/neu) (i.e., ER/erbB-2–negative tumors). The ER/erbB-2– negative phenotype is also found in breast cancers occurring in BRCA1 mutation carriers (i.e., BRCA1-related breast cancers). We tested the hypothesis that BRCA1-related breast cancers are more likely than non–BRCA1/ 2-related breast cancer to express a basal epithelial phenotype. Among 292 breast cancer specimens previously analyzed for ER, erbB-2, p53, and germline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, we identified 76 that did not overexpress ER or erbB-2. Of the 72 specimens with sufficient material for testing, 40 expressed stratified epithelial cytokeratin 5 and/or 6 (5/6). In univariate analysis, the expression of cytokeratin 5/6 was statistically significantly associated with BRCA1-related breast cancers (odds ratio = 9.0, 95% confidence interval = 1.9 to 43; P = .002, two-sided Fisher’s exact test). Thus, germline BRCA1 mutations appear to be associated with a distinctive breast cancer phenotype.

Advances in sequencing technology have made multigene testing, or “panel testing,” a practical option when looking for genetic variants that may be associated with a risk of breast cancer. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court¹ invalidated specific claims made by Myriad Genetics with respect to the patenting of the genomic DNA sequence of BRCA1 and BRCA2. Other companies immediately began to offer panel tests for breast cancer genes that included BRCA1 and BRCA2. The subsequent flourishing of gene-panel testing services ( Table 1 , and Table S1 in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org) has generated much interest both within the clinical genetics community and in the popular press.² These panels cover a total of more than 100 genes, and breast cancer is specifically mentioned as an indication for 21 of these genes. However, the fact that the technology is available does not necessarily mean that such tests are appropriate or desirable.

To the Editor: We read the article by Antoniou et al. (August 7 issue)¹ because we like to know the penetrance of breast-cancer genes before we recommend surgery. After reading the article, we are unsure of what to tell patients. The simplest message would be that the risk up to 70 years of age is 35%, but this is based on an analysis of patients who received a diagnosis of breast cancer from 1930 to the present. The relevant risk value is that for a woman without breast cancer who is found to have a PALB2 mutation today. Most patients . . .

Genetic testing of cancer susceptibility genes is now widely applied in clinical practice to predict risk of developing cancer. In general, sequence‐based testing of germline DNA is used to determine whether an individual carries a change that is clearly likely to disrupt normal gene function. Genetic testing may detect changes that are clearly pathogenic, clearly neutral, or variants of unclear clinical significance. Such variants present a considerable challenge to the diagnostic laboratory and the receiving clinician in terms of interpretation and clear presentation of the implications of the result to the patient. There does not appear to be a consistent approach to interpreting and reporting the clinical significance of variants either among genes or among laboratories. The potential for confusion among clinicians and patients is considerable and misinterpretation may lead to inappropriate clinical consequences. In this article we review the current state of sequence‐based genetic testing, describe other standardized reporting systems used in oncology, and propose a standardized classification system for application to sequence‐based results for cancer predisposition genes. We suggest a system of five classes of variants based on the degree of likelihood of pathogenicity. Each class is associated with specific recommendations for clinical management of at‐risk relatives that will depend on the syndrome. We propose that panels of experts on each cancer predisposition syndrome facilitate the classification scheme and designate appropriate surveillance and cancer management guidelines. The international adoption of a standardized reporting system should improve the clinical utility of sequence‐based genetic tests to predict cancer risk. Hum Mutat 29(11), 1282–1291, 2008.

Immunohistochemical markers are often used to classify breast cancer into subtypes that are biologically distinct and behave differently. The aim of this study was to estimate mortality for patients with the major subtypes of breast cancer as classified using five immunohistochemical markers, to investigate patterns of mortality over time, and to test for heterogeneity by subtype. We pooled data from more than 10,000 cases of invasive breast cancer from 12 studies that had collected information on hormone receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status, and at least one basal marker (cytokeratin [CK]5/6 or epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]) together with survival time data. Tumours were classified as luminal and nonluminal tumours according to hormone receptor expression. These two groups were further subdivided according to expression of HER2, and finally, the luminal and nonluminal HER2-negative tumours were categorised according to expression of basal markers. Changes in mortality rates over time differed by subtype. In women with luminal HER2-negative subtypes, mortality rates were constant over time, whereas mortality rates associated with the luminal HER2-positive and nonluminal subtypes tended to peak within 5 y of diagnosis and then decline over time. In the first 5 y after diagnosis the nonluminal tumours were associated with a poorer prognosis, but over longer follow-up times the prognosis was poorer in the luminal subtypes, with the worst prognosis at 15 y being in the luminal HER2-positive tumours. Basal marker expression distinguished the HER2-negative luminal and nonluminal tumours into different subtypes. These patterns were independent of any systemic adjuvant therapy. The six subtypes of breast cancer defined by expression of five markers show distinct behaviours with important differences in short term and long term prognosis. Application of these markers in the clinical setting could have the potential to improve the targeting of adjuvant chemotherapy to those most likely to benefit. The different patterns of mortality over time also suggest important biological differences between the subtypes that may result in differences in response to specific therapies, and that stratification of breast cancers by clinically relevant subtypes in clinical trials is urgently required. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary