Decreased Serum HDL at Initial Diagnosis Correlates with Worse Outcomes for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer but Not Non-TNBCs

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the associations between metabolic syndrome (MS) and its components at initial diagnosis and outcomes of breast cancer including triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and non-TNBC.

Methods

A cohort of 1,391 patients was reviewed between January 2004 and July 2008 (including 394 TNBC and 855 non-TNBC cases). MS and its components including body mass index (BMI), serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL) and triglycerides (TG) and their relationships with clinical outcomes were analyzed and then compared between groups.

Results

The incidences of MS and its components including BMI, the levels of HDL and TG were not differently distributed between the 2 groups (all p's >0.05). However, more TNBC than non-TNBC patients presented with hypertension and elevated serum glucose (20.3% vs. 14.9% and 16.0% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.018 and p = 0.012, respectively). TNBC patients had poorer 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) than non-TNBC patients (72.8% vs. 84.2%, p<0.0001). Only in the TNBC group, patients with low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) demonstrated worse RFS and overall survival (OS; p<0.0001). Multivariate analysis identified that low HDL was an independent worse prognostic factor for both RFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.266, 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 2.087-5.112, p<0.0001) and OS (HR = 3.071, 95%CI, 1.732-5.445, p<0.0001) in TNBC patients.

Conclusions

Decreased level of HDL may predict worse outcomes both in terms of RFS and OS for TNBC patients but not for non-TNBC patients. Further investigations are warranted to detect the underlying mechanisms.

Keywords

HDL Prognosis non-TNBCs TG Triple-negative breast cancer

Introduction

Metabolic syndrome (MS), also referred to as insulin resistance or syndrome X, is a group of metabolic disorders (1). MS comprises central obesity, high body mass index (BMI), insulin resistance, hypertension, hypertriglyceridemia (HTG) and low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. Both MS (2, 3) and each component of MS, such as low HDL (2, 4–6), high triglycerides (TG) (2, 4–7), elevated glucose or type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) (2, 8–12), obesity (7, 10, 11, 13, 14) or insulin resistance (9, 13, 15, 16) have been demonstrated to increase the risk of breast cancer (BC) and tumor recurrence irrespective of race (2–16).

However, the clinical significance of these findings on triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) remains very limited and inconsistent (17–19–20). For example, a 2008 study examining 620 predominantly white women in rural Appalachia, 117 of whom had TNBC, reported a significant association between obesity and incidence of TNBC (18). However, the Carolina Breast Cancer Study reported no elevated prevalence of type 2 DM in TNBC compared with other BC subtypes (17). In addition, studies about the potential influence of MS and its components on recurrence and mortality of TNBC has not been explicitly performed, But as we know now, TNBCs display highly aggressive behavior and have a worse prognosis with higher visceral relapse rates compared with non-TNBCs (21, 22). No optimal clinical prognostic factors have been identified yet for this special subtype. MS components have been implicated in survival of TNBC based on some reports in the literature. Certain drugs, which alter components of MS, such as metformin and beta-blockers, have been shown to change the biologic feature of TNBC tumors (23–25). One study of a large series of cases suggests that beta-blocker use can improve relapse-free survival (RFS) of TNBC patients (24). The other preclinical study showed that metformin has a unique anticancer activity against TNBC through inhibiting cell proliferation and inducing apoptosis, both in vitro and in vivo (25). So it is supposed that the components of MS, such as low HDL or hypertriglyceridemia, also may alter the prognosis of the disease and contribute to inferior outcomes in TNBC patients.

To our knowledge, the roles of components of MS, especially HDL and TG, on BCs by estrogen/progesterone receptor status are not yet well studied. Therefore, we investigated the possible correlation of BC outcomes, especially for TNBC, with components of MS, such as HDL and TG, in a large series of Chinese BC patients.

Patients and Methods

Patient Selection

A consecutive cohort of 1,391 BC patients (394 TNBC and 855 non-TNBC) diagnosed between 1 January 2004 and 30 July 2008 at the Cancer Hospital and Institute, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, were retrospectively reviewed. In addition, 142 patients were excluded from the study for exclusion criteria. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (a) pure in situ carcinoma (n = 3); (b) without detailed information of MS (n = 57); (c) with another malignant tumor concurrently, except basal cell carcinoma (n = 7); (d) bilateral BC (n = 7); (e) metastatic disease at primary diagnosis (n = 4); or (f) loss to follow-up (n = 64).

Pathology Confirmation

Tumors with ≥1% nuclear-stained cells were considered positive for estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology–College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guidelines (26). Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status was evaluated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) or by FISH (27). HER2-negative was defined as negative receptor expression on IHC staining (membranous staining in <10% of cells) or negative gene amplification found on FISH. A gene copy to CEP-17 ratio less than 2.0 was considered negative. Staging of primary tumors was based on the TNM system of the sixth American Joint Committee on Cancer criteria (28). Grading of tumors and histological classification were based on the modified Black's nuclear grading system (29) and World Health Organization (WHO) criteria (30), respectively.

Data Collection

Data on MS components – namely, BMI, hypertension, blood glucose, HDL and TG levels at initial diagnosis were collected. For each patient, information was also obtained on medication for hypertension, elevated blood glucose and dyslipidemia. Patients’ information, including demographics, clinicopathological data, treatment modalities and details of clinical outcomes were also recorded. All patients were treated with a multidisciplinary approach and then followed up every 3-6 months.

The diagnosis of MS was ascertained in patients based on the AACE 2003 definitions. The diagnosis of MS by the AACE definition required the presence of BMI ≥25 (calculated as kg/m²) in addition to at least 2 of the following criteria: (i) fasting serum glucose ≥110 mg/dL, (ii) fasting HDL cholesterol <50 mg/dL, (iii) fasting TGs ≥150 mg/dL, (iv) resting blood pressure ≥130/85 mm Hg. RFS was measured from the date of diagnosis to the date of first documented local or distant recurrence or last follow-up. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time from the date of diagnosis to the date of death or last follow-up.

This study was approved by the Medical Center Institutional Review Board of the Cancer Hospital and Institute, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The differences between the groups were evaluated by the chi-square test. Continuous variables were compared using the 2-sample t-test. The Kaplan-Meier product limit method was used to estimate the survival outcomes of all patients; groups were compared using the log-rank test. A multivariate Cox regression model was used to identify the variables that were independently associated with survival. A p value <0.05 was considered to be significant for all comparisons.

Results

Demographics

The entire cohort comprised 394 TNBC and 855 non-TNBC patients. The median follow-up time of this study was 79.0 months (range 4.8-145.0 months). The age at diagnosis ranged from 22 to 91 years in the entire cohort, with the same median age of 49 years for both groups. Tumor characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups, such as TNM stage, histology type and percentage of lymphovascular invasion, except tumor grade since TNBC tumors tend to have higher histology grade than non-TNBC tumors (p<0.0001). As expected, due to the aggressiveness of TNBC tumors, more patients in the TNBC group received adjuvant chemotherapy (90.1%) and radiation therapy (40.6%) compared with the non-TNBC group, 85.0% and 32.5%, both p's <0.05. Moreover, compared with the non-TNBC group, more cases in TNBC group received Taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy, 57.4% vs. 41.9%, p<0.0001 (Tab. I).

TABLE I

Clinicopathological characteristics of TNBC and non-TNBC group

Characteristics	Non-TNBC (n = 855)	TNBC (n = 394)	p Value
Median age, years (range)	49.0 (22.0-80.0)	49.0 (21.0-91.0)	0.244
TNM stage, no. (%)
I	289 (33.8%)	111 (28.2%)	0.098
II	396 (46.3%)	190 (48.2%)
III	170 (19.9%)	93 (23.6%)
Histology type
IDC	765 (89.5%)	339 (86.0%)	0.087
Other	90 (10.5%)	55 (14.0%)
Grade
I/ II	675 (78.9%)	227 (57.6%)	<0.0001
III	180 (21.1%)	167 (42.4%)
Surgery mode
TM	747 (87.4%)	335 (85.0%)	0.283
BCS	108 (12.6%)	59 (15.0%)
LVI	91 (10.6%)	44 (11.2%)	0.770
Radiotherapy	278 (32.5%)	160 (40.6%)	0.006
Adjuvant chemotherapy	727 (85.0%)	355 (90.1%)	0.016
Anthracycline-based	704 (82.3%)	342 (86.8%)	0.719
Taxane-based	358 (41.9%)	226 (57.4%)	<0.0001
Recurrence	157 (18.4%)	108 (27.4%)	<0.0001
Visceral	90	68	0.375
Nonvisceral	91	42	0.003
Regional relapse	45	49	0.006

BCS = breast-conserving surgery; IDC = invasive ductal carcinoma; LVI = lymphovascular invasion; TM = total mastectomy; TNBC = triple-negative breast cancer.

Distribution of MS Components between TNBC and non-TNBC Groups

Based on AACE 2003 definitions, the frequencies of MS and its components including index of BMI, the level of serum HDL and TG were distributed evenly between the 2 groups (all p's >0.05). For example, 126 TNBC patients (32.0%) had low HDL and 77 TNBC cases (19.0%) high TG; similarly 274 non-TNBC patients (32.0%) had low-HDL, and 179 non-TNBC cases (20.9%) high TG. However, significantly more TNBCs than non-TNBCs presented with high blood pressure (BP ≥130/85 mm Hg) and elevated serum glucose (>110 mg/dl) (20.3% vs. 14.9% and 16.0% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.018 and p = 0.012, respectively). With regard to medication, there were no significant differences in medication use for MS components between TNBC and non-TNBC groups (Tab. II).

TABLE II

Distribution of MS components in TNBC and non-TNBC patients

Variable	Non-TNBC (n = 855)	TNBC (n = 394)	p Value
MS	131 (15.3%)	75 (19.0%)	0.102
BMI ≥25.0 kg/m²	384 (44.9%)	193 (49.0%)	0.200
HDL <50 mg/dL	274 (32.0%)	126 (32.0%)	1.000
TG ≥150 mg/dL	179 (20.9%)	77 (19.5%)	0.598
GLU ≥110 mg/dL or DM	92 (10.8%)	63 (16.0%)	0.012
BP ≥130/85 mm Hg	127 (14.9%)	80 (20.3%)	0.018
ß-Blockers for HBP	36 (4.2%)	22 (5.6%)	0.311
Other antihypertensive drugs	66 (7.7%)	42 (10.7%)	0.104
Metformin for DM	22 (2.6%)	12 (3.0%)	0.709
Other drugs including insulin for DM	58 (6.9%)	34 (8.6%)	0.246
Statins	58 (6.9%)	26 (6.6%)	1.0

BMI = body mass index; BP = blood pressure; DM = diabetes mellitus; GLU = serum glucose; HBP = high blood pressure; HDL = high-density lipoprotein; MS = metabolic syndrome; TG = triglyceride; TNBC = triple-negative breast cancer.

Recurrence and Survivals

In total, 265 cases developed a recurrence, 108 cases (27.4%) from TNBC patients and 157 cases (18.4%) from non-TNBC patients (p<0.0001). Metastatic TNBC tumors were prone to have distant organ metastasis, regional relapse, but not bone metastasis. Only 5 cases in the non-TNBC group died of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, and all of the other 146 deaths were attributed to cancer-specific causes. The 5-year RFS rate of TNBCs and non-TNBCs was 72.8% and 84.2%, respectively (p<0.0001). Similarly, compared with non-TNBC cases, TNBC patients had a worse 5-year OS rate (83.5% vs. 93.3%, p<0.0001).

MS Variables and Survivals for TNBC and non-TNBC Patients

In the TNBC group, patients with decreased serum HDL levels showed both worse RFS and OS (p's<0.0001) (Fig. 1). Elevated fasting glucose was correlated with higher risk of tumor recurrence (p = 0.022). It also demonstrated a trend to more death events, with borderline significance (p = 0.092). It was observed that patients with MS had a trend to more tumor recurrence than patients without MS (p = 0.058). No significant correlations were found for other MS variables with survival rates in TNBC patients (Tab. III). For non-TNBC patients, the presence of MS and high blood pressure increased the risk of all-cause death significantly (p = 0.046 and p = 0.014 respectively); no positive results were suggested in relationships between other components of MS and non-TNBC survival rates (Tab. III).

Fig. 1

Kaplan-Meier survival curves for relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients based on serum high-density lipoprotein (HDL) levels. Patients with low HDL had a significantly worse prognosis than patients with normal or high HDL, both p's<0.0001 (low HDL vs. normal or high HDL = RFS hazard ratio [HR] = 3.346; 95%CI, 2.287-4.895; OS HR = 2.986; 95%CI, 1.843-4.837).

TABLE III

Relationships of MS and MS variables with survival rates in TNBC and non-TNBC patients

Variables	RFS		OS
	Events No. (%)	p Value	Events No. (%)	p Value
MS (Yes/No)
TNBC	27 (36.0%) vs. 81 (25.4%)	0.058	16 (21.3%) vs. 51 (16.0%)	0.270
Non-TNBCs	29 (22.1%) vs. 128 (17.7%)	0.223	19 (14.6%) vs. 65 (9.0%)	0.046
BMI* (≥25.0 vs. <25.0)
TNBC	60 (31.1%) vs. 48 (23.9%)	0.113	35 (18.1%) vs. 32 (15.9%)	0.595
Non-TNBC	73 (19.0%) vs. 84 (17.8%)	0.642	42 (11.0%) vs. 42 (8.9%)	0.334
HDL (≥50 mg/dL vs. <50 mg/dL)
TNBC	60 (47.6%) vs. 48 (17.9%)	<0.0001	37 (29.4%) vs. 30 (11.2%)	<0.0001
Non-TNBC	53 (19.3%) vs. 104 (17.9%)	0.614	34 (12.5%) vs. 50 (8.6%)	0.080
TG (≥150 mg/dL vs. <150 mg/dL)
TNBC	25 (32.5%) vs. 83 (26.2%)	0.282	14 (18.2%) vs. 53 (16.7%)	0.747
Non-TNBC	34 (19.0%) vs. 123 (18.2%)	0.849	20 (11.2%) vs. 64 (9.5%)	0.510
GLU (≥110 mg/dL vs. <110 mg/dL)
TNBC	24 (38.1%) vs. 84 (25.4%)	0.022	15 (23.8%) vs. 52 (15.7%)	0.092
Non-TNBC	22 (23.9%) vs. 135 (17.7%)	0.119	13 (14.1%) vs. 71 (8.3%)	0.117
BP (≥130/85 mm Hg vs. <130/85 mm Hg)
TNBC	16 (20.0%) vs. 92 (29.3%)	0.114	15 (18.8%) vs. 52 (16.6%)	0.665
Non-TNBC	26 (20.5%) vs. 131 (18.0%)	0.429	20 (15.7%) vs. 64 (8.8%)	0.014

MS = metabolic syndrome; OS = overall survival; RFS = relapse-free survival; TNBC = triple-negative breast cancer.

BMI was calculated as kg/m².

In the Cox proportional hazards regression analyses adjusting for possible confounding factors, only elevated HDL was identified as an adverse prognostic factor for both RFS and OS in TNBC patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.266, 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 2.087-5.112, p<0.0001; and HR = 3.071, 95% CI, 1.732-5.445, p<0.0001). Besides that, larger tumor size (>2 cm), positive lymph node and younger age were independent poor prognostic factors for both RFS and OS (all p's<0.005) (Tab. IV).

TABLE IV

Multivariate analysis for RFS and OS for TNBC cases

Factor	RFS		OS
	HR (95% CI)	p Value	HR (95% CI)	p Value
MS
(Yes vs. No)	1.023 (0.521-2.007)	0.948	0.704 (0.299-1.656)	0.421
BMI*
(≥25.0 vs. <25.0)	1.280 (0.810-2.022)	0.291	1.130 (0.621-2.054)	0.689
HDL
(≥50 mg/dL vs. <50 mg/dL)	3.266 (2.087-5.112)	<0.0001	3.071 (1.732-5.445)	<0.0001
TG
(≥150 mg/dL vs. <150 mg/dL)	0.588 (0.342-1.011)	0.055	0.565 (0.280-1.140)	0.111
GLU
(≥110 mg/dL vs. <110 mg/dL)	1.537 (0.931-2.540)	0.093	1.358 (0.731-2.523)	0.332
BP
(≥130/85 mm Hg vs. <130/85 mm Hg)	0.517 (0.278-0.960)	0.037	1.207 (0.603-2.416)	0.596
Age group
(≤35 years vs. >35 years)	1.830 (1.059-3.162)	0.030	2.112 (1.052-4.241)	0.035
Grade
(III vs. I/II)	0.791 (0.530-1.180)	0.251	0.855 (0.516-1.418)	0.545
Lymphovascular invasion
(Yes vs. No)	1.559 (0.903-2.693)	0.111	2.041 (1.096-3.799)	0.024
Radiation
(Yes vs. No)	1.429 (0.916-2.231)	0.116	1.625 (0.908-2.909)	0.102
Tumor size
(≥2 cm vs. <2 cm)	2.914 (1.678-5.060)	<0.0001	2.948 (1.440-6.032)	0.003
Node metastasis
(N1/2/3 vs. N0)	2.433 (1.491-3.969)	<0.0001	3.431 (1.768-6.660)	<0.0001
Surgery mode
(TM vs. BCS)	1.006 (0.531-1.904)	0.987	1.331 (0.566-3.129)	0.513
Anthracycline-based
(Yes vs. No)	1.160 (0.521-2.583)	0.717	0.884 (0.363-2.152)	0.786
Taxane-based
(Yes vs. No)	0.848 (0.527-1.364)	0.496	0.621 (0.339-1.137)	0.123

BCS = breast-conserving surgery; BDM = diabetes mellitus; BMI = body mass index; BP = blood pressure; GLU = serum glucose; HDL = high-density lipoprotein; OS = overall survival; MS = metabolic syndrome; RFS = relapse-free survival; TM = total mastectomy; TNBC = triple-negative breast cancer.

BMI was calculated as kg/m².

But in the Cox proportional hazards regression analyses adjusting for possible confounding factors in the non-TNBC cases, none of the MS variables was identified as a significant prognostic factor for survival, for either RFS or OS (Tab. V).

TABLE V

Multivariate analysis for RFS and OS for non-TNBC cases

Factor	RFS		OS
	HR (95% CI)	p Value	HR (95% CI)	p Value
MS
(Yes vs. No)	0.911 (0.129-6.424)	0.926	0.743 (0.315-1.751)	0.497
BMI^*
(≥25.0 vs. <25.0)	0.511 (0.148-1.757)	0.286	1.527 (0.173-13.512)	0.703
HDL
(≥50 vs. <50)	1.058 (0.346-3.234)	0.921	3.155 (0.575-17.309)	0.186
TG
(≥15 mg/dL 0 vs. <150 mg/dL)	1.269 (0.275-5.849)	0.760	0.738 (0.073-7.455)	0.797
GLU
(≥110 mg/dL vs. <110 mg/dL)	1.193 (0.246-5.783)	0.827	1.228 (0.125-12.064)	0.860
BP
(≥130/85 mm Hg vs. <130/85 mm Hg)	0.868 (0.193-3.908)	0.854	1.903 (0.209-17.368)	0.568
Age group
(>35 years vs. ≤35 years)	0.000 (0.000)	0.984	0.000 (0.000)	0.989
Grade
(III vs. I/II)	0.391 (0.074-2.056)	0.267	0.000 (0.000-)	0.974
Lymphovascular invasion
(Yes vs. No)	0.595 (0.112-3.159)	0.542	1.855 (0.163-21.122)	0.619
Radiation
(Yes vs. No)	4.267 (0.984-18.508)	0.053	10.021 (0.765-131.322)	0.079
Tumor size
(≥2 cm vs. <2 cm)	2.319 (0.745-7.218)	0.147	26.421 (2.050-340.438)	0.012
Node metastasis
(N1/2/3 vs. N0)	0.856 (0.244-2.999)	0.808	0.809 (0.114-5.762)	0.832
Surgery mode
(TM vs. BCS)	1.229 (0.217-6.973)	0.816	3.054 (0.172-54.327)	0.447
Anthracycline-based
(Yes vs. No)	0.623 (0.122-3.188)	0.570	0.120 (0.006-2.329)	0.161
Taxane-based
(Yes vs. No)	0.537 (0.150-1.922)	0.339	0.194 (0.017-2.283)	0.192

BMI was calculated as kg/m².

Discussion

Despite the growing amount of evidence that both MS and components of MS, such as obesity, insulin resistance, elevated TG, elevated glucose or type 2 DM predict a higher risk of BC (2–16), questions remain to be answered: Does MS have an association with the outcomes for TNBC? Is there any difference between TNBC and non-TNBC patients in terms of their relationships with MS. Therefore, the present study was conducted to find clues to these questions.

The present study first revealed that HDL, TG or MS was not associated with TNBC susceptibility in a Chinese population – that is, no differences were observed in the frequencies of these variables between the TNBC and non-TNBC cohorts, which is inconsistent with previous studies reported in the literature (16, 18). In a case-control study of 2,070 cases in Korea, a significant negative association was observed between HDL and BC, the risk was evident in ER-/PR- cases compared with ER+/PR+ cases, with odds ratios (ORs) of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.32-0.76) and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.41-0.85), respectively (6). In another study of 176 patients from the United States, HDL levels also showed a significant independent inverse association with TNBC (p = 0.003) (20). The difference may be attributed to different race or different sample size.

We further demonstrated that only low HDL level was correlated with worse survivals of TNBC tumors. Compared with TNBC patients with HDL ≥50 mg/dL, those with HDL <50 mg/dL had a statistically significant about threefold greater risk of both cancer recurrence and all-cause mortality during a median 79 months of follow-up. The association of low HDL with worse survival was independent of age, BMI, tumor stage, tumor grade, lymph nodes and other confounding factors. However, such was not the case for non-TNBC patients.

Why HDL levels play an important role in TNBC cases could be in part explained by the following mechanism. HDL particles play an important role in removing cholesterol from peripheral tissues, thus the level of serum cholesterol could be decreased. While cholesterol could contribute to BC progression and tumor metastasis via various pathways, such as CD44, AKT, EGFR etc. (31), so it is assumed that HDL acts as a protective mediator from cancer progression and development. Another possible mechanism is that HDL cholesterol correlates negatively with ANG II, but ANG II is positively associated with VEGF in TNBC, while the VEGF signaling pathway plays a pivotal role in TNBC (2, 32, 33); therefore, low HDL may lead to more aggressive behavior of TNBC. Besides that, a positive correlation was found between adiponectin and HDL (34, 35), and in a Korean cohort study, serum adiponectin concentrations showed a significant inverse association with ER/PR-negative BC recurrence (p = 0.009) (9). These are just assumptions regarding the underlying mechanisms for the influence of HDL on TNBCs, however, and this is still far from explaining why low HDL acts differently between TNBC and non-TNBC patients.

When it comes to other MS factors, only elevated serum glucose was negatively correlated with tumor recurrence in the TNBC cases. However, it was not associated with recurrence or death after adjustments for tumor variables, HDL level and other possible prognostic factors. In fact, previous studies have indicated that diabetes was associated with both higher risk of tumor recurrence and BC all-cause mortality (10–12). A possible reason for the discrepancy is that elevated fasting serum glucose (defined as ≥110 mg/dL) does not equate to DM.

In addition, it was noted that increased TG did not show any significant association with tumor recurrence, irrespective of hormone receptor status. The results were in agreement with 2 other cohort studies (9, 36). They reported that TG was not associated with BC recurrence or death before or after adjustment for age, tumor-related variables, BMI or fasting insulin levels (9, 36).

Of course, the current study had several limitations. First, we used BMI rather than waist circumference to define obesity. Second, the present study was a retrospective study, and life styles, endocrine drugs and chemotherapy drugs may affect lipid profiles. Thus, definitive conclusions on the associations of HDL with TNBC survival rates cannot be drawn in the presence of the decreased power due to the above confounding factors.

Conclusion

Although HDL did not contribute as a prerequisite factor for the occurrence of TNBCs, it has prognostic significance in TNBC tumor recurrence and cancer-specific mortality, and it may protect against recurrence in TNBC patients. Thus, it may be especially important for monitoring and normalizing the HDL level in this subtype of BC. As these findings were not observed in the case of non-TNBC patients, further investigations are warranted to detect the underlying mechanisms.

Footnotes

Financial support: This study was supported in part by a grant from the National Natural Science Foundation of China for Young Scholars (No. 81202108).

Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

Reaven

Role of insulin resistance in human disease.

Diabetes 1988;37(12):1595–1607

Xue

Michels

Diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and breast cancer: a review of the current evidence.

Am J Clin Nutr 2007; 86(3):s823–s835

Pasanisi

F.P.

Berrino

De Petris

Metabolic syndrome as a prognostic factor for breast cancer recurrences.

Int J Cancer 2006;119(1):236–238

Agnoli

Berrino

Abagnato

Metabolic syndrome and postmenopausal breast cancer in the ORDET cohort: a nested case-control study.

Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis 2010;20(1):41–48

Alokail

Al-Daghri

Abdulkareem

Metabolic syndrome biomarkers and early breast cancer in Saudi women: evidence for the presence of a systemic stress response and/or a pre-existing metabolic syndrome-related neoplasia risk?

BMC Cancer 2013 Feb 4 13:54

Kim

Park

Han

Serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and breast cancer risk by menopausal status, body mass index, and hormonal receptor in Korea.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009;18(2):508–515

Laamiri

Otmani

Ahid

Lipid profile among Moroccan overweight women and breast cancer: a case-control study.

Int J Gen Med 2013;6:439–445

Larsson

Mantzoros

Wolk

Diabetes mellitus and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis.

Int J Cancer 2007;121(4):856–862

Park

Lee

Adipokines, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, and breast cancer recurrence: a cohort study.

Breast Cancer Res 2011;13(2):R34

10.

Erickson

Patterson

Flatt

Clinically defined type 2 diabetes mellitus and prognosis in early-stage breast cancer.

J Clin Oncol 2011;29(1):54–60

11.

Jiralerspong

Kim

Dong

Diabetes, obesity and survival in a large cohort of early-stage breast cancer patients.

Ann Oncol 2013;24(10):2506–2514

12.

De Bruijn

Arends

Hansen

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between diabetes mellitus and incidence and mortality in breast and colorectal cancer.

Br J Surg 2013;100(11):1421–1429

13.

Goodwin

Ennis

Pritchard

Insulin- and obesity-related variables in early-stage breast cancer: correlations and time course of prognostic associations.

J Clin Oncol 2012; 30(2):164–171

14.

Ewertz

Jensen

Gunnarsdóttir

KÁ

Effect of obesity on prognosis after early-stage breast cancer.

J Clin Oncol 2011;29(1):25–31

15.

Cust

Stocks

Lukanova

The influence of overweight and insulin resistance on breast cancer risk and tumor stage at diagnosis: a prospective study.

Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;113(3):567–576

16.

Duggan

Irwin

Xiao

Associations of insulin resistance and adiponectin with mortality in women with breast cancer.

J Clin Oncol 2011;29(1):32–39

17.

Dawood

Lei

Litton

Impact of body mass index on survival outcome among women with early stage triple-negative breast cancer.

Clin Breast Cancer 2012;12(5):364–372

18.

Dawood

Lei

Litton

Impact of body mass index on clinical outcomes in triple-negative breast cancer.

Clin Breast Cancer 2012;12(5):364–372

19.

Vona-Davis

Rose

Hazard

Triple negative breast cancer and obesity in a rural Appalachian Population.

Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(12):3319–3324

20.

Maiti

Kundranda

Spiro

Daw

The association of metabolic syndrome with triple-negative breast cancer.

Breast Cancer Res Treat 2010;121(2):479–483

21.

Yin

Clinicopathological features of the triple-negative tumors in Chinese breast cancer patients.

Breast Cancer Res Treat 2009;115(2):325–333

22.

Dent

Trudeau

Pritchard

Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence.

Clin Cancer Res 2007;1315 Pt1:4429–4434

23.

Davis

Kaklamani

Metabolic syndrome and triple-negativebreast cancer: a new paradigm.

Int J Breast Cancer 2012;2012:809291

24.

Melhem-Bertrandt

Chavez-Macgregor

Lei

Beta-blocker use is associated with improved relapse-free survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer.

J Clin Oncol 2011; 29(19):2645–2652

25.

Liu

Fan

Edgerton

Metformin induces unique biological and molecular responses in triple negative breast cancer cells.

Cell Cycle 2009;8(13):2031–2040

26.

Hammond

Hayes

Wolff

American society of clinical oncology/college of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer.

J Oncol Pract 2010;6(4):195–197

27.

Wolff

Hammond

Schwartz

American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer.

Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131(1):18–43

28.

Singletary

Allred

Ashley

Staging system for breast cancer: revisions for the 6th edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual.

Surg Clin North Am 2003;83(4):803–819

29.

Black

Speer

Nuclear structure in cancer tissues.

Surg Gynecol Obstet 1957;105(1):97–102

30.

World Health Organization.

The World Health Organization histological typing of breast tumors: second edition.

Am J Clin Pathol 1982;78(6):806–816

31.

Cruz

McConathy

The role of cholesterol metabolism and cholesterol transport in carcinogenesis: a review of scientific findings, relevant to future cancer therapeutics.

Front Pharmacol 2013 Sep 25;4:119

32.

Danza

Pilato

Lacalamita

Angiogenetic axis angiopoietins/Tie2 and VEGF in familial breast cancer.

Eur J Hum Genet 2013;21(8):824–830

33.

Linderholm

Hellborg

Johansson

Significantly higher levels of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and shorter survival times for patients with primary operable triple-negative breast cancer.

Ann Oncol 2009;20(10):1639–1646

34.

Mineo

Shaul

Novel biological functions of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol.

Circ Res 2012;111(8):1079–1090

35.

Tamang

Timilsina

Singh

Assessment of adiponectin level in obese and lean Nepalese population and its possible correlation with lipid profile: A cross-sectional study.

Indian J Endocrinol Metab 2013;17(Suppl 1):S349–S354

36.

Bahl

Ennis

Tannock

Serum Lipids and outcome of early-stage breast cancer: results of a prospective cohort study.

Breast Cancer Res Treat 2005;94(2):135–144