Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Long-term use of metformin and the molecular subtype in invasive breast carcinoma patients – a retrospective study of clinical and tumor characteristics

  • Nikola Besic1Email author,
  • Nika Satej2,
  • Ivica Ratosa1,
  • Andreja Gojkovic Horvat1,
  • Tanja Marinko1,
  • Barbara Gazic1 and
  • Rok Petric1
BMC Cancer201414:298

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2407-14-298

Received: 30 September 2013

Accepted: 23 April 2014

Published: 28 April 2014

Abstract

Background

Metformin may exhibit inhibitory effects on cancer cells by inhibiting mTOR signaling pathway. The aim of our retrospective study was to examine if patients with breast carcinoma (BC) and diabetes mellitus (DM) receiving metformin have a lower stage of carcinoma in comparison to patients not receiving metformin, and if the use of metformin correlates with the molecular subtype of BC.

Methods

A chart review of 253 patients with invasive BC and DM (128 on metformin and 125 not on metformin) was performed. Control group consisted of 320 consecutive patients with invasive BC without DM. BC subtypes were classified by immunohistochemical surrogates as luminal A (estrogen receptor [ER] + and/or progesterone receptor [PR]+, HER-2-), luminal B (ER + and/or PR+, HER-2+), HER-2 (ER-, PR-, HER-2+), triple-negative/basal (ER-, PR-, HER-2-).

Results

Patients on metformin had a lower proportion of T3 or T4 tumors than patients who were not receiving metformin (16% vs. 26%; p = 0.035). No statistical difference was found between the two study groups in N stage. Patients with DM on metformin, with DM not on metformin and the control group had different molecular subtypes of BC (p = 0.01): the luminal A subtype was found in 78%, 83% and 71%, the luminal B in 12.6%, 9% and 11%, HER-2 in 0.8%, 1.6% and 8%, and the triple-negative/basal-like subtype in 8.6%, 6.4% and 10%, respectively.

Conclusion

Our data indicate that long-term use of metformin use correlates with molecular subtype of BC in diabetics on metformin in comparison to diabetics not on metformin and patients without DM. However, most likely, different distribution of the molecular subtypes of BC in these three groups of patients was caused by other risk factors for breast carcinoma, such as age of patients or obesity.

Keywords

Breast carcinoma Diabetes mellitus Prognosis Metformin

Background

Epidemiological studies show that patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have an increased risk of breast carcinoma and that metformin treatment is associated with a reduction in cancer risk [1, 2]. It is known that anti-diabetic drugs may have an impact on breast carcinoma [3, 4]. Patients with type 2 diabetes exposed to sulphonylurea or exogenous insulin had a significantly increased risk of cancer-related mortality compared with patients exposed to metformin [5].

Jiralensung et al. [4] reported that diabetic patients with breast cancer receiving metformin and neoadjuvant chemotherapy have a higher pathological complete response rate than diabetics not receiving metformin. Although metformin treatment did not influence the overall survival in this retrospective study, these results have led to a huge interest in metformin as an anti-cancer agent [6]. Metformin may exhibit inhibitory effects on cancer cells by inhibiting the mTOR signaling pathway. Metformin has anti-proliferative effects in primary breast carcinoma (BC) tumors [7]. Metformin alone inhibits cell proliferation and induces apoptosis in different breast cancer cell lines (ERα-positive, HER2-positive, and triple-negative) [8]. Furthermore, metformin sensitizes breast cancer cells to the cytotoxic effect of chemotherapeutic drugs in vitro [8]. In BC patients without diabetes mellitus (DM), the gene set analysis revealed a reduced expression of p53, BRCA1 and cell cycle pathways after two-week of treatment with metformin [9]. Therefore, it is possible that metformin has also an impact on tumor extension and progression in breast carcinoma (BC) patients. The aim of our retrospective study was to examine if the patients with BC and DM receiving metformin have a lower stage of carcinoma when compared to patients not receiving metformin. Another aim was to find out whether long-term use of metformin correlates with the molecular subtype of BC.

Methods

Altogether, 253 (median age 67; range 38–93 years) patients with DM were surgically treated for invasive breast carcinoma at a single comprehensive tertiary cancer center from 2005 to 2011. In the same department, around 800 BC surgical procedures are performed annually. Referral to our center has not changed over these years. In order to avoid selection bias, all 320 consecutive patients with BC without DM (median age 60, range 28–86 y.), who were surgically treated in our tertiary cancer comprehensive center in the first half of 2006 were included in our control group. A chart review of all 573 patients was 80 performed.

The following data on clinical and histopathological characteristics were collected: patients’ age, body mass index (BMI), TNM tumor stage, number of metastatic lymph nodes, presence of estrogen and progesterone receptors and HER-2 expression. Tumor stage, presence of regional metastases, distant metastases and residual tumor after surgery were assessed by TNM clinical classification system according to the UICC criteria from 2009 [10]. BMI was calculated as weight/height2 (kg/m2). Co-morbidity was assessed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA score) [11].

In this study, routine pathology reports of surgical specimens were used. Histological slides were examined by six pathologists experienced in breast pathology. The histological type of each tumor was defined according to the WHO classification system. Tumor grade was defined according to the modified Black’s nuclear grading system. Sentinel lymph nodes were examined by imprint cytology and immunohistochemistry in paraffin sections [12]. If sentinel nodes turned out to be tumor-free, no further axillary surgery was recommended. In case of metastasis in sentinel lymph nodes detected by imprint cytological investigation, the patient underwent axillary dissection during the same surgical procedure. In case of malignant involvement only in the paraffin section, axillary dissection was performed. For the purposes of this study, estrogen receptors (ER) and progesterone receptors (PR) were considered positive if 10% or more tumor cells showed positive staining. The status of HER-2 receptors was determined by immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. HER-2–positive tumors were defined as 3+ receptor over-expression on IHC staining and/or gene amplification found on fluorescence in situ hybridization testing. Unfortunately, in the majority of our patients the expression of Ki-67 was not assessed, so we were not able to classify our patients according to the new St. Gallen Consensus 2013 [13] which defined the surrogate intrinsic subtypes of breast cancer according to ER, PR, HER-2 status and also Ki-67. In our study molecular subtypes of BC were classified by immunohistochemical surrogates as luminal A (ER + and/or PR+, HER-2-), luminal B (ER + and/or PR+, HER-2+), HER-2 (ER-, PR-, HER-2+), triple-negative/basal (ER-, PR-, HER-2-) as was done in the study of Wiechmann et al. from the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center [14].

Factors recorded for this study included surgical breast cancer treatment (breast-conserving surgery vs. mastectomy), axillary surgery (sentinel lymph node biopsy vs. axillary dissection), adjuvant chemotherapy, hormonal treatment and/or treatment with trastuzumab.

Our study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana and was performed in accordance with the ethical standards laid down in an appropriate version of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. Our study was conducted with the understanding and the consent of the subjects. All our patients are asked during the first admission to our institute or during a follow-up visit to give a consent for study of her/his chart and/or bioptic material for scientific purposes. Since the Institutional Review Board of the Institute of Oncology Ljubljana approved this specific study, our patients were not asked to give a written consent on this specific study.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis of these factors (comparison of metformin group vs. no metformin group and comparison of metformin group vs. no metformin group vs. control group) was performed by contingence tables, ANOVA for normally distributed numerical variables and non-parametric tests for non-normally distributed numerical variables. Multivariate logistic regression was done in order to find out which factors were predictive factors for presence of regional metastases. A p-value of 0.05 or less was considered statistically significant. For statistical analysis, SPSS 16.0 for Windows was used.

Results

Median age of patients with diabetes, BMI, tumor size and number of metastatic lymph nodes was 67 years, 29.7 kg/cm2, 2.1 cm and 1, respectively. Characteristics of (1) patients treated with metformin, (2) patients not treated with metformin and (3) control group of patients are presented in Table 1. The tumor-specific therapy and outcome of all three groups of patients are presented in Table 2.
Table 1

Tumor and demographic characteristics of 253 patients with breast carcinoma and diabetes (128 on and 125 not on metformin) and 320 patients with breast carcinoma without diabetes

Factor

Sub-group

Patients with breast carcinoma and diabetes without metformin

Patients with breast carcinoma and diabetes on metformin

Patients with breast carcinoma without diabetes

P1

P2

Median age (years)

 

69

65

60

0.034

0.0001

Median BMI (kg/m 2 )

 

29.35

30.30

25.80

0.18

0.0001

Median ASA score

 

2

2

2

0.78

0.0001

Median tumor size (cm)

 

2.1

2.05

1.8

0.46

0.014

Median number of metastatic lymph nodes

 

0.5

1

0

0.79

0.78

Age (years)

70 or less

72

96

248

0.003

0.0001

71 or more

53

32

72

BMI (kg/m 2 )

Less than 30

70

58

258

0.122

0.0001

(N = 562)

30 or more

51

63

62

  

ASA score (N = 480)

1

3

0

103

0.21

0.0001

2

77

80

119

3

38

38

22

Diet only (N = 253)

No

105

128

-

-

-

Yes

20

0

-

Therapy with sulphonylurea

No

78

69

320

-

-

Yes

47

59

0

pT tumour stage

pT1

57

63

192

0.031

0.0001

pT2

35

45

87

pT3

6

9

20

pT4

27

11

21

T3 or T4 stage

pT1 or pT2

93

108

279

0.035

0.003

pT3 or pT4

33

20

41

N stage (N = 572)

pN0

63

65

173

0.90

0.78

pN1 or pN2

62

63

146

Number of metastatic lymph nodes (N = 572)

0

63

63

173

0.68

0.75

1–3

32

39

80

4 or more

30

26

66

M stage

M0

120

124

313

0.75

0.55

M1

5

4

7

Type of invasive carcinoma

Ductal

103

115

274

0.086

0.23

Lobular or other

22

13

46

Molecular subtype of carcinoma (N = 569)

Luminal A

104

99

226

0.60

0.01

Luminal B

11

16

35

HER-2

2

1

25

Triple negative

8

11

31

Tumor differentiation (N = 566)

Well or moderate

69

73

177

0.67

0.89

Poor

56

75

136

ER status (10% or more) (N = 570)

Positive

113

115

258

0.97

0.008

Negative

12

12

60

PR status (10% or more)

Positive

96

90

207

0.28

0.049

Negative

29

37

111

ER status (1% or more) (N = 570)

Positive

114

116

263

0.87

0.011

Negative

11

12

57

PR status (1% or more)

Positive

106

99

218

0.13

0.001

Negative

19

29

102

HER-2 (N = 569)

Negative

112

110

257

0.46

0.06

Positive

13

17

60

Triple-negative tumor (N = 569)

No

117

116

286

0.49

0.53

Yes

8

11

31

P1: p-value (DM not on metformin vs. DM on metformin).

P2: p-value (DM not on metformin vs. DM on metformin vs. controls).

ER: estrogen receptor status.

PR: progesteron receptor.

Table 2

Carcinoma-related treatment in 253 patients with breast carcinoma and diabetes (128 receiving and 125 not receiving metformin) and 320 patients with breast carcinoma without diabetes

Factor

Sub-group

Patients with breast carcinoma and diabetes without metformin (N = 125)

Patients with breast carcinoma and diabetes on metformin (N = 128)

Patients with breast carcinoma without diabetes (N = 320)

P1

P2

Breast surgical procedure

Quadrantectomy or lumpectomy

48

59

157

0.21

0.13

Mastectomy

77

69

163

  

Axillary surgical procedure

Sentinel node biopsy

54

61

147

0.43

0.73

Lymphadenectomy

71

67

173

Adjuvant chemotherapy

No

94

87

196

0.20

0.02

Yes

31

41

124

Adjuvant hormone therapy

No

14

15

76

0.89

0.0001

Yes

111

113

244

Adjuvant trastuzumab

No

118

115

285

0.17

0.22

Yes

7

13

35

Adjuvant radiotherapy

No

60

52

135

0.23

0.44

Yes

65

76

185

P1: p-value (DM not on metformin vs. DM on metformin).

P2: p-value (DM not on metformin vs. DM on metformin vs. controls).

Patients with DM were older than patients without DM (p < 0.001), had a larger median BMI (29.7 vs. 25.8; p = 0.0001), a larger median tumor diameter (2.1 vs. 1.8 cm; p = 0.004) and a higher tumor stage (T1/T2: 79% vs. 87%; T3/T4: 21% vs. 13%; p = 0.01). Patients with DM, as compared to patients without DM, showed no statistical difference in the rate of regional (50% vs. 47%) or distant metastases (3.6% vs. 2%) or in the median number of metastatic lymph nodes (1 vs. 0), respectively. Tumors in patients with DM were more often positive for ER (90% vs. 81%) and PR (74% vs. 65%) than tumors in patients without DM (p < 0.03). So, patients with DM were more often treated with hormones and less often with chemotherapy than patients without DM (p < 0.01). Tumors were HER-2 positive in patients with and without DM in 12% and 19% (p = 0.03), respectively. Patients with DM and the control group had different molecular subtypes of BC (p = 0.01): the luminal A subtype was found in 80% and 71%, the luminal B in 11% and 11%, HER-2 in 1% and 8%, and the triple-negative/basal-like subtype in 7% and 10%, respectively.

DM type 1 and DM type 2 were present in 40 and 213 cases, respectively. Altogether, 128 patients (median age 65; range 39–88 years) were on metformin, while 125 (median age 69; range 37–93 years) were not. Compared to patients not receiving metformin, a larger proportion of patients on metformin were younger than 71 years (p = 0.003) and had a smaller T stage (T1: 49% vs. 46%; T2: 35% vs. 28%; T3: 7% vs. 5%; T4: 9% vs. 21%, p = 0.03). Patients on metformin had a lower proportion of T3 or T4 tumors than patients who were not receiving metformin (16% vs. 26%; p = 0.035). No statistical difference was found between the two study groups in N stage (p = 0.90). Median tumor size (2.05 cm vs. 2.1 cm; p = 0.46), tumor grade, median number of metastatic lymph nodes (1 vs. 0.5; p = 0.79), ER status (p = 0.97), PR status (p = 0.28), HER-2 status (p = 0.46) or molecular subtypes of BC (p = 0.60) did not show any statistical difference between the two study groups (Table 1). There was a trend for a higher rate of ductal type of BC in patients with DM on metformin in comparison to those not receiving metformin (90% vs. 82%, p = 0.086). There was no statistical difference in the rate of lymphadenectomy or treatment with radiotherapy, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy or trastuzumab between the two groups of patients with DM. Patients with DM on metformin, those with DM not on metformin and the control group had different molecular subtypes of BC (p = 0.01): the luminal A subtype was found in 78%, 83% and 71%, the luminal B in 12.6%, 9% and 11%, HER-2 in 0.8%, 1.6% and 8%, and the triple-negative/basal-like subtype in 8.6%, 6.4% and 10%, respectively.

Age, BMI, hormone receptor status, HER2 status, tumor grade and molecular subtype were included in the multivariate analysis in order to find out which were independent predictive factors for the presence of regional metastases. Only a tumor differentiation was independent predictive factor for the presence of regional metastases.

Discussion

The aim of our study was to find out if the patients with BC and DM receiving metformin have a lower stage of carcinoma when compared to patients not receiving metformin. Our hypothesis was that the use of metformin slows down the progression of breast carcinoma in comparison to other types of anti-diabetic drugs. We found that patients on metformin had a lower proportion of T3 or T4 tumors than patients who were not receiving metformin (16% vs. 26%; p = 0.035). However, there was no significant difference in tumor diameter, tumor grade or median number of metastatic lymph nodes between the two study groups. Our patients using metformin had the same rate of ER and PR as those not receiving metformin. Thus, our data do not confirm the findings of Berstein et al. [15] who, in 90 postmenopausal BC patients with DM, observed a higher rate of positive progesterone receptors in patients on metformin when compared to those on sulphonylurea or insulin (73% vs. 37%).

Aksoy S et al. investigated the demographic and clinico-pathological characteristics of metformin users in comparison with patients without diabetes matched with the same age at the time of breast cancer diagnosis [16]. Patients who received insulin treatment were excluded. Metformin users had lower incidence of grade 3 tumors and lower incidence of triple-negative disease [16]. On the other hand, hormone receptor positivity was significantly higher in metformin users compared to nonusers; thus, hormonal treatment history was higher in metformin users [16]. Our patients using metformin did not have lower incidence of grade 3 tumors or lower incidence of triple-negative disease in comparison to diabetics not on metformin and/or patients without DM. But hormone receptor positivity was higher in our metformin users, so more metformin users had hormonal treatment in comparison to nonusers or patients without DM.

There is an emerging body of evidence supporting the hypothesis that short-term use of metformin has an impact on BC tumor cells in newly diagnosed, untreated, non-diabetic early-stage breast cancer patients [2, 7, 9, 17]. Ki67 staining in invasive tumor tissue decreased in surgical specimen in patients who received metformin after diagnostic core biopsy [7]. A similar study was conducted by Hadad et al. [9] who observed a reduced expression of p53, BRCA1 and cell cycle pathways after 2-week treatment with metformin in BC patients without DM [9]. However, we were not interested in short-term action of metformin use. The aim of our study was to find out if long-term use of metformin correlates with the molecular subtypes of BC. We found that patients with DM on metformin, those with DM not on metformin and the control group of patients without DM had different molecular subtypes of BC: the luminal A subtype was found in 78%, 83% and 71%, the luminal B in 12.6%, 9% and 11%, HER-2 in 0.8%, 1.6% and 8%, and the triple-negative/basal-like subtype in 8.6%, 6.4% and 10%, respectively. However, the comparison of the molecular subtypes in a group of patients with DM on metformin and in those not receiving metformin did not show statistically different distribution. Thus, our data do not support the hypothesis that long-term use of metformin in diabetics correlates with the distribution of the molecular subtype of BC. Most likely, different distribution of the molecular subtypes of BC in these three groups of patients was caused by other risk factors for breast carcinoma, such as age of patients or obesity.

Xiao et al. [18], studied a clinical-pathological characteristic in Luminal A subtype of breast cancer, Luminal B (high Ki67) and Luminal B (Her-2+) subtype. They found out that luminal subtype was present in 68% of patients with BC and 10% of them had DM. They reported data about 1,384 Luminal A-subtype breast cancer patients, including 201 patients with diabetes; 3, 393 Luminal B (high Ki67)-subtype breast cancer patients, including 341 patients with diabetes; and 1,008 Luminal B (Her-2+)-subtype breast cancer patients, including 138 patients with diabetes [18]. A Cox multivariate regression analysis showed that among Luminal A and Luminal B (Her-2+) subtype patients, the metformin group had a better prognosis than did the non-metformin group, but there was no difference in prognosis between the metformin group and the non-diabetic group. For the Luminal B (high Ki67) subtype, the metformin group had a better prognosis than both the non-metformin group and the non-diabetic group [18].

Bayractar et al. [19] studied whether the use of metformin during adjuvant chemotherapy has an impact on the survival of patients with triple-negative BC. The study cohort was comprised of 63 diabetic patients receiving treatment with metformin, 67 diabetic patients not receiving metformin, and 1318 non-diabetic patients [19]. They found that metformin use during adjuvant chemotherapy did not affect the survival outcomes in diabetic patients with triple-negative breast cancer [19]. In our diabetic patients, as compared to those without DM, the rate of triple-negative BC was not significantly different. Metformin use in our diabetic patients was not correlated with the presence of triple-negative BC. The rate of triple-negative BC in our patients with DM on metformin, those not on metformin and controls was 8.7%, 6.4% and 9.7%, respectively.

There are several limitations of our study. It is retrospective, observational and non-randomized. Besides, data about the length of treatment with anti-diabetic drugs are missing. Furthermore, our patients received different combinations of anti-diabetic drugs and insulin types and doses. Yet, despite the fact that both DM and breast carcinoma are common diseases, the data about histopathological characteristics and the extent of the disease in these patients in the literature are scarce and conflicting [4, 15, 16, 1822]. Wolf et al. [20] found that BMI, tumor size and stage were larger among diabetic patients, while N or M tumor stage did not differ among patients with and without DM. They found that a more advanced stage in patients with DM could not be attributed to parity, family history of breast cancer, obesity, or other risk factors for breast cancer [20, 23]. Similarly, our patients with DM were older, had a higher BMI, ASA score, mean tumor diameter and also a higher rate of T3/T4 tumors compared to the control group. Furthermore, in our patients with DM, there was no statistical difference in the rate of regional metastases or in the median number of metastatic lymph nodes when compared to patients without DM.

Conclusion

Patients with DM have locally more advanced disease but do not have more advanced regional or distant disease when compared to patients without DM. Our data show that long-term use of metformin in diabetics is correlated with a lower local tumor stage and is not correlated with regional or distant disease. In addition, our data indicate that long-term use of metformin use correlates with molecular subtype of BC in diabetics on metformin in comparison to diabetics not on metformin and patients without DM. However, most likely, different distribution of the molecular subtypes of BC in these three groups of patients was caused by other risk factors for breast carcinoma, such as age of patients or obesity.

Declarations

Acknowledgment

This paper is a part of the Research Study No. P3-0289 supported by the Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Slovenia.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute of Oncology Ljubljana
(2)
Community Health Centre Ljubljana

References

  1. Larsson SC, Mantzoros CS, Wolk A: Diabetes mellitus and risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer. 2007, 121: 856-862. 10.1002/ijc.22717.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Goodwin PJ, Stambolic V, Lemieux J, Chen BE, Parulekar WR, Gelmon KA, Hershman DL, Hobday TJ, Ligibel JA, Mayer IA, Pritchard KI, Whelan TJ, Rastogi P, Shepherd LE: Evaluation of metformin in early breast cancer: a modification of the traditional paradigm for clinical testing of anti-cancer agents. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011, 126: 215-220. 10.1007/s10549-010-1224-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowker SL, Yasui Y, Veugelers P, Johnson JA: Glucose-lowering agents and cancer mortality rates in type 2 diabetes: assessing effects of time-varying exposure. Diabetologia. 2010, 53: 1631-1637. 10.1007/s00125-010-1750-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Jiralerspong S, Palla SL, Giordano SH, Meric-Bernstam F, Liedtke C, Barnett CM, Hsu L, Hung MC, Hortobagyi GN, Gonzalez-Angulo AM: Metformin and pathologic complete responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in diabetic patients with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009, 27: 3297-3302. 10.1200/JCO.2009.19.6410.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowker SL, Majumdar SR, Veugelers P, Johnson JA: Increased cancer-related mortality for patients with type 2 diabetes who use sulfonylureas or insulin. Diabetes Care. 2006, 29: 254-258. 10.2337/diacare.29.02.06.dc05-1558.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Jalving M, Gietema JA, Lefrandt JD, de Jong S, Reyners AK, Gans RO, de Vries EG: Metformin: taking away the candy for cancer?. Eur J Cancer. 2010, 46: 2369-2380. 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.06.012.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Niraula S, Dowling RJ, Ennis M, Chang MC, Done SJ, Hood N, Escallon J, Leong WL, McCready DR, Reedijk M, Stambolic V, Goodwin PJ: Metformin in early breast cancer: a prospective window of opportunity neoadjuvant study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012, 135: 821-830. 10.1007/s10549-012-2223-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Liu H, Scholz C, Zang C, Schefe JH, Habbel P, Regierer AC, Schulz CO, Possinger K, Eucker J: Metformin and the mTOR inhibitor everolimus (RAD001) sensitize breast cancer cells to the cytotoxic effect of chemotherapeutic drugs in vitro. Anticancer Res. 2012, 32: 1627-1637.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Hadad S, Iwamoto T, Jordan L, Purdie C, Bray S, Baker L, Jellema G, Deharo S, Hardie DG, Pusztai L, Moulder-Thompson S, Dewar JA, Thompson AM: Evidence for biological effects of metformin in operable breast cancer: a pre-operative, window-of-opportunity, randomized trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011, 128: 783-794. 10.1007/s10549-011-1612-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Sobin LH, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C: TNM classification of malignant tumours. 2009, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 7Google Scholar
  11. Owens WD, Felts JA, Spitznagel EL: ASA physical status classifications: a study of consistency of ratings. Anesthesiology. 1978, 49: 239-243. 10.1097/00000542-197810000-00003.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Zgajnar J, Frkovic-Grazio S, Besic N, Hocevar M, Vidergar-Kralj B, Gerljevic A, Pogacnik A: Low sensitivity of the touch imprint cytology of the sentinel lymph node in breast cancer patients–results of a large series. J Surg Oncol. 2004, 85: 82-86. 10.1002/jso.20011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thürlimann B, Senn HJ, Panel members: Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St Gallen International expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2013. Ann Oncol. 2013, 24: 2206-2223. 10.1093/annonc/mdt303.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Wiechmann L, Sampson M, Stempel M, Jacks LM, Patil SM, King T, Morrow M: Presenting features of breast cancer differ by molecular subtype. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009, 16: 2705-2710. 10.1245/s10434-009-0606-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Berstein LM, Boyarkina MP, Tsyrlina EV, Turkevich EA, Semiglazov VF: More favorable progesterone receptor phenotype of breast cancer in diabetics treated with metformin. Med Oncol. 2011, 28: 1260-1263. 10.1007/s12032-010-9572-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Aksoy S, Nahit Sendur MA, Altundag K: Demographic and clinico-pathological characteristics in patients with invasive breast cancer receiving metformin. Med Oncol. 2013, 30: 590-596.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bonanni B, Puntoni M, Cazzaniga M, Pruneri G, Serrano D, Guerrieri-Gonzaga A, Gennari A, Trabacca MS, Galimberti V, Veronesi P, Johansson H, Aristarco V, Bassi F, Luini A, Lazzeroni M, Varricchio C, Viale G, Bruzzi P, Decensi A: Dual effect of metformin on breast cancer proliferation in a randomized presurgical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2012, 30: 2593-2600. 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.3769.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Xiao Y, Zhang S, Hou G, Zhang X, Hao X, Zhang J: Clinical pathological characteristics and prognostic analysis of diabetic women with luminal subtype breast cancer. Tumour Biol. 2013, 35: 2035-2045.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Bayraktar S, Hernadez-Aya LF, Lei X, Meric-Bernstam F, Litton JK, Hsu L, Hortobagyi GN, Gonzalez-Angulo AM: Effect of metformin on survival outcomes in diabetic patients with triple receptor-negative breast cancer. Cancer. 2012, 118: 1202-1211. 10.1002/cncr.26439.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Wolf I, Sadetzki S, Gluck I, Oberman B, Ben-David M, Papa MZ, Catane R, Kaufman B: Association between diabetes mellitus and adverse characteristics of breast cancer at presentation. Eur J Cancer. 2006, 42: 1077-1082. 10.1016/j.ejca.2006.01.027.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Unterburger P, Sinop A, Noder W, Berger MR, Fink M, Edler L, Schmähl D, Ehrhart H: Diabetes mellitus and breast cancer. A retrospective follow-up study. Onkologie. 1990, 13: 17-20. 10.1159/000216712.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Guastamacchia E, Resta F, Mangia A, Schittulli F, Ciampolillo A, Triggiani V, Licchelli B, Paradiso A, Sabbà C, Tafaro E: Breast cancer: biological characteristics in postmenopausal type 2 diabetic women. Identification of therapeutic targets. Curr Drug Targets Immune Endocr Metabol Disord. 2003, 3: 205-209. 10.2174/1568008033340199.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Wolf I, Sadetzki S, Catane R, Karasik A, Kaufman B: Diabetes mellitus and breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2005, 6: 103-111. 10.1016/S1470-2045(05)01736-5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2407/14/298/prepub

Copyright

© Besic et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement