Breast cancer in patients under 40 years of age is uncommon; however, it has generated considerable interest because of the associated unfavorable outcome reported in several studies [
6,
7,
13,
14]. Younger age has been generally accepted as an independent adverse prognostic indicator of survival in breast cancer [
15-
18]. Nevertheless, many reports suggest that the poor outcomes associated with this age group are complicated by several additional factors [
5,
13,
19]. Given the lack of routine screening programmes for women younger than 40 years, it is not surprising that women in this age group are more likely to present with a palpable mass and that their tumours tends to be larger and are more likely to have nodal involvement, than tumours detected by screening [
5,
13,
20].
It has been determined that underlying tumour pathology such as higher tumour grade, nodal status and presence of distant metastasis at diagnosis contribute to the worse outcome in breast cancer in women less than 40 years of age [
4,
5,
21,
22]. In relation to receptor status, tumours in young women have been predominantly reported as ER and PR negative, and have also been shown to over-express Her2/neu [
6,
13,
19,
23,
24]. In addition; the rates of the known aggressive triple negative (PR, ER and HER2 -ve) tumour, which carries high risk of recurrence, were reported to be higher in young females [
25]. In this study, younger women had tumours that were distinctly different from those in older women and were characterized by previously identified unfavorable biological parameters. Histopathological analysis showed that the majority of younger women were diagnosed with high grade and advanced stage tumours. Invasive ductal carcinoma was common in both groups. Although rare in our cohort of patients, invasive lobular carcinoma was more common in older women, a finding similar to that published in the literature [
26,
27]. Furthermore, biological evaluation of breast cancer in young women group revealed higher frequency of ER negativity and
HER2/neu overexpression. No significant difference was identified in PR status, although it should be noted that the majority of patients in both groups were PR positive (70%). These findings strongly support accumulating evidence that breast cancer in young patients is biologically more aggressive and associated with unfavorable prognostic markers relative to their older counterparts.
The accumulating evidence of biologically unfavorable breast cancer among younger women has resulted in more aggressive treatment strategies for this patient population. Hence, there is a very low threshold towards more aggressive surgical treatment of breast cancer in young females. Although BCS has been found in some studies to be associated with higher rates of local recurrence after long term follow-up [
28,
29], numerous studies have failed to confirm the superiority of mastectomy over breast conserving surgery (BCS) in improving both the disease-free and overall survival. Of those is a recent report by Livi et al., who analysed the breast cancer outcome in 346 young females and found no significant role of surgical treatment (mastectomy
vs. BCS) as predictor of local recurrence [
22]. In this study, and in keeping with literature, although the majority of our young patients underwent mastectomy, we found no significant difference in local recurrence-free survival between the mastectomy and BCS groups.
The role of postoperative radiotherapy in reducing breast cancer local recurrence has been confirmed in many studies [
30-
34]. However; there is conflicting evidence in translating its role in controlling local recurrence into breast cancer mortality reduction [
30,
33,
35,
36]. Significant survival improvements have been reported in subgroup analyses of patients with favorable prognostic indicators like: grade I disease, less than 3 positive lymph nodes, tumours less than 2 cm and hormone receptors positive disease, but not in high risk groups [
33,
35,
37-
39]. Adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to benefit young patients with approximately 37% reduction in recurrence rates and a 27% reduction in death rates [
40,
41]. With both single-agent chemotherapy and polychemotherapy, there is trend towards greater benefits among younger women, but both for recurrence and for mortality the age-standardized effect of single-agent regimens were significantly less favorable than those of the polychemotherapy regimens [
42]. Regarding chemotherapeutic agents, it has been widely accepted that anthracyclines and taxanes are the most effective agents in adjuvant settings of breast cancer management in young females. A meta-analysis by the early breast cancer trialists' collaboration group (EBCTCG) showed that 6 months of anthracycline-based polychemotherapy reduces the annual breast cancer death by about 38% for women younger that 50 years of age at diagnosis [
42].
Hormonal therapy effect had been considered of secondary importance in young females with breast cancer. However; it has become common current practice to follow adjuvant chemotherapy in receptor positive young women. This practice is based on the evidences provided by recent trials [
42-
46]. Hormonal therapy value in premenopausal women has been defined recently in a meta-analysis of randamised trials which showed that combination of chemotherapy with 5 years Tamoxifen in ER positive breast cancer reduce risk of death by 57% [
42]. In addition, the intermediate results of the international breast cancer study group trial confirmed that Tamoxifen significantly improve outcome in premenopausal women with hormone receptors positive disease [
44].
Therefore, in our cohort of patients, those less than 40 years of age were managed aggressively independent of the disease stage. Further elucidation of tumour characteristics such as HER2neu status has given adjuvant therapists the opportunity to tailor systemic treatment and clearly the younger patients are more suited to this treatment based on our and others findings
Previous reports comparing survival between women less than and greater than 40, with breast cancer have returned inconsistent results. Both Kollias et al. and Yildirim et al. found decreased DFS and OS in younger patients [
17,
18]. However; other studies have demonstrated that, young age in its own is not an adverse prognostic factor [
13,
47]. The small number of patients, study design and the employment of different statistical methods might explain these variations. Moreover, only a few studies have assessed the prognostic indicators in order to confirm whether the poorer outcome in younger women could be related to the biological characteristics of their tumours. By controlling for confounders and employing multivariate analysis methods, we have been unable to identify significant difference in both DFS and OS between the two groups of patients. Consistent with McAree et al [
19], we identified PR receptor positivity as a predictor of survival in younger women with breast cancer. In additions; other variables like tumour size and stage were shown to influence OS while nodal status and adjuvant chemoendocrine therapy predicted DFS in women less than 40 by multivariate analysis. We have failed to identify any benefit of ovarian ablation in improving OS in younger women. Interestingly, the group of patients who received bilateral prophylactic oopherectomy had poorer OS than those who did not. This finding could be explained by the fact that most of our patients had adjuvant chemo-endocrine therapy. EBCTCG overviews have shown that, although ovarian ablation is associated with improved survival for premenopausal women both on recurrence and on breast cancer mortality, the effect of ovarian treatment appear to be smaller in the trials where both groups got chemotherapy [
42]. In addition, they reported that more breast cancer related deaths were noted in the trials of ovarian ablation in the presence of chemotherapy than in the trials of ablation in the absence of chemotherapy [
48-
50]. This could partially be explained by the toxic effect of chemotherapy on the ovary, limiting the benefits of other ovarian treatments.