CASE REPORT: An 87-year-old male had a tumour nodule over the left parotid tail for about 20 years. Physical examinations revealed a 4.5 cm soft, non-tender and fixed mass. After the left parotidectomy, pathology confirmed the diagnosis of IDC arising within an intraparotid lymph node. The cystic component of the tumour was lined by single to multilayered ductal cells with micropapillary growth pattern. The solid part showed intraductal proliferation of neoplastic cells in solid, cribriform, micropapillary and Roman bridge-like structure. By immunohistochemistry (IHC), the tumour cells were positive for S-100, CK (AE1/AE3), mammaglobin, SOX10, and estrogen receptor (ER), with myoepithelial cell rimming highlighted by positive p63 and calponin IHC stains. The prognosis of this patient is excellent after complete excision.
DISCUSSION: The mechanism of salivary gland tumour arising in the intra-parotid gland LN was assumed to be related to salivary duct inclusion within the intraparotid gland LN which is a normal occurrence during embryology development. Although the terminology may raise some confusion about the relationship between IDC and conventional salivary duct carcinoma (SDA), they are different in immunophenotype and clinicopathologic features. IDC is characterised by S100 (+) ER (+) with predominant intraductal growth and excellent prognosis; while SDC features S100 (-) androgen receptor (+) with predominant invasive growth and aggressive behavior. Recent discovery of recurrent RET gene rearrangement in IDC but not SDC also supports that IDC is not precursor lesion of the SDC.
METHODS: The cytotoxic effect of hydromethanolic extract of A. crispa and its solvents partitions (ethyl acetate and aqueous extracts) against breast cancer cells were evaluated by using MTT assay. The cells were treated with concentration of extracts ranging from 15.63 μg/mL- 1000 μg/mL for 72 h. The quantification of phenolic and flavonoid contents of the extracts were carried out to determine the relationship between of phytochemical compounds responsible for cytotoxic and antioxidative activities. The antioxidant capacity was measured by DPPH and ABTS free radical scavenging assay and expressed as milligram (mg) Trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity per 1 g (g) of tested extract.
RESULTS: The hydromethanolic and ethyl acetate extracts showed moderate cytotoxic effect against MCF-7 with IC50 values of 57.35 ± 19.33 μg/mL, and 54.98 ± 14.10 μg/mL, respectively but aqueous extract was inactive against MCF-7. For MDA-MB-231, hydromethanolic, ethyl acetate and aqueous extracts exhibited weak cytotoxic effects against MDA-MB-231 with IC50 values more than 100 μg/mL. The plant revealed high total phenolic content, total flavonoid and antioxidant capacity.
CONCLUSION: The response of different type of breast cancer cell lines towards A. crispa extract and its partitions varied. Accordingly, hydromethanolic and ethyl acetate extracts appear to be more cytotoxic to oestrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancer than oestrogen receptor (ER) negative breast cancer. However, aqueous extract appears to have poor activity to both types of breast cancer. Besides that, hydromethanolic and ethyl acetate extracts exhibit higher TPC, TFC and antioxidant capacity compared to aqueous extract. Synergistic effect of anticancer and antioxidant bioactives compounds of A. crispa plausibly contributed to the cytotoxic effects of the extract.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between clinico-pathological features and HER2 overexpression in breast cancer.
METHODS: This is a retrospective study conducted in the Department of Surgery, University Malaya Medical Centre. The association between HER2 overexpression, determined by immunohistochemistry, and other clinicopathological factors was evaluated in 996 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer treated from 2005 to 2007 using univariate and multivariate logistic regression.
RESULTS: HER2 overexpression occurred in 30.3% of patients. On bivariate analysis, HER2 overexpression was inversely related to ER expression (p<0.01) and PR expression (p<0.01). This overexpression was associated with a higher tumour grade, lymphovascular positivity and infiltrating ductal carcinoma subtype. On multivariate analysis, HER2 overexpression was significantly associated with higher tumour grade (p= 0.018, CI 1.25-11.04), PR negativity (p= 0.002, CI 0.30-0.77) and lymphovascular positivity (p= 0.042, CI 1.01-2.12).
CONCLUSIONS: HER2 overexpression was observed in 30.3% of Malaysian female breast cancer patients. This group of patients represents a more aggressive subtype of breast cancer with higher tumour grade, PR negativity and lymphovascular positivity. No significant relationship was established between HER2 overexpression and age, race, lymph node, ER, pathology subtype and stage of disease from this study.
METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional study using 100 samples of archived formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue blocks of invasive ductal carcinoma and stained them with immunohistochemistry for PITX2, ER, PR and HER2. All HER2 with scoring of 2+ were confirmed with chromogenic in-situ hybridization (CISH).
RESULTS: PITX2 protein was expressed in 53% of invasive ductal carcinoma and lack of PITX2 expression in 47%. Univariate analysis revealed a significant association between PITX2 expression with PR (p=0.001), ER (p=0.006), gland formation (p=0.044) and marginal association with molecular subtypes of breast carcinoma (p=0.051). Combined ER and PR expression with PITX2 was also significantly associated (p=0.003) especially in double positive cases. Multivariate analysis showed the most significant association between PITX2 and PR (RR 4.105, 95% CI 1.765-9.547, p=0.001).
CONCLUSION: PITX2 is another potential prognostic marker in breast carcinoma adding significant information to established prognostic factors of ER and PR. The expression of PITX2 together with PR may carry a very good prognosis.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the expression of DDR1 and DVL1 and their association with histological type, grading and hormonal status of IDC and ILC.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross sectional study was conducted on IDC and ILC breast tumours. Tumours were immunohistochemically stained for (DDR1) and (DVL1) as well as estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and C-erbB2 receptor. Demographic data including age and ethnicity were obtained from patient records.
RESULTS: A total of 51 cases (30 IDCs and 21 ILCs) were assessed. DDR1 and DVL1 expression was not significantly associated with histological type (p=0.57 and p=0.66 respectively). There was no association between DDR1 and DVL1 expression and tumour grade (p=0.32 and p=1.00 respectively), ER (p=0.62 and 0.50 respectively), PR (p=0.38 and p=0.63 respectively) and C-erbB2 expression (p=0.19 and p=0.33 respectively) in IDC. There was no association between DDR1 and DVL1 expression and tumour grade (p=0.52 and p=0.33 respectively), ER (p=0.06 and p=0.76 respectively), PR (p=0.61 and p=0.43 respectively) and C-erbB2 expression (p=0.58 and p=0.76 respectively) in ILC.
CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that DDR1 and DVL1 are present in both IDC and ILC regardless of the tumour differentiation. More studies are needed to assess the potential of these two proteins in distinguishing IDC from ILC in breast tumours.