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.
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.
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.
SIGNIFICANCE: We demonstrate that combining large-scale GWA meta-analysis findings across cancer types can identify completely new risk loci common to breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers. We show that the identification of such cross-cancer risk loci has the potential to shed new light on the shared biology underlying these hormone-related cancers. Cancer Discov; 6(9); 1052-67. ©2016 AACR.This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 932.
Objective: This study aims to determine inter-laboratory variation in HER2 IHC testing through a slide-exchange program between five main reference laboratories.
Method: A total of 20 breast carcinoma cases with different known HER2 expression and gene status were selected by the central laboratory in five testing rounds. Three unstained tissue sections from each case were sent to participating laboratories, which immunostained and interpreted the HER2 immunohistochemistry result. One of the stained slides was sent to one designated participating laboratory for evaluation. Results were analyzed by the central laboratory.
Results: A complete concordance was achieved in six IHC-positive and six IHC-negative cases, its gene status of which was confirmed by in-situ-hybridization (ISH) study. The discordant results were observed in six equivocal cases, one negative case and one positive case with a concordance rate of 50-88.3%. Interestingly, the negative discordant case actually displays tumor heterogeneity. Good inter-observer agreement was achieved for all participating laboratories (k = 0.713-1.0).
Conclusion: Standardization of HER2 testing method is important to achieve optimum inter-laboratory concordance. Discordant results were seen mainly in equivocal cases. Intra-tumoral heterogeneity may impact the final HER2 IHC scoring. The continuous quality evaluation is therefore paramount to achieve reliable HER2 results.
METHODS: By utilizing a panel of breast cancer cells and mammospheres culture as cell-based screening platforms, we performed high-throughput chemical library screens to identify agents that are effective against breast CSCs and non-CSCs. The hit molecules were paired with conventional chemotherapy to evaluate the combinatorial treatment effects on breast CSCs and non-CSCs.
RESULTS: We identified a total of 193 inhibitors that effectively targeting both breast CSCs and non-CSCs. We observed that histone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACi) synergized conventional chemotherapeutic agents (i.e., doxorubicin and cisplatin) in targeting breast CSCs and non-CSCs simultaneously. Further analyses revealed that quisinostat, a potent inhibitor for class I and II HDACs, potentiated doxorubicin-induced cytotoxicity in both breast CSCs and non-CSCs derived from the basal-like (MDA-MB-468 and HCC38), mesenchymal-like (MDA-MB-231), and luminal-like breast cancer (MCF-7). It was also observed that the basal-like breast CSCs and non-CSCs were more sensitive to the co-treatment of quisinostat with doxorubicin compared to that of the luminal-like breast cancer subtype.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, this study demonstrates the potential of HDACi as therapeutic options, either as monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapeutics against refractory breast cancer.