Loss of E-cadherin is not a necessity for epithelial to mesenchymal transition in human breast cancer.

Epithelial to mesenchymal transition (EMT) is typically defined by the acquisition of a spindle cell morphology in combination with loss of E-cadherin and upregulation of mesenchymal markers. However, by studying E-cadherin inactivation in 38 human breast cancer cell lines, we noted that not all cell lines that had undergone EMT had concomitantly lost E-cadherin expression. We further investigated this discrepancy functionally and in clinical breast cancer specimens. Interestingly, reconstitution of wild-type E-cadherin cDNA in a E-cadherin negative cell line that had undergone EMT (MDA-MB-231) did not revert the spindle morphology back to an epithelial morphology. Neither were changes observed in the expression of several markers known to be involved in the EMT process. Similarly, upregulation of E-cadherin via global DNA demethylation in eleven cell lines that had undergone EMT did not induce a change in cell morphology, nor did it alter the expression of EMT markers in these cells. Next, we extracted genes differentially expressed between cell lines that had undergone EMT versus cell lines that had not undergone EMT. Caveolin-1 was identified to be an excellent marker for EMT, irrespective of E-cadherin status (specificity and sensitivity of 100 %). Consistent with our observations in the breast cancer cell lines, expression of Caveolin-1 identified a subset of basal breast cancers, particularly of metaplastic pathology, and only 50 % of these lacked E-cadherin expression. The discrepancy between E-cadherin loss and EMT was thus reproduced in clinical samples. Together, these results indicate that in human breast cancer loss of E-cadherin is not causal for EMT and even not a necessity.

Differences in natural history between breast cancers in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and effects of MRI screening-MRISC, MARIBS, and Canadian studies combined.

BACKGROUND: It is recommended that BRCA1/2 mutation carriers undergo breast cancer screening using MRI because of their very high cancer risk and the high sensitivity of MRI in detecting invasive cancers. Clinical observations suggest important differences in the natural history between breast cancers due to mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2, potentially requiring different screening guidelines. METHODS: Three studies of mutation carriers using annual MRI and mammography were analyzed. Separate natural history models for BRCA1 and BRCA2 were calibrated to the results of these studies and used to predict the impact of various screening protocols on detection characteristics and mortality. RESULTS: BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (N = 1,275) participated in the studies and 124 cancers (99 invasive) were diagnosed. Cancers detected in BRCA2 mutation carriers were smaller [80% ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or ≤10 mm vs. 49% for BRCA1, P < 0.001]. Below the age of 40, one (invasive) cancer of the 25 screen-detected cancers in BRCA1 mutation carriers was detected by mammography alone, compared with seven (three invasive) of 11 screen-detected cancers in BRCA2 (P < 0.0001). In the model, the preclinical period during which cancer is screen-detectable was 1 to 4 years for BRCA1 and 2 to 7 years for BRCA2. The model predicted breast cancer mortality reductions of 42% to 47% for mammography, 48% to 61% for MRI, and 50% to 62% for combined screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our studies suggest substantial mortality benefits in using MRI to screen BRCA1/2 mutation carriers aged 25 to 60 years but show important clinical differences in natural history. IMPACT: BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers may benefit from different screening protocols, for example, below the age of 40.

Correlation of breast cancer susceptibility loci with patient characteristics, metastasis-free survival, and mRNA expression of the nearest genes.

To understand the biology of low-risk breast cancer alleles, and to investigate whether these loci also contribute to disease progression that was once established, we examined the association of SNPs tagging the low-risk breast cancer loci in or near FGFR2, LSP1, MAP3K1, H19, TOX3, POU5F1P1, MYC, and 2q35, with clinical, pathological characteristics, prognosis, and mRNA expression of the nearest genes. Tumor DNA samples of 2,480 breast cancer patients were available. Out of this cohort, 1,290 patients with lymph-node negative disease who did not receive adjuvant systemic therapy, the SNP status was associated with metastasis-free survival (MFS). In 1,401 patients, the mRNA expression levels of FGFR2, LSP1, MAP3K1, H19, TOX3, POU5F1P1, and MYC were determined and correlated with SNP genotypes. The SNP rs2981582 in FGFR2 was significantly associated with positive ER and PgR status (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). No other significant associations with patient or tumor characteristics were observed. Only rs2107425 near H19 was significantly associated with shorter MFS in uni- and multi-variate analysis (HR: 1.53, CI: 1.12-2.08, P = 0.006 and HR: 1.59, CI: 1.16-2.20, P = 0.004, respectively), with the more aggressive minor allele displaying a recessive trait. The minor allele of SNP rs3803662 located near the TOX3 gene was associated with lower mRNA expression of this gene. In conclusion, except for the association of rs13283662 with TOX3 gene expression indicating a tumor suppressor role of TOX3, our findings suggest that breast cancer low-risk loci generally do not affect expression of the nearest gene in breast tumor tissue. Also the prognosis of patients is largely not affected by low-risk breast cancer loci except for the SNP near H19. How, this SNP affects prognosis warrants further study as it does not operate through altering H19 mRNA expression.

Gene expression profiling assigns CHEK2 1100delC breast cancers to the luminal intrinsic subtypes.

CHEK2 1100delC is a moderate-risk cancer susceptibility allele that confers a high breast cancer risk in a polygenic setting. Gene expression profiling of CHEK2 1100delC breast cancers may reveal clues to the nature of the polygenic CHEK2 model and its genes involved. Here, we report global gene expression profiles of a cohort of 155 familial breast cancers, including 26 CHEK2 1100delC mutant tumors. In line with previous work, all CHEK2 1100delC mutant tumors clustered among the hormone receptor-positive breast cancers. In the hormone receptor-positive subset, a 40-gene CHEK2 signature was subsequently defined that significantly associated with CHEK2 1100delC breast cancers. The identification of a CHEK2 gene signature implies an unexpected biological homogeneity among the CHEK2 1100delC breast cancers. In addition, all 26 CHEK2 1100delC tumors classified as luminal intrinsic subtype breast cancers, with 8 luminal A and 18 luminal B tumors. This biological make-up of CHEK2 1100delC breast cancers suggests that a relatively limited number of additional susceptibility alleles are involved in the polygenic CHEK2 model. Identification of these as-yet-unknown susceptibility alleles should be aided by clues from the 40-gene CHEK2 signature.

Randomized phase II study comparing efficacy and safety of combination-therapy trastuzumab and docetaxel vs. sequential therapy of trastuzumab followed by docetaxel alone at progression as first-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer: HERTAX trial.

BACKGROUND: Because chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is associated with relevant toxicity, sequential monotherapy trastuzumab followed by cytotoxic therapy at disease progression might be an attractive approach. METHODS: In a multicenter phase II trial, 101 patients with overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2(+)) MBC were randomized between combination-therapy trastuzumab (Herceptin) plus docetaxel (H+D) and sequential therapy of single-agent trastuzumab followed at disease progression by docetaxel alone (H→D) as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic disease. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) after completed sequential or combination therapy. RESULTS: For the H+D group the median PFS was 9.4 vs. 9.9 months for the H→D group and 1-year PFS rates were 44% vs. 35%, respectively. However the overall response rates (ORRs) were 79% vs. 53%, respectively (P = .016), and overall survival was 30.5 vs. 19.7 months, respectively (P = .11). In the H→D group, response rates to monotherapy trastuzumab and subsequent docetaxel were 34% and 39%, respectively, with a median PFS during single-agent trastuzumab of 3.9 months. The incidence and severity of neuropathy were significantly higher in the H+D group. Retrospective analysis of trastuzumab treatment beyond progression (applied in 46% of patients in the H+D group and 37% in the H→D group) showed a correlation with longer overall survival in both treatment arms (36.0 vs. 18.0 months and 30.3 vs. 18.6 months, respectively). CONCLUSION: First-line treatment in patients with MBC with H→D resulted in a similar PFS compared with H+D, but the response rate was lower and the overall survival nonsignificantly shorter.

BRCA1-associated breast cancers present differently from BRCA2-associated and familial cases: long-term follow-up of the Dutch MRISC Screening Study.

PURPOSE: The Dutch MRI Screening Study on early detection of hereditary breast cancer started in 1999. We evaluated the long-term results including separate analyses of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers and first results on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Women with higher than 15% cumulative lifetime risk (CLTR) of breast cancer were screened with biannual clinical breast examination and annual mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Participants were divided into subgroups: carriers of a gene mutation (50% to 85% CLTR) and two familial groups with high (30% to 50% CLTR) or moderate risk (15% to 30% CLTR). RESULTS: Our update contains 2,157 eligible women including 599 mutation carriers (median follow-up of 4.9 years from entry) with 97 primary breast cancers detected (median follow-up of 5.0 years from diagnosis). MRI sensitivity was superior to that of mammography for invasive cancer (77.4% v 35.5%; P<.00005), but not for ductal carcinoma in situ. Results in the BRCA1 group were worse compared to the BRCA2, the high-, and the moderate-risk groups, respectively, for mammography sensitivity (25.0% v 61.5%, 45.5%, 46.7%), tumor size at diagnosis≤1 cm (21.4% v 61.5%, 40.9%, 63.6%), proportion of DCIS (6.5% v 18.8%, 14.8%, 31.3%) and interval cancers (32.3% v 6.3%, 3.7%, 6.3%), and age at diagnosis younger than 30 years (9.7% v 0%). Cumulative distant metastasis-free and overall survival at 6 years in all 42 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers with invasive breast cancer were 83.9% (95% CI, 64.1% to 93.3%) and 92.7% (95% CI, 79.0% to 97.6%), respectively, and 100% in the familial groups (n=43). CONCLUSION: Screening results were somewhat worse in BRCA1 mutation carriers, but 6-year survival was high in all risk groups.

Increased MUTYH mutation frequency among Dutch families with breast cancer and colorectal cancer.

Homozygous and compound heterozygous MUTYH mutations predispose for MUTYH-associated polyposis (MAP). The clinical phenotype of MAP is characterised by the multiple colorectal adenomas and colorectal carcinoma. We previously found that female MAP patients may also have an increased risk for breast cancer. Yet, the involvement of MUTYH mutations in families with both breast cancer and colorectal cancer is unclear. Here, we have genotyped the MUTYH p.Tyr179Cys, p.Gly396Asp and p.Pro405Leu founder mutations in 153 Dutch families with breast cancer patients and colorectal cancer patients. Families were classified as polyposis, revised Amsterdam criteria positive (FCRC-AMS positive), revised Amsterdam criteria negative (FCRC-AMS negative), hereditary breast and colorectal cancer (HBCC) and non-HBCC breast cancer families. As anticipated, biallelic MUTYH mutations were identified among 13% of 15 polyposis families, which was significantly increased compared to the absence of biallelic MUTYH mutations in the population (P = 0.0001). Importantly, six heterozygous MUTYH mutations were identified among non-polyposis families with breast and colorectal cancer. These mutations were identified specifically in FCRC-AMS negative and in HBCC breast cancer families (11% of 28 families and 4% of 74 families, respectively; P = 0.02 for both groups combined vs. controls). Importantly, the 11% MUTYH frequency among FCRC-AMS negative families was almost fivefold higher than the reported frequencies for FCRC-AMS negative families unselected for the presence of breast cancer patients (P = 0.03). Together, our results indicate that heterozygous MUTYH mutations are associated with families that include both breast cancer patients and colorectal cancer patients, independent of which tumour type is more prevalent in the family.

Assessment of false-negative cases of breast MR imaging in women with a familial or genetic predisposition.

In order to assess the characteristics of malignant breast lesions those were not detected during screening by MR imaging. In the Dutch MRI screening study(MRISC), a non-randomized prospective multicenter study,women with high familial risk or a genetic predisposition for breast cancer were screened once a year by mammography and MRI and every 6 months with a clinical breast examination (CBE). The false-negative MR examinations were subject of this study and were retrospectively reviewed by two experienced radiologists. From November 1999 until March 2006, 2,157 women were eligible for study analyses. Ninety-seven malignant breast tumors were detected, including 19 DCIS (20%). In 22 patients with a malignant lesion, the MRI was assessed as BI-RADS 1 or 2. One patient was excluded because the examinations were not available for review. Forty-three percent (9/21) of the false-negative MR cases concerned pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or DCIS with invasive foci, in eight of them no enhancement was seen at the review. In six patients the features of malignancy were missed or misinterpreted.Small lesion size (n = 3), extensive diffuse contrast enhancement of the breast parenchyma (n = 2),and a technically inadequate examination (n = 1) were other causes of the missed diagnosis. A major part of the false-negative MR diagnoses concerned non-enhancing DCIS, underlining the necessity of screening not only with MRI but also with mammography. Improvement of MRI scanning protocols may increase the detection rate of DCIS. The missed and misinterpreted cases are reflecting the learning curve of a multicenter study.

Distinct gene mutation profiles among luminal-type and basal-type breast cancer cell lines.

Breast cancer has for long been recognized as a highly diverse tumor group, but the underlying genetic basis has been elusive. Here, we report an extensive molecular characterization of a collection of 41 human breast cancer cell lines. Protein and gene expression analyses indicated that the collection of breast cancer cell lines has retained most, if not all, molecular characteristics that are typical for clinical breast cancers. Gene mutation analyses identified 146 oncogenic mutations among 27 well-known cancer genes, amounting to an average of 3.6 mutations per cell line. Mutations in genes from the p53, RB and PI3K tumor suppressor pathways were widespread among all breast cancer cell lines. Most important, we have identified two gene mutation profiles that are specifically associated with luminal-type and basal-type breast cancer cell lines. The luminal mutation profile involved E-cadherin and MAP2K4 gene mutations and amplifications of Cyclin D1, ERBB2 and HDM2, whereas the basal mutation profile involved BRCA1, RB1, RAS and BRAF gene mutations and deletions of p16 and p14ARF. These subtype-specific gene mutation profiles constitute a genetic basis for the heterogeneity observed among human breast cancers, providing clues for their underlying biology and providing guidance for targeted pharmacogenetic intervention in breast cancer patients.