Functional and Phenotypic Characterisations of Common Syngeneic Tumour Cell Lines as Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Models.

Estrogen receptor-positive breast cancers (ER+ BCas) are the most common form of BCa and are increasing in incidence, largely due to changes in reproductive practices in recent decades. Tamoxifen is prescribed as a component of standard-of-care endocrine therapy for the treatment and prevention of ER+ BCa. However, it is poorly tolerated, leading to low uptake of the drug in the preventative setting. Alternative therapies and preventatives for ER+ BCa are needed but development is hampered due to a paucity of syngeneic ER+ preclinical mouse models that allow pre-clinical experimentation in immunocompetent mice. Two ER-positive models, J110 and SSM3, have been reported in addition to other tumour models occasionally shown to express ER (for example 4T1.2, 67NR, EO771, D2.0R and D2A1). Here, we have assessed ER expression and protein levels in seven mouse mammary tumour cell lines and their corresponding tumours, in addition to their cellular composition, tamoxifen sensitivity and molecular phenotype. By immunohistochemical assessment, SSM3 and, to a lesser extent, 67NR cells are ER+. Using flow cytometry and transcript expression we show that SSM3 cells are luminal in nature, whilst D2.0R and J110 cells are stromal/basal. The remainder are also stromal/basal in nature; displaying a stromal or basal Epcam/CD49f FACS phenotype and stromal and basal gene expression signatures are overrepresented in their transcript profile. Consistent with a luminal identity for SSM3 cells, they also show sensitivity to tamoxifen in vitro and in vivo. In conclusion, the data indicate that the SSM3 syngeneic cell line is the only definitively ER+ mouse mammary tumour cell line widely available for pre-clinical research.

BRAF mutation testing for patients diagnosed with stage III or stage IV melanoma: practical guidance for the Australian setting.

Targeted therapy (BRAF inhibitor plus MEK inhibitor) is now among the possible treatment options for patients with BRAF mutation-positive stage III or stage IV melanoma. This makes prompt BRAF mutation testing an important step in the management of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma; one that can help better ensure that the optimal choice of systemic treatment is initiated with minimal delay. This article offers guidance about when and how BRAF mutation testing should be conducted when patients are diagnosed with melanoma in Australia. Notably, it recommends that pathologists reflexively order BRAF mutation testing whenever a patient is found to have American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC)/Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage III or IV melanoma (i.e., any metastatic spread beyond the primary tumour) and that patient's BRAF mutation status is hitherto unknown, even if BRAF mutation testing has not been specifically requested by the treating clinician (in Australia, Medicare-subsidised BRAFV600 mutation testing does not need to be requested by the treating clinician). When performed in centres with appropriate expertise and experience, immunohistochemistry (IHC) using the anti-BRAF V600E monoclonal antibody (VE1) can be a highly sensitive and specific means of detecting BRAFV600E mutations, and may be used as a rapid and relatively inexpensive initial screening test. However, VE1 immunostaining can be technically challenging and difficult to interpret, particularly in heavily pigmented tumours; melanomas with weak, moderate or focal BRAFV600E immunostaining should be regarded as equivocal. It must also be remembered that other activating BRAFV600 mutations (including BRAFV600K), which account for ∼10-20% of BRAFV600 mutations, are not detected with currently available IHC antibodies. For these reasons, if available and practicable, we recommend that DNA-based BRAF mutation testing always be performed, regardless of whether IHC-based testing is also conducted. Advice about tissue/specimen selection for BRAF mutation testing of patients diagnosed with stage III or IV melanoma is also offered in this article; and potential pitfalls when interpreting BRAF mutation tests are highlighted.