Osteopontin level and promoter polymorphism in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

Background: Cancer initiation typically occurs when a proto-oncogene's coding region undergoes mutation, resulting in uncontrollable cell growth and division, or when a tumour suppressor gene's coding region is affected by a mutation that inhibits activity of the resulting gene product. The pathophysiologic result is, respectively, exaggerated cell-cycle growth or deficient programmed cell death. Osteopontin (opn) is an integrin-binding phosphoprotein that is expressed on the surface of normal cells. Osteopontin has a major role in diverse tumour components, especially those implicated in invasion and metastasis. In the present study, we aimed to illustrate the value of opn as a possible contributor in breast cancer (bca). Methods: This prospective study included 115 patients newly diagnosed with bca and distant metastasis who were recruited from the Oncology Center, Mansoura University, and the Department of Clinical Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Mansoura University Hospital, Egypt. The patients recruited had been diagnosed with disseminated visceral metastasis (visceral crisis), with or without bone metastasis; patients with cranial metastasis were excluded from the study. All patients received first-line chemotherapy with docetaxel 75 mg/m2 plus cisplatin 75 mg/m2 or carboplatin 6 auc (area under the curve) on day 1 every 21 days for a maximum of 6 cycles or till development of toxicity. Trastuzumab (in cases of her2-positive disease) was given whenever possible (if government assistance or personal finances permitted). Serum levels of opn were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (elisa) before treatment was started. A group of 30 matched healthy women whose median serum opn level was 15 ng/dL were included, and that level was therefore defined as the cut-off value. In addition, opn gene mutation was determined by polymerase chain reaction (pcr). Correlations of pretreatment serum opn and opn gene mutation with various patient clinicopathologic variables, response to the treatment, progression-free survival (pfs), and overall survival (os) were assessed. Results: Mean serum opn was highest in her2-amplified bca (64.4 ± 42.3 ng/dL), and then in triple-negative bca (55.9 ± 34.7 ng/dL), followed by the luminal B and A subtypes (38.4 ± 33.1 ng/dL and 36.3 ± 32.2 ng/dL respectively, p = 0.017). Testing by pcr revealed that opn gene mutation was highest in triple-negative bca (85% opn mutant vs. 15% non-mutant), and then in her2-overexpressed bca (80% opn mutant vs. 20% non-mutant), followed by luminal B bca (61.9% opn mutant vs. 38.1% non-mutant); the least expression was detected in luminal A bca (57.9% opn mutant vs. 42.1% non-mutant). Interestingly, patients with high serum opn and opn gene mutation experienced both poor pfs (median: 12 months vs. 14 months; p = 0.001) and poor os (median: 14 months vs. 18 months; p = 0.001). Moreover, participants with opn gene mutation experienced a poor response: of those with progressive disease, 74% had opn mutation and 26% had unmutated opn (p = 0.04). Additionally, high pretreatment serum opn was correlated with poor treatment response: 49.1 ± 33.8 ng/dL in patients with progressive disease and 35.5 ± 34.3 ng/dL in those who achieved a complete response, a partial response, or stable disease (p = 0.05). Strong concordance was found between high serum opn and opn gene mutation in 69 tumours (79.3%), and strong concordance was detected between normal or low serum opn and non-mutant opn in 28 tumours (60.8%). Conclusions: The current prospective work helps to highlight opn as a valid prognostic biomarker for patients with metastatic bca and reveals that high pretreatment serum opn and opn gene mutation are both strongly linked with poor response and survival. Concordance between elisa and pcr results indicates that either method can be used for the evaluation of opn. Increased opn gene mutation in triple-negative bca could assist in tailoring the treatment response in this very aggressive tumour subtype and could be considered a targetable molecule in future studies.

Clinical Impact of Breast Cancer Stem Cells in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Breast tumors are composed of phenotypically diverse groups of cells; however, it is unclear which of these cells contribute to tumor development. Breast cancer management usually targets proliferating cells, but as breast cancer stem cells are slowly cycling, they may escape these targets whenever they are not actively proliferating. This may explain the occurrence of recurrences and failure of the treatment. AIM: To assess the impact of the BCSC expression on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and tumor response in metastatic breast cancer patients and to correlate the BCSC expression with different clinicopathological parameters. MATERIAL: This prospective study enrolled 76 de novo metastatic breast cancer patients recruited from the Oncology Center, Mansoura University, Egypt, with a minimum age 31 years and a maximum of 70 years. Pretreatment BCSC markers (CD44 and CD24) were assessed by immunohistochemistry on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissues from a primary or metastatic site. Patients received different lines of treatment, hormonal or chemotherapy, according to their biological subtypes. Anti-Her2 was added for Her2-positive patients. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (43.4%) were premenopausal and 43 patients (56.6%) were postmenopausal. Bone-only metastasis was seen in 12 patients (15.7%), however, visceral ± bone metastasis was seen in 64 patients (84.3%). BCSC markers (CD44+ve and CD24-ve) were expressed in 32 patients (42.1%), while 44 patients (57.9%) were not expressing BCSC markers. Out of 32 patients expressing BCSC, 22 patients (68%) were premenopausal and 28 patients (87.5%) were with high-grade (GIII) disease. BCSC was significantly presented in triple negative subtype breast cancer as there were 32 patients with the BCSC expression, and out of them, 15 patients (46.9%) had triple negative disease, 10 patients (31.3%) had luminal subtype, and seven patients (21.9%) were Her2-amplified, while there were 44 patients without BCSC expression, and out of them, 30 patients (68.2%) were of the luminal subtype, no patient (20.5%) had triple negative disease, and five patients (11.4%) were Her2-amplified (P 0.006). Twenty-four patients (31.5%) presented with visceral crisis; out of them, 17 patients (70.1%) were expressing BCSC which also denoted more aggressive disease. Seventy-four patients were candidates for the response assessment. BCSC-expressing patients showed poor response compared to non-BCSC (16.1% responsive versus 51.2%, respectively), with a significance relation (P 0.003). The BCSC expression was associated with both significant short PFS (median, 18 months vs. 35 months; P=0.001) and short OS (median, 26 months vs. 43 months; P=0.003). In multivariate analysis; BCSC expression was an independent prognostic factor for poor OS (P=0.055) along with the molecular subtype (P=0.012), Her2 status (P=0.011), and histologic grade (P=0.037). CONCLUSION: This study further validates the BCSC expression as a poor prognostic biomarker correlated with poor response, short PFS and OS. So, it could be used as a marker for tailoring treatment with different lines of therapies in further studies. The BCSC expression was highly presented in the triple negative subtype which is an aggressive disease that lacks different targets. So, targeting BCSC may carry a hope in future for this group of patients.

Prognostic Impact of Lymphoid Enhancer Factor 1 Expression and Serum Galectin.3 in Egyptian AML Patients.

BACKGROUND: Deregulation of the Wnt signaling pathway had a role in haematological malignancies. Previous studies reported that lymphoid enhancer factor 1 (LEF1) expression and serum Galectin-3 level could affect clinical parameters and outcome in acute myeloid leukemia patients, but as far as we know, no study has addressed their combined effect on AML patients. AIM: We studied the expression of LEF1 by real-time qPCR and measured serum level of Gal.3 by ELISA technique in peripheral blood of 69 AML patients and correlated it with different clinicopathological criteria of patients, response, PFS and OS. RESULTS: We found high expression (LEF1high) was associated with better OS (p = 0.02) and EFS (p = 0.019) compared to LEF1low, low serum Gal.3 level had better OS (p = 0.014) and EFS (p = 0.02) compared to high serum Gal.3 level. LEF1high less likely to carry a FLT3-ITD (p = 0.047) compared to LEF1low patient, also LEF1high characterized by favorable risk (p = 0.02) than LEF1low patients. While patients with higher Gal-3 levels characterized by poor risk (p = 0.02) than lower Gal.3 lels, also more likely to carry a FLT3-ITD with borderline significance (p = 0.054). Combined LEF1high/Gal.3 low patients had lower baseline blast percentages (p = 0.02), favorable risk (p = 0.01), less likely to carry FLT3-ITD (p = 0.02), higher CR rate (p = 0.055), shorter time to CR (0.001) than other groups. Among high Gal.3 level group, LEF1highexpression improved OS and EFS (20 and 15 months respectively) vs LEF1low expression (13 and 8 months respectively). CONCLUSION: We conclude that high LEF1 expression was a favorable prognostic marker which can define AML patient risk and outcome independent from assessing the serum galectin.3 level.