Evaluation of breast cancer polyclonality by combined chromosome banding and comparative genomic hybridization analysis.

Cytogenetically unrelated clones have been detected by chromosome banding analysis in many breast carcinomas. Because these karyotypic studies were performed on short-term cultured samples, it may be argued that in vitro selection occurred or that small clones may have arisen during culturing. To address this issue, we analyzed 37 breast carcinomas by G-banding and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH), a fluorescent in situ hybridization--based screening technique that does not require culturing or tumor metaphases. All but two of the 37 karyotypically abnormal cases presented copy number changes by CGH. The picture of genomic alterations revealed by the two techniques overlapped only partly. Sometimes the CGH analysis revealed genomic imbalances that belonged to cell populations not picked up by the cytogenetic analysis and in other cases, especially when the karyotypes had many markers and chromosomes with additional material of unknown origin, CGH gave a more reliable overall picture of the copy number gains and losses. However, besides sometimes revealing cell populations with balanced chromosome aberrations or unbalanced changes that nevertheless remained undetected by CGH, G-banding analysis was essential to understand how the genomic imbalances arose in the many cases in which both techniques detected the same clonal abnormalities. Furthermore, because CGH pictures only imbalances present in a significant proportion of the test sample, the very detection by this technique of imbalances belonging to apparently small, cytogenetically unrelated clones of cells proves that these clones must have been present in vivo. This constitutes compelling evidence that the cytogenetic polyclonality observed after short-term culturing of breast carcinomas is not an artifact.

Karyotypic evolution in breast carcinomas with i(1)(q10) and der(1;16)(q10;p10) as the primary chromosome abnormality.

The pattern of clonal karyotypic evolution in breast carcinomas carrying an i(1q) or a der(1;16)(q10;p10) as the primary chromosome abnormality was assessed in a series of 42 tumors, including 8 described here for the first time, with either or both (3 tumors) of them defining cytogenetic features. Evidence of clonal evolution was seen in somewhat more than half of all cases in both subgroups. The secondarily acquired aberrations appeared to be nonrandom in distribution. This was especially so for structural rearrangements of 11q leading to loss of material from this arm, which were clearly more common in both subgroups than in karyotypically abnormal breast carcinomas in general. Other deviations from random were less certain but seemed to include the frequent occurrence of +20 in tumors with i(1q) and +7 in tumors with der(1;16)(q10;p10). That differences were observed between i(1q) carcinomas and der(1;16)(q10;p10) carcinomas with regard to their patterns of clonal evolution hints that the pathogenetic effect of the primary change in these two situations may be more than the mere gain of an extra copy of 1q.