Primary triple negative breast cancers (TNBC) represent approximately 16% of all breast cancers1 and are a tumour type defined by exclusion, for which comprehensive landscapes of somatic mutation have not been determined. Here we show in 104 early TNBC cases, that at the time of diagnosis these cancers exhibit a wide and continuous spectrum of genomic evolution, with some exhibiting only a handful of somatic aberrations in a few pathways, whereas others contain hundreds of somatic events and multiple pathways implicated. Integration with matched whole transcriptome sequence data revealed that only ~36% of mutations are expressed. By examining single nucleotide variant (SNV) allelic abundance derived from deep re-sequencing (median >20,000 fold) measurements in 2414 somatic mutations, we determine for the first time in an epithelial tumour, the relative abundance of clonal genotypes among cases in the population. We show that TNBC vary widely and continuously in their clonal frequencies at the time of diagnosis, with basal subtype TNBC2,3 exhibiting more variation than non-basal TNBC. Although p53 and PIK3CA/PTEN somatic mutations appear clonally dominant compared with other pathways, in some tumours their clonal frequencies are incompatible with founder status. Mutations in cytoskeletal and cell shape/motility proteins occurred at lower clonal frequencies, suggesting they occurred later during tumour progression. Taken together our results show that future attempts to dissect the biology and therapeutic responses of TNBC will require the determination of individual tumour clonal genotypes.
BackgroundGene expression profiling of breast cancer has identified two biologically distinct estrogen receptor (ER)-positive subtypes of breast cancer: luminal A and luminal B. Luminal B tumors have higher proliferation and poorer prognosis than luminal A tumors. In this study, we developed a clinically practical immunohistochemistry assay to distinguish luminal B from luminal A tumors and investigated its ability to separate tumors according to breast cancer recurrence-free and disease-specific survival.MethodsTumors from a cohort of 357 patients with invasive breast carcinomas were subtyped by gene expression profile. Hormone receptor status, HER2 status, and the Ki67 index (percentage of Ki67-positive cancer nuclei) were determined immunohistochemically. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to determine the Ki67 cut point to distinguish luminal B from luminal A tumors. The prognostic value of the immunohistochemical assignment for breast cancer recurrence-free and disease-specific survival was investigated with an independent tissue microarray series of 4046 breast cancers by use of Kaplan–Meier curves and multivariable Cox regression.ResultsGene expression profiling classified 101 (28%) of the 357 tumors as luminal A and 69 (19%) as luminal B. The best Ki67 index cut point to distinguish luminal B from luminal A tumors was 13.25%. In an independent cohort of 4046 patients with breast cancer, 2847 had hormone receptor–positive tumors. When HER2 immunohistochemistry and the Ki67 index were used to subtype these 2847 tumors, we classified 1530 (59%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 57% to 61%) as luminal A, 846 (33%, 95% CI = 31% to 34%) as luminal B, and 222 (9%, 95% CI = 7% to 10%) as luminal–HER2 positive. Luminal B and luminal–HER2-positive breast cancers were statistically significantly associated with poor breast cancer recurrence-free and disease-specific survival in all adjuvant systemic treatment categories. Of particular relevance are women who received tamoxifen as their sole adjuvant systemic therapy, among whom the 10-year breast cancer–specific survival was 79% (95% CI = 76% to 83%) for luminal A, 64% (95% CI = 59% to 70%) for luminal B, and 57% (95% CI = 47% to 69%) for luminal–HER2 subtypes.ConclusionExpression of ER, progesterone receptor, and HER2 proteins and the Ki67 index appear to distinguish luminal A from luminal B breast cancer subtypes.
Purpose: Basal-like breast cancer is associated with high grade, poor prognosis, and younger patient age. Clinically, a triple-negative phenotype definition [estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER)-2, all negative] is commonly used to identify such cases. EGFR and cytokeratin 5/6 are readily available positive markers of basallike breast cancer applicable to standard pathology specimens. This study directly compares the prognostic significance between three-and five-biomarker surrogate panels to define intrinsic breast cancer subtypes, using a large clinically annotated series of breast tumors. Experimental Design: Four thousand forty-six invasive breast cancers were assembled into tissue microarrays. Allhad staging, pathology, treatment, andoutcome information; medianfollow-up was12.5 years. Cox regression analyses and likelihood ratio tests compared the prognostic significance for breast cancer death-specific survival (BCSS) of the two immunohistochemical panels. Results: Among 3,744 interpretable cases,17% werebasalusingthetriple-negative definition (10-year BCSS, 6 7%) and 9% were basal using the five-marker method (10-year BCSS, 62%). Likelihood ratio tests of multivariable Cox models including standard clinical variables show that the fivemarker panel is significantly more prognostic than the three-marker panel. The poor prognosis of triple-negative phenotype is conferred almost entirely by those tumors positive for basal markers. Among triple-negative patients treated withadjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy, theadditional positive basal markers identified a cohort of patients with significantly worse outcome. Conclusions: The expanded surrogate immunopanel of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human HER-2, EGFR, and cytokeratin 5/6 provides a more specific definition of basal-like breast cancer that better predicts breast cancer survival.
The combination of P with H and standard chemotherapy resulted in low rates of symptomatic LVSD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.