BackgroundEpithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) is one mechanism of carcinoma migration, while complex tumour migration or bulk migration is another - best demontrated by tumour cells invading blood vessels.MethodsThirty cases of non-small cell lung carcinomas were used for identifying genes responsible for bulk cell migration, 232 squamous cell and adenocarcinomas to identify bulk migration rates. Genes expressed differently in the primary tumour and in the invasion front were regarded as relevant in migration and further validated in 528 NSCLC cases represented on tissue microarrays (TMAs) and metastasis TMAs.ResultsMarkers relevant for bulk cancer cell migration were regulated differently when compared with EMT: Twist expressed in primary tumour, invasion front, and metastasis was not associated with TGFβ1 and canonical Wnt, as Slug, Snail, and Smads were negative and β-Catenin expressed membraneously. In the majority of tumours, E-Cadherin was downregulated at the invasive front, but not absent, but, coexpressed with N-Cadherin. Vimentin was coexpressed with cytokeratins at the invasion site in few cases, whereas fascin expression was seen in a majority. Expression of ERK1/2 was downregulated, PLCγ was only expressed at the invasive front and in metastasis. Brk and Mad, genes identified in Drosophila border cell migration, might be important for bulk migration and metastasis, together with invadipodia proteins Tks5 and Rab40B, which were only upregulated at the invasive front and in metastasis. CXCR1 was expressed equally in all carcinomas, as opposed to CXCR2 and 4, which were only expressed in few tumours.ConclusionBulk cancer cell migration seems predominant in AC and SCC. Twist, vimentin, fascin, Mad, Brk, Tsk5, Rab40B, ERK1/2 and PLCγ are associated with bulk cancer cell migration. This type of migration requires an orchestrated activation of proteins to keep the cells bound to each other and to coordinate movement. This hypothesis needs to be proven experimentally.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-018-4640-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is usually diagnosed in the advanced stage. It has a very poor prognosis, with no advancements in therapy in the last few decades. A recent phase 1 clinical study, using an antibody-drug conjugate directed against DLL3, showed promising results. A prerequisite for this therapy is an immunohistochemical test for DLL3 expression. The antibody used in the clinical trial was bound to a specific platform, which is not available in all pathology laboratories. In this study, the expression of DLL3 was analyzed using different DLL3 antibodies in high-grade neuroendocrine tumors of the lung and cell cultures. Additionally, correlation of DLL3 expression with Rb1 loss and TP53 mutation was evaluated. Methods The study cohort consisted of surgically resected cases, 24 SCLC and 29 large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC), from which tissue microarrays (TMAs) were constructed. The validation cohort included 46 SCLC samples, mostly small biopsies. Additionally, well-characterized SCLC cell lines were used. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed using four different DLL3 antibodies, as well as TP53 and Rb1 antibodies. Expression was evaluated microscopically and manually scored. Results The comparison of all DLL3 antibodies showed poor results for the overall agreement, as well as positive and negative agreement. Differences were observed regardless of the applied cut-off values and the tumor type. The antibody used in the clinical trial was the only which always positively stained the tumor cells obtained from cell cultures with known DLL3 expression and was negative on cells that did not express DLL3. There was no correlation between p53 and DLL3 expression in SCLC and LCNEC. RB1 loss in SCLC showed statistical significant correlation with the DLL3 positivity ( p = 0.037), while no correlation was found in LCNEC. Conclusion The DLL3 antibody used in the clinical trial demonstrated superiority in the detection of DLL3 expression. Cell cultures, which can be used for DLL3 antibodies as positive and negative probes, were established. Evidence of DLL3 expression in high proportions of patients with LCNEC might provide basis for studies of new therapy options in this group of patients.

Usual ductal hyperplasia (UDH) of the breast is generally regarded as a nonneoplastic proliferation, albeit loss of heterozygosity has long been reported in a part of these lesions. To gain deeper insights into the molecular drivers of these lesions, an extended mutation profiling was performed. The coding regions of 409 cancer-related genes were investigated by next-generation sequencing in 16 cases of UDH, nine unassociated with neoplasia (classic) and seven arising within papillomas. Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) activation was investigated by phosphorylated AKT, mTOR, and S6 immunohistochemistry. Of 16 lesions, 10 (63%) were mutated; 56% of classic lesions were unassociated with neoplasia, and 71% of lesions arose in papillomas. Fourteen missense mutations were detected: PIK3CA [6 (43%) of 14], AKT1 [2 (14%) of 14], as well as GNAS, MTOR, PIK3R1, LPHN3, LRP1B, and IGF2R [each 1 (7%) of 14]. Phosphorylated mTOR was seen in 83% and phosphorylated S6 in 86% of evaluable lesions (phospho-AKT staining was technically uninterpretable). In conclusion, UDH displays mutations of the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT/mTOR axis at different levels, with PIK3R1, MTOR, and GNAS mutations not previously described. Specifically, oncogenic G-protein activation represents a yet unrecognized route to proliferation in UDH. On the basis of evidence of activating mutations, loss of heterozygosity, and a mass forming proliferation, we propose that UDH is most appropriately viewed as an early neoplastic intraductal proliferation.

No abstract

Congenital pulmonary airway malformation (CPAM) occurs most commonly in infants. It is divided into 5 types. The most common types 1 and 2 are cystic, type 0 presents as bronchial buds without alveolar tissue, most likely corresponding to alveolar dysgenesis, while type 3 is composed of branching bronchioles and appears as a solid lesion. A defect in the epithelialmesenchymal crosstalk might be the underlying mechanism for all. Type 4 is a peripheral cystic lesion with a thin cyst wall covered by pneumocytes. CPAM 4 has been mixed up with pleuropulmonary blastoma (PPB) type I and some authors question its existence. We investigated five cases of CPAM type 4 for the presence or absence of rhabdomyoblasts, and for markers associated with CPAM development. In addition, all cases were evaluated for mutations within the Dicer gene and for mutations of the RAS family of oncogenes. All five cases showed smooth muscle actin and desmin-positive cells; however, only one case showed a few cells positive for MyoD. The same case showed a mutation of Dicer 1. All cases were negative for mutations of the RAS family of genes. Fibroblast growth factor 10 was similarly expressed in all cases, and thus cannot be used to differentiate CPAM4 from PPB-I. Low expression of the proliferation marker Ki67 was seen in our CPAM 4 cases and the probable PPB-I case. YingYang-1 protein seems to play an active role in the development of PPB-I. CPAM 4 can be separated from PPB-I based on the presence of rhabdomyoblasts and mutations in Dicer 1 gene. These cells might not be numerous; therefore, all available tissue has to be evaluated. As CPAM 4 morphologically looks very similar to PPB-I, it might be speculated, that there exists a potential for progression from CPAM 4 to PPB-I, by acquiring somatic mutations in Dicer 1.