Search

BACKGROUND:G protein-coupled estrogen receptor (GPER), or G protein-coupled receptor 30 (GPR30), is reported to mediate non-genomic estrogen signaling. GPR30 associates with breast cancer (BC) outcome and may contribute to tamoxifen resistance. We investigated the expression and prognostic significance of GPR30 in metachronous contralateral breast cancer (CBC) as a model of tamoxifen resistance. METHODS:Total GPR30 expression (GPR30TOT) and plasma membrane-localized GPR30 expression (GPR30PM) were analyzed by immunohistochemistry in primary (BC1; nBC1 = 559) and contralateral BC (BC2; nBC2 = 595), and in lymph node metastases (LGL; nLGL1 = 213; nLGL2 = 196). Death from BC (BCD), including BC death or death after documented distant metastasis, was used as primary end-point. RESULTS:GPR30PM in BC2 and LGL2 were associated with increased risk of BCD (HRBC2 = 1.7, p = 0.03; HRLGL2 = 2.0; p = 0.02). In BC1 and BC2, GPR30PM associated with estrogen receptor (ER)-negativity (pBC1

Histological grade is one of the most commonly used prognostic factors for patients diagnosed with breast cancer. However, conventional grading has proven technically challenging, and up to 60% of the tumors are classified as histological grade 2, which represents a heterogeneous cohort less informative for clinical decision making. In an attempt to study and extend the molecular puzzle of histologically graded breast cancer, we have in this pilot project searched for additional protein biomarkers in a new space of the proteome. To this end, we have for the first time performed protein expression profiling of breast cancer tumor tissue, using recombinant antibody microarrays, targeting mainly immunoregulatory proteins. Thus, we have explored the immune system as a disease-specific sensor (clinical immunoproteomics). Uniquely, the results showed that several biologically relevant proteins reflecting histological grade could be delineated. In more detail, the tentative biomarker panels could be used to i) build a candidate model classifying grade 1 vs. grade 3 tumors, ii) demonstrate the molecular heterogeneity among grade 2 tumors, and iii) potentially re-classify several of the grade 2 tumors to more like grade 1 or grade 3 tumors. This could, in the long-term run, lead to improved prognosis, by which the patients could benefit from improved tailored care.

AIM:The estrogen receptor coactivator Amplified in Breast Cancer 1 (AIB1) has been associated with an improved response to adjuvant tamoxifen in breast cancer, but also with endocrine treatment resistance. We hereby use metachronous contralateral breast cancer (CBC) developed despite prior adjuvant tamoxifen for the first tumor as an "in vivo"-model for tamoxifen resistance. AIB1-expression in the presumable resistant (CBC after prior tamoxifen) and naïve setting (CBC without prior tamoxifen) is compared and correlated to prognosis after CBC. METHODS:From a well-defined population-based cohort of CBC-patients we have constructed a unique tissue-microarray including >700 patients. RESULTS:CBC developed after adjuvant tamoxifen more often had a HER2-positive/triple negative-subtype and a high AIB1-expression (37% vs. 23%, p = 0.009), than if no prior endocrine treatment had been administered. In patients with an estrogen receptor (ER) positive CBC, a high AIB1-expression correlated to an inferior prognosis. However, these patients seemed to respond to tamoxifen, but only if endocrine therapy had not been administered for BC1. CONCLUSIONS:Metachronous CBC developed after prior endocrine treatment has a decreased ER-expression and an increased HER2-expression. This is consistent with endocrine treatment escape mechanisms previously suggested, and indicates metachronous CBC to be a putative model for studies of treatment resistance "in vivo". The increased AIB1-expression in CBC developed after prior tamoxifen suggests a role of AIB1 in endocrine treatment resistance. In addition, we found indications that the response to tamoxifen in CBC with a high AIB1-expression seem to differ depending on previous exposure to this drug. A different function for AIB1 in the tamoxifen treatment naïve vs. resistant setting is suggested, and may explain previously conflicting results where a high AIB1-expression has been correlated to both a good response to adjuvant tamoxifen and tamoxifen resistance.

Experimental models implicate protease activated receptors (PARs) as important sensors of the proteolytic tumor microenvironment during breast cancer development. However, the role of the major PARs, PAR-1 and PAR-2, in human breast tumors remains to be elucidated. Here, we have investigated how PAR-1 and PAR-2 protein expression correlate with established clinicopathological variables and patient outcome in a well-characterized cohort of 221 breast cancer patients. Univariable and multivariable hazard ratios (HR) were estimated by the Cox proportional hazards model, distant disease-free survival (DDFS) and overall survival by the Kaplan-Meier method, and survival in different strata was determined by the log-rank test. Associations between PARs and clinicopathological variables were analyzed using Pearson's χ2-test. We find that PAR-2 associates with DDFS (HR = 3.1, P = 0.003), whereas no such association was found with PAR-1 (HR = 1.2, P = 0.6). Interestingly, the effect of PAR-2 was confined to the ER-positive sub-group (HR = 5.5, P = 0.003 vs. HR = 1.2 in ER-negative; P = 0.045 for differential effect), and PAR-2 was an independent prognostic factor specifically in ER-positive tumors (HR = 3.9, P = 0.045). On the contrary, PAR-1 correlated with worse prognosis specifically in the ER-negative group (HR = 2.6, P = 0.069 vs. HR = 0.5, P = 0.19 in ER-positive; P = 0.026 for differential effect). This study provides novel insight into the respective roles of PAR-1 and PAR-2 in human breast cancer and suggests a hitherto unknown association between PARs and ER signaling that warrants further investigation.

BackgroundTriple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous subgroup of breast cancer with poor prognosis and no targeted therapy available. Receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) are emerging targets in anticancer therapy and many RTK-inhibiting drugs are currently being developed. The aim of this study was to elucidate if there is a correlation between the protein expression of three RTKs c-KIT, VEGFR2 and PDGFRα, their gene copy number, and prognosis in TNBC compared to non-TNBC.MethodsTumor tissue samples from patients diagnosed with primary breast cancer were stained with immunohistochemistry (IHC) for protein assessment, and with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for gene copy number determination. Breast cancer mortality (BCM), measured from the date of surgery to death, was used as endpoint.ResultsThe cohort included 464 patients, out of which 34 (7.3%) had a TNBC. High expression of the three RTKs was more common in TNBC compared to non-TNBC: c-KIT 49% vs. 10% (PConclusionc-KIT, VEGFR2 and PDGFRα show higher protein expression in TNBC compared to non-TNBC. Further investigation clarifying the importance of these RTKs in TNBC is encouraged, as they are possible targets for anticancer therapy.

Proliferation, either as the main common denominator in genetic profiles, or in the form of single factors such as Ki67, is recommended for clinical use especially in estrogen receptor-positive (ER) patients. However, due to high costs of genetic profiles and lack of reproducibility for Ki67, studies on other proliferation factors are warranted. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prognostic value of the proliferation factors mitotic activity index (MAI), phosphohistone H3 (PPH3), cyclin B1, cyclin A and Ki67, alone and in combinations. In 222 consecutive premenopausal node-negative breast cancer patients (87% without adjuvant medical treatment), MAI was assessed on whole tissue sections (predefined cut-off ≥10 mitoses), and PPH3, cyclin B1, cyclin A, and Ki67 on tissue microarray (predefined cut-offs 7th decile). In univariable analysis (high versus low) the strongest prognostic proliferation factor for 10-year distant disease-free survival was MAI (Hazard Ratio (HR)=3.3, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.8-6.1), followed by PPH3, cyclin A, Ki67, and cyclin B1. A combination variable, with patients with MAI and/or cyclin A high defined as high-risk, had even stronger prognostic value (HR=4.2, 95%CI: 2.2-7). When stratifying for ER-status, MAI was a significant prognostic factor in ER-positive patients only (HR=7.0, 95%CI: 3.1-16). Stratified for histological grade, MAI added prognostic value in grade 2 (HR=7.2, 95%CI: 3.1-38) and grade 1 patients. In multivariable analysis including HER2, age, adjuvant medical treatment, ER, and one proliferation factor at a time, only MAI (HR=2.7, 95%CI: 1.1-6.7), and cyclin A (HR=2.7, 95%CI: 1.2-6.0) remained independently prognostic. In conclusion this study confirms the strong prognostic value of all proliferation factors, especially MAI and cyclin A, in all patients, and more specifically in ER-positive patients, and patients with histological grade 2 and 1. Additionally, by combining two proliferation factors, an even stronger prognostic value may be found.

Similar to other malignancies, urothelial carcinoma (UC) is characterized by specific recurrent chromosomal aberrations and gene mutations. However, the interconnection between specific genomic alterations, and how patterns of chromosomal alterations adhere to different molecular subgroups of UC, is less clear. We applied tiling resolution array CGH to 146 cases of UC and identified a number of regions harboring recurrent focal genomic amplifications and deletions. Several potential oncogenes were included in the amplified regions, including known oncogenes like E2F3, CCND1, and CCNE1, as well as new candidate genes, such as SETDB1 (1q21), and BCL2L1 (20q11). We next combined genome profiling with global gene expression, gene mutation, and protein expression data and identified two major genomic circuits operating in urothelial carcinoma. The first circuit was characterized by FGFR3 alterations, overexpression of CCND1, and 9q and CDKN2A deletions. The second circuit was defined by E3F3 amplifications and RB1 deletions, as well as gains of 5p, deletions at PTEN and 2q36, 16q, 20q, and elevated CDKN2A levels. TP53/MDM2 alterations were common for advanced tumors within the two circuits. Our data also suggest a possible RAS/RAF circuit. The tumors with worst prognosis showed a gene expression profile that indicated a keratinized phenotype. Taken together, our integrative approach revealed at least two separate networks of genomic alterations linked to the molecular diversity seen in UC, and that these circuits may reflect distinct pathways of tumor development.

Sera from 25 metastatic breast cancer patients and 25 healthy controls were subjected to affinity chromatography using immobilized galectin-1. Serum from the healthy subjects contained on average 1.2 mg per ml (range 0.7-2.2) galectin-1 binding glycoproteins, whereas serum from the breast cancer patients contained on average 2.2 mg/ml (range 0.8-3.9), with a higher average for large primary tumours. The major bound glycoproteins were α-2-macroglobulin, IgM and haptoglobin. Both the IgM and haptoglobin concentrations were similar in cancer compared to control sera, but the percentage bound to galectin-1 was lower for IgM and higher for haptoglobin: about 50% (range 20-80) in cancer sera and about 30% (range 25-50) in healthy sera. Galectin-1 binding and non-binding fractions were separated by affinity chromatography from pooled haptoglobin from healthy sera. The N-glycans of each fraction were analyzed by mass spectrometry, and the structural differences and galectin-1 mutants were used to identify possible galectin-1 binding sites. Galectin-1 binding and non-binding fractions were also analyzed regarding their haptoglobin function. Both were similar in forming complex with haemoglobin and mediate its uptake into alternatively activated macrophages. However, after uptake there was a dramatic difference in intracellular targeting, with the galectin-1 non-binding fraction going to a LAMP-2 positive compartment (lysosomes), while the galectin-1 binding fraction went to larger galectin-1 positive granules. In conclusion, galectin-1 detects a new type of functional biomarker for cancer: a specific type of glycoform of haptoglobin, and possibly other serum glycoproteins, with a different function after uptake into tissue cells.