Matched-pair analysis of patients with female and male breast cancer: a comparative analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Male breast cancer (MBC) is a rare disease accounting for approximately 1% of all breast carcinomas. Presently treatment recommendations are derived from the standards for female breast cancer. However, those approaches might be inadequate because of distinct gender specific differences in tumor biology of breast cancer. This study was planned in order to contrast potential differences between female and male breast cancer in both tumor biological behavior and clinical management.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>MBC diagnosed between 1995-2007 (region Chemnitz/Zwickau, Saxony, Germany) was retrospectively analyzed. Tumor characteristics, treatment and follow-up of the patients were documented. In order to highlight potential differences each MBC was matched with a female counterpart (FBC) that showed accordance in at least eight tumor characteristics (year of diagnosis, age, tumor stage, nodal status, grade, estrogen- and progesterone receptors, HER2 status).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>108 male/female matched-pairs were available for survival analyses. In our study men and women with breast cancer had similar disease-free (DFS) and overall (OS) survival. The 5-years DFS was 53.4% (95% CI, range 54.1-66.3) in men respectively 62.6% (95% CI, 63.5-75.3) in women (p > 0.05). The 5-years OS was 71.4% (95% CI, 62.1-72.7%) and 70.3% (95% CI, 32.6-49.6) in women (p > 0.05). In males DFS analyses revealed progesterone receptor expression as the only prognostic relevant factor (p = 0.006). In multivariate analyses for OS both advanced tumor size (p = 0.01) and a lack of progesterone receptor expression were correlated (p = 0.01) with poor patients outcome in MBC.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Our comparative study revealed no survival differences between male and female breast cancer patients and gives evidence that gender is no predictor for survival in breast cancer. This was shown despite of significant gender specific differences in terms of frequency and intensity of systemic therapy in favor to female breast cancer.</p

Protein Kinase C Activation Has Distinct Effects on the Localization, Phosphorylation and Detergent Solubility of the Claudin Protein Family in Tight and Leaky Epithelial Cells

We have previously shown that protein kinase C (PKC) activation has distinct effects on the structure and barrier properties of cultured epithelial cells (HT29 and MDCK I). Since the claudin family of tight junction (TJ)-associated proteins is considered to be crucial for the function of mature TJ, we assessed their expression patterns and cellular destination, detergent solubility and phosphorylation upon PKC stimulation for 2 or 18 h with phorbol myristate acetate (PMA). In HT29 cells, claudins 1, 3, 4 and 5 and possibly claudin 2 were redistributed to apical cell–cell contacts after PKC activation and the amounts of claudins 1, 3 and 5, but not of claudin 2, were increased in cell lysates. By contrast, in MDCK I cells, PMA treatment resulted in redistribution of claudins 1, 3, 4 and 5 from the TJ and in reorganization of the proteins into more insoluble complexes. Claudins 1 and 4 were phosphorylated in both MDCK I and HT29 cells, but PKC-induced changes in claudin phosphorylation state were detected only in MDCK I cells. A major difference between HT29 and MDCK I cells, which have low and high basal transepithelial electrical resistance, respectively, was the absence of claudin 2 in the latter. Our findings show that PKC activation targets in characteristic ways the expression patterns, destination, detergent solubility and phosphorylation state of claudins in epithelial cells with different capacities to form an epithelial barrier

Displayed correlation between gene expression profiles and submicroscopic alterations in response to cetuximab, gefitinib and EGF in human colon cancer cell lines

Background: EGFR is frequently overexpressed in colon cancer. We characterized HT-29 and Caco-2, human colon cancer cell lines, untreated and treated with cetuximab or gefitinib alone and in combination with EGF. Methods: Cell growth was determined using a variation on the MTT assay. Cell-cycle analysis was conducted by flow cytometry. Immunohistochemistry was performed to evaluate EGFR expression and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evidenced the ultrastructural morphology. Gene expression profiling was performed using hybridization of the microarray Ocimum Pan Human 40 K array A. Results: Caco-2 and HT-29 were respectively 66.25 and 59.24 % in G0/G1. They maintained this level of cell cycle distribution after treatment, suggesting a predominantly differentiated state. Treatment of Caco-2 with EGF or the two EGFR inhibitors produced a significant reduction in their viability. SEM clearly showed morphological cellular transformations in the direction of cellular death in both cell lines treated with EGFR inhibitors. HT-29 and Caco-2 displayed an important reduction of the microvilli (which also lose their erect position in Caco-2), possibly invalidating microvilli absorption function. HT-29 treated with cetuximab lost their boundary contacts and showed filipodi; when treated with gefitinib, they showed some vesicles: generally membrane reshaping is evident. Both cell lines showed a similar behavior in terms of on/off switched genes upon treatment with cetuximab. The gefitinib global gene expression pattern was different for the 2 cell lines; gefitinib treatment induced more changes, but directly correlated with EGF treatment. In cetuximab or gefitinib plus EGF treatments there was possible summation of the morphological effects: cells seemed more weakly affected by the transformation towards apoptosis. The genes appeared to be less stimulated than for single drug cases. Conclusion: This is the first study to have systematically investigated the effect of cetuximab or gefitinib, alone and in combination with EGF, on human colon cancer cell lines. The EGFR inhibitors have a weaker effect in the presence of EGF that binds EGFR. Cetuximab treatment showed an expression pattern that inversely correlates with EGF treatment. We found interesting cytomorphological features closely relating to gene expression profile. Both drugs have an effect on differentiation towards cellular death