Histopathological features of breast tumours in BRCA1, BRCA2 and mutation-negative breast cancer families

INTRODUCTION: Histopathological features of BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumours have previously been characterised and compared with unselected breast tumours; however, familial non-BRCA1/2 tumours are less well known. The aim of this study was to characterise familial non-BRCA1/2 tumours and to evaluate routine immunohistochemical and pathological markers that could help us to further distinguish families carrying BRCA1/2 mutations from other breast cancer families. METHODS: Breast cancer tissue specimens (n = 262) from 25 BRCA1, 20 BRCA2 and 74 non-BRCA1/2 families were studied on a tumour tissue microarray. Immunohistochemical staining of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PgR) and p53 as well as the histology and grade of these three groups were compared with each other and with the respective information on 862 unselected control patients from the archives of the Pathology Department of Helsinki University Central Hospital. Immunohistochemical staining of erbB2 was also performed among familial cases. RESULTS: BRCA1-associated cancers were diagnosed younger and were more ER-negative and PgR-negative, p53-positive and of higher grade than the other tumours. However, in multivariate analysis the independent factors compared with non-BRCA1/2 tumours were age, grade and PgR negativity. BRCA2 cases did not have such distinctive features compared with non-BRCA1/2 tumours or with unselected control tumours. Familial cases without BRCA1/2 mutations had tumours of lower grade than the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: BRCA1 families differed from mutation-negative families by age, grade and PgR status, whereas ER status was not an independent marker

BACH1 Ser919Pro variant and breast cancer risk

BACKGROUND: BACH1 (BRCA1-associated C-terminal helicase 1; also known as BRCA1-interacting protein 1, BRIP1) is a helicase protein that interacts in vivo with BRCA1, the protein product of one of the major genes for hereditary predisposition to breast cancer. Previously, two BACH1 germ line missense mutations have been identified in early-onset breast cancer patients with and without family history of breast and ovarian cancer. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether there are BACH1 genetic variants that contribute to breast cancer risk in Finland. METHODS: The BACH1 gene was screened for germ line alterations among probands from 43 Finnish BRCA1/2 negative breast cancer families. Recently, one of the observed common variants, Ser-allele of the Ser919Pro polymorphism, was suggested to associate with an increased breast cancer risk, and was here evaluated in an independent, large series of 888 unselected breast cancer patients and in 736 healthy controls. RESULTS: Six BACH1 germ line alterations were observed in the mutation analysis, but none of these were found to associate with the cancer phenotype. The Val193Ile variant that was seen in only one family was further screened in an independent series of 346 familial breast cancer cases and 183 healthy controls, but no additional carriers were observed. Individuals with the BACH1 Ser919-allele were not found to have an increased breast cancer risk when the Pro/Ser heterozygotes (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.70–1.16; p = 0.427) or Ser/Ser homozygotes (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.76–1.35; p = 0.91) were compared to Pro/Pro homozygotes, and there was no association of the variant with any breast tumor characteristics, age at cancer diagnosis, family history of cancer, or survival. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the BACH1 Ser919 is not a breast cancer predisposition allele in the Finnish study population. Together with previous studies, our results also indicate that although some rare germ line variants in BACH1 may contribute to breast cancer development, the contribution of BACH1 germline alterations to familial breast cancer seems marginal

Cyclin D1 expression is associated with poor prognostic features in estrogen receptor positive breast cancer

Cyclins D1 and E play an important role in breast carcinogenesis. High cyclin E expression is common in hormone receptor negative and high grade aggressive breast cancer, whereas cyclin D1 in hormone receptor positive and low grade breast cancer. Experimental data has suggested that cyclin D1 and E mediate cell proliferation by different mechanisms in estrogen receptor (ER) positive and negative breast cancer. To test this hypotheses in large breast cancer material and to clarify the histopathological correlations of cyclin E and D1, especially the association with proliferation, we analyzed cyclin E and D1 immunohistochemical expression on breast tumour microarrays consisting of 1348 invasive breast cancers. High cyclin D1 expression was associated with high grade (P < 0.0005), high cyclin A (P < 0.0005) and Ki67 (P < 0.0005) expression among ER positive but with low grade (P = 0.05) and low Ki67 (P = 0.01) expression among ER negative breast cancers. Cyclin E and D1 expression correlated positively in ER positive (P < 0.0005) but had a negative correlation in ER negative tumours (P = 0.004). Cyclin E associated with high grade among all tumours (P < 0.0005). In conclusion, the findings of this study show that cyclin D1 has separate roles, and proliferation is driven by different mechanisms in ER positive and negative breast cancers