DNA methylation differences in noncoding regions in ER negative breast tumors between Black and White women

IntroductionIncidence of estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, an aggressive tumor subtype associated with worse prognosis, is higher among African American/Black women than other US racial and ethnic groups. The reasons for this disparity remain poorly understood but may be partially explained by differences in the epigenetic landscape.MethodsWe previously conducted genome-wide DNA methylation profiling of ER- breast tumors from Black and White women and identified a large number of differentially methylated loci (DML) by race. Our initial analysis focused on DML mapping to protein-coding genes. In this study, motivated by increasing appreciation for the biological importance of the non-protein coding genome, we focused on 96 DMLs mapping to intergenic and noncoding RNA regions, using paired Illumina Infinium Human Methylation 450K array and RNA-seq data to assess the relationship between CpG methylation and RNA expression of genes located up to 1Mb away from the CpG site. ResultsTwenty-three (23) DMLs were significantly correlated with the expression of 36 genes (FDR<0.05), with some DMLs associated with the expression of single gene and others associated with more than one gene. One DML (cg20401567), hypermethylated in ER- tumors from Black versus White women, mapped to a putative enhancer/super-enhancer element located 1.3 Kb downstream of HOXB2. Increased methylation at this CpG correlated with decreased expression of HOXB2 (Rho=-0.74, FDR<0.001) and other HOXB/HOXB-AS genes. Analysis of an independent set of 207 ER- breast cancers from TCGA similarly confirmed hypermethylation at cg20401567 and reduced HOXB2 expression in tumors from Black versus White women (Rho=-0.75, FDR<0.001).DiscussionOur findings indicate that epigenetic differences in ER- tumors between Black and White women are linked to altered gene expression and may hold functional significance in breast cancer pathogenesis

Intratumoral heterogeneity as a source of discordance in breast cancer biomarker classification

Abstract Background Spatial heterogeneity in biomarker expression may impact breast cancer classification. The aims of this study were to estimate the frequency of spatial heterogeneity in biomarker expression within tumors, to identify technical and biological factors contributing to spatial heterogeneity, and to examine the impact of discordant biomarker status within tumors on clinical record agreement. Methods Tissue microarrays (TMAs) were constructed using two to four cores (1.0 mm) for each of 1085 invasive breast cancers from the Carolina Breast Cancer Study, which is part of the AMBER Consortium. Immunohistochemical staining for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) was quantified using automated digital imaging analysis. The biomarker status for each core and for each case was assigned using clinical thresholds. Cases with core-to-core biomarker discordance were manually reviewed to distinguish intratumoral biomarker heterogeneity from misclassification of biomarker status by the automated algorithm. The impact of core-to-core biomarker discordance on case-level agreement between TMAs and the clinical record was evaluated. Results On the basis of automated analysis, discordant biomarker status between TMA cores occurred in 9 %, 16 %, and 18 % of cases for ER, PR, and HER2, respectively. Misclassification of benign epithelium and/or ductal carcinoma in situ as invasive carcinoma by the automated algorithm was implicated in discordance among cores. However, manual review of discordant cases confirmed spatial heterogeneity as a source of discordant biomarker status between cores in 2 %, 7 %, and 8 % of cases for ER, PR, and HER2, respectively. Overall, agreement between TMA and clinical record was high for ER (94 %), PR (89 %), and HER2 (88 %), but it was reduced in cases with core-to-core discordance (agreement 70 % for ER, 61 % for PR, and 57 % for HER2). Conclusions Intratumoral biomarker heterogeneity may impact breast cancer classification accuracy, with implications for clinical management. Both manually confirmed biomarker heterogeneity and misclassification of biomarker status by automated image analysis contribute to discordant biomarker status between TMA cores. Given that manually confirmed heterogeneity is uncommon (<10 % of cases), large studies are needed to study the impact of heterogeneous biomarker expression on breast cancer classification and outcomes

The expression of TRMT2A, a novel cell cycle regulated protein, identifies a subset of breast cancer patients with HER2 over-expression that are at an increased risk of recurrence

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Over-expression of <it>HER2 </it>in a subset of breast cancers (<it>HER2</it>+) is associated with high histological grade and aggressive clinical course. Despite these distinctive features, the differences in response of <it>HER2</it>+ patients to both adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted therapy (e.g. trastuzumab) suggests that unrecognized biologic and clinical diversity is confounding treatment strategies. Furthermore, the small but established risk of cardiac morbidity with trastuzumab therapy compels efforts towards the identification of biomarkers that might help stratify patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A single institution tissue array cohort assembled at the Clearview Cancer Institute of Huntsville (CCIH) was screened by immunohistochemistry staining using a large number of novel and commercially available antibodies to identify those with a univariate association with clinical outcome in <it>HER2</it>+ patients. Staining with antibody directed at TRMT2A was found to be strongly associated with outcome in <it>HER2</it>+ patients. This association with outcome was tested in two independent validation cohorts; an existing staining dataset derived from tissue assembled at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (CCF), and in a new retrospective study performed by staining archived paraffin blocks available at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>TRMT2A staining showed a strong correlation with likelihood of recurrence at five years in 67 <it>HER2</it>+ patients from the CCIH discovery cohort (HR 7.0; 95% CI 2.4 to 20.1, p < 0.0004). This association with outcome was confirmed using 75 <it>HER2</it>+ patients from the CCF cohort (HR 3.6; 95% CI 1.3 to 10.2, p < 0.02) and 64 patients from the RPCI cohort (HR 3.4; 95% CI 1.3-8.9, p < 0.02). In bivariable analysis the association with outcome was independent of grade, tumor size, nodal status and the administration of conventional adjuvant chemotherapy in the CCIH and RPCI cohorts.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Studies from three independent single institution cohorts support TRMT2A protein expression as a biomarker of increased risk of recurrence in <it>HER2+ </it>breast cancer patients. These results suggest that TRMT2A expression should be further studied in the clinical trial setting to explore its predictive power for response to adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy in combination with <it>HER2 </it>targeted therapy.</p

Performance of Three-Biomarker Immunohistochemistry for Intrinsic Breast Cancer Subtyping in the AMBER Consortium

Classification of breast cancer into intrinsic subtypes has clinical and epidemiologic importance. To examine accuracy of immunohistochemistry (IHC)-based methods for identifying intrinsic subtypes, a three-biomarker IHC panel was compared to the clinical record and RNA-based intrinsic (PAM50) subtypes

Inclusion of MUC1 (Ma695) in a panel of immunohistochemical markers is useful for distinguishing between endocervical and endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma*

BACKGROUND: Distinguishing endocervical adenocarcinoma (ECA) from endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma (EMMA) is clinically significant in view of the differences in their management and prognosis. In this study, we used a panel of tumor markers to determine their ability to distinguish between primary endocervical adenocarcinoma and primary endometrial mucinous adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Immunohistochemistry using monoclonal antibodies to MUC1 (Ma695), p16, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and vimentin, was performed to examine 32 cases, including 18 EMMAs and 14 ECAs. For MUC1, cases were scored based on the percentage of staining pattern, apical, apical and cytoplasmic (A/C), or negative. For p16, cases were scored based on the percentage of cells stained. For the rest of the antibodies, semiquantitative scoring system was carried out. RESULTS: For MUC1, majority of EMMA (14 of 18 cases, 78%) showed A/C staining, whereas only few ECA (2 of 14, 14%) were positive. The difference of MUC1 expression in the two groups of malignancy was statistically significant (p < 0.001). Staining for p16 was positive in 10 of 14 (71%) ECA and 4 of 18 (22%) EMMA. Estrogen receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 17 of 18 (94%) EMMA. Progesterone receptor was positive in 3 of 14 (21%) ECA and 16 of 18 (89%) EMMA. Vimentin was positive in 1 of 14 (7%) ECA, and 9 of 18 (50%) EMA, with median and range of 0 (0–6), and 1.5 (0–9) respectively. CONCLUSION: A panel of immunohistochemical markers including MUC1, p16, ER, PR, and vimentin is recommended, when there is morphological and clinical doubt as to the primary site of endocervical or endometrial origin

CD24 Expression is an Independent Prognostic Marker in Cholangiocarcinoma

CD24 has been described as an adverse prognostic marker in several malignancies. This study evaluates CD24 expression in cholangiocarcinoma and correlates the findings with clinicopathologic data and patient survival. Between 1996 and 2002, 22 consecutive patients with cholangiocarcinoma were treated at our institution. Demographic data, SEER stage, pathologic data, treatment, expression of CD24, mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK), phosphorylated MAPK, and survival were analyzed. The majority of the tumors demonstrated CD24 (81.8%) and p-MAPK (87%) expression. A negative association was noted between the expression of CD24 and p-MAPK. Median survival for patients with low expression of CD24 was 36 months and high expression was 8 months. Median survival for patients who received chemotherapy with low CD24 expression was 163 months, and for seven patients with high CD24 expression, it was 17 months (p = 0.04). With the addition of radiation therapy, median survival for patients with low expression of CD24 was 52 months and high expression was 17 months (p = 0.08). On multivariate analysis, the use of chemotherapy (p = 0.0014, hazard ratio 0.069) and the CD24 overexpression (p = 0.02, hazard ratio 7.528) were predictive of survival. CD24 is commonly expressed in cholangiocarcinoma, and overexpression is predictive of poor survival and possibly of lack of response to chemotherapy and radiation therapy. These findings may improve selection of patients for the appropriate treatment modality and the development of CD24-targeted therapy

Frequency of breast cancer subtypes among African American women in the AMBER consortium

Abstract Background Breast cancer subtype can be classified using standard clinical markers (estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)), supplemented with additional markers. However, automated biomarker scoring and classification schemes have not been standardized. The aim of this study was to optimize tumor classification using automated methods in order to describe subtype frequency in the African American Breast Cancer Epidemiology and Risk (AMBER) consortium. Methods Using immunohistochemistry (IHC), we quantified the expression of ER, PR, HER2, the proliferation marker Ki67, and two basal-like biomarkers, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and cytokeratin (CK)5/6, in 1381 invasive breast tumors from African American women. RNA-based (prediction analysis of microarray 50 (PAM50)) subtype, available for 574 (42%) cases, was used to optimize classification. Subtype frequency was calculated, and associations between subtype and tumor characteristics were estimated using logistic regression. Results Relative to ER, PR and HER2 from medical records, central IHC staining and the addition of Ki67 or combined tumor grade improved accuracy for classifying PAM50-based luminal subtypes. Few triple negative cases (< 2%) lacked EGFR and CK5/6 expression, thereby providing little improvement in accuracy for identifying basal-like tumors. Relative to luminal A subtype, all other subtypes had higher combined grade and were larger, and ER-/HER2+ tumors were more often lymph node positive and late stage tumors. The frequency of basal-like tumors was 31%, exceeded only slightly by luminal A tumors (37%). Conclusions Our findings indicate that automated IHC-based classification produces tumor subtype frequencies approximating those from PAM50-based classification and highlight high frequency of basal-like and low frequency of luminal A breast cancer in a large study of African American women

Preneoplastic Low-Risk Mammary Ductal Lesions (Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Spectrum): Current Status and Future Directions

Intraepithelial mammary ductal neoplasia is a spectrum of disease that varies from atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), low-grade (LG), intermediate-grade (IG), to high-grade (HG) ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). While ADH has the lowest prognostic significance, HG-DCIS carries the highest risk. Due to widely used screening mammography, the number of intraepithelial mammary ductal neoplastic lesions has increased. The consequence of this practice is the increase in the number of patients who are overdiagnosed and, therefore, overtreated. The active surveillance (AS) trials are initiated to separate lesions that require active treatment from those that can be safely monitored and only be treated when they develop a change in the clinical/radiologic characteristics. At the same time, the natural history of these lesions can be evaluated. This review aims to evaluate ADH/DCIS as a spectrum of intraductal neoplastic disease (risk and histomorphology); examine the controversies of distinguishing ADH vs. DCIS and the grading of DCIS; review the upgrading for both ADH and DCIS with emphasis on the variation of methods of detection and the definitions of upgrading; and evaluate the impact of all these variables on the AS trials