Comparison of gene expression profiles in core biopsies and corresponding surgical breast cancer samples

INTRODUCTION: Gene expression profiling has been successfully used to classify breast cancer into clinically distinct subtypes, and to predict the risk of recurrence and treatment response. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the gene expression profile (GEP) detected in a core biopsy (CB) is representative for the entire tumor, since CB is an important tool in breast cancer diagnosis. Moreover, we investigated whether performing CBs prior to the surgical excision could influence the GEP of the respective tumor. METHODS: We quantified the RNA expression of 60 relevant genes by quantitative real-time PCR in paired CBs and surgical specimens from 22 untreated primary breast cancer patients. Subsequently, expression data were compared with independent GEPs obtained from tumors of 317 patients without preceding CB. RESULTS: In 82% of the cases the GEP detected in the CB correlated very well with the corresponding profile in the surgical sample (r(s )≥ 0.95, p < 0.001). Gene-by-gene analysis revealed four genes significantly elevated in the surgical sample compared to the CB; these comprised genes mainly involved in inflammation and the wound repair process as well as in tumor invasion and metastasis. CONCLUSION: A GEP detected in a CB are representative for the entire tumor and is, therefore, of clinical relevance. The observed alterations of individual genes after performance of CB deserve attention since they might impact the clinical interpretation with respect to prognosis and therapy prediction of the GEP as detected in the surgical specimen following CB performance

Genetic counselling and testing of susceptibility genes for therapeutic decision-making in breast cancer-an European consensus statement and expert recommendations

Càrrega feta de Scopus d'articles UAB 2019 (Gold, hybrid o Bronze) procedents de l'Observatori d'Accés Obert (càrrega maig 2020). Compte! Cal comprovar la versió permesa per l'editor en els bronze.Travel expenses for (some) participants were sponsored by an unrestricted grant from AstraZeneca (AZ). AZ had no role in the organization of the meeting, in the invitation of panel members, and in the selection of questions. Participants were solely selected because of scientific expertise in the BRCA field and regional distribution, thereby representing European countries and Israel.Margit Hemetsberger, hemetsberger medical services, Vienna, Austria, helped with the writing of this manuscript. Philipp Pappenscheller, Vienna Medical University, helped with the evaluation of the questionnaires and voting results and the organisation of the meeting. D Gareth Evans is supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.An international panel of experts representing 17 European countries and Israel convened to discuss current needs and future developments in BRCA testing and counselling and to issue consensus recommendations. The experts agreed that, with the increasing availability of high-throughput testing platforms and the registration of poly-ADP-ribose-polymerase inhibitors, the need for genetic counselling and testing will rapidly increase in the near future. Consequently, the already existing shortage of genetic counsellors is expected to worsen and to compromise the quality of care particularly in individuals and families with suspected or proven hereditary breast or ovarian cancer. Increasing educational efforts within the breast cancer caregiver community may alleviate this limitation by enabling all involved specialities to perform genetic counselling. In the therapeutic setting, for patients with a clinical suspicion of genetic susceptibility and if the results may have an immediate impact on the therapeutic strategy, the majority voted that BRCA1/2 testing should be performed after histological diagnosis of breast cancer, regardless of oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status. Experts also agreed that, in the predictive and therapeutic setting, genetic testing should be limited to individuals with a personal or family history suggestive of a BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant and should also include high-risk actionable genes beyond BRCA1/2. Of high-risk actionable genes, all pathological variants (i.e. class IV and V) should be reported; class III variants of unknown significance, should be reported provided that the current lack of clinical utility of the variant is expressly stated. Genetic counselling should always address the possibility that already tested individuals might be re-contacted in case new information on a particular variant results in a re-classification