|
Advertisement |
|
|
||
 |
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol 26, No 15 (May 20), 2008: pp. 2568-2581 © 2008 American Society of Clinical Oncology. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.1748
Basal-Like Breast Cancer: A Critical Review
From the Department of Histopathology, Nottingham City Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Trust; Nottingham University, Nottingham; and the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research, London, United Kingdom Corresponding author: Ian O. Ellis, FRCPath, Molecular Medical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Department of Histopathology, Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust, Hucknall Road, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK; e-mail: ian.ellis{at}nottingham.ac.uk
Recent gene expression profiling of breast cancer has identified specific subtypes with clinical, biologic, and therapeutic implications. The basal-like group of tumors is characterized by an expression signature similar to that of the basal/myoepithelial cells of the breast and is reported to have transcriptomic characteristics similar to those of tumors arising in BRCA1 germline mutation carriers. They are associated with aggressive behavior and poor prognosis, and typically do not express hormone receptors or HER-2 ("triple-negative" phenotype). Therefore, patients with basal-like cancers are unlikely to benefit from currently available targeted systemic therapy. Although basal-like tumors are characterized by distinctive morphologic, genetic, immunophenotypic, and clinical features, neither an accepted consensus on routine clinical identification and definition of this aggressive subtype of breast cancer nor a way of systematically classifying this complex group of tumors has been described. Different definitions are, therefore, likely to produce variable and contradictory results that may hamper consistent identification and development of treatment strategies for these tumors. In this review, we discuss definition, heterogeneity, morphologic spectrum, relation to BRCA1, and clinical significance of this important class of breast cancer.
Current clinical management of breast cancer still relies on the traditional prognostic and predictive factors including histologic, clinical, and some well-defined biologic factors (ie, hormone receptors and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 [HER-2] expression). Despite the overall association of these variables with prognosis and outcome,1 they are limited in their ability to capture the nuances of the complex cascade of events that drive the clinical behavior of breast cancer. Tumors of apparently homogenous morphologic characters still vary in response to therapy and have distinct outcomes.2 The introduction of high-throughput technologies that survey hundreds to thousands of genes and their products in a single assay, coupled with powerful analytic tools, opened new avenues for classifying breast cancer into biologically and clinically distinct groups based on gene expression patterns3-9 and DNA copy number alterations.8,10
In their seminal study, Perou et al3 used an intrinsic gene list obtained with cDNA expression microarrays to classify breast cancers according to similarities in gene expression characteristics. These authors examined a series of 65 paired and nonpaired breast specimens that included 36 invasive ductal carcinomas and two lobular carcinomas. Although the samples analyzed in that study were remarkably heterogeneous in terms of clinicopathologic features and systemic therapy, the prognostic associations originally identified in that study have been corroborated by other groups.11 On the basis of unsupervised methods, breast cancer could be classified into at least five distinct molecular subtypes. Multiple independent studies have confirmed and expanded the original results.3-5,12 Subsequent supervised and unsupervised clustering analyses have shown that breast cancer can be divided into two broad groups: estrogen-receptor (ER)-positive and ER-negative groups, which can be further subdivided into additional distinct biologically and clinically significant subgroups. The ER-positive tumors express ER, ER-responsive genes, and other genes that encode characteristic proteins of luminal epithelial cells and therefore, are termed "luminal group". Although subclassification of luminal tumors is still contentious, there seem to be at least two groups of ER-positive breast cancers, commonly defined as luminal A and B tumors depending on the level of expression of the characteristic genes and expression of other genes either pertaining to the proliferation cluster and/or HER-2.5,13,14 The second broad group (ER-negative tumors) was subdivided into three groups: HER-2–positive, basal-like tumors and so-called normal breast–like tumors. HER-2–positive tumors express high levels of genes located in the HER2 amplicon on 17q21, including HER-2 and growth factor receptor-bound protein 7 (GRB7), a high level of nuclear factor (NF)-  B activation, and the transcription factor GATA4, and lack expression of ER and GATA3.15,16 Basal-like tumors lack ER and HER-2 and express genes characteristic of basal epithelial cells. The normal breast–like group resembles normal breast tissue samples with relatively high expression of many genes characteristic of adipose cells and other nonepithelial cell types, and low level of expression of luminal epithelial cell genes. Importantly, these breast cancer subtypes are associated with markedly different clinical outcomes, ranging from the best-prognosis luminal A tumors to the worst-prognosis HER-2 and basal-like tumors.3-5,11,17 In addition, this molecular classification has also captured the attention of oncologists and scientists alike because the molecular subtypes are potentially predictive of patterns of response to specific therapeutic agents. For instance, luminal A tumors are expected to be sensitive to endocrine therapy, HER-2–overexpressing tumors can be targeted with monoclonal antibodies against HER-2 or HER-2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors, and basal-like cancers may respond to specific therapeutic regimens (discussed later herein) and inhibitors of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) enzyme.
Given the importance of basal and luminal concepts in the genomic signatures identified in the recent molecular classification and the heated debate about the origin of breast cancer stem cells and the relationship between features of different breast cancer classes and type and features of the cells they might be derived from,3,18,19 we will first review the features of the normal parenchymal cells of the mammary gland. In normal human breast, ducts and lobules are lined by two cell layers, an inner/luminal cell population and a distinct outer cell layer, juxtaposed to the basement membrane.20,21 These cells can be distinguished by their immunophenotype, and several markers have been used to define them. It is generally accepted that the luminal epithelial cells are characterized by expression of low molecular weight so-called luminal cytokeratins (CKs) including CK7, CK8, CK18, and CK19, in addition to other markers such as MUC1 alpha-6 integrin, BCL2, ER, progesterone receptor (PgR), GATA3, and epithelial cell adhesion molecules. The outer cell layer is formed of morphologically and immunophenotypically heterogeneous cells depending on their location and on the hormonal status of the tissue. These cells exhibit features of both epithelial and smooth muscle (SM) cells, and they therefore are called myoepithelial (ME) cells. ME cells usually express high molecular weight basal CKs such as CK5, CK14 and CK17, in addition to other markers including SM-specific markers (smooth muscle actin [SMA] and SM myosin heavy chain), calponin, caldesmon, p63, β4 integrin, laminin, maspin, CD10, P-cadherin, caveolin1, nerve growth factor receptor (NGFR), 14-3-3  , and S-100.22-30 ME cells are typically negative for luminal CKs, epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), desmin, ER, and PgR.31-41 ME cells are also called basal cells, which is a term used to refer to a cell population that is adjacent to the basement membrane, "in a basal position" from the ducts to the acini, and expresses basal CKs.39,42 However, in addition to ME cells, basal CKs are also expressed in a variable subpopulation of luminal cells in both large ducts and the terminal duct lobular unit complex, although there is considerable variation in their expression pattern.21,42-44 Therefore, in the normal breast, the term basal has confusingly acquired two meanings: (i) it has become a synonym for ME cells and (ii) it defines a specific subpopulation of basal CK-expressing cells that may be found in either a luminal or basal location. Basal-like tumors express genes characteristic of basal/ME cells. In addition to structural roles, many of the basal-like gene products have been implicated in cellular proliferation, suppression of apoptosis, cell migration and/or invasion, all hallmarks of cancer.45,46 They underexpress ER, ER-responsive genes, and other genes characteristic of luminal epithelial cells of the normal mammary gland, as well as genes located in the HER2 amplicon on 17q21.47 Collectively, the gene-expression profile of basal-like tumors provides myriad candidate genes that might contribute to their aggressive phenotype and, arguably, may suggest a less differentiated "stem/progenitor" cell phenotype or a stem cell origin for these tumors. Table 1 summarizes the genes and functional groups characteristically overexpressed or downregulated in basal-like breast cancers.
Basal-like tumors have been characterized using microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH) in a number of studies.7,8,48 Basal-like cancers are reported to have a greater genetic complexity compared with other breast cancer subtypes, suggesting a greater degree of genetic instability. Bergamaschi et al7 and Chin et al11 have applied array-CGH to invasive breast cancers that were previously characterized by expression arrays. They found that basal-like tumors show the highest frequency of DNA losses and gains compared with other subtypes. However, it is unclear whether this is not related to the fact that basal-like breast cancers are predominantly of high histologic grade, whereas the other groups are composed of a mixture of tumors of different grades. These two groups have also reported that despite the highest prevalence of genomic aberrations, basal-like cancers more frequently show low-level gains and deletions and less frequently show high-level gains/amplifications7,8 than do tumors pertaining to the other molecular subgroups. This pattern of genomic changes may be suggestive of a defect in double-strand DNA break repair mechanisms.49 A recent study has also demonstrated that basal-like cancers frequently harbor a dysfunctional BRCA1 pathway. Interestingly, some of the few recurrent amplifications described to date in basal-like cancers include 7p11.2, involving the EGFR gene,50 7q31, affecting caveolin 151 and 12p13.52 In a previous study, basal-like tumors, as defined by CK14 positivity, showed a lower prevalence of genomic changes compared with grade-matched tumors. Interestingly, basal-like cancers showed a rather distinctive CGH profile, with higher rates of loss at chromosomes 16p, 17q, 19q, and Xp and lower rates of both loss at chromosomes 4q, 9q, and 13q and gains at 17q and 20p.53,54 In addition, genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphism arrays have shown the highest overall rate of loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in the basal-like subset of breast cancers that have been identified on the basis of mRNA expression array data. The fraction of LOH was two to three times higher than that of other subtypes of breast cancer.55 Several other characteristic cytogenetic changes have been reported.7,53,54,56 For example, the locus at 5q11, which has many checkpoint DNA-repair and tumor suppressor genes (including MSH3, RAD17, APC, RAD50, and XRCC4), was lost in 100% of the basal-like cancers,7,55,57 but never in luminal or other subtypes. Basal-like tumors also show the lowest rate of LOH at 16q23-24 and 1p32-ter compared with other classes of breast cancer.55
To date, there is no internationally accepted definition for basal-like cancers. Although the majority of basal-like tumors have common morphologic features,58,59 there are no specific hallmark morphologic features that can identify those tumors reliably in routine practice. Gene expression microarrays cannot be readily applied to clinically available formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues, remain relatively expensive, and are not established as a robust technology that can be used in routine patient management. Given that the majority of basal-like breast carcinomas lack ER, PR, and HER-2 expression, several groups have adopted a triple-negative (ER–/PR–/HER-2–) definition for basal-like cancers. Although this approach is certainly convenient, given that this information is present in most pathology reports, it should be emphasized that the overlap between triple-negative and basal-like breast cancers, as defined by expression array analysis, is not complete.60,61 It should be noted that although most basal-like cancers do not express ER or HER-2, 15% to 45% are reported to express at least one of these markers4,13,60,62; on the other hand, not all triple-negative cancers are of basal-like profile.4,60,63,64 One study demonstrated that ER and HER-2 were expressed in 14% of basal-like cancers64; on the other hand, only approximately 85% of ER–/HER-2–cancers are of basal-like phenotype by expression arrays.60 Furthermore, in RNA expression analysis experiments, triple-negative tumors included not only basal-like cancers but also the so-called normal breast–like class of breast cancer.3,4,13,14,65 Although the latter group is still poorly characterized, they are reported to have a prognosis which seems to be better than that of basal-like cancers,4,62 and do not seem to respond to neoadjuvant chemotherapy.64,65 In fact, in one study, 45% of patients with basal-like cancer showed pathologic complete response after receiving an anthracycline plus taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy, whereas none of the normal breast–like cancers did so.64 Furthermore, ER expression, as defined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis, has a documented technical false-negative rate,66 and any definition based on all negative results should be generally avoided.60,67 Therefore, it is important to notice that some clinical trials based on triple-negative definition (Table 2) are now underway. Such definitions may arguably lead to inaccurate conclusions as a result of the noise in subtype definition introduced by relying on a triple-negative criterion.
On the basis of the foregoing, the only realistic, potentially objective, and convenient method to identify these basal-like carcinomas in clinical specimens would be through the positive detection of certain markers. In a more pragmatic approach, several IHC surrogates have been proposed for the routine identification of basal-like breast tumors. Nielsen et al60 identified an IHC surrogate based on four markers (ER, HER-2, epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR], and CK5/6). They classified all HER-2–positive tumors in the HER-2 subtype. Of the remaining cases, ER-positive tumors were considered luminal, whereas ER-negative tumors were classified as either basal-like (ER and HER-2 negative, CK5/6 and/or EGFR positive) or undetermined (negative for all four markers; 22%). In their study, this panel showed a sensitivity of 76% and a specificity of 100% to identify breast carcinomas with a basal-like phenotype as defined by expression profiling analysis. These criteria for definition of basal-like tumors were adopted by many other authors.68-73 In a similar study, Livasy et al58 investigated 23 basal-like tumors identified by cDNA microarrays. They reported that the most consistent immunophenotyping of basal-like tumors was negativity for ER and HER-2, and positivity for vimentin, EGFR, CK8/18, and CK5/6. In addition, other criteria have been used in the definition of basal-like tumors such as "ER, P[g]R, HER-2–negative [triple-negative], and CK5/6 and/or EGFR-positive,"69 "ER-negative, HER-2–negative/positive and [CK5 and/or P-cadherin and/or p63]-positive,"74 and triple-negative.61 Table 3 summarizes the different definitions of basal-like cancer, their percentages, and control groups used in different studies with subsequent association with patients’ outcome. Other markers that have been included in the panel of basal biomarkers include vimentin and laminin,58,68 c-KIT,75 p63,76 nestin,77 osteonectin,78 caveolin 1,51 and NGFR.79
Because basal CKs expression is one of the main characteristic features of basal-like tumors, most but not all IHC studies53,63,76,80-82 have used them to defined basal-like tumors (Table 3).21,83,84 In a previous study of a large series of unselected breast cancers, using different IHC markers,67 we demonstrated that basal CKs are independently associated with poor outcome.4,60,63,84-87 Additional markers used to define basal-like tumors, although associated with basal CK expression, so far have not helped improve the identification of cases with differing outcome compared with those identified using basal CKs alone. These additional markers, if used to define cases of basal-like cancer, would reduce considerably the proportion of cases allocated to this poor-prognosis type of breast cancer. Therefore, a suitable, pragmatic solution would be to use basal CKs expression to define basal-like tumors regardless of the expression of other markers. However, some authors may argue that although both basal CK-positive tumors and basal-like breast cancers share several clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features, they are not strictly the same entity,88 and basal CKs are not expressed in all tumors classified basal-like by gene microarray analysis.4 Although the prognostic significance is the one of the aims of identifying new classes of cancer, basal-like tumors identified by gene expression arrays also share a distinct molecular profile, which may have therapeutic implications, in addition to their prognostic significance. For example, some of the identified basal markers may have potential therapeutic implications, such as c-kit, EGFR,50 caveolin 1,51,89 and  B crystallin. Another point to be considered here is the considerable degree of variability among different studies in using these basal CKs to identify basal-like tumors (Table 3). Either CK5 (or CK5/6),74,80,90 CK14,53,54,59 combined CK5/6 and C14,75,76,91-93 CK5/6 and 17,3,63,87,94,95 CK14 and CK17,96 or a combination of all the three basal CKs19,78,81,93 have been used to identify basal-like tumors. Their staining patterns are highly variable and heterogeneous.82,87,93 Consequently, this variability has created some degree of discordance and contradictory results. For example, some studies, which used CK14 alone to define basal-like tumors, did not find an association with survival.53,82 Our explanation for these contradictory results is, in addition to difference in the cohort of patients and composition of the control groups, related to the use of a single basal CK to define basal-like tumors. This can be explained by the so-called Will Rogers phenomenon, which is the apparent paradox obtained when moving an element from one set to another set changes the average values of both sets.97 This is supported by our findings98 in which we demonstrated that two basal markers did not identify exactly the same tumors when used alone, and that the associations with overall survival were different between tumors defined by CK14, CK5/6, or both CK14 and/or CK5/6 expression. Consistent with our observation, similar finding with CK5/6 and 1476,99 and CK5 and CK1787 have been reported. Moreover, although it is known that CK5 and CK14 are found in pairs in normal tissues, coexpression of both in tumor tissues is observed in less than 30% of cases. These findings indicate that one basal CK may not be sufficient to identify all basal-like tumors or may not identify the group with a more aggressive clinical behavior. Therefore, achieving an optimal definition of basal-like cancers is not simple and should not be regarded as a trivial task. We would recommend that studies analyzing triple-negative tumors should be labeled as such, whereas the definition used for basal-like phenotype should be clearly stated in those dealing with basal-like breast cancers.
By defining basal-like cancers either in terms of mRNA expression profile or expression of basal IHC markers, studies are consistent in their morphologic description of this class of breast cancer. The basal-like group comprises 8% to 20% of all breast cancers.3,4,53,54,63,75,82,87,98,100 The majority of these tumors are ductal of no special type, but occasionally are tubular mixed,98 metaplastic,92 or medullary cancers101 (Fig 1). They have common features including younger patient age, high histologic tumor grade, marked cellular pleomorphism, high nuclear-cytoplasmic ratio, lack of tubule formation, high mitotic index, frequent apoptotic cells, scant stromal content, a pushing border of invasion, central geographic or comedo-type necrosis. They are also characterized by the presence of metaplastic elements such as spindle cells and squamous cell metaplasia, presence of a central scar, glomeruloid microvascular proliferation, and a stromal lymphocytic response.13,54,59,80,81,98,102-104 In addition, some reports have suggested that basal-like tumors may achieve extraordinarily rapid clinical growth rates.105 The high proliferative activity of basal-like tumors may probably explain why these tumors are overrepresented among the so-called interval breast cancers (eg, cancers arising between annual mammograms).106
Although these features are strongly associated with basal-like cancer and can help in the identification of these tumors for example, almost all metaplastic and medullary carcinomas are basal-like,92,98,101 they are generally not specific, and individual features can be seen in other high-grade tumors regardless of their immunophenotype, thus emphasizing the importance of IHC detection of specific (basal) markers as a realistic and simple method to identify these tumors in routine practice.
Despite differences in the definition and prevalence of basal-like tumors in various studies, the poor outcome of patients with basal-like tumors has been remarkably reproducible across many different patient populations (Table 3).4,5,11,63,69,80,81,91 Basal-like cancer is associated with an aggressive clinical history, development of locoregional and distant metastasis (particularly in the first 5 years82), shorter survival, and a relatively high mortality rate.5,69,80,81,87,98 Previous studies have demonstrated that basal-like phenotype is an independent marker of poor prognosis in breast cancers as a whole,1,9-11 in the lymph node (LN)-negative,63,87 and LN-positive groups.60,83 Basal-like phenotype was found to predict a particularly aggressive course for patients with grade 3, lymph node-negative tumors91 and in patients with metastatic disease.82 In addition, basal-like tumors show a specific pattern of distant metastasis with an increased propensity for visceral metastases to brain and lung—sites know to be associated with a poorer prognosis82,107,108 and less likely metastasize to bone and liver.81,82,102,109,110 These findings suggest that basal-like tumors might also possess a distinct mechanism of metastatic spread. However, it should be also noted that some reported lack of association between basal-like cancer and poor outcome (Table 3).82 Others have also reported a negative association with outcome during the early few years of follow-up, which loses its significance after a long-term period (10 years).88,103 Furthermore, it has been reported that basal-like tumors either defined by the triple-negative phenotype111,112 or by basal CK expression98 are not associated with increased risk for locoregional relapse after conservative surgery. In fact, these findings together with the frequently pushing well-defined border of invasion in these tumors and absence of association with vascular invasion or lymph node involvement13,58,80,82,91,95 do not appear to justify a more radical approach to local or axillary surgery. The potentially aggressive behavior of these tumors may be better approached by use of systemic therapy (described further later herein).
There are several lines of evidence to suggest a link between basal-like breast cancer and BRCA1 deficiency.49 Many phenotypical, immunohistochemical, and clinical characteristics and molecular features are shared by basal-like breast cancers and tumors that arise in carriers of BRCA1 germline mutations. The majority of BRCA1-associated tumors are triple-negative and express basal CKs (in addition to other markers commonly seen in basal-like tumors such as p53, P-cadherin, and EGFR5,76,80,113-117), and, in most studies, both patient groups have a poor outcome.80,118 In keeping with these similarities, clustering analyses of microarray expression profiling data have shown that familial BRCA1 mutant tumors tend to fall into the basal-like category, suggesting similar carcinogenic pathways or causes of these two subtypes.5 As with basal-like tumors, cytogenetic abnormalities are common in BRCA1 mutation-related breast cancers119,120 and a set of characteristic cytogenetic changes in BRCA1-associated breast cancers119,121 has been described in sporadic basal-like cancers.7,54,56 Both sporadic basal-like and BRCA1 breast tumors have frequent loss of X-chromosome inactivation.122,123 Some studies have indicated that BRCA1 mRNA expression was lower in basal-like sporadic cancers than in controls matched for age and grade124 and in approximately 30% of sporadic breast tumors.125 BRCA1 is rarely mutated in sporadic breast cancers126 and, therefore, it is believed that this may be a result of epigenetic mechanisms such as acquired methylation of the BRCA1 gene promoter127,128 or a dysfunction in the upstream pathways that regulate BRCA1 expression, such as overexpression of ID4.124 These sporadic tumors with reduced BRCA1 expression tend to exhibit triple-negative phenotypes remarkably similar to BRCA1-mutated and basal-like tumors.49,117,124,129 In addition, the profound similarities between hereditary BRCA1-related breast tumors and basal-like tumors strongly implicate a fundamental defect in the BRCA1 or associated DNA-repair pathways in sporadic basal-like tumors.117 Although it is not clear whether in humans BRCA1 inactivation is the cause or a consequence of a basal-like phenotype, two hypotheses have been advanced for the similarities between basal-like cancers and tumors arising in BRCA1 mutation carriers: (i) the precursors of basal-like cancers (likely to be basal-like ductal carcinoma in situ19,130,131) and invasive basal-like breast carcinomas may be more tolerant to loss of BRCA1 function than those of other breast cancer subtypes, possibly because of the phenotype of the cell of the initiating event or the concurrent inactivation of other tumor suppressor genes, such as TP53; and alternatively, (ii) BRCA1 may be involved in the differentiation of breast epithelial cells and, therefore, BRCA1 inactivation would lead to tumors with a stem cell–like phenotype.132,133 Furthermore, given the reported action of BRCA1 in regulating the ER pathway,134 BRCA1 dysfunction may actively lead to the development of tumors with a basal-like phenotype.135 Although the aforementioned hypotheses are attractive, there is no definite answer at this moment. However, this is a field that is rapidly evolving, and evidence-based answers may emerge in the near future. Basal-like cancers and tumors arising in BRCA1 germline mutation carriers are remarkably similar at the morphologic, immunohistochemical, transcriptome, and gene copy levels. In fact, there are increasingly more coherent data to suggest that BRCA1 pathway dysfunction may play an important role in the development of not only familial but also sporadic basal-like tumors.49,135 Although BRCA1 somatic gene mutations are unlikely to be commonly found in sporadic basal-like cancers, these tumors have been shown to have a dysfunctional BRCA1 pathway because of BRCA1 gene promoter methylation and/or BRCA1 pathway transcriptional inactivation.49,124 To emphasize the relationship between basal-like tumors and BRCA1, some authors have demonstrated that the use of basal CK staining in combination with ER and morphology provides a more accurate predictor of BRCA1 mutation status than previously available and may be useful in selecting patients for BRCA1 mutation testing.49,78,124 Interestingly, although several studies have demonstrated the relationship between BRCA1 and basal-like tumors, the available evidence suggests that BRCA2 is not involved in the biology of basal-like carcinomas.76,109,136
Basal-like cancer often has a triple-negative phenotype; as a result, the majority of these tumors cannot be managed effectively with existing targeted treatments (trastuzumab and hormonal treatments). Despite their aggressive behavior, current routine diagnostic practice does not specifically recognize these tumors, and their management is still same as that of other grade- and stage-matched breast cancers. This is mainly because the genes that are responsible for their aggressive phenotype are not well understood. Several potential targets are now emerging, including EGFR, which is expressed in > 60%60,67 and amplified and/or aneusomic in a subset of basal-like tumors,50 and its downstream signaling pathways. EGFR signaling has been inhibited in other cancer types with some clinical success, by using either EGFR-directed antibodies or the inhibitors of receptor phosphorylation.137,138 The growth factor receptor, c-KIT, which is expressed in a high proportion of basal-like cancers,60,75,139 has been successfully targeted in other tumor types by imatinib that inhibits c-KIT and platelet-derived growth factor–receptor tyrosine kinases. These findings should be interpreted with caution though, as c-KIT–positive breast tumors have been shown to lack activating KIT gene mutations.139 Dasatinib, an src inhibitor, has been shown in preclinical models to be most effective in triple-negative/basal-like breast cancers.89,140 Although the actual target of this inhibitor in basal-like cancers remains to be determined and no evidence based on clinical experience has been gathered to date, this compound may prove useful for future management of basal-like cancers.89 The fundamental biologic similarities between BRCA1-associated and basal-like tumors suggest that strategies targeting potential BRCA1 pathway dysfunction in basal-like tumors might be effective.141 There is increasing evidence that the DNA-repair defects characteristic of BRCA1-related cancers, especially defective homologous recombination, confer sensitivity to certain systemic agents, such as platinum salts–based chemotherapy agents and PARP inhibitors,141-144 which, therefore, could be relevant to the treatment of basal-like breast cancer. The response of basal-like tumors to chemotherapy is currently under investigation (Table 4). However, most studies were either retrospective, or failed to include a control group, or were not sufficiently powered. Although it has been reported that basal-like tumors may have a better response to chemotherapy,61,104 basal-like phenotype does not seem to be an independent predictor of chemotherapy response after accounting for the contribution of high grade, high proliferation rates, and hormone receptor–negative status of these tumors,64 and a recent study has reported a low response rate of basal-like tumors to neoadjuvant therapy with docetaxel, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide.65 Whether more aggressive treatment procedures can improve the outcome for these patients and which of the available options provide the greatest benefit are still under investigation (Table 2). However, a caveat should be voiced, given that most clinical trials have so far used a triple-negative definition for these tumors (as described earlier herein). The answer these issues might require carefully designed prospective studies to evaluate the impact of the basal-like phenotype and its individual gene products on response to specific therapy.
Basal-like breast cancer is a distinct group of tumors that show common but heterogeneous morphologic, genetic, and immunophenotypic features and is associated with poor clinical outcome, which would be best seen as a spectrum of lesions. The current definition of basal-like cancers varies widely. In terms of gene expression microarrays, they are defined by a specific gene signature that is similar to that of basal and/or myoepithelial cells of the breast. In terms of IHC identification, they have been defined using either a panel of markers that can define those tumors identified in the microarray studies or according to basal CK expression. This later pragmatic definition is supported by the association between basal CK and poor outcome; however, it seems likely that a consensus definition is far from being achieved. Given the limited number of emerging therapeutic targets in these tumors, routine IHC identification of basal-like subtype as a poor prognostic group of breast cancer, could be based on the expression of basal CKs. A more practical approach is to apply these basal CKs to tumors that are triple negative or show morphologic features suggestive of basal-like phenotype such as high-grade tumors. Although we do not advocate the inclusion of HER2–amplified, basal CK–positive breast cancers in the basal-like group, because of the obvious therapeutic implications (ie, HER-2–positive cancers are already managed in a completely different fashion), it is unclear whether ER- and basal CK–positive breast cancers should be classified. Although the latter accounts for a small minority of breast cancers, further clarity on their response to endocrine therapy is required. We also recommend the use of a combination of basal CKs and a valid and consensus method of interpretation of their results similar to that used for assessment of HER-2. Basal-like tumors may require a more aggressive intervention and should raise the suspicion of a BRCA1 germline mutation, particularly if they are hormone-receptor negative.
The author(s) indicated no potential conflicts of interest.
Conception and design: Emad A. Rakha, Jorge S. Reis-Filho, Ian O. Ellis Manuscript writing: Emad A. Rakha, Jorge S. Reis-Filho, Ian O. Ellis
Terms in blue are defined in the glossary, found at the end of this article and online at www.jco.org. Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this article.
1. Elston CW, Ellis IO, Pinder SE: Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 31:209-223, 1999[Medline] 2. Alizadeh AA, Ross DT, Perou CM, et al: Towards a novel classification of human malignancies based on gene expression patterns. J Pathol 195:41-52, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 3. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al: Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747-752, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 4. Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al: Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:10869-10874, 2001 5. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, et al: Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:8418-8423, 2003 6. Bertucci F, Houlgatte R, Benziane A, et al: Gene expression profiling of primary breast carcinomas using arrays of candidate genes. Hum Mol Genet 9:2981-2991, 2000 7. Bergamaschi A, Kim YH, Wang P, et al: Distinct patterns of DNA copy number alteration are associated with different clinicopathological features and gene-expression subtypes of breast cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 45:1033-1040, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 8. Chin K, DeVries S, Fridlyand J, et al: Genomic and transcriptional aberrations linked to breast cancer pathophysiologies. Cancer Cell 10:529-541, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 9. Neve RM, Chin K, Fridlyand J, et al: A collection of breast cancer cell lines for the study of functionally distinct cancer subtypes. Cancer Cell 10:515-527, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 10. Hicks J, Krasnitz A, Lakshmi B, et al: Novel patterns of genome rearrangement and their association with survival in breast cancer. Genome Res 16:1465-1479, 2006 11. Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, et al: Breast cancer classification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:10393-10398, 2003 12. Zhao H, Langerod A, Ji Y, et al: Different gene expression patterns in invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas of the breast. Mol Biol Cell 15:2523-2536, 2004 13. Calza S, Hall P, Auer G, et al: Intrinsic molecular signature of breast cancer in a population-based cohort of 412 patients. Breast Cancer Res 8:R34, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 14. Hu Z, Fan C, Oh DS, et al: The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genomics 7:96, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 15. Bertucci F, Borie N, Ginestier C, et al: Identification and validation of an ERBB2 gene expression signature in breast cancers. Oncogene 23:2564-2575, 2004[CrossRef][Medline] 16. Biswas DK, Iglehart JD: Linkage between EGFR family receptors and nuclear factor kappaB (NF-kappaB) signaling in breast cancer. J Cell Physiol 209:645-652, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 17. Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S, et al: Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: Understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:262-272, 2006 18. Boecker W, Buerger H: Evidence of progenitor cells of glandular and myoepithelial cell lineages in the human adult female breast epithelium: A new progenitor (adult stem) cell concept. Cell Prolif 36:73-84, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 19. Bryan BB, Schnitt SJ, Collins LC: Ductal carcinoma in situ with basal-like phenotype: A possible precursor to invasive basal-like breast cancer. Mod Pathol 19:617-621, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 20. Anbazhagan R, Osin PP, Bartkova J, et al: The development of epithelial phenotypes in the human fetal and infant breast. J Pathol 184:197-206, 1998[CrossRef][Medline] 21. Gusterson BA, Ross DT, Heath VJ, et al: Basal cytokeratins and their relationship to the cellular origin and functional classification of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 7:143-148, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 22. Gottlieb C, Raju U, Greenwald KA: Myoepithelial cells in the differential diagnosis of complex benign and malignant breast lesions: An immunohistochemical study. Mod Pathol 3:135-140, 1990[Medline] 23. Rudland PS: Histochemical organization and cellular composition of ductal buds in developing human breast: Evidence of cytochemical intermediates between epithelial and myoepithelial cells. J Histochem Cytochem 39:1471-1484, 1991[Abstract] 24. Wada T, Yasutomi M, Hashmura K, et al: Vimentin expression in benign and malignant lesions in the human mammary gland. Anticancer Res 12:1973-1982, 1992[Medline] 25. Böcker W, Bier B, Freytag G, et al: An immunohistochemical study of the breast using antibodies to basal and luminal keratins, alpha-smooth muscle actin, vimentin, collagen IV and laminin, Part I: Normal breast and benign proliferative lesions. Virchows Arch A Pathol Anat Histopathol 421:315-322, 1992[CrossRef][Medline] 26. Lazard D, Sastre X, Frid MG, et al: Expression of smooth muscle-specific proteins in myoepithelium and stromal myofibroblasts of normal and malignant human breast tissue. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 90:999-1003, 1993 27. Rasbridge SA, Gillett CE, Sampson SA, et al: Epithelial (E-) and placental (P-) cadherin cell adhesion molecule expression in breast carcinoma. J Pathol 169:245-250, 1993[CrossRef][Medline] 28. Gusterson B, Laurence D, Anbazhagan R, et al: The breast myoepithelial cells and its significance in physiology and pathology. Curr Diagn Patho 1:203-211, 1994[CrossRef] 29. Nakano S, Iyama K, Ogawa M, et al: Differential tissular expression and localization of type IV collagen alpha1(IV), alpha2(IV), alpha5(IV), and alpha6(IV) chains and their mRNA in normal breast and in benign and malignant breast tumors. Lab Invest 79:281-292, 1999[Medline] 30. Nayar R, Breland C, Bedrossian U, et al: Immunoreactivity of ductal cells with putative myoepithelial markers: A potential pitfall in breast carcinoma. Ann Diagn Pathol 3:165-173, 1999[CrossRef][Medline] 31. Reis-Filho JS, Simpson PT, Martins A, et al: Distribution of p63, cytokeratins 5/6 and cytokeratin 14 in 51 normal and 400 neoplastic human tissue samples using TARP-4 multi-tumor tissue microarray. Virchows Arch 443:122-132, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 32. Popnikolov NK, Ayala AG, Graves K, et al: Benign myoepithelial tumors of the breast have immunophenotypic characteristics similar to metaplastic matrix-producing and spindle cell carcinomas. Am J Clin Pathol 120:161-167, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 33. Wetzels RH, Kuijpers HJ, Lane EB, et al: Basal cell-specific and hyperproliferation-related keratins in human breast cancer. Am J Pathol 138:751-763, 1991[Abstract] 34. Purkis PE, Steel JB, Mackenzie IC, et al: Antibody markers of basal cells in complex epithelia. J Cell Sci 97:39-50, 1990 35. Heatley M, Maxwell P, Whiteside C, et al: Cytokeratin intermediate filament expression in benign and malignant breast disease. J Clin Pathol 48:26-32, 1995 36. Stingl J, Eaves CJ, Zandieh I, et al: Characterization of bipotent mammary epithelial progenitor cells in normal adult human breast tissue. Breast Cancer Res Treat 67:93-109, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 37. Tavassoli F, Devilee P: Myoepithelial lesions, in Kleihues P, Sobin L (eds): World Health Organization Classification of Tumours: Tumours of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. Lyon, France, IARC Press, 2003 38. Tamiolakis D, Papadopoulos N, Cheva A, et al: Immunohistochemical expression of alpha-smooth muscle actin in infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast with productive fibrosis. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 23:469-471, 2002[Medline] 39. Moll R, Franke WW, Schiller DL, et al: The catalog of human cytokeratins: Patterns of expression in normal epithelia, tumors and cultured cells. Cell 31:11-24, 1982[CrossRef][Medline] 40. Zhang RR, Man YG, Vang R, et al: A subset of morphologically distinct mammary myoepithelial cells lacks corresponding immunophenotypic markers. Breast Cancer Res 5:R151–R156, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 41. Birnbaum D, Bertucci F, Ginestier C, et al: Basal and luminal breast cancers: Basic or luminous? Int J Oncol 25:249-258, 2004[Medline] 42. Nagle RB, Bocker W, Davis JR, et al: Characterization of breast carcinomas by two monoclonal antibodies distinguishing myoepithelial from luminal epithelial cells. J Histochem Cytochem 34:869-881, 1986[Abstract] 43. Su L, Morgan PR, Lane EB: Expression of cytokeratin messenger RNA versus protein in the normal mammary gland and in breast cancer. Hum Pathol 27:800-806, 1996[CrossRef][Medline] 44. Page MJ, Amess B, Townsend RR, et al: Proteomic definition of normal human luminal and myoepithelial breast cells purified from reduction mammoplasties. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:12589-12594, 1999 45. Sørlie T, Wang Y, Xiao C, et al: Distinct molecular mechanisms underlying clinically relevant subtypes of breast cancer: Gene expression analyses across three different platforms. BMC Genomics 7:127, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 46. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA: The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 100:57-70, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 47. Yehiely F, Moyano JV, Evans JR, et al: Deconstructing the molecular portrait of basal-like breast cancer. Trends Mol Med 12:537-544, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 48. Vincent-Salomon A, Gruel N, Lucchesi C, et al: Identification of typical medullary breast carcinoma as a genomic sub-group of basal-like carcinomas, a heterogeneous new molecular entity. Breast Cancer Res 9:R24, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 49. Turner NC, Reis-Filho JS: Basal-like breast cancer and the BRCA1 phenotype. Oncogene 25:5846-5853, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 50. Reis-Filho JS, Pinheiro C, Lambros MB, et al: EGFR amplification and lack of activating mutations in metaplastic breast carcinomas. J Pathol 209:445-453, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 51. Savage K, Lambros MB, Robertson D, et al: Caveolin 1 is overexpressed and amplified in a subset of basal-like and metaplastic breast carcinomas: A morphologic, ultrastructural, immunohistochemical, and in situ hybridization analysis. Clin Cancer Res 13:90-101, 2007 52. Letessier A, Sircoulomb F, Ginestier C, et al: Frequency, prognostic impact, and subtype association of 8p12, 8q24, 11q13, 12p13, 17q12, and 20q13 amplifications in breast cancers. BMC Cancer 6:245, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 53. Jones C, Ford E, Gillett C, et al: Molecular cytogenetic identification of subgroups of grade III invasive ductal breast carcinomas with different clinical outcomes. Clin Cancer Res 10:5988-5997, 2004 54. Jones C, Nonni AV, Fulford L, et al: CGH analysis of ductal carcinoma of the breast with basaloid/myoepithelial cell differentiation. Br J Cancer 85:422-427, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 55. Wang ZC, Lin M, Wei LJ, et al: Loss of heterozygosity and its correlation with expression profiles in subclasses of invasive breast cancers. Cancer Res 64:64-71, 2004 56. Korsching E, Packeisen J, Agelopoulos K, et al: Cytogenetic alterations and cytokeratin expression patterns in breast cancer: Integrating a new model of breast differentiation into cytogenetic pathways of breast carcinogenesis. Lab Invest 82:1525-1533, 2002[Medline] 57. Loo LW, Grove DI, Williams EM, et al: Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis of genomic alterations in breast cancer subtypes. Cancer Res 64:8541-8549, 2004 58. Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R, et al: Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 19:264-271, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 59. Fulford LG, Easton DF, Reis-Filho JS, et al: Specific morphological features predictive for the basal phenotype in grade 3 invasive ductal carcinoma of breast. Histopathology 49:22-34, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 60. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, et al: Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 10:5367-5374, 2004 61. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, et al: The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 13:2329-2334, 2007 62. Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L, et al: Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355:560-569, 2006 63. Potemski P, Kusinska R, Watala C, et al: Prognostic relevance of basal cytokeratin expression in operable breast cancer. Oncology 69:478-485, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 64. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, et al: Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 11:5678-5685, 2005 65. Rody A, Karn T, Solbach C, et al: The erbB2+ cluster of the intrinsic gene set predicts tumor response of breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy with docetaxel, doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide within the GEPARTRIO trial. Breast 16:235-240, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 66. Rhodes A, Jasani B, Barnes DM, et al: Reliability of immunohistochemical demonstration of oestrogen receptors in routine practice: Interlaboratory variance in the sensitivity of detection and evaluation of scoring systems. J Clin Pathol 53:125-130, 2000 67. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, et al: Breast carcinoma with basal differentiation: A proposal for pathology definition based on basal cytokeratin expression. Histopathology 50:434-438, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 68. Rodríguez-Pinilla SM, Sarrio D, Honrado E, et al: Vimentin and laminin expression is associated with basal-like phenotype in both sporadic and BRCA1-associated breast carcinomas. J Clin Pathol 60:1006-1012, 2007 69. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al: Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295:2492-2502, 2006 70. Livasy CA, Perou CM, Karaca G, et al: Identification of a basal-like subtype of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol 38:197-204, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 71. Rodriguez-Pinilla SM, Sarrio D, Moreno-Bueno G, et al: Sox2: A possible driver of the basal-like phenotype in sporadic breast cancer. Mod Pathol 20:474-481, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 72. Rodríguez-Pinilla SM, Rodriguez-Gil Y, Moreno-Bueno G, et al: sporadic invasive breast carcinomas with medullary features display a basal-like phenotype: An immunohistochemical and gene amplification study. Am J Surg Pathol 31:501-508, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 73. Pinilla SM, Honrado E, Hardisson D, et al: Caveolin-1 expression is associated with a basal-like phenotype in sporadic and hereditary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 99:85-90, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 74. Matos I, Dufloth R, Alvarenga M, et al: P63, cytokeratin 5, and P-cadherin: Three molecular markers to distinguish basal phenotype in breast carcinomas. Virchows Arch 447:688-694, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 75. Kim MJ, Ro JY, Ahn SH, et al: Clinicopathologic significance of the basal-like subtype of breast cancer: A comparison with hormone receptor and HER-2/neu-overexpressing phenotypes. Hum Pathol 37:1217-1226, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 76. Laakso M, Loman N, Borg A, et al: Cytokeratin 5/14-positive breast cancer: True basal phenotype confined to BRCA1 tumors. Mod Pathol 18:1321-1328, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 77. Li H, Cherukuri P, Li N, et al: Nestin is expressed in the basal/myoepithelial layer of the mammary gland and is a selective marker of basal epithelial breast tumors. Cancer Res 67:501-510, 2007 78. Lakhani SR, Reis-Filho JS, Fulford L, et al: Prediction of BRCA1 status in patients with breast cancer using estrogen receptor and basal phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 11:5175-5180, 2005 79. Reis-Filho JS, Steele D, Di Palma S, et al: Distribution and significance of nerve growth factor receptor (NGFR/p75NTR) in normal, benign and malignant breast tissue. Mod Pathol 19:307-319, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 80. Foulkes WD, Brunet JS, Stefansson IM, et al: The prognostic implication of the basal-like (cyclin E high/p27 low/p53+/glomeruloid-microvascular-proliferation+) phenotype of BRCA1-related breast cancer. Cancer Res 64:830-835, 2004 81. Banerjee S, Reis-Filho JS, Ashley S, et al: Basal-like breast carcinomas: Clinical outcome and response to chemotherapy. J Clin Pathol 59:729-735, 2006 82. Fulford LG, Reis-Filho JS, Ryder K, et al: Basal-like grade III invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: Patterns of metastasis and long-term survival. Breast Cancer Res 9:R4, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 83. Malzahn K, Mitze M, Thoenes M, et al: Biological and prognostic significance of stratified epithelial cytokeratins in infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas. Virchows Arch 433:119-129, 1998[CrossRef][Medline] 84. Dairkee SH, Mayall BH, Smith H, et al: Monoclonal marker that predicts early recurrence of breast cancer. Lancet 1:514, 1987[Medline] 85. Abd El-Rehim DM, Pinder SE, Paish CE, et al: Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma. J Pathol 203:661-671, 2004[CrossRef][Medline] 86. Abd El-Rehim DM, Ball G, Pinder SE, et al: High-throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well-characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses. Int J Cancer 116:340-350, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 87. van de Rijn M, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al: Expression of cytokeratins 17 and 5 identifies a group of breast carcinomas with poor clinical outcome. Am J Pathol 161:1991-1996, 2002 88. Jumppanen M, Gruvberger-Saal S, Kauraniemi P, et al: Basal-like phenotype is not associated with patient survival in estrogen-receptor-negative breast cancers. Breast Cancer Res 9:R16, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 89. Huang F, Reeves K, Han X, et al: Identification of candidate molecular markers predicting sensitivity in solid tumors to dasatinib: Rationale for patient selection. Cancer Res 67:2226-2238, 2007 90. Ribeiro-Silva A, Ramalho LN, Garcia SB, et al: P63 correlates with both BRCA1 and cytokeratin 5 in invasive breast carcinomas: Further evidence for the pathogenesis of the basal phenotype of breast cancer. Histopathology 47:458-466, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 91. Rakha EA, El-Rehim DA, Paish C, et al: Basal phenotype identifies a poor prognostic subgroup of breast cancer of clinical importance. Eur J Cancer 42:3149-3156, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 92. Reis-Filho JS, Milanezi F, Steele D, et al: Metaplastic breast carcinomas are basal-like tumours. Histopathology 49:10-21, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 93. Laakso M, Tanner M, Nilsson J, et al: Basoluminal carcinoma: A new biologically and prognostically distinct entity between basal and luminal breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 12:4185-4191, 2006 94. Bánkfalvi A, Ludwig A, De-Hesselle B, et al: Different proliferative activity of the glandular and myoepithelial lineages in benign proliferative and early malignant breast diseases. Mod Pathol 17:1051-1061, 2004[CrossRef][Medline] 95. Kusi 96. Tang P, Wang X, Schiffhauer L, et al: Relationship between nuclear grade of ductal carcinoma in situ and cell origin markers. Ann Clin Lab Sci 36:16-22, 2006 97. Feinstein AR, Sosin DM, Wells, CK: The Will Rogers phenomenon: Stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer. N Engl J Med 312:1604-1608, 1985[Abstract] 98. Rakha EA, Putti TC, Abd El-Rehim DM, et al: Morphological and immunophenotypic analysis of breast carcinomas with basal and myoepithelial differentiation. J Pathol 208:495-506, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 99. Tot T: The cytokeratin profile of medullary carcinoma of the breast. Histopathology 37:175-181, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 100. Chang HY, Nuyten DS, Sneddon JB, et al: Robustness, scalability, and integration of a wound-response gene expression signature in predicting breast cancer survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:3738-3743, 2005 101. Jacquemier J, Padovani L, Rabayrol L, et al: Typical medullary breast carcinomas have a basal/myoepithelial phenotype. J Pathol 207:260-268, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 102. Tsuda H, Takarabe T, Hasegawa F, et al: Large, central acellular zones indicating myoepithelial tumor differentiation in high-grade invasive ductal carcinomas as markers of predisposition to lung and brain metastases. Am J Surg Pathol 24:197-202, 2000[CrossRef][Medline] 103. Langerød A, Zhao H, Borgan O, et al: TP53 mutation status and gene expression profiles are powerful prognostic markers of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 9:R30, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 104. Diallo-Danebrock R, Ting E, Gluz O, et al: Protein expression profiling in high-risk breast cancer patients treated with high-dose or conventional dose-dense chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 13:488-497, 2007 105. Seewaldt VL, and Scott, V: Images in clinical medicine. Rapid progression of basal-type breast cancer. N Engl J Med 356:e12, 2007 106. Collett K, Stefansson IM, Eide J, et al: A basal epithelial phenotype is more frequent in interval breast cancers compared with screen detected tumors. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14:1108-1112, 2005 107. Gaedcke J, Traub F, Milde S, et al: Predominance of the basal type and HER-2/neu type in brain metastasis from breast cancer. Mod Pathol 20:864-870, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 108. Patanaphan V, Salazar OM, Risco R: Breast cancer: Metastatic patterns and their prognosis. South Med J 81:1109-1112, 1988[Medline] 109. Rodríguez-Pinilla SM, Sarrio D, Honrado E, et al: Prognostic significance of basal-like phenotype and fascin expression in node-negative invasive breast carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 12:1533-1539, 2006 110. Hicks DG, Short SM, Prescott NL, et al: Breast cancers with brain metastases are more likely to be estrogen receptor negative, express the basal cytokeratin CK5/6, and overexpress HER-2 or EGFR. Am J Surg Pathol 30:1097-1104, 2006[Medline] 111. Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, et al: Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:5652-5657, 2006 112. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, et al: Prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer 109:25-32, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 113. Palacios J, Honrado E, Osorio A, et al: Immunohistochemical characteristics defined by tissue microarray of hereditary breast cancer not attributable to BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations: Differences from breast carcinomas arising in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Clin Cancer Res 9:3606-3614, 2003 114. Arnes JB, Brunet JS, Stefansson I, et al: Placental cadherin and the basal epithelial phenotype of BRCA1-related breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 11:4003-4011, 2005 115. Lakhani SR, Van De Vijver MJ, Jacquemier J, et al: The pathology of familial breast cancer: Predictive value of immunohistochemical markers estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, HER-2, and p53 in patients with mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2. J Clin Oncol 20:2310-2318, 2002 116. Foulkes WD, Stefansson IM, Chappuis PO, et al: Germline BRCA1 mutations and a basal epithelial phenotype in breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95:1482-1485, 2003 117. Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A: Hallmarks of ‘BRCAness’ in sporadic cancers. Nat Rev Cancer 4:814-819, 2004[CrossRef][Medline] 118. Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Ansquer Y, Dreyfus H, et al: Familial invasive breast cancers: Worse outcome related to BRCA1 mutations. J Clin Oncol 18:4053-4059, 2000 119. Tirkkonen M, Johannsson O, Agnarsson BA, et al: Distinct somatic genetic changes associated with tumor progression in carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germ-line mutations. Cancer Res 57:1222-1227, 1997 120. Jönsson G, Naylor TL, Vallon-Christersson J, et al: Distinct genomic profiles in hereditary breast tumors identified by array-based comparative genomic hybridization. Cancer Res 65:7612-7621, 2005 121. Wessels LF, van Welsem T, Hart AA, et al: Molecular classification of breast carcinomas by comparative genomic hybridization: A specific somatic genetic profile for BRCA1 tumors. Cancer Res 62:7110-7117, 2002 122. Ganesan S, Silver DP, Greenberg RA, et al: BRCA1 supports XIST RNA concentration on the inactive X chromosome. Cell 111:393-405, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 123. Richardson AL, Wang ZC, De Nicolo A, et al: X chromosomal abnormalities in basal-like human breast cancer. Cancer Cell 9:121-132, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 124. Turner NC, Reis-Filho JS, Russell AM, et al: BRCA1 dysfunction in sporadic basal-like breast cancer. Oncogene 26:2126-2132, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 125. Yang Q, Sakurai T, Mori I, et al: Prognostic significance of BRCA1 expression in Japanese sporadic breast carcinomas. Cancer 92:54-60, 2001[CrossRef][Medline] 126. Futreal PA, Liu Q, Shattuck-Eidens D, et al: BRCA1 mutations in primary breast and ovarian carcinomas. Science 266:120-122, 1994 127. Rice JC, Massey-Brown KS, Futscher BW: Aberrant methylation of the BRCA1 CpG island promoter is associated with decreased BRCA1 mRNA in sporadic breast cancer cells. Oncogene 17:1807-1812, 1998[CrossRef][Medline] 128. Matros E, Wang ZC, Lodeiro G, et al: BRCA1 promoter methylation in sporadic breast tumors: Relationship to gene expression profiles. Breast Cancer Res Treat 91:179-186, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 129. James CR, Quinn JE, Mullan PB, et al: BRCA1, a potential predictive biomarker in the treatment of breast cancer. Oncologist 12:142-150, 2007 130. Paredes J, Milanezi F, Viegas L, et al: P-cadherin expression is associated with high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Virchows Arch 440:16-21, 2002[CrossRef][Medline] 131. Dabbs DJ, Chivukula M, Carter G, et al: Basal phenotype of ductal carcinoma in situ: Recognition and immunohistologic profile. Mod Pathol 19:1506-1511, 2006[Medline] 132. Foulkes WD: BRCA1 functions as a breast stem cell regulator. J Med Genet 41:1-5, 2004 133. Furuta S, Jiang X, Gu B, et al: Depletion of BRCA1 impairs differentiation but enhances proliferation of mammary epithelial cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:9176-9181, 2005 134. Fan S, Wang J, Yuan R, et al: BRCA1 inhibition of estrogen receptor signaling in transfected cells. Science 284:1354-1356, 1999 135. McCarthy A, Savage K, Gabriel A, et al: A mouse model of basal-like breast carcinoma with metaplastic elements. J Pathol 211:389-398, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 136. Pinilla SM, Honrado E, Hardisson D, et al: Caveolin-1 expression is associated with a basal-like phenotype in sporadic and hereditary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 99:85-90, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 137. Mendelsohn J: Targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor for cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol 20:1S–13S, 2002[Medline] 138. Mendelsohn J, Baselga, J: Epidermal growth factor receptor targeting in cancer. Semin Oncol 33:369-385, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 139. Simon R, Panussis S, Maurer R, et al: KIT (CD117)-positive breast cancers are infrequent and lack KIT gene mutations. Clin Cancer Res 10:178-183, 2004 140. Finn RS, Dering J, Ginther C, et al: Dasatinib, an orally active small molecule inhibitor of both the src and abl kinases, selectively inhibits growth of basal-type/"triple-negative" breast cancer cell lines growing in vitro. Breast Cancer Res Treat 105:319-326, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 141. Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, et al: Targeting the DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 434:917-921, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 142. Kennedy RD, Quinn JE, Mullan PB, et al: The role of BRCA1 in the cellular response to chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1659-1668, 2004 143. Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A: Targeting the DNA repair defect of BRCA tumours. Curr Opin Pharmacol 5:388-393, 2005[CrossRef][Medline] 144. De Soto JA, Deng CX: PARP-1 inhibitors: Are they the long-sought genetically specific drugs for BRCA1/2-associated breast cancers? Int J Med Sci 3:117-123, 2006[Medline] 145. Wilhelmsen K, Litjens SH, Sonnenberg A: Multiple functions of the integrin alpha6beta4 in epidermal homeostasis and tumorigenesis. Mol Cell Biol 26:2877-2886, 2006 146. Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW: Cancer genes and the pathways they control. Nat Med 10:789-799, 2004[CrossRef][Medline] 147. Perreard L, Fan C, Quackenbush JF, et al: Classification and risk stratification of invasive breast carcinomas using a real-time quantitative RT-PCR assay. Breast Cancer Res 8:R23, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 148. Moyano JV, Evans JR, Chen F, et al: AlphaB-crystallin is a novel oncoprotein that predicts poor clinical outcome in breast cancer. J Clin Invest 116:261-270, 2006[CrossRef][Medline] 149. Koshikawa N, Giannelli G, Cirulli V, et al: Role of cell surface metalloprotease MT1-MMP in epithelial cell migration over laminin-5. J Cell Biol 148:615-624, 2000 150. Dumont N, Arteaga CL: Targeting the TGF beta signaling network in human neoplasia. Cancer Cell 3:531-536, 2003[CrossRef][Medline] 151. Molkentin JD: The zinc finger-containing transcription factors GATA-4, -5, and -6: Ubiquitously expressed regulators of tissue-specific gene expression. J Biol Chem 275:38949-38952, 2000 152. Garcia S, Dales JP, Charafe-Jauffret E, et al: Poor prognosis in breast carcinomas correlates with increased expression of targetable CD146 and c-Met and with proteomic basal-like phenotype. Hum Pathol 38:830-841, 2007[CrossRef][Medline] 153. Chappuis PO, Goffin J, Wong N, et al: A significant response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in BRCA1/2 related breast cancer. J Med Genet 39:608-610, 2002 Submitted June 20, 2007; accepted November 12, 2007.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Copyright © 2008 by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Online ISSN: 1527-7755. Print ISSN: 0732-183X
|
TOP
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
ska R, Potemski P, Jesionek-Kupnicka D, et al: Immunohistochemical identification of basal-type cytokeratins in invasive ductal breast carcinoma–relation with grade, stage, estrogen receptor and HER-2. Pol J Pathol 56:107-110, 2005
