» Articles » PMID: 25551369

Molecular Signatures of Lymph Node Status by Intrinsic Subtype: Gene Expression Analysis of Primary Breast Tumors from Patients with and Without Metastatic Lymph Nodes

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Oncology
Date 2015 Jan 1
PMID 25551369
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Identification of a gene expression signature in primary breast tumors that could classify patients by lymph node status would allow patients to avoid the morbidities of surgical disruption of the lymph nodes. Attempts to identify such a signature have, to date, been unsuccessful. Because breast tumor subtypes have unique molecular characteristics and different sites of metastasis, molecular signatures for lymph node involvement may vary by subtype.

Methods: Gene expression data was generated from HG U133A 2.0 arrays for 135 node positive and 210 node negative primary breast tumors. Intrinsic subtype was assigned using the BreastPRS. Differential gene expression analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA using lymph node status as the variable with a False-discovery rate <0.05, to define significance.

Results: Luminal A tumors were most common (51%) followed by basal-like (27%), HER2-enriched (14%) luminal B (7%) and normal-like (1%). Basal-like and luminal A tumors were less likely to have metastatic lymph nodes (35% and 37%, respectively) compared to luminal B or HER2-enriched (52% and 51%, respectively). No differentially expressed genes associated with lymph node status were detected when all tumors were considered together or within each subtype.

Conclusions: Gene expression patterns from the primary tumor are not able to stratify patients by lymph node status. Although the primary breast tumor may influence tumor cell dissemination, once metastatic cells enter the lymphatics, it is likely that characteristics of the lymph node microenvironment, such as establishment of a pre-metastatic niche and release of pro-survival factors, determine which cells are able to colonize. The inability to utilize molecular profiles from the primary tumor to determine lymph node status suggest that other avenues of investigation, such as how systemic factors including diminished immune response or genetic susceptibility contribute to metastasis, may be critical in the development of tools for non-surgical assessment of lymph node status with a corresponding reduction in downstream sequelae associated with disruption of the lymphatics.

Citing Articles

Siglec-15 Is an Immune Suppressor and Potential Target for Immunotherapy in the Pre-Metastatic Lymph Node of Colorectal Cancer.

Du H, Tang J, Li X, Wang X, Wu L, Zhang R Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021; 9:691937.

PMID: 34722496 PMC: 8548766. DOI: 10.3389/fcell.2021.691937.


Management of the Axilla in the Era of Breast Cancer Heterogeneity.

De Meric De Bellefon M, Lemanski C, Ducteil A, Fenoglietto P, Azria D, Bourgier C Front Oncol. 2018; 8:84.

PMID: 29670853 PMC: 5893721. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00084.


First-line therapy in HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer: is the mosaic fully completed or are we missing additional pieces?.

Fabi A, Malaguti P, Vari S, Cognetti F J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2016; 35:104.

PMID: 27357210 PMC: 4928292. DOI: 10.1186/s13046-016-0380-5.


Secretome of tumor-associated leukocytes augment epithelial-mesenchymal transition in positive lymph node breast cancer patients via activation of EGFR/Tyr845 and NF-κB/p65 signaling pathway.

Elghonaimy E, Ibrahim S, Youns A, Hussein Z, Nouh M, El-Mamlouk T Tumour Biol. 2016; 37(9):12441-12453.

PMID: 27329104 DOI: 10.1007/s13277-016-5123-x.


A modified sentinel node and occult lesion localization (SNOLL) technique in non-palpable breast cancer: a pilot study.

Follacchio G, Monteleone F, Anibaldi P, De Vincentis G, Iacobelli S, Merola R J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2015; 34:113.

PMID: 26445493 PMC: 4596463. DOI: 10.1186/s13046-015-0230-x.


References
1.
Bertucci F, Houlgatte R, Benziane A, Granjeaud S, Adelaide J, Tagett R . Gene expression profiling of primary breast carcinomas using arrays of candidate genes. Hum Mol Genet. 2000; 9(20):2981-91. DOI: 10.1093/hmg/9.20.2981. View

2.
Sauer G, Schneiderhan-Marra N, Kazmaier C, Hutzel K, Koretz K, Muche R . Prediction of nodal involvement in breast cancer based on multiparametric protein analyses from preoperative core needle biopsies of the primary lesion. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14(11):3345-53. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4802. View

3.
Sakorafas G, Safioleas M . Breast cancer surgery: an historical narrative. Part II. 18th and 19th centuries. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2009; 19(1):6-29. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2008.01060.x. View

4.
van Laar R . Design and multiseries validation of a web-based gene expression assay for predicting breast cancer recurrence and patient survival. J Mol Diagn. 2011; 13(3):297-304. PMC: 3128745. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmoldx.2010.12.003. View

5.
Desouki M, Liao S, Huang H, Conroy J, Nowak N, Shepherd L . Identification of metastasis-associated breast cancer genes using a high-resolution whole genome profiling approach. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2010; 137(5):795-809. DOI: 10.1007/s00432-010-0937-1. View