Precision Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer

Molecular Pathology Library
Series Editor: Philip T. Cagle
Ashraf Khan Ian O. Ellis

Andrew M. Hanby Ediz F. Cosar
Emad A. Rakha Dina Kandil Editors
Precision
Molecular
Pathology of
Breast Cancer
Series editor
Philip T. Cagle, MD
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/7723
Ashraf Khan, MD, FRCPath Ian O. Ellis, MD,
FRCPath Andrew M. Hanby, BM, FRCPath
Ediz F. Cosar, MD Emad A. Rakha, MD,
FRCPath Dina Kandil, MD
Editors
Precision Molecular
Pathology of Breast Cancer
13
Editors
Ashraf Khan, MD, FRCPath Ediz F. Cosar, MD
Department of Pathology Department of Pathology
University of Massachusetts Medical University of Massachusetts Medical
School School
UMassMemorial Medical Center UMassMemorial Medical Center
Worcester, MA Worcester, MA
USA USA
Ian O. Ellis, MD, FRCPath Emad A. Rakha, MD, FRCPath

Department of Histopathology Department of Histopathology
University of Nottingham University of Nottingham
Nottingham Nottingham
UK UK
Andrew M. Hanby, BM, FRCPath Dina Kandil, MD

Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology Department of Pathology
St. James University Hospital University of Massachusetts Medical
Leeds, West Yorkshire School
UK UMassMemorial Medical Center
Worcester, MA
USA
ISSN 1935-987X ISSN 1935-9888 (electronic)

ISBN 978-1-4939-2885-9 ISBN 978-1-4939-2886-6 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2886-6
Library of Congress Control Number: 2015942558
Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London

Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer Science+Business Media LLC New York is part of Springer Science+Business Media
(www.springer.com)
Preface
The past decade has seen an immense growth in our understanding of the molecu-
lar basis of cancer, which has made a significant impact on how we manage cancer
in this era of personalized medicine. Breast cancer, which is the most common
malignancy in women in the western world, has been the vanguard in the applica-
tion of molecular pathology in its management. Advances in molecular pathology
have led to the development of new ancillary studies that are now standard clinical
practice for profiling of breast tumors permitting the tailoring of adjuvant treat-
ment. The investigations include diagnostic and predictive biomarkers determined
both by immunohistochemistry and more traditional molecular pathology tech-
niques such as FISH. At the advancing research front further potential new targets
of therapy within the molecular pathways underpinning current practice are being
revealed.
With the fast pace of growth in our knowledge, practicing physicians, includ-
ing pathologists, are increasingly expected to have a sound understanding of
both traditional morphology based interpretation and the molecular pathology of
breast cancer. Pathologists are consultants to their clinical colleagues for manag-
ing patients with breast cancer, and the role of molecular pathology has become
critical in this era of personalized medicine and multidisciplinary cancer care. It
is therefore important for pathologists to be familiar with advances in molecular
pathology of breast cancer, so they can provide a better, informed, opinion when
discussing cases with their clinical colleagues.
This book, which is part of the molecular pathology of cancer series, was put
together with the aim of combining histopathologic and cytomorphologic features
with changes at the molecular level, and how these latter alterations can play a
role in breast cancer management. The editors are experienced practicing diagnos-
tic breast pathologists who apply these molecular pathology techniques routinely
in their practice. With the exception of one chapter where we have invited breast
radiologist and medical physics experts to write on the molecular basis of breast
cancer imaging, all the authors in addition to diagnostic pathologists, include can-
cer biologists, who focus on the molecular biology of the breast cancer. The edi-
tors, who are also the senior author on each chapter, are internationally recognized
v
vi Preface
breast pathologists who bring their own valuable insights into the interface
between morphology and molecular pathology.
We are very grateful to all the contributors who have taken time out of their
busy schedules to write these chapters. We would also like to take this opportunity
to thank the series editor Dr. Philip Cagle for inviting us to write this book and the
editorial staff at Springer Publications for all their assistance in making this pro-
ject possible.
Ashraf Khan
Ian O. Ellis
Andrew M. Hanby
Ediz F. Cosar
Emad A. Rakha
Dina Kandil
Contents
1 Molecular Basis of Breast Cancer Imaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Gopal R. Vijayaraghavan, Srinivasan Vedantham, Ashraf Khan
and Andrew Karellas
2 Familial Breast Cancer and Genetic Predisposition

in Breast Cancer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Vighnesh Walavalkar, Ashraf Khan and Dina Kandil
3 Modelling the Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer Initiation. . . . 39

Claire Nash, Andrew M. Hanby and Valerie Speirs
4 Molecular Pathology of Precancerous Lesions of the Breast . . . . . . . 51

Abhik Mukherjee, Ian O. Ellis and Emad A. Rakha
5 Breast Cancer Stem Cells: Role in Tumor Initiation, Progression,

and Targeted Therapy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Sanjoy Samanta, Ashraf Khan and Arthur M. Mercurio
6 Molecular Pathology of Pre-Invasive Ductal Carcinoma . . . . . . . . . . 79

Yuna Gong, Dina Kandil and Ashraf Khan
7 Molecular Pathology of Lobular Carcinoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Ali Sakhdari, Lloyd Hutchinson and Ediz F. Cosar
8 Molecular Pathology of Hormone Regulation in Breast Cancer:

Hormone Receptor Evaluation and Therapeutic Implications. . . . . . 107
Emad A. Rakha
9 Molecular Pathology of HER Family of Oncogenes in Breast

Cancer: HER-2 Evaluation and Role in Targeted Therapy . . . . . . . . 119
vii
viii Contents
10 Molecular Classification of Breast Cancer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Mohammed A. Aleskandarany, Ian O. Ellis and Emad A. Rakha
11 Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Subtypes with Clinical Implications . . . 157

Dina Kandil and Ashraf Khan
12 Molecular-Based Diagnostic, Prognostic and Predictive

Tests in Breast Cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
Abir A. Muftah, Mohammed A. Aleskandarany, Ian O. Ellis
and Emad A. Rakha
13 Role of MicroRNAs in Breast Cancer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Jennifer L. Clark, Dina Kandil, Ediz F. Cosar and Ashraf Khan
14 Molecular Pathology of Fibroepithelial Neoplasms of the Breast . . . 219

Michelle Yang, Dina Kandil and Ashraf Khan
15 Molecular Features of Mesenchymal Tumors of the Breast. . . . . . . . 237

Marjan Mirzabeigi, Ashraf Khan and Dina Kandil
16 Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer Metastasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

17 The Molecular Pathology of Chemoresistance During

the Therapeutic Response in Breast Cancer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
James L. Thorne, Andrew M. Hanby and Thomas A. Hughes
18 The Molecular Pathology of Male Breast Cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

Rebecca A. Millican-Slater, Valerie Speirs, Thomas A. Hughes
and Andrew M. Hanby
19 Specimens for Molecular Testing in Breast Cancer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Contributors
Mohammed A. Aleskandarany Department of Histopathology, Division of Cancer

and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, The University of Nottingham and Nottingham
University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
Jennifer L. Clark Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical
School, UMassMemorial Medical Center, Three Bioetch, One Innovation Drive,
Worcester, MA, USA
Ediz F. CosarDepartment of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical
School, UMassMemorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA, USA
Ian O. EllisDivision of Cancer and Stem Cells, Department of Histopathology,
School of Medicine, University of Nottingham and Nottingham University Hospitals
NHS Trust, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
Yuna GongDepartment of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical
School, UMassMemorial Medical Center, Three Biotech, One Innovation Drive,
Worcester, MA, USA
Andrew M. HanbySt. James University Hospital/University of Leeds, Leeds
Institute of Cancer and Pathology (LICAP), Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Thomas A. Hughes Leeds Institute of Biologial and Clinical Sciences (LIBACS),
St. James University Hospital/University of Leeds, Beckett Street, Leeds, West
Yorkshire, UK
Lloyd Hutchinson Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical
Dina Kandil Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School,
UMassMemorial Medical Center, Three Biotech, One Innovation Drive, Worcester,
MA, USA
Andrew Karellas Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical
School, Worcester, MA, USA
Ashraf KhanDepartment of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical
School, UMassMemorial Medical Center, Three Biotech, One Innovation Drive,
Worcester, MA, USA
ix
x Contributors
Arthur M. Mercurio Department of Molecular, Cell and Cancer Biology, University

of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
Rebecca A. Millican-SlaterDepartment of Histopathology, Leeds University
Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
Marjan Mirzabeigi Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medi-
cal School, UMassMemorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA, USA
Abir A. Muftah Department of Histopathology, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells,
School of Medicine, The University of Nottingham and Nottingham University
Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
Abhik Mukherjee Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, Department of Histopa-
thology, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham and Nottingham University
Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK
Claire Nash St. James University Hospital/University of Leeds, Leeds Institute of
Cancer and Pathology (LICAP), Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Emad A. Rakha Department of Histopathology, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells,
School of Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, N
ottingham City
Hospital, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
Ali SakhdariDepartment of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical
Sanjoy Samanta Department of Molecular, Cell and Cancer Biology, University
of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
Valerie Speirs St. James University Hospital/University of Leeds, Leeds Institute
of Cancer and Pathology (LICAP), Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
James L. Thorne Department of Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MAPS),
School of Food Science and Nutrition, Woodhouse Lane, University of Leeds,
Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK
Srinivasan Vedantham Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts
Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
Gopal R. Vijayaraghavan Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts
Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA
Vighnesh Walavalkar Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Med-
ical School, UMassMemorial Medical Center, Worcester, MA, USA
Michelle Yang Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical
Chapter 1
Molecular Basis of Breast Cancer Imaging
Gopal R. Vijayaraghavan, Srinivasan Vedantham,

Ashraf Khan and Andrew Karellas
Introduction
Over the past decade, annually for women 50years of age or older, the breast can-
cer incidence rate in the United States has ranged from 400 to 500 per 100000
women and the breast cancer mortality rate has ranged from 60 to 80 per 100000
women [1]. Though there has been a decline in the breast cancer mortality in the
past decade it continues to be the second leading cause of death after lung cancer
in women over 40years of age.
Breast cancer continues to be a major health issue among women in the United
States. Screening mammogram has significantly contributed to the reduction in
mortality. However, screening mammogram has its own limitations. Its sensitivity
is 80% in fatty breasts but is substantially lower in dense breasts [2]. On average
nearly 30% of women reporting for mammograms have dense breasts and 1 in 2
cancers in dense breasts are missed on mammograms due to the masking effect
caused by overlapping tissues.
Notwithstanding the limitations of screening mammograms, it is widely consid-
ered the most effective tool for the early detection of breast cancer [3], and supple-
menting mammography with ultrasound and MRI greatly improves the diagnosis
of breast cancer. Further improvements in sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis
of breast cancer are likely to involve alternative imaging approaches that address
A. Khan(*)
Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School,
UMassMemorial Medical Center, Three Biotech, One Innovation Drive,
Worcester, MA 01605, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
G.R. Vijayaraghavan S. Vedantham A. Karellas
Department of Radiology, University of Massachusetts Medical School,
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 1

A. Khan et al. (eds.), Precision Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer,
Molecular Pathology Library 10, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2886-6_1
2 G.R. Vijayaraghavan et al.
the limitations of existing imaging modalities or provide for imaging new contrast
mechanisms. An example of the former is digital breast tomosynthesis [4], which
can reduce the tissue overlap observed with mammography.
Mammograms and ultrasound images represent anatomic abnormalities that are
associated with cancer. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) with injected contrast
media better depicts the physiology of the tumor due to enhancement of tumor-
associated angiogenesis and this partly explains its higher sensitivity compared to
mammography. Changes at the cellular level that distinguish cancerous cells from
benign breast tissue have been explored in newer, innovative imaging techniques.
Some of the imaging techniques described are still experimental and not yet con-
sidered standard of care. Some of the changes at the cellular level include new
blood flow, angiogenesis, expression of protein receptors in breast cancer cells
resulting in increased uptake of specific ligands and changes in oxy or deoxy-
hemoglobin content of the tumor cells. Radionuclides and optical probes that
target specific proteins in the cells are being investigated. Some of these newer
modalities can be combined with traditional imaging as part of multimodal imag-
ing to further improve our diagnostic capability [5].
Over the past decade advances in imaging and instrumentation have helped
establish molecular breast imaging (MBI) as a useful supplemental tool [68].
Cost constraints, tumor size resolution, radiation dose, and sparse availabil-
ity were some of the cited reasons why these modalities have not gained wide-
spread acceptance [9]. Many of these issues continue to be addressed. Radiation
dose from radionuclide-based molecular imaging [10] continues to remain a major
impediment compared to established screening mammogram.
Molecular imaging reflects both tumor morphology and physiology and thus
has some inherent advantages over conventional mammograms, particularly in a
situation of radiographic dense breasts.
MBI techniques currently available include:
1. Breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI).
2. Positron emission mammography (PEM).
3. Optical imaging with near-infrared spectroscopy.
In addition, imaging tests that can be performed in ex vivo specimens to evaluate
cancer margins include:
1. Optical imaging with confocal microscopy.
2. Terahertz imaging.
Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging (BSGI)
While mammography and ultrasound rely on anatomical changes in the breast

(calcifications, masses, architectural distortion, or asymmetry), BSGI relies on the
physiology (blood flow, mitochondrial activity, and angiogenesis) of the tumor to
make the diagnosis.
1 Molecular Basis of Breast Cancer Imaging 3
Fig.1.1Picture of a
molecular breast imaging
system. Courtesy of Jason
Koshnitsky, Gamma Medica,
Inc., Salem, NH
A standard two-view mammogram continues to be the gold standard in the

evaluation of breast cancers, notwithstanding recent controversies [11]. The sensi-
tivity of mammogram is limited [2]. In dense breasts, small cancers are hidden and
can be missed [12, 13]. Breast ultrasound and tomosynthesis have shown the abil-
ity to detect some non-palpable breast cancers beyond mammography and address
this limitation to a large extent [14, 15]. BSGI also known as molecular imaging of
the breast has higher negative predictive value for breast cancers. Figure1.1 shows
a picture of MBI system.
Indications
The indications for performance of a BSGI study include high-risk surveillance,

alternative to MRI, palpable breast masses with a negative mammogram and ultra-
sound, a newly diagnosed breast cancer with occult foci, and in women with breast
implants or following direct silicone injection to resolve a difficult question.
Initially studies were performed on a conventional gamma camera and hence
there were issues related to optimal positioning of the breast and poor resolution;
this technique did not detect small cancers less than 1cm. The sensitivity was
less than 50%, making it a less attractive alternative [6, 9]. Over the last 20years
advancements in gamma ray detector technology (for example, the use of the sem-
iconductor cadmium zinc telluride) and the use of dedicated dual head breast scan-
ners have improved both energy and spatial resolution. This has enabled detection
of tumors as small as 13mm. Also, production of images that are oriented simi-
lar to standard mammograms has made it easier for radiologists to interpret these
studies. These improvements have also resulted in decreased radiopharmaceuticals
doses, making the test more acceptable [7, 16].
Technique
MBI uses the radiotracer technetium (99mTc) sestamibi in doses of about 20mCi
(740mBq) injected intravenously (IV) in one of the antecubital veins. Imaging
starts immediately and continues up to the desired number of counts per image,
approximately 100,000. Images are obtained with breast oriented in a manner
similar to the standard mammogram; craniocaudal (CC) and mediolateral (MLO)
images of both breasts. The image acquisition time is about 10min for each view,
to a total acquisition time of 40min for a complete study [9, 17]. The breast com-
pression is less than that in a mammogram (a pressure of 15lbs/square in. as
opposed to 45 lbs/square in. on a conventional mammogram).
Advantages
In addition to its utility as an adjunct diagnostic tool, MBI is an attractive imag-

ing test from the cost point of view because of the wide availability of the radi-
opharmaceutical and compact size of the imaging equipment. It is a useful
problem-solving tool particularly in patients unsuited for MRI, because of metallic
implants, renal dysfunction, or claustrophobia. BSGI has high sensitivity, specific-
ity, and positive predictive value (PPV) compared to standard mammograms and
ultrasound evaluation [79, 1618]. Figure1.2 shows an example. Weigert etal.
[8] in a multicenter study determining the impact of molecular imaging concluded
that statistically BSGI was more accurate (better sensitivity, specificity and PPV)
than ultrasound, when findings were discordant from a standard mammogram.
Lately, BSGI guided biopsy systems [6, 8] have become available which allows
confirmation of pathology results and better correlation with imaging findings.
Limitations
Poor visualization of chest wall and axilla are some of the drawbacks, which can
be overcome with additional views. The inability to obtain all of the breast tissue
in the field of view (FOV) to a large extent has been alleviated by offering nuclear
medicine technologists training in breast positioning by mammographers [9]. In
view of potential radiation risks the dose of the injected radiopharmaceutical has
Fig.1.2An asymptomatic postmenopausal woman with a prior negative mammogram par-

ticipated in a research study evaluating the effect of caffeine on Tc99m sestamibi uptake. Her
molecular breast imaging (MBI) exam (bilateral MLO) was positive (a). There was a focal area
of moderate intensity radiotracer uptake in the lower inner right breast at middle depth measur-
ing 10.70.8cm. Subsequent digital mammogram (b), and digital breast tomosynthesis (c)
showed no correlate to the MBI finding. Breast MRI (d) depicted a 0.60.60.9cm enhanc-
ing round mass with slight irregular margins corresponding to the abnormality identified by MBI
(a). Second look ultrasound (e) followed by ultrasound guided biopsy indicated a 6mm invasive
ductal carcinoma. Courtesy of Michael K. OConnor, Ph.D., Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN
been steadily decreasing. Initial trials on BSGI used doses of 30mCi (1110mBq),
currently this has dropped to 20mCi and some centers use only 1015mCi of
99mTc [7]. Trials at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN are experimenting with a dose as
low as 4mCi and by enhancing image quality with digital post-processing. At this
dose the radiation dose to the breast is comparable to a standard two-view mam-
mogram. The results from this study will determine if MBI has a role in screen-
ing, particularly for the intermediate risk category, where the benefit of MRI is not
clearly defined. While one of the earlier limitations of BSGI was the poor sensi-
tivity of molecular imaging in identifying sub-cm tumors, with recent advances,
Hruska etal. [16] demonstrated sensitivities up to 80% for tumors less than 1cm.
Positron Emission Mammography (PEM)
Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging is a useful diagnostic test in many

malignancies, but has not been accepted as standard of care in breast cancers [19].
Dedicated PEM scanners for breast have been developed, providing higher reso-
lution than whole body PET scanners [20]. In PEM and PET imaging, the radi-
otracer fluoro-deoxyglucose (18-FDG) is used, providing a physiological measure
of increased metabolic activity. While a promising tool it also demonstrates hot
spots at inflammatory and infective sites resulting in false positives.
Limitations
In order for the test to be sensitive, it is essential that there is good regulation of
glucose levels and the blood glucose levels must be below 120mg/dl. In order
to achieve sufficient gamma counts in the image it is necessary for the patient to
wait at least 2h after administration of the radiopharmaceutical before imaging
the breast. Also, it is important for the patient to remain quiet and warm to prevent
hot spots from unusual muscular activity. One of the limitations of the earlier
whole body PET scanners was its inability to pick up sub-cm cancers. This has
been addressed to a large extent by the development of new, dedicated breast scan-
ners. Also, low grade tumors and some invasive lobular cancers and ductal carci-
noma in situ do not show avid uptake of the radiotracer [19]. Radiation concern
continues to be a major limitation [10]. PEM suffers from some of the same limi-
tations associated with positioning as noted in BSGI. Not only does the imaging
take 40min (10min for each view), but the patient needs to wait about 2h post
tracer injection before the images can be obtained. Like BSGI, the sensitivity in
PEM imaging showed a declining trend with smaller sized tumors. In addition,
PEM equipment is more expensive than BSGI and requires access to the 18-FDG
radiotracer. Hence, PET and PEM are available only in a limited number of clini-
cal practices in the United States.
Advantages
The availability of more recent prototypes of dedicated PEM scanners with its abil-
ity to perform imaging guided biopsies has made it an attractive additional imaging
tool [19, 21]. PEM sensitivity matched MRI for single lesions and the sensitivity for
unsuspected lesion was around 85% [22, 23]. PEM had higher specificity for unsus-
pected lesion compared to MRI. PEM imaging is useful in identifying the extent of
the tumor and staging, evaluating response to treatment, identifying sites of distant
metastases, and distinguishing a scar from recurrence [19, 20, 22, 23].
Research studies over the past 1015years have established the role and value
of MBI and PEM in breast imaging. While the newer breast molecular imaging
modalities have shown promise, they are still only useful as supplemental imag-
ing tools that can increase the radiologists confidence in detecting breast cancer
and cannot supplant established modalities such as screening mammogram, ultra-
sound, and MR imaging. Additional regulatory approvals are needed for the clini-
cal site to handle radioactivity.
Radiation Risks
Since molecular imaging involves substantial radiation dose to part of the body
other than the breast, there is concern about risk of cancer for radiosensitive
organs; in the urinary bladder with PEM studies and in the colon with BSGI
studies. Hendrick [10] has estimated the lifetime attributable risk (LAR) of a
fatal cancer in BSGI studies at standard recommended doses of 2030mCi
(7401100MBq) to be 2030 times that of a digital mammogram in woman
aged 40years, and 23 times higher with a single PEM study at standard 10mCi
(370MBq) dose of 18-FDG.
It is also relevant to add that even though considerable advancements have been
made in radiotracer-based molecular imaging of the breast, currently it is not a
screening tool. Its primary role may be as an adjunct to standard mammography
and ultrasound, particularly in women with dense breasts and in the intermedi-
ate risk category. In the high-risk women, MRI with its proven track record as the
modality with the highest sensitivity for detection is the established modality. Both
BSGI and PEM/PET have the advantage of identifying physiological changes that
distinguish a cancerous lesion from benign tissue and also identify additional foci
in the ipsilateral and contralateral breast. They are also helpful imaging options
to monitor response to chemotherapy drugs. Their sensitivity is however known
to decrease with smaller sized tumors. A higher incidence of false positive tracer
uptake has been noted in fibrocystic lesions, growing fibroadenomas, and fat
necrosis. PEM has shown to be useful in distinguishing a scar from recurrence
where conventional imaging findings are equivocal.
Optical Imaging with Near Infrared Spectroscopy
Transillumination of the breast using light, referred to as diaphanography, was

proposed in 1920s. Variants of this approach were investigated till the early 1990s.
However, the approach was not recommended for breast cancer screening [24].
Better understanding of the contrast mechanisms, characterization of absorption
and scattering properties of breast tissues at various wavelengths, and techniques
for modeling optical photon transport through tissues have facilitated development
of quantitative methods for diffuse optical spectroscopic imaging. Diffuse opti-
cal imaging using continuous wave, time domain, or frequency domain measure-
ments at near-infrared (NIR) wavelengths can be used to provide noninvasive in
vivo quantitation of attenuation and scattering properties of breast tissue. This can
be used to determine total hemoglobin content, oxygen saturation (ratio of oxy-
genated hemoglobin to total hemoglobin), water, and lipid content. Extension of
the approach to 3D imaging, similar to computed tomography (CT), has resulted
in diffuse optical tomography (DOT) systems. Hand-held diffuse optical spectros-
copy imaging systems have been developed and continue to be refined [25, 26].
Stand-alone DOT prototype systems for adjunctive use in diagnostic breast imag-
ing have been developed by academic investigators [27, 28] and by commercial
entities (SoftScan, Advanced Research Technologies, Inc., Montreal, Canada;
CTLM, Imaging Diagnostic Systems, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, USA).
In a study of 90 subjects, DOT showed that the ratio of total hemoglobin in the
abnormality to that in the normal contralateral breast was statistically different for
malignant tumors [29]. However, the study noted that there may be a resolution
threshold of approximately 6mm. Development of multimodality systems com-
bining NIRS with X-ray imaging has been reported [3032]. In a study of 189
breasts from 125 subjects including 51 breasts with lesions, a statistically signifi-
cant increase was observed for total hemoglobin in malignant tumors larger than
6mm compared to fibroglandular tissue [33]. A hand-held probe combining ultra-
sound with NIR imaging has been developed, and in a study of 65 subjects with
81 lesions significantly higher concentration of total hemoglobin was observed in
malignancies than benign lesions [34].
Development of NIR systems integrated with MRI [35, 36] that incorporates
image information from MRI during NIRS reconstruction as well as clinical evalu-
ation of such multimodality systems have shown that malignant tumor exhibit
higher concentration of total hemoglobin and lower oxygen saturation. The use
of exogenous contrast agents such as indocyanine green as well as tumor-targeted
contrast agents that are under development can preferentially enhance lesions and
could improve differential diagnosis. Monitoring of neoadjuvant chemotherapy
response with a hand-held diffuse optical spectroscopic imaging system in a lim-
ited dataset showed that significant changes in oxygenated hemoglobin could be
observed approximately 90days after initiation of therapy [37]. In order to reduce
re-excision rates following breast conserving surgery (BCS), NIR-based opti-
cal imaging systems to assess tumor margins are being investigated [38, 39]. In
summary, the past two decades have witnessed substantial improvement in optical
imaging techniques using NIR spectroscopy, and its transition to routine use for
some clinical applications is highly probable in the near future.
Optical Imaging with Confocal Microscopy
In the management of early breast cancer, BCS is the standard surgical procedure,
where excision of the least volume of breast tissue free of tumor cells at the mar-
gins is the goal. However, the current surgical literature [40] estimates positive
margins at surgery in the range of 2070%. This necessitates revision excision.
Currently, the quickest means to evaluate tumor margins is the traditional frozen
section. This process is however laborious, time-consuming, does not include the
entire tumor surface, and is limited by freezing artifacts of the surgical margins.
Cauterization surgery also limits evaluation. Currently, there are many experimen-
tal, real-time, imaging options that are being evaluated. There is a need for such
techniques to be cost-effective, reproducible, and dependable.
We performed an experimental trial [4143] of excised lumpectomy speci-
mens at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in collaboration with the
Medical Physics department at University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA. The
investigators evaluated lumpectomy specimens from breast cancer patients with
polarization techniques after staining the specimen with dilute methylene blue.
Wide-field polarization for quick macroscopic survey and small FOV confocal
Fig.1.3Wide-field fluorescence polarization image (a) of a tissue section from a breast lumpec-
tomy specimen with corresponding histopathology at scanning magnification (b) showing good
demarcation between the benign (right half) and malignant (left half) breast tissue. Fluorescence
polarization image courtesy Anna Yaroslavsky, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA
microscopy for small FOV with high resolution was performed, images analyzed,
and later correlated with findings at Hematoxylin and Eosin (H&E) stained pathol-
ogy slides evaluated by a trained breast pathologist (Fig.1.3). The difference in
the reflectance and fluorescence polarization values for benign and cancerous tis-
sue was exploited. In these studies, Patel etal. [4143] observed good correlation
between fluorescence polarization values and findings on H&E stained sections of
benign and malignant breast tissue on histopathology. The reflectance polarization
values did not correlate as well. While the researchers concede to slight misregistra-
tion between confocal microscopy images and H&E stained specimens, the ease of
use has good future potential to evaluate ex vivo specimens. The instrument could
also be used in vivo on patients on the operating table to discern any residual malig-
nant tissue that merits excision. A clinical trial is underway to evaluate the utility of
this imaging technique for intraoperative evaluation of margins during BCS.
Terahertz Imaging
Accurate assessment of surgical margins of the excised breast specimen is very

important in BCS in order to minimize the likelihood of re-excision. This is par-
ticularly relevant in the surgical treatment of invasive breast cancer followed by
whole breast radiation therapy [44]. The reference standard for the determination
of the tumor margins is by sectioning and imaging the excised specimen by con-
ventional pathology procedures. However, more expedient techniques have been
investigated over the years that allow prompt margin assessment at the intraopera-
tive stage, thus affording the opportunity for the surgeon to excise additional tissue
if needed. Breast specimen radiography has been used for many years for this pur-
pose. This approach is used routinely in clinical practice but it has certain inher-
ent limitations. Radiography generates planar images of a thick three-dimensional
specimen; it provides good contrast for identification of surgical margins on the
basis of changes in tissue composition and density, but it is not known to differen-
tiate well between normal tissue and cancer especially when the malignancy does
not exhibit prominent morphologic changes in tissue composition and density.
Advanced three-dimensional imaging technologies such as micro-Computed
Tomography and micro-MRI have been developed but are limited to research
applications due to their complexity and cost. For intraoperative imaging of breast
specimens, the trend in recent years has been to identify imaging approaches that
can provide improved discrimination between tumor, and surrounding tissue com-
pared to X-ray imaging. Therefore, imaging techniques that are sensitive to the
molecular differences between normal and abnormal tissues may improve identifi-
cation of tumor margins compared to planar X-ray imaging. Interrogation of speci-
mens with certain types of electromagnetic (EM) radiation generates reflected or
transmitted signals with intensity and spectral characteristics that may vary sub-
stantially between tumors and normal tissue. These radiations include infrared,
radiofrequency, or terahertz (1012Hz) radiation and their application may range
from detection of the presence of abnormal tissue to assessing their invasive poten-
tial [4547]. In the case of breast surgery, the excised breast specimen is irradi-
ated and the returning signal after absorption, diffuse reflectance, or fluorescence
in the tissue is detected and analyzed. Some techniques rely on the detection and
analysis in a non-imaging approach while others generate images of the surface
of the specimen, which contain intensity and spectroscopic information. One of
the newest approaches uses radiation in the terahertz region of the electromagnetic
spectrum; this is the part of the spectrum between infrared to microwave with a
corresponding wavelength in the region of about 0.05mm to 1mm. This type of
radiation, also called T-rays, is relatively new to biomedical applications because
the development of efficient and compact sources and detectors for biomedical
applications has been gradual in the past 20years. Unlike X-rays that can easily
transmit through the entire body, terahertz radiation is readily absorbed by water
in the tissue and therefore transmission measurements in thick specimens are not
feasible. It penetrates only a few micrometers in the breast specimen depending on
the frequency used. The reflected and scattered component of terahertz radiation
carries information on composition that can be used to characterize the morphol-
ogy and composition of tissues. This signal can be used to form an image with
compositional topography that represents its molecular status of the specimen at
its surface to a depth of a few micrometers below the surface. Tissue contrast can
be observed because of differences in attenuation and refractive index of the speci-
men and these properties have been used to assess the margins of excised breast
specimens [4852]. Therefore, imaging and spectroscopy with terahertz waves is
performed in the reflection mode in a scanning beam approach. Images of the spec-
imen can be generated at a spatial resolution, which may vary between about 0.1
and 1.0mm depending on the imaging system and wavelength. Terahertz images
may be combined with images at other wavelengths for improved contrast and
delineation of the lesion. Discrimination between normal and malignant tissues can
be challenging from the raw images without proper image analysis. Some tissues,
glandular and adipose for example, can be easily differentiated in terahertz imag-
ing because of their pronounced differences in their refractive indices. It may be
argued that conventional light in the visible spectrum easily discriminates between
adipose and other tissues. However, terahertz appears to exhibit certain proper-
ties, which may enable detection of features that are characteristic to biochemical
changes at the surface of the specimen that are associated with tumors [49].
Terahertz beam reflection, scattering, and spectra from biological specimens
generally reveal variations in water composition. Under controlled conditions,
Terahertz radiation can also provide characterization based on the concentration of
amino acids, and proteins, and other biochemical components [53]. In the case of
breast specimens, large differences in the refractive index between fibrous tissue
and adipose tissue have been observed due to the large differences in their respec-
tive refractive indices and substantial differences have also been observed between
fibrous tissue and breast tumors [54]. Such differences and other interactions
with tissues can be used to generate images that reveal tumors in a background of
healthy tissue in the specimen. In principle, other characteristics such as high lev-
els of protein or amino acids may generate a signal under optimal conditions but
at this time a complete accounting of all the components that give rise to contrast
between tumors and healthy tissue has not been established.
Other radiations may be used to assess breast surgical specimen margins but
at this time, specimen radiography with visual inspection is the most commonly
used technique. Interrogation of the specimen with terahertz and other radiations
has the potential to provide more specific information on tumor margins assum-
ing that their refractive index and reflection properties are capable of discriminat-
ing between normal and malignant tissue. Other techniques for this purpose using
optical coherence tomography with infrared radiation are being explored [55].
References
1. DeSantis C, Ma J, Bryan L, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clinic.

2014;64(1):5262.
2. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, White D, Finder CA, Taplin SH, White E. Breast
density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval and screen
detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(13):10817.
3. Drukteinis JS, Mooney BP, Floers CI, Gatenby RA. Beyond mammography: new frontiers in
breast cancer screening. American J Med. 2013;126(6):4729.
4. Niklason LT, Christian BT, Niklason LE, Kopans DB, Castleberry DE, OpsahlOng BH,
Landberg CE, Slanetz PJ, Giardino AA, Moore R, Albagli D, DeJule MC, Fitzgerald
PF, Fobare DF, Giambattista BW, Kwasnick RF, Liu JQ, Lubowski SJ, Possin GE,
Richotte JF, Wei CY, Wirth RF. Digital tomosynthesis in breast imaging. Radiology.
1997;205(2):399406.
5. Herranz M, Ruibal A. Optical imaging in breast cancer diagnosis: the next evolution. J
Oncol. 2012;2012:863747.
6. Hruska CB, OConnor MK. Nuclear imaging of the breast: translating achievements in
instrumentation into clinical use. Med Phys. 2013;40(5):05090123.
7. Rhodes DJ, Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, OConnor MK. Dedicated dual-head
gamma imaging for breast cancer screening in women with mammographically dense
breasts. Radiology. 2011;258(1):10618.
8. Weigert JM, Bertrand ML, Lanzkowsky L, Stern LH, Kieper DA. Results of a multicenter
patient registry to determine the clinic impact of breast specific gamma imaging, a molecular
breast imaging technique. AJR. 2012;198:W6975.
9. OConnor MK, Philips SW, Hruska CB, Rhodes DJ, Collins DA. Molecular breast imaging:
advantages and limitations of a scintimammographic technique in patients with small breast
tumors. Breast J. 2007;13(1):311.
10. Hendrick RE. Radiation doses and cancer risks from breast imaging studies. Radiology.
2010;257(1):24653.
11. Miller AB, Wall C, Baines CJ, Sun P, To T, Narod SA. Twenty five year follow up for breast
cancer incidence and mortality of the Canadian national breast screening study: randomized
screening trail. BMJ. 2014;348:g366.
12. Checka CM, Chun JE, Schnabel FR, Lee J, Toth H. The relationship of mammographic den-
sity and age: implications for breast cancer screening. AJR. 2012;198:W2925.
13. Buist DS, Porter PL, Lehman C, Taplin SH, White E. Factors contributing to mammography
failure in women aged 4049 years. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(19):143240.
14. Ciatto S, Houssami N, Bernardi D, Caumo F, Pellegrini M, Brunelli S, Tuttobene P, Bricolo
P, Fanto C, Valentini M, Montemezzi S, Macaskill P. Integration of 3D digital mammography
with tomosynthesis for population breast-cancer screening (STORM): a prospective compari-
son study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(7):5839.
15. Giuliano V, Giuliano C. Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using
3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging.
2013;37(3):4806.
16. Hruska CB, Phillips SW, Whaley DH, Rhodes DJ, OConnor MK. Molecular breast imag-
ing: use of a dual-head dedicated gamma camera to detect small breast tumors. AJR.
2008;191:180515.
17. Brem RF, Rapelyea JA, Zisman G, Mohtashemi K, Raub J, Teal CB, Majewski S, Welch BL.
Occult breast cancer: scintimammography with high-resolution breast-specific gamma cam-
era in women at high risk for breast cancer. Radiology. 2005;237:27480.
18. Brem RF, Floerke AC, Rapelyea JA, Teal C, Kelly T, Mathur V. Breast specific gamma
imaging as an adjunct imaging modality for the diagnosis of breast cancer. Radiology.
2008;247:6517.
19. Kalles V, Zografos GC, Provatopoulou X, Koulocheri D, Gounaris A. The current status of
positron emission mammography in breast cancer diagnosis. Breast Cancer. 2013;20:12330.
20. Narayanan D, Madsen KS, Kalinyak JE, Berg WA. Interpretation of positron emission mam-
mograpghy and MRI by experienced breast imaging radiologists: performance and observer
reproducibility. AJR. 2011;196:97181.
21. Kalinyak JE, Schilling K, Berg WA, Narayanan D, Mayberry JP, Rai R, Dupree EB,
Shusterman DK, Gittleman MA, Luo W, Matthews CG. PET guided breast biopsy. Breast J.
2011;17(2):14351.
22. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano EA, Larsen LH, Narayanan D, Ozonoff
A, Miller JP, Kalinyak JE. Breast cancer: comparative effectiveness of positron emission
mammography and MR imaging in presurgical planning for the ipsilateral breast. Radiology.
2011;258:5972.
23. Berg WA, Madsen KS, Schilling K, Tartar M, Pisano ED, Larsen LH, Narayanan D,
Kalinyak JE. Comparative effectiveness of positron emission mammography and MRI in the
contralateral breast of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer. AJR. 2012;198:21932.
24. Centers for Disease. C. Inappropriate use of transillumination for breast cancer screening
Wisconsin, 1990. MMWR. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 1991;40(18):2936.
25. Shah N, Cerussi A, Eker C, Espinoza J, Butler J, Fishkin J, Hornung R, Tromberg BJ.
Noninvasive functional optical spectroscopy of human breast tissue. Proc Nat Acad Sci.
2001;98(8):44205.
26. Gonzalez J, Decerce J, Erickson SJ, Martinez SL, Nunez A, Roman M, Traub B, Flores
CA, Roberts SM, Hernandez E, Aguirre W, Kiszonas R, Godavarty A. Hand-held opti-
cal imager (Gen-2): improved instrumentation and target detectability. J Biomed Opt.
2012;17(8):0814021.
27. McBride TO, Pogue BW, Jiang S, Osterberg UL, Paulsen KD. A parallel-detection fre-
quency-domain near-infrared tomography system for hemoglobin imaging of the breast in
vivo. Rev Sci Instrum. 2001;72(3):181724.
28. Culver JP, Choe R, Holboke MJ, Zubkov L, Durduran T, Slemp A, Ntziachristos V, Chance
B, Yodh AG. Three-dimensional diffuse optical tomography in the parallel plane transmis-
sion geometry: evaluation of a hybrid frequency domain/continuous wave clinical system for
breast imaging. Med Phys. 2003;30(2):23547.
29. Poplack SP, Tosteson TD, Wells WA, Pogue BW, Meaney PM, Hartov A, Kogel CA, Soho
SK, Gibson JJ, Paulsen KD. Electromagnetic breast imaging: results of a pilot study in
women with abnormal mammograms. Radiology. 2007;243(2):3509.
30. Boverman G, Fang Q, Carp SA, Miller EL, Brooks DH, Selb J, Moore RH, Kopans DB,
Boas DA. Spatio-temporal imaging of the hemoglobin in the compressed breast with diffuse
optical tomography. Phys Med Biol. 2007;52(12):361941.
31. Krishnaswamy V, Michaelsen KE, Pogue BW, Poplack SP, Shaw I, Defrietas K, Brooks K,
Paulsen KD. A digital x-ray tomosynthesis coupled near infrared spectral tomography system
for dual-modality breast imaging. Opt Express. 2012;20(17):1912536.
32. Vedantham S, Shi L, Karellas A, Michaelsen KE, Krishnaswamy V, Pogue BW, Paulsen KD.
Semi-automated segmentation and classification of digital breast tomosynthesis reconstructed
images. In: Conference Proceeding of IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society,
EMBC, 2011. p. 61886191.
33. Fang Q, Selb J, Carp SA, Boverman G, Miller EL, Brooks DH, Moore RH, Kopans
DB, Boas DA. Combined optical and X-ray tomosynthesis breast imaging. Radiology.
2011;258(1):8997.
34. Zhu Q, Cronin EB, Currier AA, Vine HS, Huang M, Chen N, Xu C. Benign versus malig-
nant breast masses: optical differentiation with US-guided optical imaging reconstruction.
Radiology. 2005;237(1):5766.
35. Ntziachristos V, Yodh AG, Schnall MD, Chance B. MRI-guided diffuse optical spectroscopy
of malignant and benign breast lesions. Neoplasia. 2002;4(4):34754.
36. Brooksby B, Jiang S, Dehghani H, Pogue BW, Paulsen KD, Kogel C, Doyley M, Weaver
JB, Poplack SP. Magnetic resonance-guided near-infrared tomography of the breast. Rev Sci
Instrum. 2004;75(12):526270.
37. OSullivan TD, Leproux A, Chen JH, Bahri S, Matlock A, Roblyer D, McLaren CE, Chen
WP, Cerussi AE, Su MY, Tromberg BJ. Optical imaging correlates with magnetic resonance
imaging breast density and reveals composition changes during neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(1):R14.
38. Laughney AM, Krishnaswamy V, Rice TB, Cuccia DJ, Barth RJ, Tromberg BJ, Paulsen KD,
Pogue BW, Wells WA. System analysis of spatial frequency domain imaging for quantitative
mapping of surgically resected breast tissues. J Biomed Opt. 2013;18(3):036012.
39. Dhar S, Lo JY, Palmer GM, Brooke MA, Nichols BS, Yu B, Ramanujam N, Jokerst NM. A
diffuse reflectance spectral imaging system for tumor margin assessment using custom annu-
lar photodiode arrays. Biomedical optics express. 2012;3(12):321122.
40. Jacobs L. Positive margins: the challenge continues for breast surgeons. Ann Surg Oncol.
2008;15(5):12712.
41. Patel R, Khan A, Wirth D, Kamionek M, Kandil D, Quinlan R, Yaroslavsky AN. Multimodal
optical imaging for detecting breast cancer. J Biomed Optics. 2012;17(6):066008.
42. Patel R, Khan A, Wirth D, Kamionek M, Kandil D, Quinlan R, Yaroslavsky AN. Delineating
breast ductal carcinoma using combined dye-enhanced wide-field polarization imaging and
optical coherence tomography. Biophoton. 2013;6(9):67986.
43. Patel R, Khan A, Quinlan R, Yaroslavsky AN. Polarization sensitive multimodal imaging for
detecting breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2014;74(17):468593.
44. Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, Jagsi R, Morrow M. What is an adequate margin for breast-
conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:55863.
45. Backman V, Wallace MB, Perelman LT, Arendt JT, Gurjar R, Mller MG, Zhang Q,
Zonios G, Kline E, McGilligan JA, Shapshay S, Valdez T, Badizadegan K, Crawford JM,
Fitzmaurice M, Kabani S, Levin HS, Seiler M, Dasari RR, Itzkan I, Van Dam J, Feld MS.
Nature. 2000;406(6791):356.
46. Brown JQ, Vishwanath K, Palmer GM, Ramanujam N. Advances in quantitative UV-visible
spectroscopy for clinical and pre-clinical application in cancer. Curr Opin Biotechnol.
2009;20(1):11931.
47. Brown JQ, Bydlon TM, Kennedy SA, Caldwell ML, Gallagher JE, Junker M, Wilke LG,
Barry WT, Geradts J, Ramanujam N. Optical spectral surveillance of breast tissue landscapes
for detection of residual disease in breast tumor margins. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7):e69906.
48. Fitzgerald AJ, Wallace VP, Jimenez-Linan M, Bobrow L, Pye RJ, Purushotham AD, Arnone
DD. Terahertz pulsed imaging of human breast tumors. Radiology. 2006;239(2):53340.
49. Fitzgerald AJ, Pinder S, Purushotham AD, OKelly P, Ashworth PC, Wallace VP.
Classification of terahertz-pulsed imaging data from excised breast tissue. J Biomed Opt.
2012;17(1):016005.
50. Fitzgerald AJ, Pickwell-MacPherson E, Wallace VP. Use of finite difference time domain
simulations and debye theory for modelling the terahertz reflection response of normal and
tumour breast tissue. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(7):e99291.
51. Yngvesson SK, St Peter B, Siqueira P, Kelly P, Glick S, Karellas A, Khan A. Feasibility dem-
onstration of frequency domain terahertz imaging in breast cancer margin determination. In:
Proceedings of society of photo-optical instrumentation engineers 2012. Optical interactions
with tissue and cells XXIII; vol. 8221, 82210N.
52. St Peter B, Yngvesson S, Siqueira P, Kelly P, Khan A, Glick S, Karellas A. Development and
testing of a single frequency terahertz imaging system for breast cancer detection. IEEE J
Biomed Health Inform. 2013;17(4):785797.
53. Ajito K, Ueno Y. Thz chemical imaging for biological applications. IEEE Trans Thz Sci
Techn. 2011;1(1):293300.
54. Ashworth PC, Pickwell-MacPherson E, Provenzano E, Pinder SE, Purushotham AD, Pepper
M, Wallace VP. Terahertz pulsed spectroscopy of freshly excised human breast cancer. Opt
Express. 2009;17(15):1244454.
55. Savastru D, Chang EW, Miclos S, Pitman MB, Patel A, Iftimia N. Detection of breast sur-
gical margins with optical coherence tomography imaging: a concept evaluation study.
JBiomed Opt. 2014;19(5):056001.
Chapter 2
Familial Breast Cancer and Genetic
Predisposition in Breast Cancer
Vighnesh Walavalkar, Ashraf Khan and Dina Kandil
Introduction
Breast cancer is the most common non-dermatologic malignancy in women and it

is estimated that approximately one in nine women will develop breast cancer over
their lifetimes. In the United States, more than 200,000 new cases of breast cancer
were reported in 2010 and breast cancer was responsible for approximately 40,000
deaths (15% of all cancer deaths) in the same calendar year [1]. The etiology behind
developing breast cancer is multifactorial, with many risk factors including diet, life-
style, reproductive factors and hormonal status. However, a very important risk fac-
tor is a genetic predisposition and a positive family history. A genetic influence on
mammary carcinogenesis has long been implicated and it is estimated that approxi-
mately 10% of breast cancer patients are carriers of gene mutations susceptible
for the development of breast cancer [2]. Of these genes, perhaps the most exten-
sively studied are breast cancer 1, early onset (BRCA1), breast cancer 2, early onset
(BRCA2) and Tumor protein p53 (TP53) genes. These are associated with a high
risk of developing breast cancer in carriers and hence they are referred to as high-
penetrance genes. It should be noted, however, that among breast cancer patients
with a strong family history; only 40% have cancers that are thought to be caused
by the above-mentioned three genes [3]. This suggests that in the remaining 60% of
cases, apart from sporadic breast cancers, other genetic pathways are likely involved.
V. Walavalkar A. Khan D. Kandil(*)


16 V. Walavalkar et al.
Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated Gene (ATM), CHEK2, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD50,

PTEN, CDH1, STK11, etc. are examples of genes that are thought to play important
roles in breast cancer pathways. In fact, it has now been shown that these moder-
ate penetrance genes along with many low penetrance single nucleotide polymor-
phisms (SNPs) [4] interact with one another as well as influence pathways involving
BRCA1 and BRCA2. Studies have suggested that these genes are involved in com-
plex genetic pathways, some of which are closely related and ultimately are associ-
ated with the development of breast cancer. This chapter gives an overview of some
of these genes along with the clinicopathologic features of the cancers associated
with them. This will be summarized in Table2.1. We will also briefly touch upon
clinical syndromes associated with breast cancer, genetic testing, preventive strat-
egies and certain aspects of management of familial breast cancer in the United
States. A summary of these clinical syndromes are presented in Table2.2.
Genetics of Breast Cancer
High-Penetrance Genes
Breast Cancer 1, Early Onset (BRCA1)
BRCA1 is a large gene located on the long (q) arm of chromosome 17 at position
21 (17q21). BRCA1 is a tumor suppressor gene, which is expressed in response
to genomic instability and is influenced by estrogen. Its main function is related
to DNA repair including homologous recombination, nucleotide excision repair,
and spindle regulation. It also acts as a gatekeeper of cell-cycle progression mainly
through checkpoint control [5]. Recent studies have described complex and inno-
vative mechanisms for the localization of BRCA1 to DNA-breaks, including an
emerging ubiquitylation-dependent cascade and an association with BRCA2 and
genes in the Fanconi anemia pathway [6]. Thus, BRCA1 acts as a regulator of
genome stability and its main function is to respond to various types of DNA dam-
age via a complex interaction with BRCA2 and other genes.
Numerous mutations in BRCA1 have been described. The majority of which
are point mutations and small insertions/deletions leading to truncated forms of
the BRCA1 protein [7]. Large genomic deletions including whole exon dele-
tions have also been detected using more sophisticated methods such as multiplex
ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) [8]. Some mutations appear to be
more common in certain ethnic groups (founder mutations). The most commonly
described is the c.5266dupC mutation (also known as 5382insC or 185delAG),
which is seen in up to 2% of the Ashkenazi Jewish population. However, recent
studies have suggested that this mutation may be prevalent in some other ethnic
groups where genetic screening of BRCA1 is not routinely performed [9].
Approximately 1 in 1000 individuals in the female population carries a
pathogenic mutation in BRCA1. BRCA1 cancers account for approximately 10%
Table2.1A summary of genes associated with the development of breast cancer
Gene Chromosomal Function Mode of inheritance Lifetime risk of Other major cancer Clinical syndrome
location developing breast risk association
cancer
TP53 17p13.1 Regulates expression of many Autosomal dominant 8590% Soft tissue (sarcomas), Li-Fraumeni
genes by anti-proliferative bone (osteosarcoma), syndrome, Li-
mechanisms inducing cell cycle CNS tumors (choroid Fraumeni-like
arrest and apoptosis plexus tumors), syndrome
adrenal glanda
ATM 11q22-q23 Upstream regulator of proteins Autosomal dominant ~20% or less Lymphoproliferative Ataxia-telangiectasia
involved in double-stranded and recessive disorders
DNA repair, including BRCA1,
TP53, and CHEK2
CHEK2 22q12.1 Encodes for a threonine/ Autosomal dominant ~20% or less Colorectal, prostate
serine kinase that prevents and recessive
cell proliferation by
phosphorylation of proteins
involved in checkpoint control
BRIP1 17q22.2 Encodes for a DNA helicase Autosomal dominant ~20% or less Ovary, cervix Fanconi anemia
that performs BRCA1- and recessive
dependent DNA repair and
checkpoint control
PALB2 16p12.2 Acts as a functional bridging Autosomal dominant ~20% or less Pancreas Fanconi anemia
molecule linking the DNA and recessive
repair functions of BRCA1 and
BRCA2
(continued)
17
Table2.1(continued)
18
Gene Chromosomal Function Mode of inheritance Lifetime risk of Other major cancer Clinical syndrome
location developing breast risk association
cancer
CDH1 16q22.1 Encodes for a cell adhesion Autosomal dominant 5060% Stomach Hereditary diffuse
molecule called E-cadherin gastric cancer
syndrome
PTEN 10q23.3 Down-regulates the phosphati- Autosomal dominant 2550% Thyroid (except Cowden syndrome
dylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) medullary carcinoma),
signal transduction cascade and endometrium, colon,
acts as a tumor suppressor and rectum
growth regulator
STK11 19p13.3 Encodes for serine threonine Autosomal dominant ~30% Colorectal, gastric, Peutz-Jeghers
kinase pancreatic, ovary syndrome
RAD50 5q31 Part of MRN complex along Unknown Unknown Unknown Ataxia-telangiectasia-
with MRE11 and NBS1, which like disorder,
facilitates double-strand DNA Nijmegen breakage
break repair syndrome (NBS) and
NBS-like disorder
aAdditional risk in TP53 mutations include: gastrointestinal tract cancers (esophageal, gastric and colorectal), genitourinary cancers (renal, Wilms tumor,
endometrial, ovarian, prostate), melanoma, thyroid, and lymphoproliferative disorders
V. Walavalkar et al.
Table2.2Clinical syndromes associated with breast cancer
Gene(s) involved Clinical manifestations Cancer prevention strategy Cancer management
Hereditary BRCA1, BRCA2 Early onset of breast and Genetic counseling and standard genetic testing with full Individualized
breast and ovarian cancer. Also high gene sequencing and large genomic alterations analysis chemotherapeu-
ovarian risk for early onset prostate, Patient awareness and routine monthly self breast exam from tic regimen with
cancer pancreas, skin (melanoma), 18years of age onwards poly(ADP-ribose)
syndromea gastrointestinal tract cancers Biannual clinical breast exam from 25years of age onward polymerase inhibi-
Annual bilateral mammogram and MRI starting at age 25 tors platinum or
Discuss ovarian cancer screening (transvaginal ultrasound other combination
and serum CA125 testing every 6months) therapy
Discuss risks and benefits of chemoprevention Bilateral mastecto-
Risk-reducing mastectomies and salpingoophorectomies mies and salpin-
Prostate cancer screening in men after age 40 goophorectomy
Li-Fraumeni TP53 Autosomal dominant cancer Genetic counseling and testing Surgical manage-
and Li- predisposition syndrome Patient awareness and routine monthly self breast exam from ment preferred
Fraumeni- associated with early onset 18years of age onwards individualized
like of breast cancer, cho- Biannual clinical breast exam from 25years of age (or as chemotherapeutic
syndromea roid plexus carcinomas, early as 18years) onward regimen
adrenocortical carcinoma, Annual bilateral mammogram and MRI from 25years of age Radiation therapy
soft tissue sarcoma and (or as early as 18years) onward often used as last
osteosarcomas. Also high Colonoscopy every 25years starting 25years of age onward option as there is a
risk for many other visceral Annual skin and neurologic exam questionable risk for
malignancies and lym- therapy induced sec-
phoproliferative disorders ondary malignancy
(continued)
19
Table2.2(continued)
20

Cowden PTEN Autosomal dominant cancer Genetic counseling and testing Individualized
syndromea predisposition syndrome Patient awareness and monthly breast exams treatment strategy
with early onset of breast, Discuss annual mammography MRI
thyroid, endometrium, and Discuss increased surveillance for endometrial, thyroid,
colorectal cancers. Also and colorectal cancers, although there is no consensus screen
characterized by multiple strategy
hamartomas, facial trichil- Discuss prophylactic mastectomies and hysterectomy
emmomas, acral keratoses
and oral papillomatous
papules
Peutz- STK11 Rare autosomal dominant Patient awareness, genetic counseling and testing Individualized
Jeghers condition characterized by No established guidelines on cancer prevention, patients may treatment strategy
syndrome hamartomatous polyps in be followed on an individualized basis
the GI tract, mucocutaneous
pigmentation and increased
risk for breast, colorectal,
gastric, pancreatic, and ovar-
ian cancer
Ataxia- ATM, RAD50, AT is an autosomal reces- Patient awareness, genetic counseling, and testing Individualized
telangiectasia NBS1, MRE11 and sive disorder characterized No established guidelines on cancer prevention, patients may treatment strategy
(AT), AT-like MRN complex by progressive neurologic be followed on an individualized basis
disorder, impairment, cerebellar
Nijmegen ataxia, ocular telangiectasia,
breakage variable immunodeficiency,
syndrome defective organogenesis and
(NBS) and an increased risk of develop-
NBS-like ing visceral malignancies
disorder and lymphoproliferative
disorders
(continued)
V. Walavalkar et al.
Table2.2(continued)
Fanconi BRIP1, PALB2, X-linked recessive disorder Patient awareness, genetic counseling and testing Individualized
anemia BRCA2 and other characterized by bone mar- No established guidelines on cancer prevention, patients may treatment strategy
FANC group of row failure, developmental be followed on an individualized basis Cells with mutated
genes abnormalities, and increased FANC genes show
risk for ovarian, prostate, profound sensitivity
pancreas, skin gastrointesti- to DNA interstrand
nal tract, and cervix cancers. cross-linking agents
Clinical features include (cisplatin and mito-
skin pigmentation, short mycin C)
stature, upper limb, and eye Radiation and
malformations PARP inhibitors
may play a role
Hereditary CDH1 Autosomal dominant cancer Patient awareness, genetic counseling, and testing Individualized`
diffuse gas- predisposition syndrome No established guidelines on cancer prevention, patients may treatment strategy
tric cancer with increased risk for be followed on an individualized basis
syndrome developing breast and gas-
tric cancers
aNCCN Guidelines Version 1.2014: breast and/or ovarian cancer genetic assessment
21
of all familial cancers; [1012] and a mutation in BRCA1 confers a 7085% life-
time risk of developing breast cancer [1113]. BRCA1 mutations also are associ-
ated with a 50% increased risk of developing ovarian cancer, especially high-grade
serous carcinoma [14]. The risk for developing both breast and ovarian cancer in
BRCA1 patients is age dependant, and the age at which these cancers present is
much younger than that of the general population [11, 14]. Tumors developing
in patients with BRCA1 mutations are usually triple-negative (negative for ER,
PR, and HER2), high-grade invasive ductal carcinomas. However, approximately
525% of BRCA1 breast carcinomas can be ER positive and a small percentage
can show low-grade nuclear histology. Gene expression profiling studies show that
BRCA1 associated breast carcinomas tend to cluster with sporadic triple-negative
cancers [1518]. BRCA1 breast cancers share many morphologic features with
medullary-like carcinoma and basal-like carcinoma, with pushing margins, a prom-
inent lymphocytic infiltrate, high-grade nuclear atypia and brisk mitosis (see Chap.
11) [15, 16]. Further, immunohistochemical expression of basal cytokeratins such
Cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, CK14, CK17 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)
which define BLBC are also identified in many BRCA1 related tumors [19].
BRCA1 carcinomas also tend to show high expression of cell proliferation marker
Ki-67 as well as p53 and p16 positivity as compared to sporadic cancers [20].
Breast Cancer 2, Early Onset (BRCA2)
BRCA2 is a large gene located on the long (q) arm of chromosome 13 at position
12.3 (13q12.3). BRCA2 belongs to a family of genes involved in the Fanconi ane-
mia pathway; which also includes partner and localizer of BRCA2 (PALB2) and
BRCA1 interacting protein C-terminal helicase 1 (BRIP1) which are discussed
later in the chapter.
As in BRCA1, BRCA2 is also involved in DNA repair. Its role however is not
as well understood as that of BRCA1. It is now thought that BRCA2 facilitates
homologous recombination and double-strand break repair through its interaction
with RAD51. The BRCA2 protein forms a stable complex with the RAD51 pro-
tein and directs it to sites of DNA damage [21]. 21 BRCA2 also plays a role in the
Fanconi anemia pathway of breast cancer through its interaction with other FANC
(Fanconi anemia, complementation groups) genes such as BRIP1 and PALB2. A
defect in any one of the proteins along the Fanconi anemia pathway prevents can-
cer cells from repairing interstrand crosslinks, predisposing them to chromosomal
instability. It is suggested that BRCA2 protein helps to prevent these interstrand
crosslinks by its ability to facilitate homologous recombination [22, 23].
Similar to BRCA1, hundreds of mutations have been described in BRCA2,
the majority being point mutations leading to frameshifts and production of an
abnormally truncated BRCA2 protein. Founder mutations in BRCA2 have been
described in certain ethnic groups such as the c.5946delT (6174delT) mutation in
the Ashkenazi Jewish population [3, 11].
Approximately 1 in 800 individuals in the female population carry a pathogenic
mutation in BRCA2. Similar to BRCA1, BRCA2 cancers account for approximately
2 Familial Breast Cancer and Genetic Predisposition 23
10% of familial cancers; [1012] and a mutation in BRCA2 confers a 5085%

lifetime risk of developing breast cancer [1113]. There is an approximate 30%
risk for BRCA2 patients to develop ovarian cancer [14]. Males who are carriers of
germline mutations in BRCA2 have an increased risk of developing breast cancer,
approximately 10% greater than men in the general population [24]. BRCA2 also
confers an increased risk for the development of other cancers. Compared to non-
carriers, men with BRCA2 mutations have a three-fold risk of developing prostate
cancer and; according to recent studies; these tumors are often of a higher grade
(Gleason score >7) and have an increased risk of recurrence [25]. Germline BRCA2
gene mutations are also responsible for approximately 520% of familial pancre-
atic cancers [26, 27]. Additionally, there is some evidence for an increased risk of
gastrointestinal tract cancers, melanomas, bone tumors and even rarely pharyngeal
carcinomas in BRCA2 families [28, 29]. BRCA2 associated breast cancers are gen-
erally heterogeneous and unlike BRCA1, there is no specific phenotype that has
proven to be predictive of BRCA2 status. Clinical features of BRCA1 and BRCA 2
genes and their associated cancers are compared in Table2.3.
Table2.3Comparison of BRCA1 and BRCA2

Gene BRCA1 BRCA2
Chromosomal 17q21 13q12.3
location
Function DNA repair including homologous Homologous recombination
recombination, nucleotide excision and double-strand break repair
repair, and spindle regulation through its interaction with
RAD51
Mode of Autosomal dominant Autosomal dominant
inheritance
Lifetime risk of 7085% 5085%
developing breast
cancer
Other major Ovary Ovary, male breast, prostate,
cancer risk pancreas, skin (melanoma),
gastrointestinal tract
Clinical syndrome Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer Hereditary breast and ovarian
association syndrome cancer syndrome, Fanconi
anemia
Typical High-grade ductal carcinomas, often with No specific phenotype, ductal
phenotype basal phenotype (medullary appearance, carcinoma NOS
pushing edges, lymphocytic infiltrate,
high nuclear grade, and brisk mitotic
activity). Tumors are often triple negative
Cancer Individualized chemotherapeutic regimen Individualized chemotherapeu-
management with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase tic regimen with poly (ADP-
(PARP) inhibitors platinum-based ribose) polymerase (PARP)
therapy. Bilateral mastectomies and inhibitors platinum-based
salpingoophorectomy therapy. Bilateral mastecto-
mies and salpingoophorectomy
Tumor Protein P53 (TP53)
TP53 is a tumor suppressor gene located on the short (p) arm of chromosome 17
at position 13.1 (17p13.1). It is the most commonly altered gene in human cancer;
being mutated in more than 50% of all cancers.
TP53 encodes a transcription factor which responds to numerous cellular mech-
anisms to regulate expression of target genes, and does so primarily by anti-prolif-
erative mechanisms inducing cell cycle arrest and apoptosis.
Thousands of mutations in TP53 have been described in a variety of human
cancers. The majority of which are missense substitutions; and other alterations
include frameshift insertions and deletions, nonsense mutations, and silent muta-
tions [30]. An exhaustive and comprehensive list of over 25,000 germline, somatic
and experimentally induced mutations in TP53 along with information on the
functional impact of mutant p53 proteins is available online at the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) TP53 Database [31].
Rare germline mutations in TP53 cause Li-Fraumeni and Li-Fraumeni-like
syndrome, which are autosomal dominant genetic disorders characterized by an
increased likelihood of developing a number of different malignancies. Somatic
mutations in tumors are very common and occur in more than 50% of all human
cancers. In patients with a TP53 mutation, the lifetime risk for developing any
cancer is almost 100%. This risk is age dependant, with approximately 3550%
developing by age 30, and 8090% by age 60 [32]. The majority of cancers seen
in affected families are breast cancer (most common), soft tissue sarcomas, osteo-
sarcomas, central nervous system tumors (especially choroid plexus tumors) and
adrenocortical carcinomas. Other cancers seen in patients with TP53 mutations
are gastrointestinal malignancies (esophageal, gastric, and colorectal), genitouri-
nary malignancies (bladder, renal, Wilms tumor, endometrial, ovarian, germ cell
tumors, prostate), melanoma, thyroid cancers, and lymphoproliferative disorders.
Due to its general low prevalence, TP53 mutations account for less than 1% of
familial breast cancers [10]. There is no specific phenotype seen in TP53 mutated
breast cancers.
Moderate Penetrance Genes
Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated Gene (ATM)
The ATM gene is located on the long (q) arm of chromosome 1, between posi-
tions 22 and 23 (11q22-q23). A large number of mutations involving the ATM
gene have been identified, which are responsible for approximately 2% of familial
breast cancers [33].
The ATM protein acts as an important upstream regulator of proteins involved
in double-stranded DNA repair, including BRCA1, TP53, and CHEK2. ATM
mediates checkpoint regulation and homologous repair by phosphorylation of
these proteins. Most mutations in this gene lead to truncated forms of the ATM
protein which increases the susceptibility for developing genomic instability,
especially during exposure to ionizing radiation [34]. Mutations in ATM lead to
ataxia-telangiectasia, an autosomal recessive disorder characterized by progressive
neurologic impairment, cerebellar ataxia, ocular telangiectasia, variable immuno-
deficiency, defective organogenesis and an increased risk of developing visceral
malignancies, and lymphoproliferative disorders. A link between ATM mutations
and breast cancer has been suspected for many years. Recent studies of patients
with ataxia-telangiectasia have suggested that female relatives have a two to five
fold increase in risk of developing breast cancer [3537]. There are no known his-
tologic phenotypes of breast cancer that predict an ATM mutation, and the clinical
usefulness of testing for ATM mutations in breast cancer patients is uncertain at
this time.
CHEK2 (Checkpoint Kinase 2 Gene)
The CHEK2 gene is located on the long (q) arm of chromosome 22 at position
12.1 (22q12.1). CHEK2 is a tumor suppressor gene, and mutations in this gene
have been identified in a number of human malignancies including breast, pros-
tate, and colon cancers [38].
CHEK2 encodes a threonine/serine kinase involved in the same pathways as
TP53 and BRCA1. In response to DNA damage, this protein prevents cell prolifer-
ation by phosphorylation of proteins involved in checkpoint control, thus blocking
cellular entry into mitosis [39]. Mutations in CHEK2 were originally investigated
as a cause of Li-Fraumeni like syndrome [40], however, many subsequent studies
have shown that CHEK2 mutations are directly associated with the development
of breast cancer. Although numerous mutations in CHEK2 have been described,
perhaps the most important is a founder mutation, 1100delC, discovered in peo-
ple of North European descent. The 1100delC mutation is present in ~1% of
European families and in up to 5% of breast cancer families of North European
descent. Individuals heterozygous for this mutation have a two to three fold
increased risk of developing breast cancer [41, 42]. In women with estrogen recep-
torpositive breast cancer, 1100delC heterozygosity is also associated with a three
to four fold risk of developing a second breast cancer [43]. Many more CHEK2
mutations have been described, but their clinical significance are still unknown.
BRCA1 Interacting Protein C-Terminal Helicase 1 (BRIP1)
The BRIP1 gene is located on the long (q) arm of chromosome 17 at position 22.2
(17q22.2). BRIP1 belongs to the Fanconi anemia pathway of genes, which also
includes PALB2 (discussed ahead) and BRCA2.
BRIP1 encodes for a DNA helicase that interacts with BRCA1 and has
BRCA1-dependent DNA repair and checkpoint functions. Biallelic mutations in
BRIP1 result in the chromosome instability disorder Fanconi anemia, while het-
erozygous inactivating mutations have been reported to confer an increased sus-
ceptibility to breast cancer in monoallelic carriers [44, 45]. These account for less
than 0.5% of all breast cancers. Patients with BRIP1 mutations have approxi-
mately a 20% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Frameshift mutations in
BRIP1 have been described which may be associated with an increased risk of
developing ovarian cancers in some European populations [46]. Most recently,
BRIP1 has been implicated in the genetic susceptibility for developing cervical
cancer [47].
Partner and Localizer of BRCA2 Gene (PALB2)
The PALB2 gene is located on the short (p) arm of chromosome 16 at position
12.2 (16p12.2). As discussed above, PALB2 belongs to the FANC group of genes
in the Fanconi anemia pathway of breast cancer.
PALB2 encodes for a protein that is involved in double-stranded DNA break
repair. Studies have suggested that PALB2 acts as a functional bridging molecule
linking the DNA repair functions of BRCA1 and BRCA2; as well as stimulating
the recombinant functions of RAD51, and hence is critical in the maintenance
of genomic stability [4850]. PALB2 mutations account for a minority of breast
cancer (less than 0.5%). Similar to BRIP1 mutations, PALB2 mutations confer
an approximate 20% overall lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Recently,
PALB2 germline truncating mutations have also been implicated in the develop-
ment of pancreatic cancer [51].
Other Genetic Mutations Conferring an Increased Risk

of Developing Breast Cancer
Germline mutations of CDH1 [cadherin 1, type 1, E-cadherin (epithelial)

located at 16q22.1] are associated with Hereditary Diffuse Gastric Cancer, which
is an autosomal dominant cancer predisposition syndrome. CDH1 encodes for a
cell adhesion molecule called E-cadherin. Patients with germline CDH1 muta-
tions have a very high risk of developing gastric cancer but are also at an increased
risk of developing breast cancer including both ductal and lobular carcinomas [52,
53]. Lobular carcinomas that arise in CDH1 mutation carriers as well as sporadic
cases show similar phenotypes; i.e., both are characterized by a loss of E-cadherin
expression at the cell membrane which can be demonstrated by immunohisto-
chemistry. CDH1 mutations account for a small fraction of familial breast cancers
(<2%); and female carriers have an approximate 50% lifetime risk of developing
breast cancer [54]. Studies have estimated the cumulative risk of developing gas-
tric cancer by age 80years to be ~65% for men and ~80% for women [55].
STK11 (serine/threonine kinase 11, located at 19p13.3) mutations lead to

Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, a rare autosomal dominant condition associated with the
development of hamartomatous polyps throughout the gastrointestinal tract and
mucocutaneous pigmentation. These patients are at increased risk of developing
gastrointestinal as well as breast cancers. Women who are STK11 mutation car-
riers have an approximate 30% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. These
tumors are often bilateral and sometimes develop at an early age [56].
PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog), located at 10q23.3) mutations
are associated with the development of the autosomal dominant Cowden syn-
drome, characterized by multiple hamartomas in different organs, increased risk
of cancers, facial trichilemmomas, acral keratoses and oral papillomatous papules.
PTEN functions by down-regulating the phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K) sig-
nal transduction cascade and acts as a tumor suppressor and growth regulator [57].
Many types of mutations in the PTEN gene have been identified in patients with
Cowden syndrome. Breast cancer is the most common cancer seen in Cowden
syndrome and females who carry mutations in the PTEN gene have a 2550%
lifetime risk of developing breast cancer [58]. Cowden syndrome is responsible for
less than 1% of familial breast cancers. Other cancers seen in patients with PTEN
mutations include thyroid cancers (non-medullary), colon, rectal, and endometrial
carcinomas.
RAD50 (RAD50 homolog gene, located at 5q31) is a gene that has been
implicated in the development of breast cancer. RAD50 interacts with two other
genes, MRE11 (meiotic recombination 11, located at 11q21) and NBS1
[Nijmegen breakage syndrome 1 (also called Nibrin), located at 8q21], to form
the MRN complex which acts as the primary sensor of double-stranded DNA
breaks. The MRN complex facilitates double-strand DNA break repair by acti-
vating ATM kinase (discussed above). Mutations of MRE11, NBS1, and RAD50
give rise to cancer predisposition syndromes: ataxia-telangiectasia-like disorder,
Nijmegen breakage syndrome (NBS) and NBS-like disorder, respectively [59, 60].
A founder mutation in RAD50 (687delT) has been discovered in breast cancer
families of Finnish descent, but as this mutation is rare and has not been discov-
ered in non-familial populations, its actual role in breast cancer development is
still under scrutiny [61].
The risk of breast cancer in Lynch Syndrome (Hereditary Non-Polyposis
Colorectal Cancer Syndrome) is uncertain due to conflicting data, and currently
the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) has no guidelines on risk
assessment or screening for breast cancer in patients with Lynch Syndrome [62].
In recent years, well-validated studies have implicated a number of SNPs in
various genes (e.g.,: FGFR2, TOX3/TNRC9, MRPS30, MAP3K1, NOTCH2,
RAD51L1 etc.) to be associated with a slightly increased or decreased risk of
developing breast cancer [4, 6370]. SNPs in these genes are considered to be
of low penetrance in the development of familial breast cancer and their clinical
significance is currently uncertain. These genes are however important in under-
standing the biology of breast cancer development and may play a key role in dis-
covering potential therapeutic targets in the future.
Clinical testing for moderate penetrance genes is difficult and controversial

due to the rarity of these mutations and the lack of clinical data on how to man-
age patients with positive results. There is obvious clinical concern that patients
who test positive for one of these genetic mutations may seek unnecessary treat-
ment; and that those who test negative may be left with a false sense of security
which may preclude routine preventive strategies. Many studies suggest that these
genes, along with other low-penetrant alleles implicated in the development of
breast cancer, act in interrelated pathways and therefore testing for these muta-
tions in patients with a strong family histories may be justified [4, 5, 71]. Genetic
surveillance of patients in the correct clinical context, (appropriate ethnic back-
ground and those with significant family histories), may help to stratify patients
into a high-risk group that may benefit from increased radiographic surveillance,
chemoprevention, or risk-reducing surgery. Genetic testing for rare mutations that
have not been proven to be pathogenic or of clinical utility should be discouraged
as their true significance it still unknown. Clinical features of the genes implicated
in breast cancer and their associated cancer predisposition syndromes are summa-
rized in Tables2.2 and 2.3.
Genetic Testing and Management of Familial Breast

Cancer in the United States
Guidelines for Genetic Testing in the United States
Strong family history, early onset of breast cancer, ethnic background, and pos-
sibly histologic phenotype, are important criteria determining the need for genetic
testing. In the United States, there are two main regulatory groups that have estab-
lished guidelines for genetic testing in breast cancer patient; the NCCN and the
United States Task Force Preventive Services (USTFPS), both of which have
similar recommendations [72, 73]. The NCCN recommends referral to a cancer
genetics professional if: an individual with breast cancer has a family member
with a known mutation in a breast cancer susceptibility gene, an early onset of
breast cancer, a triple-negative breast cancer, a male breast cancer, two breast pri-
maries in the same individual; or in an unaffected individual who has a history
of a first or second degree relative with cancers that are known to be associated
with familial cancer syndromes. If the patient meets criteria for screening, then
the NCCN recommends full sequencing of BRCA1 and BRCA2 for point muta-
tions along with further testing for large genomic alterations. If the patient has a
known family mutation, then it is appropriate to screen for that mutation in lieu
of full sequencing. If a patient is suspected to have Li-Fraumeni or Li-Fraumeni-
like syndrome and meets criteria for Classic Li-Fraumeni syndrome [74] or ful-
fills modified Chompret Criteria for Germline TP53 Mutation Screening, [75] then
full sequencing of TP53 along with deletion/duplication analysis is recommended.
Fig.2.1Summary of recommendations regarding genetic testing for BRCA1 and 2
Again, if the patient has a known family mutation [31], then it is appropriate to
screen for that mutation first. Patients who meet criteria for Cowden syndrome
[76] should have full sequencing of the PTEN gene including deletion/duplication
and promoter analysis. Studies have shown that genetic counseling by a cancer
genetics professional reduces patient stress, improves the estimation, and likeli-
hood of actual cancer risk as well as reduces unintentional or unnecessary testing
[73]. The NCCN does not have specific recommendation for other rare familial
cancer predisposition syndromes and recommends an individualized multidiscipli-
nary approach in the management of these patients. Guidelines for genetic testing
for BRCA mutations are summarized in Fig.2.1.
Modality of BRCA Testing
There are several predictive models based on statistical methods, pedigree, and
outcome data that are used by genetic counselors to determine the likelihood or
risk of mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. These models include BRCAPRO,
Myriad, the Finnish, the National Cancer Institute, the University of Pennsylvania,
and Yale University models. Recent studies have shown these models have equal
efficacy in predicting the likelihood of a BRCA mutation when applied in the

proper context [77]. If these models are incorrectly interpreted, varied results and
false risk assessment for BRCA mutations may result. Therefore, it is imperative
to ensure that qualified healthcare professionals with experience in genetics are
included in the multidisciplinary approach to make decisions on whether BRCA
testing is needed. As discussed above, the majority of BRCA1 and BRCA2 muta-
tions are point mutations which can be routinely detected by traditional DNA
sequencing methodologies (e.g.,: Sanger sequencing). Apart from these point
mutations, <1% of BRCA mutations can be due to large genomic deletions and
duplications, especially in BRCA1 [8]. These larger genomic alterations cannot
be detected by traditional sequencing methods and require more complex testing
modalities (e.g.,: MLPA, and potentially next generation sequencing).
For the last two decades, because of gene-patent issues, BRCA testing in
the United States has been done through commercially available tests from one
genetic laboratory, namely Myriad Genetics Inc. (Myriad Genetics, Salt Lake
City, UT). A blood or oral sample from a patient is sent to their central refer-
ence laboratory and results are reported back to the consulting healthcare pro-
vider. Myriad now provides the Comprehensive BRCAnalysis test, which
includes full sequence analysis for certain regions of BRCA1 and BRCA2 along
with large genomic rearrangement testing for five commonly occurring large
genomic rearrangements of the BRCA1 gene. Testing for a few commonly occur-
ring point mutations is also available (e.g.,: 187delAG and 5385insC in BRCA1;
6174delT in BRCA2). In an effort to identify other large genomic alterations not
detected by Comprehensive BRCAnalysis, Myriad has offered a test called the
BRCAnalysis Rearrangement Test (BART) in 2006. BART allows assessment
of all coding exons, flanking intron regions and their promoters in BRCA1 and
BRCA 2, either by quantitative endpoint polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analy-
sis or microarray comparative genomic hybridization analysis (microarray-CGH)
[78, 79]. Therefore, patients who were tested before 2006 by Comprehensive
BRCAnalysis only and had subsequent negative results may benefit from repeat
testing along with BART to ensure large genomic alterations are not missed [72].
The Gene-patent controversy surrounding Myriad, who in association with oth-
ers, located and sequenced BRCA1 and BRCA2 almost 20years ago, has ended in
June 2013 when a landmark decision in gene patenting was reached in response to
a case filed by the Association of Molecular Pathology. The Supreme Court upheld
that, A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and is not patent
eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because
it is not naturally occurring. thus possibly ending the monopoly of Myriad
Genetics in the field of BRCA testing [80, 81]. Since then, several companies
(Gene by Gene, Ltd.; Counsyl, Inc.; Quest Diagnostics; gnostics; GeneDx; Invitae
Corporation; Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings; etc.) have announced
plans of developing a commercially available BRCA test in the United States and
other countries.
Prevention Strategies and Clinical Management

of Familial Breast Cancer
Patient awareness and education are of paramount importance in the overall man-
agement of familial breast cancer. A multidisciplinary approach in patient care
including input from oncologists, surgeons, radiation oncologists, radiologists,
pathologists, genetic counselors, and clinical psychologists is recommended.
Women in breast cancer families should perform monthly self-breast exams start-
ing from 18years of age, and have biannual clinical breast exams by a physician
starting from 25years of age onward. Current NCCN guidelines suggest that
annual mammograms along with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) starting from
the age of 25 are appropriate screening options in women with known mutations
in breast cancer susceptibility genes [72]. Digital mammography (with or without
tomosynthesis) and MRI can be performed at the same time, or as some studies
have suggested are more accurate and cost-effective in detecting suspicious lesions
when performed alternatively at 6month intervals [8284]. Since MRI is more
sensitive in detecting architectural distortion in breast tissue as compared to con-
ventional mammography, theoretic harms of intensive screening include: increased
false-positive imaging studies (resulting in unnecessary biopsies); unnecessary
additional imaging (e.g.,: targeted ultrasound after MRI); unnecessary surgical
treatment; patient anxiety and increased financial burden on patients and hospitals.
A recent large study showed significantly higher false-positive and lower false-
negative rates for MRI compared with mammography [85]. Studies have shown
that women who undergo intensive radiographic screening have no increased pain,
discomfort, or anxiety when compared to women undergoing routine screening
[85]. Studies looking at the clinical utility of extensive radiographic surveillance
in familial breast cancer families are conflicting and therefore its role in preventing
breast cancer is currently uncertain [73].
Breast cancer risk-reducing medications should also be discussed with patients
who are BRCA mutation carriers. Chemoprevention of breast cancer with estro-
gen receptor antagonists and selective estrogen receptor modulators is not com-
mon in the United States owing to their well-known thromboembolic side effects.
Tamoxifen and Raloxifene are two drugs that have been widely studied for their
potential use in breast cancer prevention and are currently FDA approved for
this use (for a period of up to 5years). Since BRCA-associated cancers are usu-
ally hormone receptor-negative, there are no studies looking at the role of these
drugs in BRCA mutation carriers specifically. However, there are large studies
investigating their role in women with varied risks [73]. The National Surgical
Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (NSABP P-1)
[8688] demonstrated that tamoxifen reduced the risk of estrogen receptor positive
breast cancers in the population studied. The benefits of tamoxifen chemopreven-
tion were thought to outweigh the risks associated with its use. The main risks
of tamoxifen use as mentioned above, were found to be thromboembolic events
such as stroke and deep-vein thrombosis, as well as cataracts. There was also a
moderate increased risk of developing endometrial cancer reported with tamox-

ifen use but was not statistically significant. The NSABP Study of Tamoxifen and
Raloxifene (STAR) P-2 [89] trial compared tamoxifen to raloxifene in the preven-
tion of invasive breast cancer and found that tamoxifen had a greater efficacy than
raloxifene in reducing invasive breast cancer, but was associated with a higher risk
of complications.
The NCCN also recommends discussing the option of risk-reducing surgery,
i.e.,: prophylactic mastectomy and bilateral salpingo-oopherectomy, in patients
who are at a high risk for developing breast cancer including those who are BRCA
mutation carriers. Prophylactic mastectomies have been reported to reduce the
overall risk of developing breast cancer by approximately 90%, [90] and a signifi-
cantly decreased rate of breast cancer specific death. In patients with breast can-
cers, risk-reducing salpingoophorectomies are associated with also an approximate
90% reduction in breast cancer specific death and a very high reduction in the risk
for gynecologic cancers [91]. In patients without breast cancer, risk-reducing sal-
pingoophorectomies provide a significantly reduced risk of developing a primary
breast cancer and this benefit is thought to be more so for BRCA2 mutation carri-
ers as compared to BRCA1 mutation carriers.
The treatment of BRCA associated cancers is complex and difficult due to
the relative rarity of these cancers. Knowing that the mechanism of carcinogen-
esis in cells that have BRCA mutations is related to defective homologous recom-
bination DNA repair, the role of DNA cross-linking agents such as carboplatin,
cisplatin, and mitomycin-C have been widely studied. These agents cause DNA
damage, which would normally be repaired via an intact BRCA mediated pro-
cess. Therefore, these agents may potentially cause irreversible fatal DNA damage
and chromosomal instability in BRCA mutated cancers cells leading to suppres-
sion of tumor growth [92]. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase 1 (PARP) inhibitors are
also currently being investigated for their potential role in the treatment of BRCA
associated breast cancers. PARP is a nuclear protein which localizes to the site of
DNA damage and initiates double-stranded DNA break repair by recruiting repair
proteins. Therefore, PARP inhibitors such as iniparib may help to prevent DNA
repair in BRCA mutated cancer cells leading to cell death. Studies are beginning
to reveal that PARP inhibitors may also be potentially useful in other BRCA asso-
ciated cancers such as ovarian and pancreatic cancers. Clinical trials using PARP
inhibitors as a single agent or in combination therapy with other drugs are cur-
rently underway for many types of cancers (see Chap. 11).
Key Points
Approximately 10% of breast cancer patients are carriers of gene mutations

susceptible for the development of breast cancer.
BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 genes are associated with a high risk of developing
breast cancer in carriers and hence are referred to as high-penetrance genes.
ATM, CHEK2, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD50, PTEN, CDH1, STK11, etc. are exam-
ples of moderate penetrance genes, while SNPs are considered low penetrance.
References
1. Jemal A. etal. Cancer Statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin. 2010;60(5):277300.

2. Claus EB, Schildkraut JM, Thompson WD, Risch NJ. The genetic attributable risk of breast
and ovarian cancer. Cancer. 1996;77(11):231824.
3. Ford D, etal. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of the BRCA1 and BRCA2
genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet.
1998;62(3):67689.
4. Turnbull C, etal. Genome-wide association study identifies five new breast cancer suscepti-
bility loci. Nat Genet. 2010;42(6):5047.
5. Roy R, Chun J, Powell SN. BRCA1 and BRCA2: different roles in a common pathway of
genome protection. Nat Rev Cancer. 2011;12(1):6878.
6. Huen MS, Sy SM, Chen J. BRCA1 and its toolbox for the maintenance of genome integrity.
Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2010;11(2):13848.
7. Mazoyer S. Genomic rearrangements in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Hum Mutat.
2005;25(5):41522.
8. Hogervorst FB, Nederlof PM, Gille JJ, McElgunn CJ, Grippeling M, Pruntel R, etal. Large
genomic deletions and duplications in the BRCA1 gene identified by a novel quantitative
method. Cancer Res. 2003;63(7):144953.
9. Hamel N, Feng BJ, Foretova L, Stoppa-Lyonnet D, Narod SA, etal. On the origin and dif-
fusion of BRCA1 c.5266dupC (5382insC) in European populations. Eur J Hum Genet.
2011;19(3):3006.
10. Lalloo F, Varley J, Ellis D, etal. Family history is predictive of pathogenic mutations in
BRCA1, BRCA2 and TP53 with high penetrance in a population based study of very early
onset breast cancer. Lancet. 2003;361:11012.
11. Evans DG, Shenton A, Woodward E, Lalloo F, Howell A, Maher ER. Penetrance estimates
for BRCA1 and BRCA2 based on genetic testing in a clinical cancer genetics service setting.
BMC Cancer. 2008;8(1):155.
12. Ford D, Easton DF, Stratton M, etal. Genetic heterogeneity and penetrance analysis of
the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in breast cancer families. The Breast Cancer Linkage
Consortium. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62(3):67689.
13. Chen S, Iversen ES, Friebel T, etal. Characterization of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in a
large United States sample. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(6):86371.
14. Antoniou A, Pharoah PDP, Narod S, etal. Average risks of breast and ovarian cancer associ-
ated with mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2 detected in case series unselected for family his-
tory: a combined analysis of 22 studies. Am J Hum Genet. 2003;72(5):111730.
15. Lakhani SR, Gusterson BA, Jacquemier J, Sloane JP, Anderson TJ, etal. The pathology of
familial breast cancer: histological features of cancers in families not attributable to muta-
tions in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Clin Cancer Res. 2000;6(3):7829.
16. Lakhani SR, Jacquemier J, Sloane JP, Gusterson BA, Anderson TJ, etal. Multifactorial
analysis of differences between sporadic breast cancers and cancers involving BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutations. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(15):113845.
17. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, etal. Molecular por-
traits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):74752.
18. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, etal. Gene expression pat-
terns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(19):1086974.
19. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, etal. Immunohistochemical and
clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer
Res. 2004;10(16):536774.
20. Rakha EA, Elsheikh SE, Aleskandarany MA, Habashi HO, Green AR, Powe DG, etal.
Triple-negative breast cancer: distinguishing between basal and nonbasal subtypes. Clin
Cancer Res. 2009;15(7):230210.
21. Jensen RB, etal. Purified human BRCA2 stimulates RAD51- mediated recombination.
Nature. 2010;467(7316):67883.
22. Tischkowitz M, Xia B. PALB2/FANCN: recombining cancer and Fanconi anemia. Cancer
Res. 2010;70(19):73539.
23. Howlett NG, etal. Biallelic inactivation of BRCA2 in Fanconi anemia. Science.
2002;297(5581):6069.
24. Tai YC, Domchek S, Parmigiani G, Chen S. Breast cancer risk among male BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99(23):18114.
25. Gallagher DJ, Gaudet MM, Pal P, Kirchhoff T, Balistreri L, etal. Germline BRCA mutations
denote a clinicopathologic subset of prostate cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(7):211521.
26. Hahn SA, Greenhalf B, Ellis I, etal. BRCA2 germline mutations in familial pancreatic carci-
noma. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95:21421.
27. Canto MI, Harinck F, Hruban HR, Offerhaus GJ, Poley JW, etal. International Cancer of
the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium summit on the management of patients with
increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer. Gut. 2013;62(3):33947.
28. van Asperen CJ, Brohet RM, Meijers-Heijboer EJ, etal. Cancer risks in BRCA2 families:
estimates for sites other than breast and ovary. J Med Genet. 2005;42(9):7119.
29. Moran A, OHara C, Khan S, Shack L, Woodward E, etal. Risk of cancer other than breast or
ovarian in individuals with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Fam Cancer. 2012;11(2):23542.
30. Petitjean A, Achatz MI, Borresen-Dale AL, Hainaut P, Olivier M. TP53 mutations in human
cancers: functional selection and impact on cancer prognosis and outcomes. Oncogene.
2007;26:215765.
31. Olivier M, Eeles R, Hollstein M, Khan MA, Harris CC, Hainaut P. The IARC TP53 database:
new online mutation analysis and recommendations to users. Hum Mutat. 2002;19:60714.
32. Gonzalez KD, etal. Beyond Li Fraumeni syndrome: clinical characteristics of families with
p53 germline mutations. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(8):12506.
33. Paglia LL, Lauge A, Weber J, Champ J, Cavaciuti E, Russo A, etal. ATM germline mutations
in women with familial breast cancer and a relative with haematological malignancy. Breast
Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119(2):4435233.
34. Shiloh Y. ATM and related protein kinases: safeguarding genome integrity. Nat Rev Cancer.
2003;3:15568.
35. Swift M, Reitnauer PJ, Morrell D, Chase CL. Breast and other cancers in families with
ataxia-telangiectasia. N Engl J Med. 1987;316(21):128994.
36. Thompson D, Duedal S, Kirner J, McGuffog L, Last J, etal. Cancer risks and mortality in
heterozygous ATM mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(11):81322.
37. Renwick A, etal. ATM mutations that cause ataxia-telangiectasia are breast cancer suscepti-
bility alleles. Nat Genet. 2006;38(8):8735.
38. Cybulski C, etal. CHEK2 is a multiorgan cancer susceptibility gene. Am J Hum Genet.
2004;75(6):11315.
39. Stolz A, etal. The CHK2-BRCA1 tumour suppressor pathway ensures chromosomal stability
in human somatic cells. Nat Cell Biol. 2010;12(5):4929.
40. Bell DW, etal. Heterozygous germ line hCHK2 Mutations in Li-Fraumeni syndrome.
Science. 1999;286(5449):252831.
41. Weischer M, Bojesen SE, Ellervik C, etal. CHEK2*1100delC genotyping for clinical assess-
ment of breast cancer risk: Meta-analyses of 26,000 patient cases and 27,000 controls. J Clin
Oncol. 2008;26:5428.
42. Zhang B, Beeghly-Fadiel A, Long J, etal. Genetic variants associated with breast-cancer
risk: comprehensive research synopsis, meta-analysis, and epidemiological evidence. Lancet
Oncol. 2011;12:47788.
43. Weischer M, Nordestgaard BG, Pharoah P, etal. CHEK2*1100delC heterozygosity in
women with breast cancer associated with early death, breast cancer-specific death, and
increased risk of a second breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(35):430816.
44. Cantor S, Drapkin R, Zhang F, Lin Y, Han J, Pamidi S, Livingston DM. The BRCA1-
associated protein BACH1 is a DNA helicase targeted by clinically relevant inactivating
mutations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101(8):235762.
45. Seal S, Thompson D, Renwick A, etal. Truncating mutations in the Fanconi ane-
mia J gene BRIP1 are low-penetrance breast cancer susceptibility alleles. Nat Genet.
2006;38(11):123941.
46. Rafnar T, Gudbjartsson DF, Sulem P, etal. Mutations in BRIP1 confer high risk of ovarian
cancer. Nat Genet. 2011;43(11):11047.
47. Ma XD, Cai GQ, Zou W, Huang YH, Zhang JR, Wang DT, Chen BL. First evidence for the
contribution of the genetic variations of BRCA1-interacting protein 1 (BRIP1) to the genetic
susceptibility of cervical cancer. Gene. 2013;524(2):20813.
48. Zhang F, etal. PALB2 functionally connects the breast cancer susceptibility proteins BRCA1
and BRCA2. Mol Cancer Res. 2009;7(7):11108.
49. Sy SM, Huen MS, Chen J. PALB2 is an integral component of the BRCA complex required
for homologous recombination repair. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(17):715560.
50. Dray E, etal. Enhancement of RAD51 recombinase activity by the tumor suppressor PALB2.
Nat Struct Mol Biol. 2010;17(10):12559.
51. Jones S, etal. Exomic sequencing identifies PALB2 as a pancreatic cancer susceptibility
gene. Science. 2009;324(5924):217.
52. Pharoah PD, Guilford P, Caldas C. Incidence of gastric cancer and breast cancer in
CDH1 (E-cadherin) mutation carriers from hereditary diffuse gastric cancer families.
Gastroenterology. 2001;121(6):134853.
53. Suriano G, Yew S, Ferreira P, Senz J, Kaurah P, Ford JM, etal. Characterization of a recur-
rent germ line mutation of the E-cadherin gene: implications for genetic testing and clinical
management. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(15):54019.
54. Kaurah P, MacMillan A, Boyd N, Senz J, De Luca A, Chun N, etal. Founder and recur-
rent CDH1 mutations in families with hereditary diffuse gastric cancer. JAMA.
2007;297(21):236072.
55. Pharoah PD, Guilford P, Caldas C. International Gastric Cancer Linkage Consortium.
Incidence of gastric cancer and breast cancer in CDH1 (E-cadherin) mutation carriers from
hereditary diffuse gastric cancer families. Gastroenterology. 2001;121(6):134853.
56. Boardman LA, Thibodeau SN, Schaid DJ, etal. Increased risk for cancer in patients with the
Peutz-Jeghers syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128(11):8969.
57. Gage M, Wattendorf D, Henry LR. Translational advances regarding hereditary breast cancer
syndromes. J Surg Oncol. 2012;105(5):44451.
58. Nusbaum R, Vogel KJ, Ready K. Susceptibility to breast cancer: hereditary syndromes and
low penetrance genes. Breast Dis. 2006;27:2150.
59. Stracker TH, Petrini JH. The MRE11 complex: starting from the ends. Nat Rev Mol Cell
Biol. 2011;12(2):90103.
60. Williams RS, Williams JS, Tainer JA. Mre11-Rad50-Nbs1 is a keystone complex connecting
DNA repair machinery, double-strand break signaling, and the chromatin template. Biochem
Cell Biol. 2007;85(4):50920.
61. Heikkinen K, etal. RAD50 and NBS1 are breast cancer susceptibility genes associated with
genomic instability. Carcinogenesis. 2006;27(8):15939.
62. NCCN Guidelines Version 1.2014 Lynch Syndrome. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/
physician_gls/pdf/genetics_colon.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2014.
63. Easton DF, Pooley KA, Dunning AM, etal. Genome-wide association study identifies novel
breast cancer susceptibility loci. Nature. 2007;447(7148):108793.
64. Stacey SN, Manolescu A, Sulem P, etal. Common variants on chromosomes 2q35
and 16q12 confer susceptibility to estrogen receptor positive breast cancer. Nat Genet.
2007;39(7):8659.
65. Cox A, Dunning AM, Garcia-Closas M, etal. A common coding variant in CASP8 is associ-
ated with breast cancer risk. Nat Genet. 2007;39(3):3528.
66. Ahmed S, Thomas G, Ghoussaini M, etal. Newly discovered breast cancer susceptibility loci
on 3p24 and 17q23.2. Nat Genet. 2009;41(5):58590.
67. Milne RL, Bentez J, Nevanlinna H, etal. Risk of estrogen receptor positive and negative
breast cancer and single-nucleotide polymorphism 2q35-rs13387042. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2009;101(14):10128.
68. Thomas G, Jacobs KB, Kraft P, etal. A multistage genome-wide association study in
breast cancer identifies two new risk alleles at 1p11.2 and 14q24.1 (RAD51L1). Nat Genet.
2009;41(5):57984.
69. Stacey SN, Manolescu A, Sulem P, etal. Common variants on chromosome 5p12 confer sus-
ceptibility to estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Nat Genet. 2008;40(6):7036.
70. Zheng W, Long J, Gao YT, etal. Genome-wide association study identifies a new breast can-
cer susceptibility locus at 6q25.1. Nat Genet. 2009;41(3):3248.
71. Byrnes GB, Southey MC, Hopper JL. Are the so-called low penetrance breast cancer genes,
ATM, BRIP1, PALB2 and CHEK2, high risk for women with strong family histories? Breast
Cancer Res. 2008;10(3):208.
72. NCCN Guidelines Version 1.2014 Breast and/or Ovarian Cancer Genetic Assessment.
http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/genetics_screening.pdf. Accessed 20
Mar 2014.
73. Nelson HD, Fu R, Goddard K, Mitchell JP, Okinaka-Hu L, Pappas M, Zakher B. Risk assess-
ment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer: systematic review to
update the U.S. preventive services task force recommendation (Internet). Rockville (MD):
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.
74. Li FP, Fraumeni JF Jr, Mulvihill JJ, etal. A cancer family syndrome in twenty-four kindreds.
Cancer Res. 1988;48(18):535862.
75. Tinat J, Bougeard G, Baert-Desurmont S, etal. 2009 version of the Chompret criteria for Li
Fraumeni syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(26):e1089.
76. Pilarski R, Burt R, Kohlman W, Pho L, Shannon KM, Swisher E. Cowden syndrome and the
PTEN hamartoma tumor syndrome: systematic review and revised diagnostic criteria. J Natl
Cancer Inst. 2013;105(21):160716.
77. Parmigiani G, Chen S, Iversen ES Jr, etal. Validity of models for predicting BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutations. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:44150.
78. Nelson HD, Fu R, Goddard K, Mitchell JP, Okinaka-Hu L, Pappas M, Zakher B. Risk assess-
ment, genetic counseling, and genetic testing for BRCA-related cancer: systematic review to
update the U.S. Preventive services task force recommendation (Internet). Rockville (MD):
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013.
79. MyriadGeneticsLaboratories. http://www.myriad.com/lib/technical-specifications/BRACAnalysis-
Technical-Specifications.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2014.
80. United States Supreme Court. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-
398_1b7d.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2014.
81. State of Utah Federal Court. https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?214md2510-7.
Accessed 20 Mar 2014.
82. Lowry KP, Lee JM, Kong CY, etal. Annual screening strategies in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene
mutation carriers: a comparative effectiveness analysis. Cancer. 2012;118(8):202130.
83. Cott Chubiz JE, Lee JM, Gilmore ME, Kong CY, etal. Cost-effectiveness of alternating mag-
netic resonance imaging and digital mammography screening in BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene
mutation carriers. Cancer. 2013;119(6):126676.
84. Le-Petross HT, Whitman GJ, Atchley DP, etal. Effectiveness of alternating mammography
and magnetic resonance imaging for screening women with deleterious BRCA mutations at
high risk of breast cancer. Cancer. 2011;117(17):39007.
85. Spiegel TN, Esplen MJ, Hill KA, etal. Psychological impact of recall on women with BRCA
mutations undergoing MRI surveillance. Breast. 2011;20(5):42430.
86. Hermsen BB, Olivier RI, Verheijen RH, etal. No efficacy of annual gynaecological
screening in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers: an observational follow-up study. Br J Cancer.
2007;96:133542.
87. Bourne TH, Campell S, Reynolds KM, etal. Screening for early familial ovarian cancer with
transvaginal ultrasonography and colour blood flow imaging. BMJ. 1993;306(3884):10259.
88. Fisher B, Costantino J, Wickerham DL, etal. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer:
current status of the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project P-1 study. J Natl
Cancer Inst. 2005;97(22):165262.
89. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, etal. Update of the national surgical adjuvant
breast and bowel project study of tamoxifen and raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial: preventing
breast cancer. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2010;3(6):696706.
90. Hartmann LC, Sellers TA, Schaid DJ, etal. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in
BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(21):16337.
91. Domchek SM, Friebel TM, Singer CF, etal. Association of risk-reducing surgery in BRCA1
or BRCA2 mutation carriers with cancer risk and mortality. JAMA. 2010;304(9):96775.
92. Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A. Targeting the DNA repair defect of BRCA tumours. Curr
Opin Pharmacol. 2005;5:38893.
Chapter 3
Modelling the Molecular Pathology
of Breast Cancer Initiation
Claire Nash, Andrew M. Hanby and Valerie Speirs
Introduction
With the advancement of technologies such as next-generation sequencing and

gene expression microarrays, scientists are now uncovering a plethora of genetic
mutations and alterations within breast cancers. This advancement has highlighted
the vast heterogeneity of breast cancers genetically, for example one recent study
showed that breast cancer could be classified into at least 10 different molecular
subtypes [1], with one of these subtypes being broken down further to reveal
six subtypes of triple negative breast cancers [2]. Subtypes are often defined by
expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) or oestrogen
receptor (ER), and in many studies these correlate with patient outcome [3].
Recognising this diversity is a prerequisite in understanding breast cancer pro-
gression and invasion since the process may vary as a consequence of this diver-
sity. Notwithstanding these advances, how benign breast tissue progresses to
malignancy is a field that is relatively less explored. This area has recently been
recognised internationally by a panel of expert breast cancer scientists and health-
care professionals to be of great importance to our understanding of breast cancer
progression and the development of preventative treatments [4]. Nearly all adult
female breast samples contain a mix of benign changes under the umbrella term
of fibrocystic change. Most of these entities within this grouping are likely to be
harmless, however, subsets may well be precursors to breast cancer, but how they
are formed and which ones will progress to tumours are fields that are not well
understood.
C. Nash A.M. Hanby(*) V. Speirs

St. James University Hospital/University of Leeds, Leeds Institute
of Cancer and Pathology (LICAP), Beckett Street, LS9 7TF Leeds, West Yorkshire, UK

40 C. Nash et al.
Histological and epidemiological evidence over the past century has resulted
in the proposal of a linear model of breast cancer progression. In this model an
initiating event occurs in the luminal epithelium of normal breast and results in
the formation of benign non-obligate precursor lesions. In one scenario, lesions
such as flat epithelial atypia (FEA) develop and gain a growth advantage with
expansion of this population with an increased chance of a further hit and the
progression to more advanced lesions such as atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH)
and ultimately ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). When these cells gain the ability
to breach the basement membrane, this gives rise to infiltrating [5]. This deduc-
tion supported by the observation that lesions such as FEA, ADH, and DCIS occur
in the same breast [6], have overlapping morphological and immunohistochemical
features [7, 8] and share similar genomic alterations [911] indicating an evolu-
tionary continuum.
Precursor lesions for high grade DCIS have been elusive. It is now thought
that low grade IDC and high grade IDC have distinct pathways of progression,
which has led to the categorisation of low grade neoplasia family and high grade
neoplasia families. The high grade neoplasia family possesses uniquely different
genomic [12] and immunohistochemical [8, 11] profiles to the low grade neoplasia
family. In reality it is intuitive that the heterogeneity in invasive cancers detailed at
the start of the introduction, above, will be underpinned similarly by variety in the
pathways by which they develop.
In each of these evolutionary pathways molecular drivers underpinning the pro-
gression of the different pathways or indeed determining forks between subtypes
are likely to exist. In order to understand how these might work or, indeed confirm
or deny whether something is a driver for this process experimental data is needed.
In order to explore this field, models that allow experimentation in a controlled
laboratory environment, and that accurately recapitulate the heterogeneity of nor-
mal human breast tissues, benign lesions and tumours in vivo are required and
key methodologies in unravelling the molecular pathology of breast cancer in all
its diverse forms. Over the past few decades, several in vitro laboratory models
of normal breast and breast tumours have been developed but whether they are
suitable for studying early breast tumour initiating events in breast is unclear. The
aim of this chapter is to present many of the different in vitro models available for
research into breast cancer initiation and the understanding of the general molecu-
lar pathology of this disease.
Two-Dimensional (2D) Cell Line Models
Types and Techniques
Over the past century, several breast cancer cell lines have been established. These
have proven to be valuable experimental tools with many examples of research
carried out with breast cancer cell lines leading to the production of new therapies
3 Modelling the Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer Initiation 41
for patient benefit. Studies have shown that the molecular subtypes of breast can-
cer outlined by Perou etal. [13] can be also delineated in panels of breast cancer
cell lines. Although not examined so far, the lines available may further prove to
represent the more extended heterogeneity documented by Curtis etal. [1].
Immortalised cell lines are readily available and provide a potentially infinite
source of breast tumour cells. In theory this makes them a reproducible, reliable
and inexpensive tool for experimentation in the laboratory. In addition, cell line
cultures are amenable to genetic manipulation by standard RNA interference and
gene overexpression laboratory techniques making them ideal for studying com-
plex intracellular signalling mechanisms in great detail.
However, there are pitfalls in the interpretation of data derived from experimen-
tation on such cells. The majority of long-established breast cancer cell lines have
been derived from tumour metastases and pleural effusions and thus the line avail-
able are likely to over-represent more aggressive tumours. In addition, many of
these cell lines have been virally immortalised and may therefore not be a true
representative of cells in vivo. A study by Forozan etal. in 2000 used comparative
genomic hybridisation on 38 common breast cancer cell lines to determine how
cell lines differed from their original uncultured tumour counterparts at a genomic
level [14]. This study highlighted that cultured cell lines contained many amplifi-
cation sites not found in the primary tissue. This suggests that cell immortalisation
and in vitro culture change the genetic profile from in vivo tissue.
Perhaps a more suitable alternative to cell lines is the use of primary cell cul-
tures derived directly from patient tumour samples. These have the advantage in
that they have had less time to transform and drift from their original in vivo phe-
notype than long-term immortalised cell lines. However, primary culture poses
challenges such as finite life span in vitro, donor-to-donor variability making
experiments hard to reproduce and the availability of patient tissue.
One other major limitation of 2D in vitro cell culture regardless of the source of
cells is that the intercellular interactions between cells and interactions with cells
and their environment in vivo are lost. It is increasingly recognised that the culture
of cells in 2D on plastic cannot recapitulate in vivo conditions with a loss of polar-
ity and extracellular signalling affecting cell morphology and behaviour [15]. In
addition, cells are highly sensitive to their environment. Even carefully selected
culture media has the capacity to induce inappropriate pathway activation and
change the phenotype of cells in 2D culture [16]. Therefore, there has been a move
to developing more sophisticated model systems that incorporate the surrounding
three-dimensional cell microenvironment discussed later in this chapter.
Suitability of 2D Cultures to Model Breast Cancer Initiation
Since cell line models are easy to visualise, genetically manipulate and analyse at
a molecular level; these may be ideally suited to the study of early genomic alter-
ations associated with FEA and ADH [911] in close detail. The study of early
42 C. Nash et al.
breast cancer initiating events leading to these lesions will rely on the ability to
accurately mimic the morphology, immunoprofile and genetic profile of normal
disease-free breast epithelium.
Despite the large number of breast cancer cell lines available, there is a scar-
city of normal luminal epithelial cell lines. The MCF10A cell line has custom-
arily been chosen as a representative of normal luminal epithelium due to their
ultrastructural similarities to luminal epithelium in vivo and expression of breast
epithelial cytokeratins and sialomucins [17, 18]. However, the propensity of
MCF10A cells to adopt a basal phenotype has been described by several research
groups [17, 19] and is reported to be highly sensitive to changes in culture condi-
tions [20]. This suggests they may not stably reflect the morphology and pheno-
type of normal luminal epithelium in vivo. In addition, MCF10A cells have been
demonstrated to contain several genomic alterations compared with normal diploid
cells such as gains in 5q, 8p, 13q and 19q and losses in 3p, 9p, 16p and 22q [21].
This suggests that these cells are not genetically normal making it challeng-
ing for researchers to investigate which genetic alterations drive development of
FEA or ADH lesions from normal tissues. One other less commonly used alterna-
tive is the HB2 cell line which was originally isolated from breast milk [22] and
also has luminal epithelial characteristics. Work in our laboratory [unpublished]
has demonstrated a more stable morphology and phenotype of HB2 cells, perhaps
providing a viable luminal epithelial alternative to MCF10A cells. However, like
MCF10A cells, a recent study has also highlighted the presence of several changes
in chromosomal number and structure in these cells [23].
These observations suggest that although MCF10A cells and HB2 cells can
largely recapitulate the morphology and phenotype of normal luminal breast
epithelium in vivo, they are not genetically normal and therefore inject a note
of caution in the interpretation of results of experimental work using them. This
could perhaps be overcome through the use of primary cell cultures; however,
work in our laboratory has proven isolation of pure normal luminal epithelium
challenging and largely unsuccessful [unpublished].
As with normal cell lines, cell lines originating from DCIS lesions are scarce.
These are limited to MCF10DCIS.com cells [24] and SUM225 cells [25]. However,
out of these cell lines, only SUM225 cells have been isolated from human breast
DCIS tissue. MCF10DCIS.com cells were originally developed through the xeno-
graft implantation of the premalignant MCF10AT cell line into immunocompro-
mised mice [24]. These represent high grade comedo DCIS. SUM225 cells originally
isolated from chest wall recurrence of DCIS and are HER2 positive [25]. Since inva-
sive breast tumours are a heterogeneous group, this diversity extends to the precursor
DCIS and it is improbable that the two DCIS cell lines available to researchers could
capture this heterogeneity. The high grade nature of these cells lines limits their use
to the study of the high grade neoplasia. To the best of the authors knowledge, there
are no cell lines available that represent low grade DCIS or early breast lesions.
These data highlight the need for the development of new normal, FEA, ADH
and DCIS cell lines for the study of breast cancer initiation and early benign
lesions in the laboratory, perhaps through primary cell culture. These may prove
valuable in elucidating the complex intracellular mechanisms and genomic altera-

tions associated with early breast lesions. However, cell lines grown in 2D in this
way do not take into account the 3D architecture or microenvironmental influences
that occur in vivo. For this reason, cell lines such as these would need to be incor-
porated into 3D in vitro systems to better recapitulate in vivo breast tissue.
Three-Dimensional (3D) Models
Types and Techniques
For several decades, a simple approach to culturing cells in 3D has been taken
whereby single cell types have been cultured in 3D but have proven remarkably
similar to aspects of differentiated tissues [26, 27]. The simplest form of 3D in vitro
model developed takes advantage of the fact that many cell types have the propen-
sity to aggregate together. This can be achieved through various methods includ-
ing rotary cell culture [28] and hanging drop cell culture [29] and typically result
in cell spheroids. These can be mono- or multicellular depending on the research
question. However, typically, these are used for modelling growth and invasion of
solid tumours [30, 31] perhaps proving more suitable for high-throughput screens
[32] and anti-cancer drug screening and testing [33]. Nevertheless, the use of sphe-
roids has also revolutionised research into mammary stem cell biology which are
easily analysable and quantifiable [3436]. This could provide an opportunity to
investigate the cancer initiating potential of mammary stem cells and the cell of
origin theory, an aspect of the breast cancer initiation field still under close debate.
However, spheroid cultures are limited in that they still lack influence from the sur-
rounding extracellular matrix (ECM) and may not accurately reflect tissue in vivo.
Alternatively, cells can be cultured in 3D in the presence of in vivo-like ECM.
Two methods are commonly used to generate 3D acini-like structures. The
embedding technique involves completely embedding epithelial cells in an ECM
matrix. Epithelial cells are pre-aggregated through centrifugation or rotary culture
and then suspended in liquid ECM solution and then gels left to set or, single cells
can be suspended in the ECM solution before setting permitting organisation of the
cells in 3D matrix. Once embedded, gels are layered with culture media and can
either be left fixed to the bottom of the cell culture plastic, or, be freed and allowed
to float in culture media [37] or suspended using Transwell inserts [38]. Another
commonly used method is the overlay technique whereby cells are seeded onto
a bed of ECM gel and may be layered with culture media with diluted ECM [39].
There are several ECM materials available for this purpose but the most com-
monly used are natural ECM materials sourced from mice. The reconstituted
basement membrane preparation MatrigelTM or Type I Collagen are preferred for
3D culture. Culture of breast epithelial cells in 3D MatrigelTM has seen the for-
mation of acini-like structures [40] with evidence of milk protein expression [41].
However, materials such as MatrigelTM should be used with caution. Levels of
44 C. Nash et al.
growth factors within MatrigelTM can vary, and components such as collagen IV
can differ in subunit composition to in vivo components [42] potentially increas-
ing susceptibility to remodelling and proteolysis not commonly found in vivo.
MatrigelTM may also provide tumour cells with additional survival and proliferative
signals facilitating tumorigenesis [43]. Although these caveats can be overcome by
use of growth factor reduced MatrigelTM, there are alternative ECM materials to
MatrigelTM that may be more appropriate for the culture of breast cells in vitro. As
demonstrated by our group and reported by Parmar and Cunha [44], the main con-
stituent of normal breast stroma consists predominantly of collagen I. The remod-
elling and mechanical tension of collagen I have been proven to influence breast
tumour cell invasion [45] and the morphology of breast cells [46, 47]. An increase
in collagen density has also been linked to increased risk of breast cancer [48, 49].
It therefore seems prudent that the influence of collagen I matrix be accounted for
in 3D in vitro models of breast and may provide a more physiologically relevant
environment for culture of breast cells. Production of successful acini- and duct-
like structures akin to those cultured in MatrigelTM has already been achieved [50,
51] through culture of mammary epithelial cells in collagen I perhaps making colla-
gen I a viable and more appropriate choice of ECM matrix for 3D models of breast.
However, although an improvement on 2D culture, 3D culture is not without its
disadvantages. One of the biggest challenges with the use of 3D in vitro cultures
is the subsequent analysis of observations. Biochemical analysis is problematic
due to difficulties in separating cells from the surrounding ECM [52]. Imaging of
these cultures requires specialised and often not readily available equipment due to
the necessity of an excellent signal-to-noise ratio, optical sectioning ability, good
spatial resolution and ample penetration of thick specimens [53]. In addition, col-
lagen ECM causes considerable background fluorescence making visualisation of
collagen-based cultures even more challenging [54]. This can be overcome by use
of multiphoton microscopy [55] or optical coherence/projection tomography [56,
57] but can be both expensive and time-consuming. However, recent technological
advances have been made and have proven that 3D co-culture models can not only
be cultured for long periods of time (up to 23days) but can also be imaged in real
time to observe cell-to-cell interactions [58].
The obvious limitation of all 3D in vitro models is the lack of a complex in
vivo system complete with blood supply, immune infiltrates and regulation by
hormonal cues. This limits these models to the study of cell interactions and sig-
nalling pathways. In order to study tumour progression and metastasis, animal
models are required.
Suitability of 3D Cultures to Model Breast Cancer Initiation
The resemblance of 3D in vitro cultures to mammary acini morphology and biol-

ogy provides new opportunities to study cancer initiation mechanisms which may
not have been possible with 2D cultures. The establishment of 3D culture systems
Fig.3.1H&E section from

a mixed culture of fibroblast,
breast epithelial cells and
myoepithelial cells grown in
a 3D collagen 1 matrix. Note
particularly the organisation
of clear myoepithelial cells
around lumenal cells with the
recapitulation of the histology
of an acinus, towards
the mid/bottom of this
photomicrograph. The group
of epithelial cells superior
to it are not encompassed by
myoepithelial cells and lack
this organisation
that accurately resemble disease-free breast tissue architecture (Fig.3.1) may hold
the key to investigating the subtle changes that occur during the development of
benign lesions discussed such as FEA, ADH and DCIS.
As discussed, the most commonly used representative of normal luminal breast
epithelium is MCF10A cells. Culture of these cells in MatrigelTM has yielded
some impressive acini-like structures which are polarised, contain hollow lumens
and produce basement membrane proteins [40, 59]. This has also been recapitu-
lated in collagen I matrix [60]. Branching 3D duct-like structures have also been
achieved through culture of HB2 cells in collagen I [51]. However, while culture
of these cells in 3D matrix has resulted in structures akin to in vivo breast acini
and ducts which cannot be achieved through culture in 2D, in vivo breast archi-
tecture is much more complex including a variety of other cell types that influence
epithelial architecture. This has led to a rise in 3D co-culture with stromal cells
with co-culture with fibroblasts most commonly reported [38, 47, 60] and exam-
ples of combinations of fibroblasts and adipocytes also demonstrated [61, 62]. It
has emerged that fibroblasts regulate epithelial cell invasion [63] secreting various
growth factors such as MMPs [64], which have been proven through use of 3D co-
cultures. Markedly, some of these effects are only evident upon culture in collagen
I [65]. Myoepithelial cells also play a key role in normal in vivo breast. Given
their tumour suppressive nature [66, 67] and their capacity to maintain luminal
cell polarity [68], it seems apt to include these cells in normal in vitro models of
breast; however, to date studies incorporating these cells are lacking.
It stands to reason that luminal epithelial organisation is maintained by a delicate
balance between the opposing functions of fibroblasts and myoepithelial cells. It seems
apt that both these cell types are included in a 3D in vitro model of normal breast with
luminal epithelial cells to accurately reflect the in vivo environment. One such tri-cul-
ture model has been achieved previously by Holliday etal. [38] but this used aberrant
46 C. Nash et al.
luminal epithelial cells thus representing DCIS. In our laboratory, we have developed
a tri-culture model of normal breast that incorporates HB2 cells, myoepithelial cells
and fibroblasts isolated from breast reduction mammoplasty samples in the physiologi-
cally relevant matrix collagen I. We have demonstrated that each individual cell type
retained an in vivo phenotype and that combined shared morphology and phenotype
with normal breast reduction mammoplasty acini. In addition, we have proved through
overexpression of HER2 that formation of structures that accurately reflect DCIS in
vivo can be achieved. What is more, we have proved that these structures are quantifi-
able by standard inexpensive laboratory techniques [unpublished].
However, despite better recapitulating the in vivo breast environment, models
such as these are still reliant on cell line culture which may already represent aberrant
breast epithelium. As discussed previously, the use of new primary cell cultures that
represent the morphology, immunoprofile and genetic profile of normal and earlier
benign breast lesions would be necessary to accurately model breast cancer initiation
in the laboratory. The culture of primary breast epithelial cells in 3D MatrigelTM has
been achieved previously [69] but has been limited to a single cell population. In order
to accurately recapitulate the in vivo breast environment, multiple primary cell types
would need to be isolated, characterised to ensure they accurately represented their in
vivo counterparts, labelled to enable tracking and then cultured together in 3D ECM.
The finite life span of primary cell cultures in vitro would make this challenging for
researchers with further genetic and proteomic manipulation even more difficult.
Conclusion
In summary, when cultured under the right conditions, current available repre-
sentative cell lines of normal and DCIS breast epithelium could provide valuable
insight into the morphological, phenotypical and architectural changes that occur
in the development from normal breast to benign lesions and cancer initiation. The
use of cell lines grown in 2D offers the opportunity to study the complex intracel-
lular mechanisms that may drive these processes in great detail while culture in
3D can perhaps better mimic the pathology and immunoprofile of these lesions
in a more physiologically relevant setting. However, in order to recapitulate the
genomic alterations that appear to drive the transition from normal breast to DCIS,
better primary cell cultures would need to be developed.
Key Points
To understand the molecular pathology of breast cancer initiation and progres-

sion, appropriate models that allow experimentation in a controlled laboratory
environment and reflect the heterogeneity of breast cancer are necessary.
Many cell lines used in breast cancer been virally immortalised and may there-
fore not be a true representative of cells in vivo.
To the best of the authors knowledge, there are no cell lines available that rep-
resent low grade DCIS or early breast lesions.
A limitation of all 3D in vitro models is the lack of a complex in vivo system
complete with blood supply, immune infiltrates and regulation by hormonal
cues.
In order to more faithfully recapitulate breast-like structures in a 3D matrix
co-cultures with other cell types, notably fibroblasts and myofibroblasts, is
necessary.
References
1. Curtis C, etal. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2000 breast tumours reveals
novel subgroups. Nature. 2012;486(7403):34652.
2. Lehmann BD, etal. Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and pre-
clinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Investig. 2011;121(7):275067.
3. Srlie T, etal. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses
with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 2001;98(19):1086974.
4. Eccles SA, etal. Critical research gaps and translational priorities for the successful preven-
tion and treatment of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15:5.
5. Wellings SR, Jensen HM, Marcum RG. An atlas of subgross pathology of the human
breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst.
1975;55(2):23173.
6. Carley AM, etal. Frequency and clinical significance of simultaneous association of lobu-
lar neoplasia and columnar cell alterations in breast tissue specimens. Am J Clin Pathol.
2008;130(2):2548.
7. Abdel-Fatah TM, etal. High frequency of coexistence of columnar cell lesions, lobular neo-
plasia, and low grade ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive tubular carcinoma and invasive
lobular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(3):41726.
8. Abdel-Fatah TM, etal. Morphologic and molecular evolutionary pathways of low nuclear
grade invasive breast cancers and their putative precursor lesions: further evidence to
support the concept of low nuclear grade breast neoplasia family. Am J Surg Pathol.
2008;32(4):51323.
9. Dabbs DJ, etal. Molecular alterations in columnar cell lesions of the breast. Mod Pathol.
2006;19(3):3449.
10. Moinfar F, etal. Concurrent and independent genetic alterations in the stromal and epi-
thelial cells of mammary carcinoma: implications for tumorigenesis. Cancer Res.
2000;60(9):25626.
11. Simpson PT, etal. Columnar cell lesions of the breast: the missing link in breast cancer pro-
gression? A morphological and molecular analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(6):73446.
12. Aubele MM, etal. Accumulation of chromosomal imbalances from intraductal prolif-
erative lesions to adjacent in situ and invasive ductal breast cancer. Diagn Mol Pathol.
2000;9(1):149.
13. Perou CM, etal. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):74752.
14. Forozan F, etal. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of 38 breast cancer
cell lines: a basis for interpreting complementary DNA microarray data. Cancer Res.
2000;60(16):451925.
15. Weigelt B, Bissell M. Unraveling the microenvironmental influences on the normal mam-
mary gland and breast cancer. Semin Cancer Biol. 2008;18(5):31121.
48 C. Nash et al.
16. Matthay MA, etal. Transient effect of epidermal growth factor on the motility of an immor-
talized mammary epithelial cell line. J Cell Sci. 1993;106(Pt 3):86978.
17. Soule HD, etal. Isolation and characterization of a spontaneously immortalized human
breast epithelial cell line, MCF-10. Cancer Res. 1990;50(18):607586.
18. Tait L, Soule HD, Russo J. Ultrastructural and immunocytochemical characterization of an
immortalized human breast epithelial cell line, MCF-10. Cancer Res. 1990;50(18):608794.
19. DiRenzo J, etal. Growth factor requirements and basal phenotype of an immortalized mam-
mary epithelial cell line. Cancer Res. 2002;62(1):8998.
20. Yusuf R, Frenkel K. Morphologic transformation of human breast epithelial cells MCF-10A:
dependence on an oxidative microenvironment and estrogen/epidermal growth factor recep-
tors. Cancer Cell Int. 2010;10(1):30.
21. Marella NV, etal. Cytogenetic and cDNA microarray expression analysis of MCF10 human
breast cancer progression cell lines. Cancer Res. 2009;69(14):594653.
22. Bartek J, etal. Efficient immortalization of luminal epithelial cells from human mammary
gland by introduction of simian virus 40 large tumor antigen with a recombinant retrovirus.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 1991;88(9):35204.
23. Caradonna F, Luparello C. Cytogenetic characterization of HB2 epithelial cells from the
human breast. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Anim. 2014;50(1):4855.
24. Miller FR, etal. MCF10DCIS.com xenograft model of human comedo ductal carcinoma in
situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(14):11856.
25. Forozan F, etal. Molecular cytogenetic analysis of 11 new breast cancer cell lines. Br J
Cancer. 1999;81(8):132834.
26. Bissell MJ, Radisky D. Putting tumours in context. Nat Rev Cancer. 2001;1(1):4654.
27. Cukierman E, Pankov R, Yamada KM. Cell interactions with three-dimensional matrices.
Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2002;14(5):6339.
28. Zwezdaryk KJ, etal. Rotating cell culture systems for human cell culture: human trophoblast
cells as a model. J Vis Exp. 2012;18:59.
29. Foty R. A simple hanging drop cell culture protocol for generation of 3D spheroids. J Vis
Exp. 2011;51:2720. doi: 10.3791/2720.
30. Naber HP. Spheroid assay to measure TGF-beta-induced invasion. J Vis Exp.
2011;16(57):3337.
31. Nagelkerke A, etal. Hypoxia stimulates migration of breast cancer cells via the PERK/ATF4/
LAMP3-arm of the unfolded protein response. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(1):R2.
32. Ivascu A, Kubbies M. Rapid generation of single-tumor spheroids for high-throughput cell
function and toxicity analysis. J Biomol Screen. 2006;11(8):92232.
33. Zhang X, etal. Development of an in vitro multicellular tumor spheroid model using micro-
encapsulation and its application in anticancer drug screening and testing. Biotechnol Prog.
2005;21(4):128996.
34. Smart CE, etal. In vitro analysis of breast cancer cell line tumourspheres and primary human
breast epithelia mammospheres demonstrates inter- and intrasphere heterogeneity. PLoS
ONE. 2013;8(6):e64388.
35. Farnie G, etal. Novel cell culture technique for primary ductal carcinoma in situ: role of
Notch and epidermal growth factor receptor signaling pathways. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2007;99(8):61627.
36. Shaw FL, etal. A detailed mammosphere assay protocol for the quantification of breast stem
cell activity. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2012;17(2):1117.
37. Leeper AD, etal. Long-term culture of human breast cancer specimens and their analysis
using optical projection tomography. J Vis Exp. 2011;29(53).
38. Holliday DL, etal. Novel multicellular organotypic models of normal and malignant breast:
tools for dissecting the role of the microenvironment in breast cancer progression. Breast
Cancer Res. 2009;11(1):R3.
39. Debnath J, Brugge JS. Modelling glandular epithelial cancers in three-dimensional cultures.
Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5(9):67588.
40. Debnath J, Muthuswamy SK, Brugge JS. Morphogenesis and oncogenesis of MCF-10A
mammary epithelial acini grown in three-dimensional basement membrane cultures.
Methods. 2003;30(3):25668.
41. Streuli CH, Bailey N, Bissell MJ. Control of mammary epithelial differentiation: basement
membrane induces tissue-specific gene expression in the absence of cell-cell interaction and
morphological polarity. The Journal of Cell Biology. 1991;115(5):138395.
42. Wisdom BJ, etal. Type IV collagen of Engelbreth-Holm-Swarm tumor matrix: identification
of constituent chains. Connect Tissue Res. 1992;27(4):22534.
43. Vaillant F, Lindeman G, Visvader J. Jekyll or Hyde: does Matrigel provide a more or less phys-
iological environment in mammary repopulating assays? Breast Cancer Res. 2011;13(3):108.
44. Parmar H, Cunha GR. Epithelial-stromal interactions in the mouse and human mammary
gland in vivo. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2004;11(3):43758.
45. Provenzano P, etal. Collagen reorganization at the tumor-stromal interface facilitates local
invasion. BMC Med. 2006;4(1):38.
46. Provenzano PP, etal. Matrix density-induced mechanoregulation of breast cell phe-
notype, signaling and gene expression through a FAK-ERK linkage. Oncogene.
2009;28(49):432643.
47. Dhimolea E, etal. The role of collagen reorganization on mammary epithelial morphogenesis
in a 3D culture model. Biomaterials. 2010;31(13):362230.
48. Maskarinec G, etal. Mammographic density as a predictor of breast cancer survival: the
Multiethnic Cohort. Breast Cancer Res. 2013;15(1):R7.
49. Alowami S, etal. Mammographic density is related to stroma and stromal proteoglycan
expression. Breast Cancer Res. 2003;5(5):R12935.
50. Krause S, etal. A novel 3D in vitro culture model to study stromal-epithelial interactions in
the mammary gland. Tissue Eng Part C Methods. 2008;14(3):26171.
51. Berdichevsky F, etal. Branching morphogenesis of human mammary epithelial cells in col-
lagen gels. J Cell Sci. 1994;107(12):355768.
52. OBrien LE, etal. Morphological and biochemical analysis of Rac1 in three-dimensional epi-
thelial cell cultures. Methods Enzymol. 2006;406:67691.
53. Dickinson ME. Multimodal imaging of mouse development: tools for the postgenomic era.
Dev Dyn. 2006;235(9):2386400.
54. Kubow KE, Horwitz AR. Reducing background fluorescence reveals adhesions in 3D matri-
ces. Nat Cell Biol. 2011;13(1):35.
55. Zipfel WR, Williams RM, Webb WW. Nonlinear magic: multiphoton microscopy in the bio-
sciences. Nat Biotechnol. 2003;21(11):136977.
56. Huang D, etal. Optical coherence tomography. Science. 1991;254(5035):117881.
57. Sharpe J, etal. Optical projection tomography as a tool for 3D microscopy and gene expres-
sion studies. Science. 2002;296(5567):5415.
58. Sameni M, etal. MAME models for 4D live-cell imaging of tumor: microenvironment inter-
actions that impact malignant progression. J Vis Exp. 2012;17(60):3661.
59. Petersen OW, etal. Interaction with basement membrane serves to rapidly distinguish growth
and differentiation pattern of normal and malignant human breast epithelial cells. Proc Natl
Acad Sci U.S.A. 1992;89(19):90648.
60. Krause S, etal. A novel 3D in vitro culture model to study stromal-epithelial interactions in
the mammary gland. Tissue Eng Part C: Methods. 2008;14(3):26171.
61. Shekhar MPV, Werdell J, Tait L. Interaction with endothelial cells is a prerequisite for
branching ductal-alveolar morphogenesis and hyperplasia of preneoplastic human breast epi-
thelial cells: regulation by estrogen. Cancer Res. 2000;60(2):43949.
62. Wang X, etal. Preadipocytes stimulate ductal morphogenesis and functional differ-
entiation of human mammary epithelial cells on 3D silk scaffolds. Tissue Eng Part A.
2009;15(10):308798.
63. Olsen C, etal. Human mammary fibroblasts stimulate invasion of breast cancer cells in a
three-dimensional culture and increase stroma development in mouse xenografts. BMC
Cancer. 2010;10(1):444.
50 C. Nash et al.
64. Egeblad M, Werb Z. New functions for the matrix metalloproteinases in cancer progression.
Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2(3):16174.
65. Gilles C, etal. Implication of collagen type 1-induced membrane-type 1 matrix metallopro-
teinase expression and matrix metalloproteinase-2 activation in the metastatic progression of
breast carcinoma. Lab Invest. 1997;76(5):65160.
66. Barsky SH. Myoepithelial mRNA expression profiling reveals a common tumor-suppressor
phenotype. Exp Mol Pathol. 2003;74(2):11322.
67. Jones JL, etal. Primary breast myopithelial cells exert an invasion-suppressor effect on breast
cancer cells via paracrine down-regulation of MMP expresssion in fibroblasts and tumour
cells. J Pathol. 2003;201(4):56272.
68. Gudjonsson T, etal. Normal and tumor-derived myoepithelial cells differ in their ability to
interact with luminal breast epithelial cells for polarity and basement membrane deposition. J
Cell Sci. 2002;115(1):3950.
69. Jeanes AI, Maya-Mendoza A, Streuli CH. Cellular microenvironment influences the ability of
mammary epithelia to undergo cell cycle. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(3):e18144.
Chapter 4
Molecular Pathology of Precancerous
Lesions of the Breast
Abhik Mukherjee, Ian O. Ellis and Emad A. Rakha
Introduction
Evidence has now emerged that low-and high-grade breast cancers (BCs) evolve
through distinct evolutionary pathways and not through various steps of dediffer-
entiation [14] and differences between these tumours are maintained throughout
the process of tumour initiation, development and progression. This is reflected in
the molecular biology of precancerous lesions of the breast, which includes the
low-grade lesions, as part of the low grade neoplasia family, as well as the high-
grade lesions. At the lower end of the spectrum, the coexistence of low-grade pre-
cursor lesions with invasive low-grade BCs that defy justification by chance alone
[5, 6] as well as their overlapping morphological, and immunohistochemical and
genetic features [59] provide evidence that these lesions represent a continuum
in terms of BC development and progression. Their low proliferative activity and
characteristic features are fundamentally different from those observed in precur-
sors of a histological higher grade BC [6]. When high-grade precursors progress to
invasive cancer, the latter is usually of high-grade, sharing the same genetic aber-
rations. This chapter explores the fundamental differences in molecular profiles of
the two spectrums of precancerous lesions of the breast, low and high grade.
A. Mukherjee I.O. Ellis E.A. Rakha(*)

Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, Department of Histopathology,
School of Medicine, University of Nottingham and Nottingham
University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, UK

52 A. Mukherjee et al.
Low-Grade Precursor Lesions
Salient Histopathological Features
These clonal intraductal lesions originate from the terminal duct-lobular unit
(TDLU) and show low-cytonuclear atypia with or without intraluminal prolifera-
tion (summarised from [10, 11]). Columnar cell lesion (CCL), flat epithelial atypia
(FEA), atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH),
lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) and low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)
are included in this category. Columnar Cell Lesions (CCLs) are characterised by
distended acini lined by columnar epithelial cells with apical snouts. There may be
associated epithelial hyperplasia (cellular stratification >2 cell layers but no com-
plex architectural patterns). When CCL shows cytonuclear atypia, it is designated
as flat epithelial atypia (FEA). FEA typically lacks well-developed architectural
atypia (micropapillae, tufts, fronds, rigid bridges and punched out spaces: features
of ADH /low-grade DCIS). In FEA, the nuclei are uniform, rounded and evenly
spaced. CCLs are more frequent with tubular carcinoma (TC) and invasive cribri-
form carcinoma (ICC) (92 and 60%, respectively) [5, 6, 12, 13]. Low-grade DCIS
shows intraductal proliferation of evenly spaced, usually small monomorphic cells
with hyperchromatic nuclei but inconspicuous nucleoli. Cells are arranged in cri-
briform and micropapillary patterns, with the cribriform pattern being predomi-
nant. The solid pattern is rare within this category of DCIS. Mitosis and necrosis
are also infrequent. ADH is cytologically and architecturally similar to low-grade
DCIS but its extent is limited (a 23mm focal lesion confined to one or two duct
spaces). ADH is a recognised risk indicator and a non-obligate precursor of low-
grade DCIS and invasive BCs, though the risk of invasive carcinoma developing is
smaller compared to DCIS [14].
Lobular neoplasia (LN), on the other hand, refers to non-invasive proliferative
low-grade lesions consisting of a monomorphic population of generally small and
discohesive cells that fill and expand the TDLU. LN encompasses both ALH and
LCIS, which are morphologically similar but ALH represents an early/less well-
developed lesion with partial involvement of acini. The morphological distinction
of ALH and LCIS is however, somewhat arbitrary, depending on extent. There
are rare variants of LCIS that show more aggressive features. These include pleo-
morphic and mass-forming necrotizing LCIS. LN can behave both as a high-risk
lesion and a non-obligate precursor to BC [10, 11].
Molecular Features
Loss of heterozygosity (LOH) and comparative genomic hybridization (CGH)

studies have established that low-grade and high-grade BCs are dissimilar at the
DNA level. Low-grade precursors display a lower level of genomic instability with
4 Molecular Pathology of Precancerous Lesions of the Breast 53
fewer chromosomal aberrations and exhibit recurrent losses of 16q and gains of 1q
and 16p [2, 3], which often arise from an unbalanced chromosomal translocation
involving chromosomes 1 and 16. Frequent loss of 16q has been demonstrated in
all varieties of the low-grade neoplasia family viz. CCL [9], FEA [7], ADH [15]
and low-grade DCIS [16]. The loss of 16q, which is a frequent (>70%) event,
involves the whole chromosomal arm in contrast to high-grade precursors where
it is infrequent (<20%) and occurs through a different process (LOH with mitotic
recombination) [13, 17]. Although the loss of 16q is observed in both low-grade
ductal and lobular precursors, the target genes differ in these two lesions. The
gene involved in loss of 16q in LN is CDH1 (E-cadherin), which maps to 16q22.1.
E-cadherin is now well characterised as a tumour suppressor gene in LN as evi-
dent by CDH1 mutation and loss of E-cadherin protein. Such mutations are rare in
DCIS. Within the lobular neoplasia family, although the morphological boundary
of ALH and LCIS is nebulous, evidence suggests that LCIS harbours greater copy
number alterations [18] and possesses a higher risk of invasive BC development
than ALH.
To characterise the LOH in DCIS, microsatellite-length polymorphisms
at seven loci (AluVpa, ESR, D11S988, D13S267, D16S398, D17S1159 and
D17S855) have been investigated from microdissected paraffin sections of DCIS
cases [19]. Allelic loss or imbalance, reflecting LOH has been found to be com-
moner in invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) rather than in DCIS. LOH in DCIS was
most frequent at the D16S398 (26%) locus. LOH at this locus was commoner in
low- and intermediate-grade DCIS than in high-grade DCIS. Overall, microsatel-
lite instability (MSI) at only one locus was more frequent in DCIS (28%) than in
IDC (6%) (p<0.001). The occurrence of MSI at multiple loci was similar in fre-
quency in both DCIS (6%) and in IDC (3%). Together, these observations indi-
cate that chromosomal losses of 16q may occur in low- and intermediate-grade
DCIS and MSI involving multiple loci is uncommon in both IDC and DCIS.
Phenotypic Characteristics
More recent studies using cDNA expression array technology have confirmed that
the core intrinsic molecular subgroups, including luminal, HER2 and basal, found
in invasive breast cancer [20, 21] are replicated in DCIS, although at different fre-
quencies [22] showing that the molecular heterogeneity of invasive carcinomas
exists among in-situ lesions as well. Low-grade precursors are morphologically
and immuno-phenotypically uniform (i.e. strongly positive for oestrogen recep-
tor (ER) and luminal cytokeratins (CK) within lesional cells, but negative for
basal CKs). Immunohistochemical studies usually demonstrate strong diffuse
ER-positivity, PR-positivity and HER2-negativity within these lesions along-with
low Ki67 labelling, and lack of expression of p53, p-cadherin and basal CKs (i.e.
CK5/6 and CK14). Luminal CKs (CK19 and CK8/18), androgen receptor, Bcl-2
and cyclin D1 are often positive. In a recent study, [23] 112 cases of a series of
314 DCIS cases were classified as low grade. On phenotyping with routine ER, PR
and HER2 staining, 71, 24, 9 and 8 cases distributed, respectively, to Luminal A,
Luminal B, HER2 and triple negative subtypes. The overall % of low-grade DCIS
within each of these phenotypic types was as follows: 52, 26, 18 and 20%. This
shows that the Luminal A subtype predominates in low-grade DCIS.
High Grade Precursor Lesions
Salient Histopathological Features
High-grade DCIS features (summarised from [10]) highly atypical cells within
the duct space arranged in solid, cribrifrom or micropapillary patterns. The nuclei
exhibit pleomorphism, are poorly polarised, often with irregular contour. Nucleoli
are prominent and the chromatin is coarse and clumped. Mitotic figures, though
common, are not a necessity for diagnosis. A frequently observed feature is
comedo necrosis, where abundant necrotic debris in the lumina is surrounded by
pleomorphic tumour cells. Necrotic intraluminal debris is often associated with
amorphous microcalcifications. However, like mitoses, comedo necrosis is not
obligatory for diagnosis. If typical morphological features are present even in a sin-
gle space, this is deemed sufficient for diagnosis. High-grade DCIS may be diag-
nosed even if a single flat layer of highly atypical cells line a duct space, the flat/
clinging DCIS [7]. Cancerisation of lobule (involvement of the lobule by ductal
epithelial cells) is more frequent with high-grade DCIS than with low-grade DCIS.
Molecular Features
High-grade DCIS is distinct from low-grade DCIS not only on morphology but
also by phenotype and molecular genetics. They are usually aneuploid and rarely
harbour the low-grade signature pattern (16q loss/1q gain) [2427]. Whereas
well-differentiated DCIS exhibits loss of 16q and 17p, high-grade tumours har-
bour significant losses of other allelic chromosomal arms including 1p, 1q, 6q, 9p,
11p, 11q, 13q and 17q as shown by array CGH studies [28]. In addition, high-
grade DCIS displays gains at 17q, 11q and 13q [29]. Intermediate-grade DCIS
shows features of both high- and low-grade DCIS, showing 16q loss but higher
incidenceof gains of1qand losses of 11q in comparison to low-grade DCIS,
but lacking the frequent amplificationsat 17q12 and 11q13that may occur in
high-grade DCIS [16]. The average number of genetic imbalances in intermedi-
ate-grade DCIS though are higher than in low-grade DCIS. Flat type high-grade
DCIS (clinging type DCIS) exhibits LOH at 11q, 16q and 17q in approximately
50, 60 and 40%, respectively [7]. Other studies for LOH reveal that certain loci
viz. D11S988 and D17S1159 are more frequently involved in high-grade DCIS.
Especially, LOH at D11S988 was commoner in those cases with no evidence of

comedo necrosis [19].
Certain specific genes have been identified to be amplified or inactivated
in DCIS. cDNA micro-array technology has shown that the angio-associated
migratory cell protein, a multifunctional protein with a putative role in motility
and angiogenesis, is up-regulated in DCIS of high grade and in the presence of
necrosis [30]. Another research group [31] identified upregulation of lactofer-
rin in DCIS, and downregulation of the oxytocin receptor and hevin (a cell adhe-
sion related glycoprotein), though no correlation was identified with DCIS grade.
HER2 is well recognised as being amplified in DCIS, with increased overexpres-
sion correlating with increasing nuclear grade [32] and will be further discussed in
the next section on phenotype. Amplification of cyclin D1, a cell cycle regulator,
has also been observed in DCIS [33] with overexpression being common in inter-
mediate- and high-grade disease. Inactivating mutations of p53 are also observed
in high-grade DCIS [32]. Another tumour suppressor gene apparently inactivated
in DCIS is the IGF-II-receptor gene (on 6q) [33].
Phenotypic Features
The immunohistochemical profile of high-grade DCIS has been studied in various

series. In a recent study of 314 cases DCIS [23], 202 cases were histologically of
high grade. Phenotyping on the basis of ER, PR and HER2 staining, 63, 64, 44, 32
cases distributed respectively to Luminal A, Luminal B, HER2 and triple negative
subtypes. The overall percentage of high-grade DCIS within each of these phe-
notypic classes was as follows: 48, 74, 88 and 80%. In contrast to the low-grade
DCIS of the series (discussed earlier), HER2 positives and triple negatives were
more prevalent within high grades. Some studies [34] have investigated the phe-
notype of special histological variants of DCIS like cystic hyper-secretory DCIS.
A special variant of DCIS with colloid-like luminal secretions, this subtype was
found to be either intermediate or high grade and usually ER positive but HER2
negative and occasionally androgen receptor positive. Other studies have probed
the distribution of intrinsic types of breast cancer in the context of whether DCIS
shows associated invasion or not [23, 3537]. In a study of 99 cases of pure DCIS
and 96 cases of co-existing DCIS/IDC [36], there was a high rate of co-expression
of CKs, ER-, PR, HER2 and EGFR between DCIS and its co-existing IDC. The
rate of discordance among biomarker expression was low and was present more
commonly with high-grade DCIS/IDC. HER2, EGFR, CK5/6 and CK14 expres-
sion was associated with high-grade DCIS while ER and PR expression was
observed low-grade cases. There was no difference in luminal CKs 8/18 expres-
sion between high-and low-grade categories. A recent immunohistochemistry
based study [23] with 5 markers (ER, PR, HER2, CK5 and EGFR), revealed that
for high-grade DCIS without accompanying invasive cancer, the distribution of
phenotypic surrogates was as follows: luminal A (57.1%), luminal B (11.9%),
HER2 (16.7%), basal-like phenotype (0%) and un-classified (14.3%). For cases
associated with invasive carcinoma, luminal cancers were also predominant viz.
luminal A (58.2%) and luminal B (12.7%). HER2 positives were at a frequency
of (7.6%), but there were more basal-like (7.6%) DCIS and in these cases the
invasive component mirrored this phenotype. These results are in contrast to
another study [37] which demonstrated differences in the occurrences of luminal
A, luminal B, and HER2 phenotypes, but no difference in the basal-like pheno-
type with associated invasive malignancies. In another study [38] of 146 samples
of DCIS and adjacent invasive malignancy, CK5/6 showed different distribution in
DCIS and IDC, presenting a significant association with the triple negative pheno-
type in IDC, but a negative association within DCIS. A triple-positive profile (ER/
PR/HER2 positive) and CK5/6 expression were negatively associated with inva-
sion. In the low-grade DCIS subgroup, only CK5/6 expression exhibited a nega-
tive association with the probability of invasion. Given the variability especially
in relation to the basal-like markers, further studies are warranted to establish the
relationships between pure DCIS and co-existing DCIS/IDC.
Another area of substantial research interest has been HER2 expression and its
significance in DCIS. In a series [39] of 103 pure DCIS and 38 cases of DCIS
with <5mm invasive carcinoma, pure high-grade, ER-negative DCIS with comedo
necrosis showed a high frequency of HER2 overexpression. For DCIS with
accompanying invasion, HER2 expression in the invasive component was higher
than in DCIS. In a Chinese single institution study [40], 183 pure DCIS, and 43
patients of DCIS with invasion were studied where the HER2-positive subtype
accounted for 27.9% of the cases. Though on univariate analyses higher histo-
logical grade (Grades 2 and 3), and HER2 positive status were associated with
invasion, on multivariate analysis only the HER2-positive status retained sig-
nificance. In invasive cases, on further stratification of the accompanying DCIS
as extensive or small (in relation to the total tumour area using a 25% cut-off),
HER2-positivity was associated with the cohort showing extensive DCIS. HER2
overexpression is also a typical feature of DCIS associated with Pagets disease of
the nipple.
In addition to the core findings above, the molecular biology of high-grade
DCIS has been explored within BRCA mutation carriers [41]. DCIS in BRCA1
mutation carriers were high grade with high proliferation index and basal type
by phenotype with low ER/PR/HER2 expression, but frequent CK5/6, CK14 and
EGFR expression. On the other hand, within BRCA2 mutation carriers, DCIS
exhibited the luminal phenotype in spite of being high grade. In BRCA1 and
BRCA2 mutation carriers there was a high concordance between DCIS lesions
and their concomitant invasive counterpart with regard to expression of individ-
ual markers as well as molecular subtype. The same research group has demon-
strated that within both categories of BRCA mutation carriers, the hypoxia-related
proteins HIF-1alpha, CAIX and Glut-1 are expressed in both DCIS and accom-
panying invasive cancer [42], and indicate the possible role of hypoxia in breast
carcinogenesis and progression in these patients.
While phenotyping into intrinsic subtypes of BC, there is yet an unmet need
to identify through molecular techniques, lesions that transit to IDC from DCIS.
Gene expression analyses followed by hierarchical clustering comparing pure
DCIS, pure invasive cancers and cases of mixed diagnosis establishes that cases
group by intrinsic subtype, not by diagnosis [43]. Even DCIS of high histologi-
cal grade are heterogeneous in their transcriptomes, clustering into either a ER
negative/HER2 positive group or a predominantly ER+group, termed DCIS I
(invasive like) and II, respectively, by the authors. Within the DCIS I subtype, dif-
ferentially expressed genes, independent of grade, ER and HER2 status, include
among others, genes related to immune function, epithelial mesenchymal transi-
tion and IL12 pathways. These were validated on another previous dataset which
had also generated a gene signature to distinguish between DCIS and IDC as
well as poor and well-differentiated DCIS [44]. In spite of the small numbers,
the results aim to address the gap in knowledge in this field. Genes differen-
tially expressed between non-invasive type II DCIS and IDC also included genes
involved in epithelial mesenchymal transition including several matrix metallopro-
teinases [43]. Such studies indicate that being high grade alone does not always
create the potential for invasion for DCIS and other molecular characteristics of
the lesion and its interface may be vital.
Overall from various series, it may be summarised that high-grade DCIS with large
nuclear size and comedo necrosis strongly associate with DNA aneuploidy, high pro-
liferative activity, low expression of steroid receptors, and overexpression of HER2
and p53. This contrasts with both low-grade DCIS and LCIS, which are predomi-
nantly diploid with low proliferation indices, and rare expression of HER2 or p53.
Other Molecular Characteristics
The role of DNA methylation in DCIS has been explored [45] for a panel of
well-characterised genes using methylation-sensitive high resolution melting
(MS-HRM) in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) sections. The RASSF1A
gene was most frequently methylated (90% of samples) and this feature was sig-
nificantly associated with comedo necrosis. The methylation profile revealed
a highly methylated cluster that was significantly associated with high nuclear
grade, amplified HER2 but negative ER/PR status. High nuclear grade was specifi-
cally associated with the methylation of APC and CDH13 genes while methylation
of CDH13 and RAR genes were associated with HER2-amplification.
Given the amplification of cyclin D1 in high-grade DCIS, other proteins inter-
acting with cyclin D1 have been investigated by immunohistochemistry [46]. One
such protein, matricellulin (CCN1), shows greater cytoplasmic expression in high
and intermediate-grade DCIS than in low-grade DCIS (H-scores of 170, 160 vs.
60). Membranous -catenin expression also correlated with the grade of intraepi-
thelial carcinoma [46]. These proteins probably play a role in cell cycle progres-
sion through cyclin D1.
Clinical Implications of the Molecular Characteristics

ofDCIS
The molecular features described above elucidate the heterogeneity of DCIS. As

prognosis varies within the low and high grades [47], it is imperative to under-
stand the clinical implications of the molecular features of DCIS. Studies have
indicated that luminal B and HER2 subtypes of DCIS had a propensity for local
recurrence compared to the luminal A and triple negative phenotypes [48]. Of
these, HER2 positive status was significantly correlated with local recurrence on
multivariate analysis, especially invasive recurrence. This contrasts with another
series [49] where DCIS cases with HER2 positivity treated by breast-conserving
surgery alone had a higher risk of DCIS recurrence but not invasive recurrence.
Instead, a two-fold increased risk of invasive recurrence was observed in DCIS
that expressed p16+/Cox-2+/Ki-67+. However, the variation between the two
series can be attributed to the fact that the interpretation of immunohistochemistry
forborderline HER2 positivity (score 2+) was different in the two series. The [49]
series reported this as positive in all cases and hence the results are to be inter-
preted with caution. This also stresses the need for conformity to further decon-
struct the molecular portraits of recurrence. More data will emerge from mature
results of the NSABP B-43, a prospective randomised phase III trial [50] com-
paring the effects of whole breast irradiation with or without trastuzumab in
HER2-positive pure DCIS cases treated by lumpectomy. The analysis of HER2
in this large series is centralised and stringent with preliminary results indicating
a 34.9% HER2 positivity of DCIS in the series, much lower than a previously
reported rate of 50%. On completion, the trial will help formulate better treatment
for HER2-positive DCIS and also consolidate the prognostic strength of HER2
in pre-invasive breast malignancy. Other prognostication attempts [51] on a large
population-based cohort using the St Gallen criteria has failed to demonstrate a
prognostic value for the intrinsic subtypes of DCIS for up to 10 years post-diagno-
sis. After 10 years, triple negative DCIS posed a higher risk of recurrence in this
study. Given all these conflicting results, there is no doubt that further prognos-
tic fine-tuning is much desired. Such an attempt has been made through the Van
Nuys Prognostic Index (VNPI) after integration of either genomic grade (GGI) or
proliferation index (Ki-67) [52]. DCIS samples were divided into three VNPI risk
groups, low, intermediate and high risk based on nuclear gradenecrosis along-
with tumour size, excision margin width and age. For VNPI-GGI, nuclear grade
was replaced by a genomic grade index (GGI) and for VNPI-Ki67, combined with
Ki67 expression. The majority of the recurrent cases were classified in VNPI inter-
mediate and high-risk groups. While VNPI-Ki-67 did not improve the prognostic
value of VNPI, VNPI-GGI more accurately identified high-risk DCIS patients with
early relapses within 5years. Such prognostication tools need further validation in
DCIS clinical trials.
Conclusion
Low-and high-grade breast neoplasia pathways are being understood better cur-
rently, given the plethora of emerging molecular data. While the basic molecular
tenets of low- and high-grade neoplasia precursors in BC have been characterised,
more will unfold in the near future. The gaps in knowledge mainly relate to prog-
nostication and the development of tailored therapeutic options. Also, the biology
of progression from pre-invasive to invasive cancer needs to be investigated fur-
ther to delineate targets. The progress of understanding in invasive BC has been
aided both by genetic analysis as well as simple biomarker analysis. The same will
probably hold true for preinvasive lesions. While biomarker research in invasive
cancers have been speeded and economised by tissue micro-array technology, this
may prove technically challenging in DCIS. The way forward in a technically pro-
gressive era may be through digital platforms such as virtual TMAs [53] in both
research and clinical settings.
Key Points
Precancerous/pre-invasive breast lesions are either low- or high-grade and repre-

sent distinct clonal evolutionary pathways.
The low-grade lesions include FEA, ADH and low-grade DCIS within the
ductal subtype and ALH to LCIS within the lobular subtype.
The low-grade lesions have fewer chromosomal aberrations and exhibit recur-
rent losses of 16q and gains of 1q and 16p. They are predominantly diploid,
luminal by phenotype and rarely express HER2 and p53.
The prototype high-grade lesion is high-grade DCIS.
High-grade DCIS is characterised by DNA aneuploidy and harbours losses of
multiple chromosome alleles and gains in 17q, 11q and 13q. HER2-positive and
triple-negative subtypes predominately cluster within this category.
HER2 positivity and triple negativity have been variably related to invasion and
recurrence in DCIS.
Further molecular characterisation is necessary to identify subsets that are likely to
progress to invasive neoplasia and therefore would benefit from additional treatment.
References
1. Roylance R, etal. Allelic imbalance analysis of chromosome 16q shows that grade I
and grade III invasive ductal breast cancers follow different genetic pathways. J Pathol.
2002;196(1):326.
2. Roylance R, etal. Comparative genomic hybridization of breast tumors stratified by histo-
logical grade reveals new insights into the biological progression of breast cancer. Cancer
Res. 1999;59(7):14336.
3. Cleton-Jansen AM, etal. Different mechanisms of chromosome 16 loss of heterozygo-

sity in well- versus poorly differentiated ductal breast cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer.
2004;41(2):10916.
4. Natrajan R, etal. Loss of 16q in high grade breast cancer is associated with estrogen receptor
status: Evidence for progression in tumors with a luminal phenotype? Genes Chromosomes
Cancer. 2009;48(4):35165.
5. Abdel-Fatah TM, etal. High frequency of coexistence of columnar cell lesions, lobular neo-
plasia, and low grade ductal carcinoma in situ with invasive tubular carcinoma and invasive
lobular carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31(3):41726.
6. Abdel-Fatah TM, etal. Morphologic and molecular evolutionary pathways of low nuclear
grade invasive breast cancers and their putative precursor lesions: further evidence to
support the concept of low nuclear grade breast neoplasia family. Am J Surg Pathol.
2008;32(4):51323.
7. Moinfar F, etal. Genetic abnormalities in mammary ductal intraepithelial neoplasia-flat type
(clinging ductal carcinoma in situ): a simulator of normal mammary epithelium. Cancer.
2000;88(9):207281.
8. Oyama T, etal. Atypical cystic lobule of the breast: an early stage of low-grade ductal carci-
noma in-situ. Breast Cancer. 2000;7(4):32631.
10. Pathology Reporting of Breast Disease. A Joint document incorporating the third edition of
the NHS breast screening programmes guidelines for pathology reporting in breast cancer
screening and the second edition of The Royal College of Pathologists minimum dataset for
breast cancer histopathology. NHSBSP Publication No 58, January 2005. p. 5059. Available
from: http://www.rcpath.org/Resources/RCPath/Migrated%20Resources/Documents/P/Pathol
ogyReportingOfBreastDisease-CORRECTED-lowres.pdf.
11. Rakha EA. The low nuclear grade breast neoplasia family. Diagnostic Histopathology.
2012;18(3):12432.
12. Rajan S, etal. What is the significance of flat epithelial atypia and what are the management
implications? J Clin Pathol. 2011;64(11):10014.
13. Rakha EA, etal. Tubular carcinoma of the breast: further evidence to support its excellent
prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(1):99104.
14. Rakha EA, etal. Characterization and outcome of breast needle core biopsy diagnoses of
lesions of uncertain malignant potential (B3) in abnormalities detected by mammographic
screening. Int J Cancer. 2011;129(6):141724.
15. OConnell P, etal. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in 399 premalignant breast lesions at 15
genetic loci. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(9):697703.
16. Buerger H, etal. Comparative genomic hybridization of ductal carcinoma in situ of the
breast-evidence of multiple genetic pathways. J Pathol. 1999;187(4):396402.
17. Buerger H, etal. Ductal invasive G2 and G3 carcinomas of the breast are the end stages of at
least two different lines of genetic evolution. J Pathol. 2001;194(2):16570.
18. Mastracci TL, etal. Genomic alterations in lobular neoplasia: a microarray compara-
tive genomic hybridization signature for early neoplastic proliferationin the breast. Genes
Chromosomes Cancer. 2006;45(11):100717.
19. Ando Y, etal. Loss of heterozygosity and microsatellite instability in ductal carcinoma in situ
of the breast. Cancer Lett. 2000;156(2):20714.
20. Perou CM, etal. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):74752.
21. Sorlie T, etal. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses
with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U.S.A. 2001;98(19):1086974.
22. Vincent-Salomon A, etal. Integrated genomic and transcriptomic analysis of ductal carci-
noma in situ of the breast. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(7):195665.
23. Williams KE, etal. Molecular Phenotypes of DCIS predict overall and invasive recurrence.
Ann Oncol. 2015;26:10191025.
24. Aubele M, etal. Extensive ductal carcinoma In situ with small foci of invasive ductal carcinoma:
evidence of genetic resemblance by CGH. Int J Cancer. 2000;85(1):826.
25. Aubele MM, etal. Accumulation of chromosomal imbalances from intraductal prolif-
erative lesions to adjacent in situ and invasive ductal breast cancer. Diagn Mol Pathol.
2000;9(1):149.
26. Bombonati A, Sgroi DC. The molecular pathology of breast cancer progression. J Pathol.
2011;223(2):30717.
27. Ma XJ, etal. Gene expression profiles of human breast cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A. 2003;100(10):59749.
28. Fujii H, etal. Genetic progression, histological grade, and allelic loss in ductal carcinoma in
situ of the breast. Cancer Res. 1996;56(22):52605.
29. Chuaqui RF, etal. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 11q13 in atypical
ductal hyperplasia and in situ carcinoma of the breast. Am J Pathol. 1997;150(1):297303.
30. Adeyinka A, etal. Analysis of gene expression in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Clin
Cancer Res. 2002;8(12):378895.
31. Luzzi V, Holtschlag V, Watson MA. Expression profiling of ductal carcinoma in situ
by laser capture microdissection and high-density oligonucleotide arrays. Am J Pathol.
2001;158(6):200510.
32. Tsuda H, Fukutomi T, Hirohashi S. Pattern of gene alterations in intraductal breast neo-
plasms associated with histological type and grade. Clin Cancer Res. 1995;1(3):2617.
33. van de Vijver MJ. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: histological classification and
genetic alterations. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1998;152:12334.
34. DAlfonso TM, etal. Cystic hypersecretory (in situ) carcinoma of the breast: a clinicopatho-
logic and immunohistochemical characterization of 10 cases with clinical follow-up. Am J
Surg Pathol. 2014;38(1):4553.
35. Perez AA, etal. Immunohistochemical profile of high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the
breast. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2013;68(5):6748.
36. Steinman S, etal. Expression of cytokeratin markers, ER-alpha, PR, HER-2/neu, and EGFR
in pure ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and DCIS with co-existing invasive ductal carcinoma
(IDC) of the breast. Ann Clin Lab Sci. 2007;37(2):12734.
37. Tamimi RM, etal. Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and
invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(4):R67.
38. Aguiar FN, etal. Basal cytokeratin as a potential marker of low risk of invasion in ductal car-
cinoma in situ. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2013;68(5):63843.
39. Horimoto Y, etal. Significance of HER2 protein examination in ductal carcinoma in situ. J
Surg Res. 2011;167(2):e20510.
40. Liao N, etal. HER2-positive status is an independent predictor for coexisting invasion of
ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast presenting extensive DCIS component. Pathol Res
Pract. 2011;207(1):17.
41. van der Groep P, etal. Molecular profile of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in BRCA1
and BRCA2 germline mutation carriers. J Clin Pathol. 2009;62(10):92630.
42. van der Groep P, etal. HIF-1alpha overexpression in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in
BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(2):e56055.
43. Muggerud AA, etal. Molecular diversity in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and early inva-
sive breast cancer. Mol Oncol. 2010;4(4):35768.
44. Hannemann J, etal. Classification of ductal carcinoma in situ by gene expression profiling.
Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8(5):R61.
45. Pang JM, etal. Methylation profiling of ductal carcinoma in situ and its relationship to histo-
pathological features. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(5):423.
46. Saglam O, etal. Matricellular protein CCN1 (CYR61) expression is associated with high-
grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol. 2014;45(6):126975.
47. Sue GR, Chagpar AB. Predictors of recurrence in patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma
in situ. Am Surg. 2015;81(1):4851.
48. Han K, etal. Expression of HER2neu in ductal carcinoma in situ is associated with local
recurrence. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012;24(3):1839.
49. Kerlikowske K, etal. Biomarker expression and risk of subsequent tumors after initial ductal
carcinoma in situ diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(9):62737.
50. Siziopikou KP, etal. Preliminary results of centralized HER2 testing in ductal carcinoma in
situ (DCIS): NSABP B-43. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142(2):41521.
51. Zhou W, etal. Molecular subtypes in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and their relation
to prognosis: a population-based cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:512.
52. Altintas S, etal. Fine tuning of the Van Nuys prognostic index (VNPI) 2003 by integrat-
ing the genomic grade index (GGI): new tools for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Breast J.
2011;17(4):34351.
53. Quintayo MA, etal. Virtual tissue microarrays: a novel and viable approach to optimizing tis-
sue microarrays for biomarker research applied to ductal carcinoma in situ. Histopathology.
2014;65(1):28.
Chapter 5
Breast Cancer Stem Cells: Role
in Tumor Initiation, Progression,
and Targeted Therapy
Sanjoy Samanta, Ashraf Khan and Arthur M. Mercurio
Introduction
Despite significant advances in the diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of breast

cancer, tumor recurrence, and resistance to therapy are lingering problems that
continue to drive morbidity and mortality. Resolving these problems demands
a better understanding of breast cancer biology that is often complicated by the
fact that breast tumors are not homogenous structures. Tumor cells within a given
tumor differ in morphology, karyotype, proliferative capacity, expression of
cytogenetic markers, metastatic ability, and sensitivity to therapeutic agents, fea-
tures that are referred to collectively as tumor heterogeneity [13]. Tumor heter-
ogeneity is not a unique feature of breast cancer; almost all other cancers (both
solid tumors and leukemias) are heterogeneous. The most convincing evidence
supporting tumor heterogeneity is that all cells within a tumor are not capable of
initiating a new tumor when transplanted into immunocompromised mice as well
as into syngeneic recipients [4, 5].
To understand the cause of tumor heterogeneity, it is important to understand
the genesis of cancer. Two major hypotheses have been put forward to explain
the process of tumorigenesis: the clonal evolution model and the cancer stem cell
A. Khan(*)
S. Samanta A.M. Mercurio
Department of Molecular, Cell and Cancer Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical
School, Worcester, MA, USA

64 S. Samanta et al.
(CSC) model. The clonal evolution model states that tumor cells with a growth
advantage (acquired by random mutations over time) are selected and expand,
with cells in the dominant population having similar proliferative capacity [6].
On the other hand, the CSC model states that tumors harbor a small population of
cells that have stem-like properties, proliferate extensively, self-renew and drive
the process of tumorigenesis [710]. These two models are not mutually exclusive
because CSCs themselves undergo clonal evolution [11]. In this review, we focus
on the CSC model of breast tumor propagation and its implications.
Cancer Stem Cells (CSCs)
According to the CSC model, tumor cells are organized hierarchically, similar to
normal tissue, and that the CSC is at the top of the hierarchy [10, 12, 13]. The
consensus definition of a CSC is a cell within a tumor that possesses the capacity
to self-renew and to cause the heterogeneous lineages of cancer cells that com-
prise the tumor [14]. CSCs are defined experimentally by their ability to initiate
a new tumor when transplanted into immunocompromised mice (xenograft) and
they must be able to generate all different cell types of the original tumor. For this
reason, CSCs are often termed tumor initiating cells (TICs) or tumorigenic can-
cer cells. Self-renewal is the process by which a stem cell divides asymmetrically
or symmetrically to generate one or two daughter stem cells that have the devel-
opmental potential of the mother cell [15]. Stem cells self-renew to expand their
number during development, maintain a pool in adult tissues and restore this pool
after injury. The self-renewal ability of CSCs is determined functionally by serial
transplantation, i.e., their ability to form new tumors in secondary and subsequent
mice. CSCs can divide symmetrically to produce two identical cells that have the
potential to self-renew and possess the ability to differentiate into all other hetero-
geneous cells of the tumor, which in most cases constitute the bulk of the tumor
[8]. CSCs can also divide asymmetrically to generate one identical self-renewing
cell and a progenitor cell that does not possess the ability to self-renew or has lim-
ited self-renewal ability but can differentiate to other cell types [16].
The CSC concept was pioneered in leukemia fueled by the accessibility of clin-
ical specimens and the need for a better understanding of bone marrow transplan-
tation [17, 18]. Studies on acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the 1990s provided
the first evidence for the existence of CSCs [12, 19]. This work demonstrated that
a rare subset of leukemic cells, comprising 0.011% of the total population and
displaying a CD34+CD38 cell surface phenotype, was able to induce leukemia
when transplanted into immunodeficient mice.
Evidence for the existence of CSCs in solid tumors came initially from stud-
ies on breast cancer. In 2003, Al-Hajj and colleagues demonstrated that CD44+/
CD24/low/Lin human breast cancer cells were much more tumorigenic com-
pared to other tumor cells when transplanted in immunodeficient mice (CD44 is a
cell surface receptor for hyaluronan and CD24 is a cell surface glycoprotein) [20].
5 Breast Cancer Stem Cells: Role in Tumor Initiation 65
Moreover, tumors formed by these CD44+/CD24/low/Lin cells exhibited the het-

erogeneity of the original human tumor. The CD44+/CD24/low/Lin- cells were
also capable of serial transplantation, providing evidence that they have character-
istics of CSCs. It is important to note that not every cell with the CD44+/CD24/
low/Lin-phenotype is a CSC because it has not been demonstrated that a single cell
with this phenotype can form a tumor in immunodeficient mice. Moreover, tumor
initiation potential of CD44+/CD24/low/Lin cells can be enriched significantly
by separating the CD44+/CD24/low/Lin cells further based on ESA (epithelial
surface antigen/EpCAM) expression: ESA+CD44+/CD24/low/Lin cells are
much more tumorigenic compared to ESA CD44+/CD24/low/Lin cells [20].
Approaches Used to Enrich for Breast CSCs
Several approaches used to enrich for breast CSCs are described below. Note that
these approaches enrich for CSCs and do not result in the isolation of pure popula-
tions of these cells. Ongoing efforts are aimed at achieving this latter goal. The
assay of choice for determining CSC function is to assess the ability of a popula-
tion of cell to initiate new tumors in immunocompromised mice that recapitulate
the original tumor and can be passaged serially. Although this assay is used widely,
it is limited by several factors including the fact that the host immune system,
which is known to have a significant role in tumorigenesis, is compromised [21].
Mammosphere Assay
This assay is based on the fact that when cells are grown under non-adherent condi-
tion in serum-free medium supplemented with growth factors (typically epidermal
growth factor (EGF) or basic-fibroblast growth factor (bFGF) or both) and a spe-
cialized supplement (B27), most of the cells die within days of culture and only
stem cells or progenitor cells survive and form spherical structures called mam-
mospheres [22]. Mammospheres are highly enriched with undifferentiated cells
(mostly progenitors) and can be passaged serially [22]. Moreover, these mammos-
phere-derived cells are capable of regenerating a mammary ductal tree in vitro [22],
providing evidence for the existence of stem cells. Human breast cancer cells also
form mammospheres and these mammosphere-derived cells are much more tumo-
rigenic when transplanted into immunodeficient mice compared to adherent cells
[23]. Mammosphere culture of the human breast cancer cell line MCF7 was shown
to increase the CD44+CD24 population eight fold compared to adherent culture
[24]. Nevertheless, the use of mammosphere cultures to enrich for breast CSCs has
limitations including the fact that the number of mammospheres formed is not a
reliable indicator of CSC frequency [25]. Moreover, mammosphere data are often
over-interpreted, based on the incorrect assumption that every mammosphere must
originate from a CSC. A mammosphere can also be formed by a committed pro-

genitor cell that has potential to differentiate but possesses limited proliferation
ability and lacks self-renewal ability for extended period of times [26].
Side Population Discrimination
The side population discrimination assay is a flow-cytometry based assay per-

formed to discriminate stem cells and non-stem cells. The assay is based on the
differential ability of cells to efflux the Hoechst dye (Hoechst 33342) through a
family of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter proteins that are expressed
on the cell surface [27]. Hoechst 33342 is a cell permeable [28] fluorescent dye
that binds preferentially to AT-rich sequences in nucleic acids [29]. Hoechst
33342, when excited with an ultraviolet (UV) light, emits fluorescence that can
be detected in two different channels of flow cytometer: Hoechst Blue (detected
using 450/50nm band pass filter) and Hoechst red (detected using 675/20nm
long pass filter). When cells are analyzed, a population emerges as a tail toward
lower Hoechst blue signal and is termed as side population (SP) [30]. The exist-
ence of the SP was first demonstrated in 1996 using mouse bone marrow cells and
this population cells was shown to be highly enriched for hematopoietic stem cells
[31]. Existence of the SP in human and mouse mammary epithelium was first dem-
onstrated by Alvi and colleagues in 2003 [32]. They observed that human mam-
mary epithelium contains approximately 0.18% (0.23%) and mouse mammary
epithelium contains approximately 0.45% (0.22%) SP cells. SP cells have
been detected in many cancers and shown to have increased self-renewal ability
and tumor initiating capacity when transplanted in immunodeficient mice [3338].
Although SP cells have been detected in several breast cancer cell lines, they have
only been isolated from one primary human breast cancer sample [39].
Aldeflour Assay
This is a biochemical assay that measures the enzymatic activity of aldehyde dehy-
drogenases (ALDHs), a family of evolutionary conserved enzymes that consists of
19 isoforms, which are localized in the cytoplasm, nucleus, and mitochondria [40].
Their primary physiological function is to oxidize intracellular aldehydes, pro-
duced by a variety of metabolic processes, to carboxylic acids [40]. This assay is
based on the fact that stem cells have high ALDH activity [41]. The assay typically
uses flow cytometry to analyze and quantify aldeflour positive cells in presence
of an ALDH inhibitor, diethylaminobenzaldehyde (DEAB) [4244]. This assay
was first utilized for the isolation of leukemia CSCs when it was demonstrated that
ALDH+ cells, isolated from AML, regenerated the disease much more efficiently
compared to ALDH cells in immunocompromised mice [45]. Subsequently,
Ginestier etal. isolated ALDH+ cells from breast cancer and showed that these
cells were much more tumorigenic compared to ALDH cells and possessed self-
renewal ability [46]. Moreover, tumors generated by ALDH+ cells exhibit the phe-
notypic diversity of original tumor [46, 47]. ALDH+ cells isolated from normal
mammary epithelium were also shown to have stem cell properties [46].
Surface Markers
Human breast CSCs have been isolated prospectively using previously mentioned
markers (CD44+/CD24/low and ESA+) and cells isolated using these markers
exhibit properties of stem cells as evidenced by their ability to initiate new tumors
in immunocompromised mice that recapitulate the original tumor and can be pas-
saged serially [20]. Importantly, ALDH+ cells having CD44+CD24ESA+ phe-
notype possess highest level of tumor initiation ability [46]. Neuropilin-2 (NRP2),
a transmembrane glycoprotein that functions as co-receptor for semaphorins [48]
and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) [49] has also been reported to be a
marker of breast CSCs [50].
Hypoxia
Hypoxia is a condition of reduced oxygen pressure and is a common feature of

most solid tumors. Hypoxia renders tumor cells more aggressive, metastatic,
and resistant to radio- and chemotherapy [5155]. Tumor hypoxia results from
inadequate angiogenesis (formation of new blood vessels from pre-existing ves-
sels) in rapidly growing tumors [56]. Importantly, however, breast cancer cells
that survive in hypoxic environments often display CSC properties such as loss
of estrogen receptor- [55] and increased resistance to anoikis [57], radiotherapy,
and chemotherapy [58, 59]. Thus, hypoxia can be a powerful tool to enrich for
CSCs. Indeed, tumor cells isolated from the MMTV-Wnt1 mouse tumor model,
cultured on reconstituted ECM under low oxygen pressure (3% O2) exhibited 100
fold more tumor forming efficiency compared to cells maintained in normoxia
[60]. Moreover, breast cancer cell lines cultured in hypoxia have elevated levels of
ALDH+ [61] and CD44+/CD24/low cells [62].
Origin of Breast CSCs
Although the presence of stem cells in the normal mammary gland epithe-
lium was anticipated before the isolation of breast CSCs based on the analysis of
X-chromosome inactivation patterns [63], nothing was known about their molecular
identity. The nature of mammary epithelial stem cells was established by the finding
that a single mouse mammary epithelial cell with CD29hiCD24+Lin phenotype
could regenerate a full mammary gland when transplanted in the cleared mammary
fat pad of a recipient mouse [64] [65]. These CD29hiCD24+Lin cells possess self-
renewal ability and can differentiate into other mammary epithelial subpopulations
[65]. In the human mammary gland, epithelial cells with a CD49fhiESA phenotype
were shown to possess stem cell characteristics [66].
The fact that mammary stem cells and breast CSCs exhibit differences in their
molecular identity based on surface markers raises the important issue of the rela-
tionship between these two populations of cells. Are breast CSCs normal mam-
mary stem cells that possess de-regulated self-renewal ability caused by oncogenic
mutations? This possibility is attractive because normal stem cells are slow cycling
and have a long lifespan, which make them more vulnerable to accumulating
mutations. This model also implies that tumors originate from normal SCs because
they are the primary target of oncogenic mutation. To date, however, there is no
definitive evidence that breast CSCs arise from normal mammary stem cells. An
alternative hypothesis is that progenitor or differentiated cells are the initial tar-
gets of oncogenic transformation and that cells transformed by this mechanism
acquire self-renewal ability through sequential mutations over period of time. This
hypothesis infers that the CSC is not the cell of origin in breast cancer and that the
major function of CSCs is to maintain the tumor, contribute to tumor dormancy
and potentially metastasis.
One mechanism to account for how differentiated cells acquire stem cell prop-
erties is that an epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) occurs in response to
signals from the microenvironment and that the EMT has a causal role in the gen-
esis of CSCs. The EMT is a biological process by which polarized epithelial cells
undergo biochemical changes that enable them to acquire a mesenchymal pheno-
type that confers enhanced migratory ability, invasiveness, increased resistance
to apoptosis and increased production of extracellular matrix proteins [67]. The
process of EMT was first observed during embryonic development where it plays
crucial roles in critical morphogenetic steps such as gastrulation and neural crest
formation [68]. The activation of the EMT program has been linked to the acquisi-
tion of stem cell characteristics by both normal and neoplastic cells. Mani etal.
[69] demonstrated that induction of EMT by ectopic expression of EMT-inducing
transcription factors SNAI1, TWIST, and TGF in non-tumorigenic immortalized
human mammary epithelial cells (HMLE) resulted in a mesenchymal morphology
with an increase in the CD44+CD24 population and self-renewal ability [69].
These mesenchymal cells generated 30fold more mammospheres than did con-
trol HMLE cells [69]. Subsequent to these initial studies, numerous studies have
linked the EMT to the genesis of breast CSCs [70, 71].
Some studies have challenged the EMT hypothesis for the genesis of CSCs and
argued that the EMT and stemness are not linked causally, and that cells with tumor
initiating potential are actually epithelial in nature [72]. This hypothesis is consist-
ent with the fact that embryonic stem cells are epithelial [73]. Clearly, these dis-
parate hypotheses need to be reconciled, a task that will require more insight into
the characterization of bona fide breast CSCs. An interesting development in this

context is the report that breast CSCs transit between epithelial and mesenchymal
states [74]. This plasticity, which may be influenced by the tumor microenviron-
ment, could enable these CSCs to mediate distinct functions in tumor in a spatially
regulated manner. A related finding is that the CD44+/CD24 population, which is
enriched for breast CSCs, is actually comprised of distinct epithelial and mesenchy-
mal populations that differ markedly in their tumor initiating potential [75].
Breast CSCs and Tumor Sub-Types
Gene expression profiling of breast tumors have revealed distinct tumor subtypes
that include luminal A&B, basal-like, HER2, claudin low and normal-like, [76].
The relevant issues that arise from this observation are whether these subtypes
differ in their content of CSCs and whether different types of CSCs contribute to
their behavior. Existing evidence indicates that more aggressive subtypes of breast
cancer contain a higher frequency of CSCs and that these CSCs may be responsi-
ble for their aggressive behavior. Specifically, poorly differentiated tumors, which
are frequently associated with the basal-like subtype, contain a higher proportion
of CSCs than more differentiated tumors [77]. Also, triple-negative breast cancers
(TNBCs), which are associated with a basal-like phenotype, harbor a higher per-
centage of CD44+CD24/low population compared to other subtypes [78]. TNBCs
are characterized by the lack of expression of estrogen receptor (ER-), progester-
one receptor (PR) and human EGF receptor 2 (Her-2) [79]. Majority of basal-like
breast cancers, which express basal cytokeratins (KRT5, KRT14), p63 and alpha
smooth muscle actin (-SMA) are triple-negative and majority of TNBCs are
basal-like [8082]. In a small set of breast cancer specimens, it was observed that
CD44+CD24/low cells were present in 60% of TNBCs whereas only 26% non-
TNBCs were positive for these cells [78]. ALDH1+ cells were also found to be
more frequent in TNBCs compare to other subtypes [83, 84]. Moreover, a signifi-
cant association was observed between human embryonic stem cells and basal-like
breast cancers in their gene expression pattern [85], which justifies the fact that
basal-like breast cancers harbor more stem-like cells.
The issue of whether distinct populations of CSCs contribute to the behavior of
the different molecular subtypes of breast cancer has not been resolved fully but
the available data do not support this possibility. The finding that luminal progeni-
tor cells are the cells of origin for basal-like breast cancers [86, 87] strengthens
the hypothesis that plasticity exists in CSCs and suggests that luminal and basal
tumors, for example, may share a common CSC. This possibility is supported by
the observation that breast CSCs across molecular subtypes share a common gene
expression profile [50].
Clinical Importance of Breast CSCs
Breast CSCs hold enormous potential as therapeutic target for several reasons.
First and foremost, their relative resistance to radio- and chemotherapy coupled
with their ability to initiate new tumors infers that they are responsible for tumor
recurrence, the principal cause of cancer-related mortality. This inference is sup-
ported, for example, by the observation that the frequency of CD44+CD24/low
cells increases significantly after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and lapatinib (an
EGFR inhibitor) treatment in patients with HER2+ breast cancer [88]. Given
that breast tumors can recur many years after the initial diagnosis and treatment,
CSCs likely contribute to tumor dormancy, especially because they are slow
cycling [89] and able to remain quiescent in the absence of appropriate stimuli
from the microenvironment. Increasing evidence indicates that breast CSCs also
have a significant role in metastasis [20, 90, 91]. For example, the proportion
of CD44+CD24 cells isolated from the bone marrow of breast cancer patients
is much higher than in the primary site [92]. In a study on inflammatory breast
cancer, an aggressive form of breast cancer, breast CSCs isolated as ALDH+ cells
were shown to mediate metastasis [46]. The potential contribution of CSCs to
breast cancer metastasis is complicated by the fact that most metastases are epi-
thelial in contrast to the mesenchymal phenotype of breast CSCs that has been
observed in many studies. For this reason, the possibilities that breast CSCs transit
between epithelial and mesenchymal states [74] or that other populations of cells
interact with CSCs to facilitate metastasis are worth studying.
The challenge here is to design therapeutic approaches that can target breast
CSCs specifically and effectively. A distinguishing property of CSCs is their self-
renewal ability implying that targeting pathways that regulate self-renewal could
be very effective. BMI1, a polycomb group transcriptional repressor has been
shown to regulate self-renewal ability of breast and other CSCs [50]. Interestingly,
study on colorectal cancer demonstrated that a small molecule inhibitor of BMI-1
was able to inhibit self-renewal and tumorigenic potential [93]. Clearly, this
approach merits investigation in breast cancer. A related approach is based on
the hypothesis that autocrine growth factor signaling sustains the self-renewal
of breast CSCs [94]. A salient example of this phenomenon involves VEGF.
Compelling data support the hypothesis that autocrine VEGF signaling in breast
CSCs [50], as well as other CSCs [95], is essential for their self-renewal and
tumor initiation. In fact, autocrine VEGF signaling mediated by NRP2 sustains
BMI-1 expression in breast CSCs [50]. It should be noted that autocrine VEGF
signaling in tumor cells is distinct from the role of VEGF in tumor angiogene-
sis. VEGF signaling that promotes angiogenesis is mediated by VEGF tyrosine
kinase receptors, especially VEGFR2. Interestingly, the anti-VEGF drug bevaci-
zumab does not block the interaction of VEGF with NRP2. This finding is impor-
tant because bevacizumab and sunitinib, an inhibitor of VEGF receptor tyrosine
kinases, offered only marginally improved disease free survival (DFS) and over-
all survival (OS) in breast cancer patients with metastatic disease [96]. Moreover,
preclinical studies revealed that anti-angiogenic therapy actually increases the

aggressiveness and metastatic potential of breast cancer cells [54, 97], presuma-
bly because such treatment increases tumor hypoxia, which results in an enhance-
ment of CSCs [61]. For these reason, targeting CSCs directly could be a much
better therapeutic approach. In this direction, targeting NRP2 could be an effective
strategy for inhibiting the function of breast CSCs, especially given that function-
blocking NRP2 antibodies exist [98].
Signaling pathways involved in embryonic development can also regu-
late self-renewal including the Wnt, Notch, and Hedgehog pathways [99101].
Interestingly, perturbation of each of these pathways in the mammary gland
results in tumors in transgenic mice [102105] indicating that they are potential
targets for therapy aimed at inhibiting self-renewal and CSC function. In fact,
these pathways have been implicated in maintaining the function of breast CSCs,
and effective inhibitors have been developed and are being tested in clinical tri-
als. For example, salinomycin was identified in a high throughput screen designed
to identify selective inhibitors of CSCs and shown to inhibit Wnt signaling [106].
Other potential approaches for targeting CSCs include inhibiting their expansion.
For example, CSCs can increase in number by undergoing symmetrical cell divi-
sion [16]. In HER-2 over-expressing breast cancers, restoration of p53 (a tumor
suppressor protein usually mutated in majority of cancers) function results in the
induction of asymmetrical cell division with reduced tumor onset [107].
Conclusions
The evidence is compelling that breast cancers harbor a relatively small popula-
tion of cells that has the ability to self-renew and initiate new tumors, properties
that merit their designation as CSCs. Much remains to be learned about the gen-
esis of CSCs, mechanisms that regulate their function and their interactions with
other cells in tumors. Nonetheless, there is little doubt that CSCs have a critical
role in the aggressive behavior of breast cancers and that they contribute to tumor
dormancy and recurrence. The challenge ahead is to develop effective therapeutic
approaches for targeting CSCs, a challenge that will require a much deeper under-
standing of their genesis and biology.
Acknowledgments Work in the authors laboratory is supported by NIH Grant CA168464.
References
1. Heppner GH. Tumor heterogeneity. Cancer Res. 1984;44:225965.

2. Dick JE. Stem cell concepts renew cancer research. Blood. 2008;112:4793807.
3. Meacham CE, Morrison SJ. Tumour heterogeneity and cancer cell plasticity. Nature.
2013;501:32837.
4. Bruce WR, Van Der Gaag H. A quantitative assay for the number of murine lymphoma cells
capable of proliferation in vivo. Nature. 1963;199:7980.
5. Hewitt HB. Studies of the dissemination and quantitative transplantation of a lymphocytic
leukaemia of CBA mice. Br J Cancer. 1958;12:378401.
6. Nowell PC. The clonal evolution of tumor cell populations. Science. 1976;194:238.
7. Ichim CV, Wells RA. First among equals: the cancer cell hierarchy. Leuk Lymphoma.
2006;47:201727.
8. Reya T, Morrison SJ, Clarke MF, Weissman IL. Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells.
Nature. 2001;414:10511.
9. Wicha MS, Liu S, Dontu G. Cancer stem cells: an old ideaa paradigm shift. Cancer Res.
2006; 66:18831890; discussion 18951886.
10. Kreso A, Dick JE. Evolution of the cancer stem cell model. Cell Stem Cell. 2014;14:27591.
11. Barabe F, Kennedy JA, Hope KJ, Dick JE. Modeling the initiation and progression of
human acute leukemia in mice. Science. 2007;316:6004.
12. Bonnet D, Dick JE. Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that origi-
nates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med. 1997;3:7307.
13. Dalerba P, Cho RW, Clarke MF. Cancer stem cells: models and concepts. Annu Rev Med.
2007;58:26784.
14. Clarke MF, Dick JE, Dirks PB, Eaves CJ, Jamieson CH, Jones DL, Visvader J, Weissman
IL, Wahl GM. Cancer stem cellsperspectives on current status and future directions: AACR
workshop on cancer stem cells. Cancer Res. 2006;66:933944.
15. He S, Nakada D, Morrison SJ. Mechanisms of stem cell self-renewal. Annu Rev Cell Dev
Biol. 2009;25:377406.
16. Morrison SJ, Kimble J. Asymmetric and symmetric stem-cell divisions in development and
cancer. Nature. 2006;441:106874.
17. Hedrick SM. T cell development: bottoms-up. Immunity. 2002;16:61922.
18. Ohneda K, Yamamoto M. Roles of hematopoietic transcription factors GATA-1 and
GATA-2 in the development of red blood cell lineage. Acta Haematol. 2002;108:23745.
19. Lapidot T, Sirard C, Vormoor J, Murdoch B, Hoang T, Caceres-Cortes J, Minden M,
Paterson B, Caligiuri MA, Dick JE. A cell initiating human acute myeloid leukaemia after
transplantation into SCID mice. Nature. 1994;367:6458.
20. Al-Hajj M, Wicha MS, Benito-Hernandez A, Morrison SJ, Clarke MF. Prospective identifi-
cation of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100:39838.
21. Kim JB, OHare MJ, Stein R. Models of breast cancer: is merging human and animal mod-
els the future? Breast Cancer Res BCR. 2004;6:2230.
22. Dontu G, Abdallah WM, Foley JM, Jackson KW, Clarke MF, Kawamura MJ, Wicha MS.
In vitro propagation and transcriptional profiling of human mammary stem/progenitor cells.
Genes Dev. 2003;17:125370.
23. Grimshaw MJ, Cooper L, Papazisis K, Coleman JA, Bohnenkamp HR, Chiapero-Stanke
L, Taylor-Papadimitriou J, Burchell JM. Mammosphere culture of metastatic breast cancer
cells enriches for tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Breast Cancer Res BCR. 2008;10:R52.
24. Huang M, Li Y, Zhang H, Nan F. Breast cancer stromal fibroblasts promote the generation
of CD44+CD24- cells through SDF-1/CXCR4 interaction. J Exp Clin Cancer Res CR.
2010;29:80.
25. Pastrana E, Cheng LC, Doetsch F. Simultaneous prospective purification of adult
subventricular zone neural stem cells and their progeny. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2009;106:638792.
26. Reynolds BA, Rietze RL. Neural stem cells and neurospheresre-evaluating the relation-
ship. Nat Methods. 2005;2:3336.
27. Bunting KD. ABC transporters as phenotypic markers and functional regulators of stem
cells. Stem Cells. 2002;20:1120.
28. Arndt-Jovin DJ, Jovin TM. Fluorescence labeling and microscopy of DNA. Methods Cell
Biol. 1989;30:41748.
29. Portugal J, Waring MJ. Assignment of DNA binding sites for 4,6-diamidine-2-phenylindole
and bisbenzimide (Hoechst 33258). A comparative footprinting study. Biochim Biophys
Acta. 1988;949:15868.
30. Golebiewska A, Brons NH, Bjerkvig R, Niclou SP. Critical appraisal of the side population
assay in stem cell and cancer stem cell research. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;8:13647.
31. Goodell MA, Brose K, Paradis G, Conner AS, Mulligan RC. Isolation and functional
properties of murine hematopoietic stem cells that are replicating in vivo. J Exp Med.
1996;183:1797806.
32. Alvi AJ, Clayton H, Joshi C, Enver T, Ashworth A, Vivanco M, Dale TC, Smalley MJ.
Functional and molecular characterisation of mammary side population cells. Breast Cancer
Res BCR. 2003;5:R18.
33. Bleau AM, Hambardzumyan D, Ozawa T, Fomchenko EI, Huse JT, Brennan CW, Holland
EC. PTEN/PI3K/Akt pathway regulates the side population phenotype and ABCG2 activity
in glioma tumor stem-like cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2009;4:22635.
34. Chiba T, Kita K, Zheng YW, Yokosuka O, Saisho H, Iwama A, Nakauchi H, Taniguchi H.
Side population purified from hepatocellular carcinoma cells harbors cancer stem cell-like
properties. Hepatology. 2006;44:24051.
35. Haraguchi N, Utsunomiya T, Inoue H, Tanaka F, Mimori K, Barnard GF, Mori M.
Characterization of a side population of cancer cells from human gastrointestinal system.
Stem Cells. 2006;24:50613.
36. Ho MM, Ng AV, Lam S, Hung JY. Side population in human lung cancer cell lines and
tumors is enriched with stem-like cancer cells. Cancer Res. 2007;67:482733.
37. Patrawala L, Calhoun T, Schneider-Broussard R, Zhou J, Claypool K, Tang DG. Side popu-
lation is enriched in tumorigenic, stem-like cancer cells, whereas ABCG2+and ABCG2-
cancer cells are similarly tumorigenic. Cancer Res. 2005;65:620719.
38. Wu C, Alman BA. Side population cells in human cancers. Cancer Lett. 2008;268:19.
39. Nakanishi T, Chumsri S, Khakpour N, Brodie AH, Leyland-Jones B, Hamburger AW,
Ross DD, Burger AM. Side-population cells in luminal-type breast cancer have tumour-
initiating cell properties, and are regulated by HER2 expression and signalling. Br J Cancer.
2010;102:81526.
40. Marchitti SA, Brocker C, Stagos D, Vasiliou V. Non-P450 aldehyde oxidizing enzymes: the
aldehyde dehydrogenase superfamily. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2008;4:697720.
41. Ginestier C, Wicinski J, Cervera N, Monville F, Finetti P, Bertucci F, Wicha MS, Birnbaum
D, Charafe-Jauffret E. Retinoid signaling regulates breast cancer stem cell differentiation.
Cell Cycle. 2009;8:3297302.
42. Armstrong L, Stojkovic M, Dimmick I, Ahmad S, Stojkovic P, Hole N, Lako M. Phenotypic
characterization of murine primitive hematopoietic progenitor cells isolated on basis of
aldehyde dehydrogenase activity. Stem Cells. 2004;22:114251.
43. Hess DA, Meyerrose TE, Wirthlin L, Craft TP, Herrbrich PE, Creer MH, Nolta JA.
Functional characterization of highly purified human hematopoietic repopulating cells iso-
lated according to aldehyde dehydrogenase activity. Blood. 2004;104:164855.
44. Corti S, Locatelli F, Papadimitriou D, Donadoni C, Salani S, Del Bo R, Strazzer S, Bresolin
N, Comi GP. Identification of a primitive brain-derived neural stem cell population based on
aldehyde dehydrogenase activity. Stem Cells. 2006;24:97585.
45. Cheung AM, Wan TS, Leung JC, Chan LY, Huang H, Kwong YL, Liang R, Leung AY.
Aldehyde dehydrogenase activity in leukemic blasts defines a subgroup of acute myeloid
leukemia with adverse prognosis and superior NOD/SCID engrafting potential. Leukemia.
2007;21:142330.
46. Ginestier C, Hur MH, Charafe-Jauffret E, Monville F, Dutcher J, Brown M, Jacquemier J,
Viens P, Kleer CG, Liu S, etal. ALDH1 is a marker of normal and malignant human mam-
mary stem cells and a predictor of poor clinical outcome. Cell Stem Cell. 2007;1:55567.
47. Charafe-Jauffret E, Ginestier C, Iovino F, Tarpin C, Diebel M, Esterni B, Houvenaeghel
G, Extra JM, Bertucci F, Jacquemier J, etal. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1-positive cancer
stem cells mediate metastasis and poor clinical outcome in inflammatory breast cancer.
Clin Cancer Res (an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research).
2010;16:4555.
48. Uniewicz KA, Fernig DG. Neuropilins: a versatile partner of extracellular molecules that
regulate development and disease. Front Biosci J Virtual Libr. 2008;13:433960.
49. Soker S, Takashima S, Miao HQ, Neufeld G, Klagsbrun M. Neuropilin-1 is expressed by
endothelial and tumor cells as an isoform-specific receptor for vascular endothelial growth
factor. Cell. 1998;92:73545.
50. Goel HL, Pursell B, Chang C, Shaw LM, Mao J, Simin K, Kumar P, Vander Kooi CW,
Shultz LD, Greiner DL, etal. GLI1 regulates a novel neuropilin-2/alpha6beta1 integ-
rin based autocrine pathway that contributes to breast cancer initiation. EMBO Mol Med.
2013;5:488508.
51. Zhong H, De Marzo AM, Laughner E, Lim M, Hilton DA, Zagzag D, Buechler P, Isaacs
WB, Semenza GL, Simons JW. Overexpression of hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha in com-
mon human cancers and their metastases. Cancer Res. 1999;59:58305.
52. Jubb AM, Buffa FM, Harris AL. Assessment of tumour hypoxia for prediction of response
to therapy and cancer prognosis. J Cell Mol Med. 2010;14:1829.
53. Dai Y, Bae K, Siemann DW. Impact of hypoxia on the metastatic potential of human pros-
tate cancer cells. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2011;81:5218.
54. Paez-Ribes M, Allen E, Hudock J, Takeda T, Okuyama H, Vinals F, Inoue M, Bergers G,
Hanahan D, Casanovas O. Antiangiogenic therapy elicits malignant progression of tumors
to increased local invasion and distant metastasis. Cancer Cell. 2009;15:22031.
55. Axelson H, Fredlund E, Ovenberger M, Landberg G, Pahlman S. Hypoxia-induced dedif-
ferentiation of tumor cellsa mechanism behind heterogeneity and aggressiveness of solid
tumors. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2005;16:55463.
56. Hockel M, Vaupel P. Tumor hypoxia: definitions and current clinical, biologic, and molecu-
lar aspects. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:26676.
57. Rohwer N, Welzel M, Daskalow K, Pfander D, Wiedenmann B, Detjen K, Cramer T.
Hypoxia-inducible factor 1alpha mediates anoikis resistance via suppression of alpha5 inte-
grin. Cancer Res. 2008;68:1011320.
58. Generali D, Berruti A, Brizzi MP, Campo L, Bonardi S, Wigfield S, Bersiga A, Allevi G,
Milani M, Aguggini S, etal. Hypoxia-inducible factor-1alpha expression predicts a poor
response to primary chemoendocrine therapy and disease-free survival in primary human
breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res (an official journal of the American Association for Cancer
Research). 2006;12:45628.
59. Koukourakis MI, Bentzen SM, Giatromanolaki A, Wilson GD, Daley FM, Saunders MI,
Dische S, Sivridis E, Harris AL. Endogenous markers of two separate hypoxia response
pathways (hypoxia inducible factor 2 alpha and carbonic anhydrase 9) are associated
with radiotherapy failure in head and neck cancer patients recruited in the CHART rand-
omized trial. J Clin Oncol (official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology).
2006;24:72735.
60. Castro DJ, Maurer J, Hebbard L, Oshima RG. ROCK1 inhibition promotes the self-renewal
of a novel mouse mammary cancer stem cell. Stem Cells. 2013;31:1222.
61. Conley SJ, Gheordunescu E, Kakarala P, Newman B, Korkaya H, Heath AN, Clouthier SG,
Wicha MS. Antiangiogenic agents increase breast cancer stem cells via the generation of
tumor hypoxia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:27849.
62. Louie E, Nik S, Chen JS, Schmidt M, Song B, Pacson C, Chen XF, Park S, Ju J, Chen EI.
Identification of a stem-like cell population by exposing metastatic breast cancer cell lines
to repetitive cycles of hypoxia and reoxygenation. Breast Cancer Res BCR. 2010;12:R94.
63. Tsai YC, Lu Y, Nichols PW, Zlotnikov G, Jones PA, Smith HS. Contiguous patches of nor-
mal human mammary epithelium derived from a single stem cell: implications for breast
carcinogenesis. Cancer Res. 1996;56:4024.
64. Kordon EC, Smith GH. An entire functional mammary gland may comprise the progeny
from a single cell. Development. 1998;125:192130.
65. Shackleton M, Vaillant F, Simpson KJ, Stingl J, Smyth GK, Asselin-Labat ML, Wu L,
Lindeman GJ, Visvader JE. Generation of a functional mammary gland from a single stem
cell. Nature. 2006;439:848.
66. Eirew P, Stingl J, Raouf A, Turashvili G, Aparicio S, Emerman JT, Eaves CJ. A method for
quantifying normal human mammary epithelial stem cells with in vivo regenerative ability.
Nat Med. 2008;14:13849.
67. Kalluri R, Neilson EG. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and its implications for fibrosis. J
Clin Investig. 2003;112:177684.
68. Shook D, Keller R. Mechanisms, mechanics and function of epithelial-mesenchymal transi-
tions in early development. Mech Dev. 2003;120:135183.
69. Mani SA, Guo W, Liao MJ, Eaton EN, Ayyanan A, Zhou AY, Brooks M, Reinhard F, Zhang
CC, Shipitsin M, etal. The epithelial-mesenchymal transition generates cells with properties
of stem cells. Cell. 2008;133:70415.
70. Morel AP, Lievre M, Thomas C, Hinkal G, Ansieau S, Puisieux A. Generation of breast can-
cer stem cells through epithelial-mesenchymal transition. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e2888.
71. May CD, Sphyris N, Evans KW, Werden SJ, Guo W, Mani SA. Epithelial-mesenchymal
transition and cancer stem cells: a dangerously dynamic duo in breast cancer progression.
Breast Cancer Res BCR. 2011;13:202.
72. Ocana OH, Corcoles R, Fabra A, Moreno-Bueno G, Acloque H, Vega S, Barrallo-Gimeno
A, Cano A, Nieto MA. Metastatic colonization requires the repression of the epithelial-
mesenchymal transition inducer Prrx1. Cancer Cell. 2012;22:70924.
73. Baum B, Settleman J, Quinlan MP. Transitions between epithelial and mesenchymal states
in development and disease. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2008;19:294308.
74. Liu S, Cong Y, Wang D, Sun Y, Deng L, Liu Y, Martin-Trevino R, Shang L, McDermott SP,
Landis MD, etal. Breast cancer stem cells transition between epithelial and mesenchymal
states reflective of their normal counterparts. Stem Cell Rep. 2014;2:7891.
75. Goel HL, Gritsko T, Pursell B, Chang C, Shultz LD, Greiner DL, Norum JH, Toftgard R,
Shaw LM, Mercurio AM. Regulated splicing of the alpha6 integrin cytoplasmic domain
determines the fate of breast cancer stem cells. Cell Rep. 2014;7:74761.
76. Cancer Genome Atlas N. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours.
Nature. 2012;490:6170.
77. Pece S, Tosoni D, Confalonieri S, Mazzarol G, Vecchi M, Ronzoni S, Bernard L, Viale G,
Pelicci PG, Di Fiore PP. Biological and molecular heterogeneity of breast cancers correlates
with their cancer stem cell content. Cell. 2010;140:6273.
78. Idowu MO, Kmieciak M, Dumur C, Burton RS, Grimes MM, Powers CN, Manjili MH.
CD44(+)/CD24(-/low) cancer stem/progenitor cells are more abundant in triple-negative
invasive breast carcinoma phenotype and are associated with poor outcome. Hum Pathol.
2012;43:36473.
79. Hudis CA, Gianni L. Triple-negative breast cancer: an unmet medical need. Oncologist.
2011;16(1):111.
80. Banerjee S, Reis-Filho JS, Ashley S, Steele D, Ashworth A, Lakhani SR, Smith IE. Basal-
like breast carcinomas: clinical outcome and response to chemotherapy. J Clin Pathol.
2006;59:72935.
81. Rakha EA, Tan DS, Foulkes WD, Ellis IO, Tutt A, Nielsen TO, Reis-Filho JS. Are triple-
negative tumours and basal-like breast cancer synonymous? Breast Cancer Res BCR.
2007;9:404; author reply 405.
82. Bertucci F, Finetti P, Cervera N, Esterni B, Hermitte F, Viens P, Birnbaum D. How
basal are triple-negative breast cancers? International journal of cancer. J Int cancer.
2008;123:23640.
83. Ohi Y, Umekita Y, Yoshioka T, Souda M, Rai Y, Sagara Y, Sagara Y, Sagara Y, Tanimoto A.
Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1 expression predicts poor prognosis in triple-negative breast can-
cer. Histopathology. 2011;59:77680.
84. Khoury T, Ademuyiwa FO, Chandrasekhar R, Jabbour M, Deleo A, Ferrone S, Wang Y,

Wang X. Aldehyde dehydrogenase 1A1 expression in breast cancer is associated with stage,
triple negativity, and outcome to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Mod Pathol (an official journal
of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc). 2012;25:388397.
85. Ben-Porath I, Thomson MW, Carey VJ, Ge R, Bell GW, Regev A, Weinberg RA. An embry-
onic stem cell-like gene expression signature in poorly differentiated aggressive human
tumors. Nat Genet. 2008;40:499507.
86. Proia TA, Keller PJ, Gupta PB, Klebba I, Jones AD, Sedic M, Gilmore H, Tung N, Naber
SP, Schnitt S, etal. Genetic predisposition directs breast cancer phenotype by dictating pro-
genitor cell fate. Cell Stem Cell. 2011;8:14963.
87. Molyneux G, Geyer FC, Magnay FA, McCarthy A, Kendrick H, Natrajan R, Mackay A,
Grigoriadis A, Tutt A, Ashworth A, etal. BRCA1 basal-like breast cancers originate from
luminal epithelial progenitors and not from basal stem cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2010;7:40317.
88. Li X, Lewis MT, Huang J, Gutierrez C, Osborne CK, Wu MF, Hilsenbeck SG, Pavlick A,
Zhang X, Chamness GC, etal. Intrinsic resistance of tumorigenic breast cancer cells to
chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:6729.
89. Moore N, Lyle S. Quiescent, slow-cycling stem cell populations in cancer: a review of the
evidence and discussion of significance. J Oncol. 2011;2011:11.
90. Liu R, Wang X, Chen GY, Dalerba P, Gurney A, Hoey T, Sherlock G, Lewicki J, Shedden K,
Clarke MF. The prognostic role of a gene signature from tumorigenic breast-cancer cells. N
Engl J Med. 2007;356:21726.
91. Weiss L. Metastatic inefficiency. Adv Cancer Res. 1990;54:159211.
92. Giordano A, Gao H, Cohen EN, Anfossi S, Khoury J, Hess K, Krishnamurthy S, Tin S,
Cristofanilli M, Hortobagyi GN, etal. Clinical relevance of cancer stem cells in bone mar-
row of early breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol (official journal of the European Society for
Medical Oncology/ESMO). 2013;24:251521.
93. Kreso A, van Galen P, Pedley NM, Lima-Fernandes E, Frelin C, Davis T, Cao L, Baiazitov
R, Du W, Sydorenko N, etal. Self-renewal as a therapeutic target in human colorectal can-
cer. Nat Med. 2014;20:2936.
94. Scheel C, Eaton EN, Li SH, Chaffer CL, Reinhardt F, Kah KJ, Bell G, Guo W, Rubin J,
Richardson AL, etal. Paracrine and autocrine signals induce and maintain mesenchymal
and stem cell states in the breast. Cell. 2011;145:92640.
95. Hamerlik P, Lathia JD, Rasmussen R, Wu Q, Bartkova J, Lee M, Moudry P, Bartek J Jr,
Fischer W, Lukas J, etal. Autocrine VEGF-VEGFR2-Neuropilin-1 signaling promotes gli-
oma stem-like cell viability and tumor growth. J Exp Med. 2012;209:50720.
96. Bergers G, Hanahan D. Modes of resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy. Nat Rev Cancer.
2008;8:592603.
97. Ebos JM, Lee CR, Cruz-Munoz W, Bjarnason GA, Christensen JG, Kerbel RS. Accelerated
metastasis after short-term treatment with a potent inhibitor of tumor angiogenesis. Cancer
Cell. 2009;15:2329.
98. Caunt M, Mak J, Liang WC, Stawicki S, Pan Q, Tong RK, Kowalski J, Ho C, Reslan HB,
Ross J, etal. Blocking neuropilin-2 function inhibits tumor cell metastasis. Cancer Cell.
2008;13:33142.
99. Gu B, Watanabe K, Sun P, Fallahi M, Dai X. Chromatin effector Pygo2 mediates Wnt-notch
crosstalk to suppress luminal/alveolar potential of mammary stem and basal cells. Cell Stem
Cell. 2013;13:4861.
100. Meier-Abt F, Milani E, Roloff T, Brinkhaus H, Duss S, Meyer DS, Klebba I, Balwierz PJ,
van Nimwegen E, Bentires-Alj M. Parity induces differentiation and reduces Wnt/Notch
signaling ratio and proliferation potential of basal stem/progenitor cells isolated from mouse
mammary epithelium. Breast Cancer Res BCR. 2013;15:R36.
101. Sale S, Lafkas D, Artavanis-Tsakonas S. Notch2 genetic fate mapping reveals two previ-
ously unrecognized mammary epithelial lineages. Nat Cell Biol. 2013;15:45160.
102. Simmons MJ, Serra R, Hermance N, Kelliher MA. NOTCH1 inhibition in vivo results in
mammary tumor regression and reduced mammary tumorsphere-forming activity in vitro.
Breast Cancer Res BCR. 2012;14:R126.
103. Vorechovsky I, Benediktsson KP, Toftgard R. The patched/hedgehog/smoothened signalling
pathway in human breast cancer: no evidence for H133Y SHH, PTCH and SMO mutations.
Eur J Cancer. 1999;35:7113.
104. Kelly OG, Pinson KI, Skarnes WC. The Wnt co-receptors Lrp5 and Lrp6 are essential for
gastrulation in mice. Development. 2004;131:280315.
105. Soriano JV, Uyttendaele H, Kitajewski J, Montesano R. Expression of an activated

Notch4(int-3) oncoprotein disrupts morphogenesis and induces an invasive pheno-
type in mammary epithelial cells in vitro. International journal of cancer. J Int Cancer.
2000;86:6529.
106. Gupta PB, Onder TT, Jiang G, Tao K, Kuperwasser C, Weinberg RA, Lander ES.

Identification of selective inhibitors of cancer stem cells by high-throughput screening. Cell.
2009;138:64559.
107. Cicalese A, Bonizzi G, Pasi CE, Faretta M, Ronzoni S, Giulini B, Brisken C, Minucci S, Di
Fiore PP, Pelicci PG. The tumor suppressor p53 regulates polarity of self-renewing divisions
in mammary stem cells. Cell. 2009;138:108395.
Chapter 6
Molecular Pathology of Pre-Invasive
Ductal Carcinoma
Yuna Gong, Dina Kandil and Ashraf Khan
Introduction
Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast consists of a group of heterogene-

ous and pre-invasive proliferation of neoplastic epithelial cells with the ductal
phenotype. DCIS is one of the most frequently diagnosed pathologic entities of
the breast, comprising approximately 25% of all newly discovered breast carci-
noma cases [1]. The incidence of DCIS in United States has increased from 1.87
per 100,000 in 19731975 to 32.5 in 2004 [2], reflecting in part the success of the
widely adopted mammographic screening programs. With increased detection of
DCIS, however, questions regarding appropriate risk assessment and therapeutic
interventions have been raised, as only limited information on the natural biologic
progression of untreated tumors exists.
Few long-term follow-up studies available on untreated low-grade (LG)DCIS
show the risk of developing invasive breast carcinoma ranges from 14 to 60% [3
5] after 10years. Similar studies on high-grade (HG) DCIS are virtually nonexist-
ent as most were excised at time of diagnosis, but it is reasonable to extrapolate
that untreated HG-DCIS will be associated with even higher risks of invasive dis-
ease. Considering DCIS generally has an excellent prognosis after lumpectomy or
mastectomy with 10-year breast cancer mortality rate at<2% [6], the rationale for
continuing the current standard of treatment certainly holds water. However, these
statistics also demonstrate that not all DCIS invariably progress to invasive disease
Y. Gong D. Kandil A. Khan(*)

D. Kandil

80 Y. Gong et al.
and as of yet, our current systems of risk stratification are inadequate in identify-
ing those that may benefit from less or more aggressive forms of intervention.
Concerns about unnecessary anxiety experienced by the patients and possible
over-treatment of DCIS have precipitated a search for improved diagnostic and
prognostic parameters, and has even led to proposals for reclassification of these
tumors with less ominous terminology such as intraepithelial neoplasia [710].
Recent developments in our understanding of the pathogenesis of invasive breast
carcinoma has led to newly defined molecular subtypes with varying prognoses
and has opened the door to more targeted therapies [11]. Although the literature on
DCIS is not as extensive, emerging data suggests a similar molecular classification
system may be applicable to the in situ lesions as well. In this chapter, we review
the current understanding of DCIS with emphasis on its molecular pathogenesis.
Diagnosis, Classification, and Prognosis of DCIS
Diagnosis
Diagnosis of DCIS relies on several clinical and pathologic findings. Historically,

DCIS was usually discovered when a tissue biopsy was performed for findings
such as a palpable mass, skin retraction, or nipple discharge. Now, with the advent
of the screening programs, the vast majority of DCIS are diagnosed with the mam-
mographic discovery of clinically occult microcalcifications (76%), soft-tissue
densities (11%), or both (13%) [12]. Once diagnosed, the radiologically identi-
fied regions are excised with breast conserving surgery and the specimen is evalu-
ated for extent of disease, concurrent invasive carcinoma, margins and hormone
receptor status.
Microscopically, the diagnosis of DCIS is predicated on identification of clonal
population of ductal epithelial cells confined within the boundary delineated by
the myoepithelial cells and the basement membrane. Important diagnostic consid-
erations for the pathologist include ruling out invasive breast carcinoma and dif-
ferentiating DCIS from benign epithelial proliferations and other pre-malignant
entities such as lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS).
Compared to more benign lesions such as usual ductal hyperplasia (UDH),
DCIS is comprised of a single, uniform epithelial population without the inter-
mingling of spindled myoepithelial cells. Breast lesions with morphologic features
suggestive of, but not diagnostic of DCIS are classified as atypical ductal hyper-
plasia (ADH). ADH essentially shares the cytologic features of DCIS, but impor-
tantly, lacks HG nuclear features and should not exceed 2 duct spaces or 2mm.
It is generally recognized that ADH and DCIS are both neoplastic proliferations
with shared evolutionary pathway and the distinction between them can be quite
subjective.
6 Molecular Pathology of Pre-Invasive Ductal Carcinoma 81
Classification
Several classification schemes to accurately stratify DCIS have been proposed

over the years. Historically, DCIS was divided into architectural subtypes such as
solid, cribriform, papillary, micropapillary, and clinging. These architectural fea-
tures are still recognized and noted in pathologic reports; however, evidence has
shown architectural subtyping to be of little clinical import and subject to con-
siderable interobservor variability. Because of the insufficiencies of the architec-
tural system, revised schemes (e.g., Holland classification [13]) focusing primarily
on the cytonuclear features of the tumor cells were introduced, and found to be
superior in reproducibility [14]. Van Nuys classification on the other hand, is
a simplified system that categorizes DCIS based on the presence or absence of
comedonecrosis and low- or HG nuclear features. Van Nuys, like the Holland clas-
sification, has demonstrated reproducibility [14] and has also been shown to be
predictive of local recurrence rates and disease-free survival [15, 16]. The newly
introduced concept of ductal intraepithelial neoplasia, proposed to alleviate
patient anxiety and possibly reduce over zealous treatments, has yet to gain trac-
tion in general practice. Currently, most pathologists rely on a combination of
features including nuclear grade, presence of comedonecrosis, and architectural
pattern to evaluate and classify DCIS. Features characteristic of each histologic
grade is summarized in Fig.6.1.
Fig.6.1Histologic grading of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)

82 Y. Gong et al.
It should be noted that while interobservor variability in the classification of

DCIS has improved significantly since the adoption of the newer systems, it is far
from being completely eradicated. Nuclear grading is still a subjective interpreta-
tion and even the exact definition of comedonecrosis is under debate.
Prognosis
Despite the lack of extensive data on the natural progression of untreated DCIS,
several large randomized clinical trials and cohort studies have identified few
independent clinical and pathologic features associated with risk of disease recur-
rence or progression. Some of the factors associated with higher rates of local
recurrence were younger age (40years old), older age group (50years old),
symptomatic detection of DCIS, higher nuclear grade, solid or cribriform growth
pattern, comedonecrosis, uncertain or involved margins or treatment with local
excision alone [1719].
Treatment modality has been shown to have significant influence on the recur-
rence rate, if not the overall survival. Until recently, mastectomy was the conven-
tional treatment of DCIS [20]; however, with the success of breast conserving
surgery/lumpectomy in invasive cancer, this conservative approach has been
extended to DCIS as well. No randomized clinical studies comparing the efficacy
of these two surgical options are currently available. On the other hand, radiother-
apy (RT) has been shown to significantly decrease the rate of disease recurrence
in clinical trials [17, 18, 2126]. After lumpectomy alone, the risk of contralat-
eral or ipsilateral disease recurrence ranges from 14 to 32%, which is reduced by
4050% when paired with RT [17, 18, 2126]. However, because RT does not
seem to influence the overall survival rate, there is still a lack of consensus on the
appropriate use of adjunct RT.
The use of improved DCIS classification, along with the identification of these
risk factors has led to the development of prognostic systems such as the Van Nuys
prognostic index (VNPI). The updated USC/VNPI stratifies DCIS patients accord-
ing to age, size of the lesion, nuclear grade, and margin status and suggests dif-
ferential treatment options according to the VPNI score [27, 28]. Although VPNI
has been shown to be useful in a number of retrospective studies, it is yet to be
validated in a prospective trial.
The current treatment protocol according to NCCN guidelines suggests
lumpectomy radiation or mastectomy sentinel node biopsy. It was revised in
2008 to include lumpectomy alone as an option for those individuals with low
risk, but does not specifically define that subset of patients. The guideline also rec-
ommends post-surgical treatment with tamoxifen in ER-positive DCIS, but does
recognize that tamoxifen, like RT, reduces the risk of recurrence without improve-
ment in overall survival rate [21, 25, 29]. The current guidelines demonstrate that
despite the identification of several risk factors that are associated with higher
disease recurrence, no systematically applied differential treatment protocols are

currently in place for DCIS subtypes.
Tumorigenesis of DCIS
Several tumorigenesis pathways for DCIS have been proposed over the years. One
model, first described by Wellings and colleagues in the 1970s, suggested flat epi-
thelial atypia (FEA), ADH and DCIS as non-obligate precursor lesions to inva-
sive ductal tumors [3032]. Wellings further proposed that these ductal lesions,
as well as lobular pre-malignant lesions, share a common progenitor in the ter-
minal duct-lobular units (TDLUs) of the breast. Epidemiological, morphological,
immunohistochemical and now molecular studies support this theory of evolution-
ary continuum between FEA, ADH, DCIS, and invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC)s,
which is further detailed in the following section.
An alternative theory integrated benign epithelial proliferations such as UDH
into this scheme, proposing progressive de-differentiation of UDH into malig-
nancy [33]. Recent immunohistochemical and molecular studies however, have
failed to demonstrate a clear relationship between UDH and other premalignant
lesions. Rather, UDH appears to be more closely related to normal, non-prolifer-
ative breast epithelium and likely represents a distinct clinical entity unrelated to
the pre-malignant lesions of the breast [34, 35].
The prevailing model of breast cancer progression has further refined Wellings
original theory and now recognizes divergent pathways for low-and HG DCIS.
First discovered in IDCs, it is now recognized that the same recurrent but differ-
ential molecular changes are largely recapitulated in the in situ lesions as well.
For example, loss of 16q, the hallmark chromosomal abnormality of low-grade
invasive carcinoma, is also observed in greater than 70% of LGDCIS. In contrast,
16q loss is observed in only 30% of HG DCIS. In addition, it has been r ecognized
that low-grade DCIS are largely ER positive, whereas only a subset of the HG
lesions express the hormone receptor. Furthermore, those HG DCIS that are ER
positive tend to harbor the same chromosomal abnormalities typically associ-
ated with low-grade lesions. These findings, among others, suggest that while at
least two distinct carcinogenetic pathways may exist, a subset of HG DCIS may
indeed represent low-grade lesions that have progressively de-differentiated and
possible points of intersection can be observed among the several breast cancer
pathways(Fig.6.2).
ER Estrogen receptor; PR progesterone receptor; LG low-grade; IG intermedi-
ate grade; HG high-grade; FEA flat epithelial atypia; ADH atypical ductal hyper-
plasia; TN triple negative; MGA microglandular adenosis; DCIS ductal carcinoma
in situ; IDC invasive ductal carcinoma
FEA and ADH, in keeping with the theory of a common evolutionary pathway,
share many of the immunohistochemical and molecular signatures of low-grade
DCIS. Like the low-grade DCIS, FEA and ADH are generally positive for ER and
84 Y. Gong et al.
Fig.6.2Divergent pathways of low and high-grade breast cancer. LG pathway is character-

ized by positivity for ER/PR, Bcl-2 and low Ki-67 index. Chromosomes tend to be diploid or
near-diploid with recurrent changes such as loss of 16q or gains of 1q or 16p. FEA and ADH
are thought to be precursor lesions of the low-grade pathway and share similar expression of
biomarkers and chromosomal abnormalities. Luminal A DCIS is the predominant molecular
subtype seen in the low-grade pathway. HG pathway is characterized by negativity for ER/PR,
positivity for p53 and high Ki-67 index, producing tumors with TN/basal-like or HER 2+ phe-
notype. These tumors also are frequently aneuploid and/or exhibit complex karyotype. MGA
has been proposed as a possible precursor lesion for high-grade lesions with TN/basal-like phe-
notype. Overlap also exists between the LG and HG pathways. Some IG and HG DCIS show
molecular features of both low and high-grade lesions, and may represent de-differentiated
lesions of the LG pathway. (Figure adapted with permission from [36])
PR but negative for HER 2 and basal cell markers. They have also been shown to
share many of the recurrent genetic imbalances (e.g., loss of 16q) and are often
found in coexistence with low-grade DCIS and invasive carcinomas. These immu-
nophenotypic, molecular, and epidemiologic evidence demonstrates the close
developmental relationship among these low-grade lesions and provide strong evi-
dence that FEA and ADH are non-obligate, neoplastic precursors of the low-grade
cancerous lesions of the breast.
It is yet unclear, however, what the precursor lesion of HG DCIS may be. The
complex karyotype of HG DCIS intimates both the inherent genetic volatility of
these lesions and the heterogeneity of its origin. A minority of the HG DCIS that
harbor a similar genomic profile to the low-grade DCIS may represent de-differen-
tiated lesions, while others may have arisen de novo. There exists, however, recent
but limited evidence showing that a subset of microglandular adenosis (MGA)
may be a precursor to triple negative (ER, PR, and HER2 negative) HG DCIS [36,
37]. MGA is a rare breast lesion composed of cytologically bland glands with an
infiltrative growth pattern, largely considered to be a benign process. Its rarity
however, in comparison to the incidence of HG DCIS, makes it an unlikely candi-
date as a common progenitor for HG lesions of the breast.
Chromosomal Aberrations of Low-and High-Grade DCIS
Low and HG DCIS, like their invasive counterparts, are characterized by distinct
set of chromosomal aberrations. One of the hallmark chromosomal abnormalities
seen in low-grade DCIS, as mentioned before, is the loss of 16q (70%), as evi-
denced by multiple comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) and loss of hete-
rozygosity (LOH) studies [3840]. Other recurrent abnormalities associated with
low-grade DCIS include loss of 17p and gain of 1q (>70%) and 16p (>40%). In
addition, low-grade DCIS is characterized by diploid or near-diploid chromosome
number and on average, have fewer total chromosomal abnormalities.
In contrast, HG lesions exhibit greater tendencies for aneuploidy, more com-
plex karyotype and generally harbor multiple amplifications. Some of the specific
and more frequently observed chromosomal abnormalities of HG DCIS include
gains of 1q, 5p, 8q and losses of 8p, 11q, 13q, and 14q. The genomic profile of
intermediate-grade DCIS, much like the nuclear and cytologic features that cur-
rently define the DCIS grading system, straddle the boundaries of the low-and HG
lesions. Although intermediate-grade DCIS shared some of the distinct genetic
signatures with the low-grade lesions, one study also found they had on average,
higher number of genetic imbalances (5.5 vs. 2.5) compared to low-grade DCIS
[38]. Table6.1 is a detailed list of the recurrent genomic changes seen in low- and
HG DCIS, as well as other proliferative breast lesions.
Immunophenotype of Low-and High-Grade DCIS
Immunohistochemical (IHC) studies of the transcriptomic profiles of DCIS also

support the theory of divergent tumorigenesis. DCIS, like their invasive counter-
part, can be divided into broad categories based on estrogen receptor (ER) posi-
tivity. ER is one of the most valuable and extensively studied biomarkers in the
breast and is expressed in approximately 70% of DCIS overall [41]. ER expres-
sion is strongly associated with low-grade in situ and invasive ductal lesions,
with nearly 100% of the low-grade DCIS expressing the hormone receptor.
Molecular studies of IDC have also shown ER-positive and ER-negative tumors
86 Y. Gong et al.
Table6.1Chromosomal aberrations of proliferative breast lesions

Lesion Method Losses Gains References
UDH LOH 3p, 9p, 11p, 13q, 16q, 17q [56]
LOH 13q, 14p, 16q, 17p, 17q [57]
LOH 9p, 11q, 11p, 13q, 14q, 17p, [39]
17q
CGH 13q, 16q 12q, 16p, 20q [58]
CGH None None [59]
CGH 1q 16q, 17p, 21p [60]
CGH 13q [61]
FEA LOH 3p, 11q, 16q, 17q [62]
LOH 1p, 3p, 5q, 9p, 9q, 10q, 17p, [63]
17q, 22q
CGH 11q, 12q, 16q, 17p, 18p, 7q, 11q, 15q, 16p, 17q, 19q [64]
21, 22
ADH LOH 16q, 17p [65]
LOH 11p, 13q, 16q, 17p, 17q [39]
LOH 8p, 16q, 17q [66]
LOH 1q, 3p, 11p, 11q, 16q, 17p [67]
CGH 16q, 17p, 20p 1q, 16q, 11q [60]
CGH 13q, 16q 3p, 8q, 15q, 16p, 20q, 22q [58]
CGH 8p, 9p, 11q, 13q, 14q, 16q, 1p, 1q, 2q, 8q, 10p, 17q, [40]
21q, Xp 20q, 20q, 22q, Xp
LG-DCIS LOH 2p, 6q, 8p, 9p, 11p, 11q, 13q, [39]
14q, 16q, 17p, 17q
CGH 11p, 14q, 16q, 17p NA [40]
CGH 4q, 13q 16p, 20q, 22q [58]
CGH 9p, 13q, 14q, 16q 1q, 17q [38]
IG-DCIS CGH 2q, 5q, 8p, 9q, 11q, 16q, 17p 1q, 8q, 17q [38]
HG-DCIS LOH 2q, 6q, 8p, 9p, 11p, 11q, 13q, [39]
14q, 16q, 17p, 17q
CGH 8p, 13q, 14q 1q, 8p, 9q, 16q, 17q, 19q [40]
CGH 4q, 5q, 9p, 11q, 13q 1q, 6p, 6q, 7q, 8q, 10q, 12q, [58]
14q, 15q, 16p, 17q, 19q,
20q, 21q, 22q
CGH 1p, 12q, 16q, 17q, 22q 1p, 1q, 2q [61]
CGH 2q, 5q, 6q, 8p, 9p, 11q, 13q, 1q, 5p, 8q, 17q [38]
14q, 16q, 17p
Adapted with permissionfrom [77]
LGDCISlow grade ductal carcinoma in situ; HGDCIShigh grade ductal carcinoma in situ;
UDHusual ductal hyperplasia; FEAflat epithelial atypia; ADHatypical ductal hyperplasia;
LOHloss of heterozygosity; CGHcomparative genomic hybridization
are intrinsically distinct entities with divergent pathologic and clinical features. ER
expression, along with the presence of HER2 upregulation, is the major determi-
nant in molecular classification of IDC.
Table6.2Expression of biomarkers in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)

Biomarkers Histologic grade of DCIS
Low Intermediate High Overall
ER 94100% 81100% 3048% 5577%[44, 69]
[44, 6870] [44, 6870] [44, 6870]
PR 69100% 6591% [68, 69] 2332% [68, 69] 4362%[68, 69]
[68, 69]
AR 36% [44] 51% [44] 26% [44] 37% [44]
Her2 08% 026% 5572% 2847%
[44, 6870] [44, 6870] [44, 6870] [44, 6870]
Bcl-2 92% [44] 84% [44] 36% [44] 64% [44]
p53 08% 1314% 2849% 2540%
[44, 68, 69] [44, 68, 69] [44, 68, 69] [44, 69, 71]
EGFR 0% [44, 69] 07% [44, 69] 052% [44, 69] 036% [44, 69]
CK5/6 0% [44] 0% [44] 4% [44] 2% [44]
DCISDuctal carcinoma in situ
Other biomarkers preferentially expressed in low-grade DCIS also include

progesterone receptor (PR) and Bcl-2. PR, like ER, is a hormone receptor that is
prognostic as well as predictive of response to hormone therapy [41]. Bcl-2 is an
anti-apoptotic protein whose de-regulation has been associated with pathogen-
esis of breast cancer. The expressions of both proteins are positively associated
with ER, and help define the immunoprofile of the low-grade ductal lesions of the
breast.
Conversely, higher-grade lesions are negatively associated with ER, positively
associated with [4244] HER2 expression, p53 expression, and basal mark-
ers (CK5/6, EGFR) and display higher Ki-67 index. Somewhat paradoxically,
HER2 amplification, which is typically associated with worse clinical outcome in
invasive tumors, is seen with higher frequency in the in situ lesions (1525 vs.
5570%). The reason for this disparity remains unclear, however. Some of the
proposed mechanisms include: loss of HER2 expression as HER2-positive DCIS
progresses to IDC; higher rates of disease progression in HER2-negative DCIS;
and mammographic detection bias for HER2-positive DCIS due to their associa-
tion with comedo necrosis and calcification, which may be more easily identified
by imaging. Table6.2 summarizes the expression rate of various biomarkers strati-
fied by DCIS histologic grades.
Molecular Subtyping of DCIS
Microarray profiling of invasive breast carcinomas in the early 2000s introduced

a novel classification method into at least four major intrinsic molecular subtypes
with variable clinical outcomes: luminal A, luminal B, human epidermal growth
factor receptor-2 (HER2) overexpressing and TN/basal-like (Table6.3) [45].
88 Y. Gong et al.
Table6.3Molecular subtypes defined as: Luminal A (ER+, HER2), Luminal B (ER+,

HER2+), HER2 (ER, HER2+), TN/Basal-like (ER, HER2, EGFR, and/or cytokeratin 5/6 +)
Molecular subtypes of DCIS
Lesion Luminal A (%) Luminal B (%) HER2 (%) TN/Basal-like (%) References
DCIS 62.5 13.2 13.6 NA/7.7 [47]a
61 9 16 6/8 [48]a
48.8 8.7 17.4 7.1 [50]
38.3 6.9 14.9 7.5 [72]a
IDC 5875 516 36 1120 [47, 7376]
DCISDuctal carcinoma in situ; IDCinvasive ductal carcinoma
a3,6, and 35% of tumors were unclassified, respectively (negative for all four defining markers
or missing information)
Studies have shown the intrinsic molecular subtypes can be approximated with
a panel of immunohistochemical markers, most commonly including ER, PR,
HER2, CK5/6, and EGFR [46]. Similar categorization of DCIS has been explored
in several studies [4750], which were largely successful in recapitulating the
molecular subtypes found in invasive tumors.
Several differences in the prevalence of the distinct molecular phenotypes
between the in situ and invasive ductal lesions were noted in these studies. HER2
subtype was consistently shown to be more prevalent in DCIS (1417%) com-
pared to IDC (36%), as previously discussed. On the other hand, luminal type
A was generally less common in DCIS (3863%) compared to IDC (5875%).
Overall, no statistically significant difference was noted between the prevalence of
luminal type B and TN/basal phenotypes, although the TN/basal phenotype was
generally less common in DCIS.
Although the limited number of studies should preclude premature generaliza-
tions of the DCIS molecular subtypes, one study showed TN/basal-like phenotype
to be associated with elevated risk of disease recurrence at 10years [50], as well
as being associated with other unfavorable prognostic variables such as high-grade
nuclei, p53 expression, and elevated Ki-67 index [47, 48].
Molecular Features of DCIS Versus IDC
DCIS is generally recognized as a non-obligate precursor lesion to IDC due to a

multitude of indirect but convincing evidence. Tissue resections of IDC nearly
invariably show concurrent DCIS, usually of similar nuclear grade, helping dem-
onstrate a close relationship between the two lesions and suggestive of a shared
evolutionary pathway. However, contrary to expectations, global gene expres-
sion studies have shown no significant differences in molecular changes between
invasive and in situ carcinomas [38], suggesting that the potential for invasive-
ness already resides in the mutations that first gave rise to the in situ neoplastic
proliferations.
In light of this failure to find the specific genetic signatures that define invasive-
ness, several other mechanisms have been proposed. One theory suggests that epi-
genetic alterations regulating the expression of various genes may be contributory.
Few studies have demonstrated stage-specific methylation of tumor suppressor
genes in the tumor cells [51, 52], suggesting a possible role in the disease progres-
sion. On the other hand, others have shown that the changes in the microenviron-
ment of the tumor may also be instrumental. Studies have shown that similar to
the epithelial tumor cells that exhibit differential epigenetic gene regulation, the
surrounding stromal cells and myoepithelial cells also show significant changes in
gene expression during the transition from in situ to invasive carcinoma [53]. It
has been suggested that these phenotypically aberrant stromal and myoepithelial
cells, having lost their normal function, may facilitate invasion by creating a more
permissive environment for the tumor cells.
It is likely that the progression of the in situ to IDC involves a complex set of
changes including the intrinsic genetic abnormalities of the tumor, epigenetic de-
regulation of the tumor/stromal/myoepithelial cells gene expression and other as-
of-yet undefined deviations from the norm.
Future of Molecular Testing in DCIS
Recent advancements in molecular methodologies have allowed the emergence

of multiple RNA-and DNA-based commercial tests to categorize breast carcino-
mas into prognostically significant subgroups. Tests such as Oncotype Dx and
Mammaprint are RNA-or DNA-based assays used to evaluate the expression
of key genes involved in cell proliferation, invasion, hormone receptors, HER-2,
and other house keeping genes. Oncotype DX for example, is an assay performed
using quantitative RT-PCR on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples to
generate Recurrence Score (RS) to categorize the tumors into three prognostic
categories. For early stage invasive tumors, these molecular assays have become
widely accepted as ancillary tests to help identify those patients that may benefit
from adjuvant chemotherapy.
More recently in 2011, a validation study using ECOG E5194 dataset showed
these assays might also be applicable to in situ tumors as well [54, 55]. Oncotype
DX assays on DCIS showed that similar to invasive tumors, the risk of ipslateral
breast event (IBE) was significantly increased in those with higher RS. Low, inter-
mediate, and high-risk groups within this study had 10-year risk of IBE of 10.6,
26.7, and 25.9% respectively, and 3.7, 12.3, and 19.2% risk of invasive IBE (both
log rank P 0.006) [55]. These results indicate that DCIS can be stratified into
meaningful prognostic subgroups using this tool and we may be one step closer to
identifying those patients in the low-risk category mentioned, but not specified,
in the NCCN guidelines. Oncotype Dx in DCIS has, however, not been univer-
sally accepted as is the case in invasive carcinoma and additional larger studies
with long term follow-up may be needed to clearly define its role in planning
90 Y. Gong et al.
adjuvant RT in DCIS. With accurate identification of risk groups, we can better

individualize treatment for women with DCIS and reduce the incidence of morbid-
ity that can often accompany aggressive therapy.
Key Points
DCIS is a heterogeneous group of breast lesions hitherto categorized into three

grades based primarily on nuclear and cytologic features.
The prevailing model of breast cancer progression now recognizes divergent
pathways for low-and high-grade DCIS.
FEA, ADH, and low-grade DCIS are now considered to be non-obligate precur-
sors of low-grade invasive ductal breast carcinoma; the precursor lesions of HG
DCIS and invasive carcinoma are yet unknown.
Low-grade DCIS, like its invasive counterpart, is characterized by loss of 16q
and ER/PR positivity. HG DCIS is characterized by aneuploidy, p53 positivity,
and HER2 amplification.
Molecular studies of DCIS have shown categorization of the in situ lesions into
at least four intrinsic molecular subtypes is possible, albeit with some differ-
ences from their invasive counterpart (e.g., higher incidence of HER2 type).
Progression from in situ to invasive ductal lesions may be facilitated by epi-
genetic changes in the tumors gene expression, as well as changes in their
microenvironment.
Commercial molecular testing for DCIS is now available and may play a role in
directing adjuvant therapy for some patients. Caution should still be exercised in
interpreting the results of these tests however, as the data supporting the validity
of molecular testing for DCIS is not yet extensive.
References
1. Brinton LA, etal. Recent trends in breast cancer among younger women in the United States.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(22):16438.
2. Virnig BA, etal. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a systematic review of incidence,
treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(3):1708.
3. Betsill WL Jr, etal. Intraductal carcinoma. long-term follow-up after treatment by biopsy
alone. JAMA. 1978;239(18):18637.
4. Eusebi V, etal. Long-term follow-up of in situ carcinoma of the breast. Semin Diagn Pathol.
1994;11(3):22335.
5. Page DL, etal. Continued local recurrence of carcinoma 15-25years after a diagno-
sis of low grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast treated only by biopsy. Cancer.
1995;76(7):1197200.
6. Ernster VL, etal. Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the
population-based surveillance, epidemiology and end results program. Arch Intern Med.
2000;160(7):9538.
7. Tavassoli FA. Ductal carcinoma in situ: introduction of the concept of ductal intraepithelial
neoplasia. Mod Pathol. 1998;11(2):14054.
8. Tavassoli FA. Breast pathology: rationale for adopting the ductal intraepithelial neoplasia
(DIN) classification. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2005;2(3):1167.
9. Veronesi U, etal. Rethinking TNM: breast cancer TNM classification for treatment decision-
making and research. Breast. 2006;15(1):38.
10. Veronesi U, etal. Breast cancer classification: time for a change. J Clin Oncol.
2009;27(15):24278.
11. Prat A, Perou CM. Deconstructing the molecular portraits of breast cancer. Mol Oncol.
2011;5(1):523.
12. Stomper PC, etal. Clinically occult ductal carcinoma in situ detected with mammography:
analysis of 100 cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1989;172(1):23541.
13. Holland R, etal. Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin Diagn
Pathol. 1994;11(3):16780.
14. Bethwaite P, etal. Reproducibility of new classification schemes for the pathology of ductal
carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Pathol. 1998;51(6):4504.
15. Silverstein MJ, etal. Prognostic classification of breast ductal carcinoma-in-situ. Lancet.
1995;345(8958):11547.
16. Poller DN, etal. Ideas in pathology. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a proposal for
a new simplified histological classification association between cellular proliferation and
c-erbB-2 protein expression. Mod Pathol. 1994;7(2):25762.
17. Bijker N, etal. Risk factors for recurrence and metastasis after breast-conserving therapy
for ductal carcinoma-in-situ: analysis of european organization for research and treatment of
cancer trial 10853. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(8):226371.
18. Fisher ER, etal. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast
Project (NSABP) Protocol B-17. Intraductal carcinoma (ductal carcinoma in situ). The
national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project collaborating investigators. Cancer.
1995;75(6):13109.
19. Kerlikowske K, etal. Characteristics associated with recurrence among women with ductal
carcinoma in situ treated by lumpectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(22):1692702.
20. Fonseca R, etal. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Ann Intern Med.
1997;127(11):101322.
21. Houghton J, etal. Radiotherapy and tamoxifen in women with completely excised ductal car-
cinoma in situ of the breast in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand: randomised controlled
trial. Lancet. 2003;362(9378):95102.
22. Julien JP, etal. Radiotherapy in breast-conserving treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ: first
results of the EORTC randomised phase III trial 10853. EORTC breast cancer cooperative
group and EORTC radiotherapy group. Lancet. 2000;355(9203):52833.
23. Fisher B, etal. Lumpectomy compared with lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treat-
ment of intraductal breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(22):15816.
24. Fisher B, etal. Lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the treatment of intraductal breast can-
cer: findings from national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-17. J Clin Oncol.
1998;16(2):44152.
25. Fisher B, etal. Prevention of invasive breast cancer in women with ductal carcinoma in
situ: an update of the national surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project experience. Semin
Oncol. 2001;28(4):40018.
26. Fisher ER, etal. Pathologic findings from the national surgical adjuvant breast pro-
ject (NSABP) eight-year update of protocol B-17: intraductal carcinoma. Cancer.
1999;86(3):42938.
27. Silverstein MJ. The university of Southern California/Van Nuys prognostic index for ductal
carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am J Surg. 2003;186(4):33743.
28. Silverstein MJ, Buchanan C. Ductal carcinoma in situ: USC/Van Nuys prognostic index and
the impact of margin status. Breast. 2003;12(6):45771.
92 Y. Gong et al.
29. Fisher B, etal. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: national

surgical adjuvant breast and bowel project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet.

1999;353(9169):19932000.
30. Wellings SR, Jensen HM, Marcum RG. An atlas of subgross pathology of the human
breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst.
1975;55(2):23173.
31. Wellings SR, Jensen HM. On the origin and progression of ductal carcinoma in the human
breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1973;50(5):11118.
32. Lerwill MF. Flat epithelial atypia of the breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(4):61521.
33. Xu S, etal. Evidence of chromosomal alterations in pure usual ductal hyperplasia as a breast
carcinoma precursor. Oncol Rep. 2008;19(6):146975.
34. Boecker W, etal. Usual ductal hyperplasia of the breast is a committed stem (progenitor)
cell lesion distinct from atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ. J Pathol.
2002;198(4):45867.
35. Otterbach F, etal. Cytokeratin 5/6 immunohistochemistry assists the differential diagnosis of
atypical proliferations of the breast. Histopathology. 2000;37(3):23240.
36. Bombonati A, Sgroi DC. The molecular pathology of breast cancer progression. J Pathol.
2011;223(2):30717.
37. Shin SJ, etal. Molecular evidence for progression of microglandular adenosis (MGA) to
invasive carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(4):496504.
38. Buerger H, etal. Comparative genomic hybridization of ductal carcinoma in situ of the
breast-evidence of multiple genetic pathways. J Pathol. 1999;187(4):396402.
39. OConnell P, etal. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in 399 premalignant breast lesions at 15
genetic loci. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90(9):697703.
40. Gao Y, etal. Genetic changes at specific stages of breast cancer progression detected by com-
parative genomic hybridization. J Mol Med (Berl). 2009;87(2):14552.
41. Lari SA, Kuerer HM. Biological markers in DCIS and risk of breast recurrence: a systematic
review. J Cancer. 2011;2:23261.
42. Claus EB, etal. Pathobiologic findings in DCIS of the breast: morphologic features, angio-
genesis, HER-2/neu and hormone receptors. Exp Mol Pathol. 2001;70(3):30316.
43. Lebrecht A, etal. Histological category and expression of hormone receptors in ductal carci-
noma in situ of the breast. Anticancer Res. 2002;22(3):190911.
44. Meijnen P, etal. Immunohistochemical categorisation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the
breast. Br J Cancer. 2008;98(1):13742.
45. Perou CM, etal. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature.
2000;406(6797):74752.
46. Cheang MC, etal. Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognos-
tic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(5):136876.
47. Tamimi RM, etal. Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and
invasive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(4):R67.
48. Livasy CA, etal. Identification of a basal-like subtype of breast ductal carcinoma in situ.
Hum Pathol. 2007;38(2):197204.
49. Dabbs DJ, etal. Basal phenotype of ductal carcinoma in situ: recognition and immunohisto-
logic profile. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(11):150611.
50. Zhou W, etal. Molecular subtypes in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast and their relation
to prognosis: a population-based cohort study. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:512.
51. Pasquali L, etal. Quantification of CpG island methylation in progressive breast lesions from
normal to invasive carcinoma. Cancer Lett. 2007;257(1):13644.
52. Ai L, etal. Epigenetic silencing of the tumor suppressor cystatin M occurs during breast can-
cer progression. Cancer Res. 2006;66(16):7899909.
53. Hu M, etal. Distinct epigenetic changes in the stromal cells of breast cancers. Nat Genet.
2005;37(8):899905.
54. Duggal S, Julian TB. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal
carcinoma in situ. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(10):6813.
55. Solin LJ, etal. A multigene expression assay to predict local recurrence risk for ductal carci-
noma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(10):70110.
56. Washington C, etal. Loss of heterozygosity in fibrocystic change of the breast: genetic
relationship between benign proliferative lesions and associated carcinomas. Am J Pathol.
2000;157(1):3239.
57. Lakhani SR, etal. Detection of allelic imbalance indicates that a proportion of mammary
hyperplasia of usual type are clonal, neoplastic proliferations. Lab Invest. 1996;74(1):12935.
58. Aubele MM, etal. Accumulation of chromosomal imbalances from intraductal proliferative
lesions to adjacent in situ and invasive ductal breast cancer. Diagn Mol Pathol. 2000;9(1):149.
59. Boecker W, etal. Ductal epithelial proliferations of the breast: a biological continuum?
Comparative genomic hybridization and high-molecular-weight cytokeratin expression pat-
terns. J Pathol. 2001;195(4):41521.
60. Gong G, etal. Genetic changes in paired atypical and usual ductal hyperplasia of the breast
by comparative genomic hybridization. Clin Cancer Res. 2001;7(8):24104.
61. Jones C, etal. Molecular cytogenetic comparison of apocrine hyperplasia and apocrine carci-
noma of the breast. Am J Pathol. 2001;158(1):20714.
62. Moinfar F, etal. Genetic abnormalities in mammary ductal intraepithelial neoplasia-flat type
(clinging ductal carcinoma in situ): a simulator of normal mammary epithelium. Cancer.
2000;88(9):207281.
63. Dabbs DJ, etal. Molecular alterations in columnar cell lesions of the breast. Mod Pathol.
2006;19(3):3449.
65. Lakhani SR, etal. Atypical ductal hyperplasia of the breast: clonal proliferation with loss of
heterozygosity on chromosomes 16q and 17p. J Clin Pathol. 1995;48(7):6115.
66. Amari M, etal. LOH analyses of premalignant and malignant lesions of human
breast: frequent LOH in 8p, 16q, and 17q in atypical ductal hyperplasia. Oncol Rep.
1999;6(6):127780.
67. Larson PS, etal. Quantitative analysis of allele imbalance supports atypical ductal hyperpla-
sia lesions as direct breast cancer precursors. J Pathol. 2006;209(3):30716.
68. Bijker N, etal. Histological type and marker expression of the primary tumour compared
with its local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J
Cancer. 2001;84(4):53944.
69. Lebeau A, etal. EGFR, HER-2/neu, cyclin D1, p21 and p53 in correlation to cell prolifer-
ation and steroid hormone receptor status in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast
Cancer Res Treat. 2003;79(2):18798.
70. Collins LC, Schnitt SJ. HER2 protein overexpression in estrogen receptor-positive ductal car-
cinoma in situ of the breast: frequency and implications for tamoxifen therapy. Mod Pathol.
2005;18(5):61520.
71. Warnberg F, etal. Tumour markers in breast carcinoma correlate with grade rather than with
invasiveness. Br J Cancer. 2001;85(6):86974.
72. Clark SE, etal. Molecular subtyping of DCIS: heterogeneity of breast cancer reflected in pre-
invasive disease. Br J Cancer. 2011;104(1):1207.
73. Carey LA, etal. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the carolina breast cancer
study. JAMA. 2006;295(21):2492502.
74. Kurebayashi J, etal. The prevalence of intrinsic subtypes and prognosis in breast cancer
patients of different races. Breast. 2007;16(Suppl 2):S727.
75. Rakha EA, etal. Prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer.
2007;109(1):2532.
76. Kwan ML, etal. Epidemiology of breast cancer subtypes in two prospective cohort studies of
breast cancer survivors. Breast Cancer Res. 2009;11(3):R31.
77. Lopez-Garcia MAl, Geyer FC, Lacroix-Triki M, Marchi C, Reis-Filho JS. Breast can-
cer precursors revisited: molecular features and progression pathways. Histopathology.
2010;57:17192.
Chapter 7
Molecular Pathology of Lobular Carcinoma
Background
Lobular neoplasia (LN), a term that was introduced more than 30years ago
encompasses atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH) and lobular carcinoma in situ
(LCIS) [1, 2]. LN was initially thought to be only a risk indicator of subsequent
development of breast cancer and not a true precursor [3, 4]. More recently, studies
have shown that the molecular and epidemiologic profiles of ALH and LCIS are
similar and share common features with invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) [59].
ILC is a type of breast cancer with distinct clinical, morphological and molecu-
lar features. ILC is the second most common type of invasive breast carcinoma
and accounts for 5-15 % of invasive lesions of the breast [1012]. The incidence
of lobular carcinoma has been rising at a faster rate than ductal carcinoma and has
been mainly attributed to postmenopausal hormone therapy [13, 14]. Some ILC
have a mammographic or gross appearance identical to that of invasive ductal
carcinomas (IDC), however in many cases no mass lesion is evident. In such
instances, the excised breast issue may only show slight abnormalities such as a
slightly rubbery consistency, or may even appear normal [15, 16]. Consequently,
the true size of the ILC may be substantially underestimated in clinical, mam-
mographic or gross examinations compared with the microscopic finding [16].
Histologically, ILC shows distinct cytological features and patterns of tumor cell
infiltration of the stroma [15, 17]. The classical form, which is the most common
type, is characterized by small, relatively uniform cells that insidiously infiltrate
A. Sakhdari L. Hutchinson E.F. Cosar(*)

Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, UMassMemorial
Medical Center, Three Biotech, One Innovation Drive, Worcester, MA 01605, USA

96 A. Sakhdari et al.
the breast stroma and adipose tissue in a single-file pattern. This pattern of inva-
sion may invoke no or minimal stromal fibrous reaction with no significant dis-
ruption in the background breast tissue architecture [18]. Often times, a targetoid
growth pattern is seen around normal breast ducts, which gives the tumor a com-
bination of linear strands and concentric pattern. In the classic form of ILC, the
nuclei are usually small, with little variation in size or shape and are often eccen-
tric. Some cells contain intracytoplasmic lumina with or without eosinophilic
globules which may give them a signet ring cell appearance. Mitotic activity is
insignificant [12, 16, 17].
Histological Subtypes
In addition to the classical type, which accounts for the majority of ILC, there are
a number of histologic variants including pleomorphic, alveolar, tubulolobular,
solid, histiocytoid and signet ring cell. They differ from the classical type in regard
to architectural and/or cytological features [1821]. The pleomorphic variant dis-
plays the growth pattern of the classical ILC, but the tumor cells exhibit a higher
degree of cellular atypia, pleomorphism and mitotic activity. ILC may also show
mixed morphologies, such as combinations of classical type or pleomorphic type
with other less common variants. Mixed morphologies represent the most com-
mon presentation after the classical type [2226]. To date, most of the molecular
studies have focused on the classical and pleomorphic variants, and future studies
are needed to assess whether the other histological subtypes have distinct molec-
ular signatures. All of these subtypes lack cell-to-cell adhesion, which is a uni-
versal characteristic of lobular breast lesions which has been attributed to loss of
E-cadherin [1821].
Role of E-Cadherin in Lobular Carcinoma
The cells in LN and lobularcarcinoma are characteristically dishesive. This is

best visualized in ILC as individually dispersed cells in the stroma. This feature
represents the first molecular abnormality identified in LN and is attributed to
the loss of E-cadherin expression, an essential intercellular adhesion molecule
on the cell surface [7, 2730]. E-cadherin (Cadherin-1, Uvomorulin, CD324 or
CAM120/80) is a transmembrane glycoprotein, which along with catenins, vincu-
lin and actinins plays an indispensable role in the cell-to-cell adhesion of epithe-
lial cells [27, 31].
E-cadherin is an essential component of zonula adherens type of cell-cell junc-
tion and forms homodimers in a calcium-dependent manner with other E-cadherin
molecules on adjacent cells. The E-cadherin molecule comprises of extracellular,
juxtamembrane and intracellular domains. The intracellular domain interacts with
7 Molecular Pathology of Lobular Carcinoma 97
-, -, -catenins along with vinculin and establishes a complex of proteins with

close interaction with cytoskeleton [32, 33].
An interesting interaction exists between E-cadherin and -catenin (P120
catenin) molecules. In normal breast epithelium P120 catenin is expressed on the
cell membrane. If E-cadherin is lost, as in LN, P120 catenin is upregulated and
accumulates in the cytoplasm and is no longer detectable at the cell membrane by
immunohistochemistry (IHC) methods [3436]. These cells, therefore, show cyto-
plasmic rather than membrane localization of P120 protein [37].
Loss of expression of E-cadherin, encoded by the CDH1 gene, is seen in most
cases of LCIS and ILC, but not in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCSI) orIDC [27].
The main mechanisms responsible for the loss of E-cadherin expression in LN are;
(a) nonsense or stop codon mutation in the CDH1 gene resulting in the truncation
of the E-cadherin protein (b) silencing of the CDH1 gene through promoter meth-
ylation and (c) loss of heterozygosity (LOH) involving the CDH1 gene [8, 3844].
LOH of the CDH1 gene at 16q22.1 occurs in approximately 65% whereas CDH1
gene mutations occur in approximately 35 % of LN [45, 46].
Loss of E-cadherin expression may be detected by IHC and is characterized by
lack of tumor cell staining in a background of non-neoplastic cells showing mem-
branous staining. However, up to 10-12 % of ILC show some E-cadherin mem-
brane staining, but this is usually patchy and weak. Occasionally there is diffuse
or dot-like cytoplasmic expression. In some instances a CDH1 mutation may inac-
tivate the E-cadherin protein, yet preserve the antibody binding epitope. Another
explanation is the gradual loss of E-cadherin expression during clonal evolution
with some residual preservation in tumors early in development. Indeed in almost
all of these cases the E-cadherin protein is nonfunctional and not associated with
the catenin complex [47]. Consequently, it is possible to have an ILC with typical
morphology, and a CDH1 mutation that still retains E-cadherin membrane staining
by IHC [4750].
Classification of Lobular Neoplasia Using Transcriptional

Profiling
Variation in messenger RNA (mRNA) expression patterns, mainly assessed by

complementary DNA (cDNA) microarrays, has been used in the past decade to
classify breast tumors through hierarchical clustering analysis into distinct molec-
ular taxonomies [5153]. Based on these classifications, breast carcinomas have
been successfully categorized into at least five distinct groups, namely Luminal
A, Luminal B, HER2-enriched, normal breast-like and basal-like [51, 53]. The
genomic complexity, the specific genetic changes and the clinical outcomes are
significantly different among different subtypes of breast cancers [5355].
Briefly, the preferential expression of the genes normally expressed by lumi-
nal epithelium resulted in the names of the luminal subtypes. The luminal tumors
express cytokeratin (CK) 8/18, GATA3, and ER-related genes [5153, 56, 57].
Estrogen receptor (ER) is highly expressed in Luminal A tumors that have low levels
of proliferation-related genes and usually results in a low grade histology and excel-
lent prognosis. Luminal B tumors express lower levels of ER relative to Luminal A
tumors. Luminal B tumors also express higher levels of proliferation-related genes,
often resulting in a higher histological grade and a significantly worse prognosis [51,
5860]. Tumors in HER2-enriched group are characterized by HER2 gene amplifi-
cation on chromosome 17q12 [56]. These tumors often demonstrate strong HER2
protein expression (3+IHC staining) and are completely negative for ER and pro-
gesterone receptor (PgR) [61]. The HER2-enriched subtype tends to have a more
aggressive clinical course [60]. In the basal-like subtype, the tumors frequently
express basal/myoepithelial cell genes, such as CK5, CK14, CK17, caveolins 1/2
and EGFR [56, 6264]. Interestingly, the basal-like tumors are usually triple nega-
tive for ER, PR and HER2 expression [65]. This subtype also shows an aggressive
clinical behavior with high histological grade and high proliferative index [66, 67].
Gene expression profiling studies have demonstrated that ILCs are most fre-
quently classified as Luminal A type cancers. However, a small portion of ILCs
may show molecular signatures of normal breast-like, luminal B, HER2-enriched
and rarely basal-like cancers [68]. Classical ILCs almost invariably express
ER and PgR and rarely show HER2 overexpression or HER2 gene amplifica-
tion [6971]. In contrast, a lower percentage of the pleomorphic variant of ILC
shows ER/PgR expression [72]. The pleomorphic variant may also show HER2
protein overexpression and HER2 gene amplification [26, 28]. Notably, the gene
expression profiling data indicate that ILCs differ from grade-matched and molec-
ular subtype-matched IDC in the expression of genes associated with cell adhe-
sion (ITGB1, LAMA3, LAMC, ADAM10, ADAM9), actin cytoskeleton signaling
(e.g. ROCK1, ROCK2) and cell-to-cell signaling. Particularly, ILCs have reduced
expression of E-cadherin and of genes that are involved in cytoskeleton remod-
eling, cell adhesion, TGF- signaling, DNA repair and ubiquitination. In addition,
increased expression of prostaglandin biosynthesis genes, transcription factor and
cell migration associated genes is observed [7376].
Chromosomal Abnormalities
The most common abnormalities identified in ILC are loss of chromosome 16q
and gain of chromosomes 1q and 16p [28, 7779]. There are other genomic
alterations that are less common and more heterogeneous across different types
of lobular carcinoma. These alterations are not specific to lobular breast cancers.
Genomic changes, such as gains (8q, 6q), amplifications (1q32, 8p, 11q) and
losses (8p, 11q, 13q, 6q, 17p) are identified in the classical type of ILC [80, 81].
Similar genomic alterations can commonly be detected in pleomorphic variant of
ILC, but in addition, other changes such as amplifications at loci of 8q24, 17q12
and 20q13, which are typically more characteristic of high grade invasive carci-
noma can be also seen [28, 45, 80].
Molecular analysis of LN and synchronous ILC has demonstrated that the LN

is a clonal neoplastic proliferation and a precursor for ILC [79]. LOH at 11q13,
16q, 17p and 17q, which are commonly seen in ILC, has been observed in LN as
well. Other frequently observed alterations are losses of 16p, 16q, 17p, 22q and
gain of 6q [8183].
LCIS is morphologically classified into classical (CLCIS) and pleomorphic
(PLCIS) types [8486]. Some studies have suggested that more complex molec-
ular alterations observed in the apocrine type of PLCIS may be associated with
more aggressive behavior for this subtype [86]. PLCIS harbors greater genomic
instability with increased copy number alterations, including 8p, 16p, 17q and
amplification of loci such as 8q24 and 17q12. Compared with CLCIS, PLCIS
showed significantly higher Ki67 index, lower ER and PgR expression, and occa-
sionally HER2 gene amplification. The accumulation of genomic changes in
PLCIS has greater similarities to those of high grade DCIS, reflecting the more
aggressive nature of PLCIS compared with CLCIS [85, 87, 88].
Genomic Alterations at the Gene Level
Different studies have found heterogeneous, but reproducible alterations in dif-

ferent genes [74, 89]. These changes include, but are not limited to, mutations,
deletions and amplifications [46]. Comprehensive sequence analysis including
mutations and translocations revealed highly altered genes among different sub-
types of breast carcinomas. Inactivation of E-cadherin (CDH1, 16q22.1), the
most commonly identified genetic alteration in LN and ILC, occurs as an early
event in oncogenesis [8]. Single nucleotide mutational changes can be commonly
seen in low or intermediate grade lobular carcinoma and accumulation of addi-
tional genetic alterations can occur with disease progression [90]. Genes com-
monly altered in ductal and/or lobular breast cancers include TP53 (17p13.1),
PIK3CA (3q26.32), AKT1 (14q32.32), GATA3 (10p15), MAP3K1 (5q11.2), CBFB
(16q22.1), RUNX1 (21q22.3) and CDH1 (16q22.1) (Table 7.1)[9198]. Other less
frequently altered genes are CCND1 (11q13), ERBB2 (17q12), FGFR1 (8p11),
MCL1 (1q21), KRAS (12p12.1), NF1 (17q11.2), MEN1 (11q13), ATM (11q22
q23), CCNF (16p13.3), RB1 (13q14.2) and BRCA2 (13q12.3) [52, 91, 98103].
Recent studies in The Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network (TCGA) shed
more light on the gene deletions, mutations and amplifications commonly seen in
ILC [46, 104]. Comprehensive genomic and transcriptomic analysis of breast can-
cers show that the major differences between ILC and IDC are mutations in TP53,
PIK3CA, GATA3, MYC, MAP3K1/MAP2K4, which are more common in IDC
versus PIK3CA, FOXA1, HER2 and PTEN which are more common in ILC. It is
important to emphasize that the rate of HER2 gene mutation is much higher in ILC
(10 % vs. <1 %), whereas HER2 gene amplification is more common in IDC (15 %
vs. <5 %) [46]. The biologic significance and clinical utility of some of these altera-
tions will need to be elucidated with further comprehensive molecular studies.
Table7.1Genes frequently mutated in lobular breast carcinoma

Gene Name Location Function
TP53 Tumor protein 53 17p13.1 Tumor suppressor
PIK3CA phosphatidylinositol-4,5- 3q26.32 Cell growth, division and survival
bisphosphate 3-kinase
AKT1 v-akt murine thymoma viral 14q32.32 Cell growth, division and survival
oncogene homolog 1
GATA3 GATA binding protein 3 10p15 Transcription factors important in
Tcell and endothelial development
MAP3K1 mitogen-activated protein kinase 5q11.2 Protein kinase activating ERK and
kinase kinase 1 JNK kinasepathways
CBFB core-binding factor, subunit 16q22.1 Master regulator of RUNX genes
RUNX1 runt-related transcription factor 1 21q22.3 Part of core-binding factor complex
CDH1 cadherin 1 (E-cadherin) 16q22.1 Cell adhesion
There is little known about the hereditary genetics of lobular cancer. Current evi-
dence suggests that there is a significant overlap between genetic predisposition to IDC
and ILC. However, newer studies have identified novel nucleotide polymorphisms at
locus 7q34 conferring a predisposition that is specific to lobular breast cancer [105].
Molecular characterization of lobular carcinomas in the literature is relatively
limited. With the advent of more advanced and readily available technologies
additional molecular findings will likely emerge.
Key Points
Lobular breast carcinoma (ILC) is the second most common type of breast
carcinoma.
The incidence of lobular carcinoma is rising that is due to better diagnosis and
use of postmenopausal hormone therapy.
Morphologically, ILC comprises of small, dyshesive and relatively uniform
cells that insidiously infiltrate the breast stroma in a single-file pattern without
significant stromal reaction.
There are different subtype of ILC, with classical and pleomorphic subtypes are
two most prevalent.
Loss of E-cadherin is the characteristic molecular feature of the ILC.
Underlying alteration in CDH1 gene in the form of mutation or splicing or loss
of heterozygosity is seen in almost all of the ILC.
Most ILC, particularly the classical subtype, belong to luminal A molecular
type of breast carcinomas.
Although there are several other chromosomal abnormalities in ILC, loss of chro-
mosome 16q and gain of chromosomes 1q and 16p are most common changes.
Apart from changes in CDH1 gene, alterations in TP53, PIK3CA and GATA3
are also commonly seen in ILC.
References
1. Foote FW, Stewart FW. Lobular carcinoma in situ: a rare form of mammary cancer. Am J
Pathol. 1941;17(4):4916.
2. Haagensen CD, etal. Lobular neoplasia (so-called lobular carcinoma in situ) of the breast.
Cancer. 1978;42(2):73769.
3. Wheeler JE, etal. Lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: long-term followup. Cancer.
1974;34(3):55463.
4. Andersen JA. Lobular carcinoma in situ: a long-term follow-up in 52 cases. Acta Pathol
Microbiol Scand A. 1974;82(4):51933.
5. Brogi E, Murray MP, Corben AD. Lobular carcinoma, not only a classic. Breast J.
2010;16(Suppl 1):S104.
6. Mastracci TL, etal. E-cadherin alterations in atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carci-
noma in situ of the breast. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(6):74151.
7. De Leeuw WJ, etal. Simultaneous loss of E-cadherin and catenins in invasive lobular breast
cancer and lobular carcinoma in situ. J Pathol. 1997;183(4):40411.
8. Vos CB, etal. E-cadherin inactivation in lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast: an early
event in tumorigenesis. Br J Cancer. 1997;76(9):11313.
9. Arpino G, Laucirica R, Elledge RM. Premalignant and in situ breast disease: biology and
clinical implications. Ann Intern Med. 2005;143(6):44657.
10. Rakha EA, Ellis IO. Lobular breast carcinoma and its variants. Semin Diagn Pathol.
2010;27(1):4961.
11. Simpson PT, etal. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: pathol-
ogy of atypical lobular hyperplasia and lobular carcinoma in situ. Breast Cancer Res.
2003;5(5):25862.
12. Lakhani SRE, Simpson PT. Invasive lobular carcinoma. In: Lakhani SEI, Schnitt SJ, Tan
P-H, van de Vijver MJ, editors. WHO classification of tumors of the breast. Lyon: IARC;
2012.
13. Daling JR, etal. Relation of regimens of combined hormone replacement therapy to lobular,
ductal, and other histologic types of breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2002;95(12):245564.
14. Chen CL, etal. Hormone replacement therapy in relation to breast cancer. JAMA.
2002;287(6):73441.
15. Shetty MR. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma: is it different from infiltrating duct carcinoma?
Cancer. 1994;74(3):9867.
16. Silverstein MJ, etal. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma: is it different from infiltrating duct car-
cinoma? Cancer. 1994;73(6):16737.
17. Wheeler JE, Enterline HT. Lobular carcinoma of the breast in situ and infiltrating. Pathol
Annu. 1976;11:16188.
18. Martinez V, Azzopardi JG. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: incidence and variants.
Histopathology. 1979;3(6):46788.
19. Fechner RE. Histologic variants of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Hum Pathol.
1975;6(3):3738.
20. Shousha S, etal. Alveolar variant of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: a tumor rich in
estrogen receptors. Am J Clin Pathol. 1986;85(1):15.
21. Van Bogaert LJ, Maldague P. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the female breast: deviations
from the usual histopathologic appearance. Cancer. 1980;45(5):97984.
22. Bentz JS, Yassa N, Clayton F. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: clinicopatho-
logic features of 12 cases. Mod Pathol. 1998;11(9):81422.
23. Weidner N, Semple JP. Pleomorphic variant of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast.
Hum Pathol. 1992;23(10):116771.
24. Eusebi V, Magalhaes F, Azzopardi JG. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: an
aggressive tumor showing apocrine differentiation. Hum Pathol. 1992;23(6):65562.
25. Silver SA, Tavassoli FA. Pleomorphic carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathological analy-
sis of 26 cases of an unusual high-grade phenotype of ductal carcinoma. Histopathology.
2000;36(6):50514.
26. Middleton LP, etal. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma: morphology, immunohistochemistry,
and molecular analysis. Am J Surg Pathol. 2000;24(12):16506.
27. Gamallo C, etal. Correlation of E-cadherin expression with differentiation grade and histo-
logical type in breast carcinoma. Am J Pathol. 1993;142(4):98793.
28. Simpson PT, etal. Molecular profiling pleomorphic lobular carcinomas of the breast: evi-
dence for a common molecular genetic pathway with classic lobular carcinomas. J Pathol.
2008;215(3):23144.
29. Rasbridge SA, etal. Epithelial (E-) and placental (P-)cadherin cell adhesion molecule
expression in breast carcinoma. J Pathol. 1993;169(2):24550.
30. Moll R, etal. Differential loss of E-cadherin expression in infiltrating ductal and lobular
breast carcinomas. Am J Pathol. 1993;143(6):173142.
31. Takeichi M. Cadherin cell adhesion receptors as a morphogenetic regulator. Science.
1991;251(5000):14515.
32. Golenhofen N, Drenckhahn D. The catenin, p120ctn, is a common membrane-associated
protein in various epithelial and non-epithelial cells and tissues. Histochem Cell Biol.
2000;114(2):14755.
33. Hatzfeld M. The p120 family of cell adhesion molecules. Eur J Cell Biol.
2005;84(23):20514.
34. Davis MA, Ireton RC, Reynolds AB. A core function for p120-catenin in cadherin turnover.
J Cell Biol. 2003;163(3):52534.
35. Peifer M, Yap AS. Traffic control: p120-catenin acts as a gatekeeper to control the fate of
classical cadherins in mammalian cells. J Cell Biol. 2003;163(3):43740.
36. Sarrio D, etal. Cytoplasmic localization of p120ctn and E-cadherin loss characterize lobular
breast carcinoma from preinvasive to metastatic lesions. Oncogene. 2004;23(19):327283.
37. Shibata T, etal. Cytoplasmic p120ctn regulates the invasive phenotypes of E-cadherin-
deficient breast cancer. Am J Pathol. 2004;164(6):226978.
38. Kanai Y, etal. Point mutation of the E-cadherin gene in invasive lobular carcinoma of the
breast. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1994;85(10):10359.
39. Droufakou S, etal. Multiple ways of silencing E-cadherin gene expression in lobular carci-
noma of the breast. Int J Cancer. 2001;92(3):4048.
40. Berx G, etal. E-cadherin is a tumour/invasion suppressor gene mutated in human lobular
breast cancers. EMBO J. 1995;14(24):610715.
41. Graff JR, etal. E-cadherin expression is silenced by DNA hypermethylation in human
breast and prostate carcinomas. Cancer Res. 1995;55(22):51959.
42. Yoshiura K, etal. Silencing of the E-cadherin invasion-suppressor gene by CpG methylation
in human carcinomas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995;92(16):74169.
43. Yonemura Y, etal. Decreased E-cadherin expression correlates with poor survival in patients
with gastric cancer. Anal Cell Pathol. 1995;8(2):17790.
44. Berx G, etal. E-cadherin is inactivated in a majority of invasive human lobular breast
cancers by truncation mutations throughout its extracellular domain. Oncogene.
1996;13(9):191925.
45. Mohsin SK, etal. Biomarker profile and genetic abnormalities in lobular carcinoma in situ.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;90(3):24956.
46. Cancer Genome Atlas Network. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast
tumours. Nature. 2012;490(7418):6170.
47. Da Silva L, etal. Aberrant expression of E-cadherin in lobular carcinomas of the breast. Am
J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(5):77383.
48. Zhao L, etal. Diagnostic role of immunohistochemistry in the evaluation of breast pathol-
ogy specimens. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(1):1624.
49. Rakha EA, etal. Clinical and biological significance of E-cadherin protein expression in
invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 2010;34(10):14729.
50. Lopez-Garcia MA, etal. Breast cancer precursors revisited: molecular features and progres-
sion pathways. Histopathology. 2010;57(2):17192.
51. Sorlie T, etal. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expres-
sion data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100(14):841823.
52. Perou CM, etal. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature.
2000;406(6797):74752.
53. Sorlie T, etal. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses
with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(19):1086974.
54. Gatza ML, etal. A pathway-based classification of human breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA. 2010;107(15):69949.
55. Stephens PJ, etal. Complex landscapes of somatic rearrangement in human breast cancer
genomes. Nature. 2009;462(7276):100510.
56. Andre F, Pusztai L. Molecular classification of breast cancer: implications for selection of
adjuvant chemotherapy. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2006;3(11):62132.
57. Reis-Filho JS, Westbury C, Pierga JY. The impact of expression profiling on prognostic and
predictive testing in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59(3):22531.
58. Geyer FC, etal. Genetic characterization of breast cancer and implications for clinical man-
agement. J Cell Mol Med. 2009;13(10):4090103.
59. Geyer FC, Reis-Filho JS. Microarray-based gene expression profiling as a clinical tool for
breast cancer management: are we there yet? Int J Surg Pathol. 2009;17(4):285302.
60. Weigelt B, Baehner FL, Reis-Filho JS. The contribution of gene expression profiling to
breast cancer classification, prognostication and prediction: a retrospective of the last dec-
ade. J Pathol. 2010;220(2):26380.
61. Rouzier R, etal. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative
chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11(16):567885.
62. Livasy CA, etal. Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carci-
noma. Mod Pathol. 2006;19(2):26471.
63. Nielsen TO, etal. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like sub-
type of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(16):536774.
64. Cheang MC, etal. Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognos-
tic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(5):136876.
65. Bhargava R, Dabbs DJ. Use of immunohistochemistry in diagnosis of breast epithelial
lesions. Adv Anat Pathol. 2007;14(2):93107.
66. Turner NC, Reis-Filho JS. Basal-like breast cancer and the BRCA1 phenotype. Oncogene.
2006;25(43):584653.
67. Foulkes WD, etal. The prognostic implication of the basal-like (cyclin E high/p27 low/
p53+/glomeruloid-microvascular-proliferation+) phenotype of BRCA1-related breast can-
cer. Cancer Res. 2004;64(3):8305.
68. Weigelt B, etal. Refinement of breast cancer classification by molecular characterization of
histological special types. J Pathol. 2008;216(2):14150.
69. Soomro S, etal. c-erbB-2 expression in different histological types of invasive breast carci-
noma. J Clin Pathol. 1991;44(3):2114.
70. Rakha EA, etal. Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast: response to hormonal therapy and
outcomes. Eur J Cancer. 2008;44(1):7383.
71. Arpino G, etal. Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: tumor characteristics and clini-
cal outcome. Breast Cancer Res. 2004;6(3):R14956.
72. Radhi JM. Immunohistochemical analysis of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma: higher expres-
sion of p53 and chromogranin and lower expression of ER and PgR. Histopathology.
2000;36(2):15660.
73. Zhao H, etal. Different gene expression patterns in invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas
of the breast. Mol Biol Cell. 2004;15(6):252336.
74. Weigelt B, etal. The molecular underpinning of lobular histological growth pattern: a
genome-wide transcriptomic analysis of invasive lobular carcinomas and grade- and
molecular subtype-matched invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type. J Pathol.
2010;220(1):4557.
75. Turashvili G, etal. Novel markers for differentiation of lobular and ductal invasive breast
carcinomas by laser microdissection and microarray analysis. BMC Cancer. 2007;7:55.
76. Korkola JE, etal. Differentiation of lobular versus ductal breast carcinomas by expression
microarray analysis. Cancer Res. 2003;63(21):716775.
77. Nishizaki T, etal. Genetic alterations in lobular breast cancer by comparative genomic
hybridization. Int J Cancer. 1997;74(5):5137.
78. Loo LW, etal. Array comparative genomic hybridization analysis of genomic alterations in
breast cancer subtypes. Cancer Res. 2004;64(23):85419.
79. Hwang ES, etal. Clonality of lobular carcinoma in situ and synchronous invasive lobular
carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100(12):256272.
80. Masuda S. Breast cancer pathology: the impact of molecular taxonomy on morphological
taxonomy. Pathol Int. 2012;62(5):295302.
81. Lu YJ, etal. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of lobular carcinoma in situ and
atypical lobular hyperplasia and potential roles for gains and losses of genetic material in
breast neoplasia. Cancer Res. 1998;58(20):47217.
82. Lakhani SR, etal. Loss of heterozygosity in lobular carcinoma in situ of the breast. Clin
Mol Pathol. 1995;48(2):M748.
83. Nayar R, etal. Loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 11q13 in lobular lesions of
the breast using tissue microdissection and polymerase chain reaction. Hum Pathol.
1997;28(3):27782.
84. Shin SJ, etal. Florid lobular carcinoma in situ: molecular profiling and comparison to
classic lobular carcinoma in situ and pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol.
2013;44(10):19982009.
85. Mastracci TL, etal. Genomic alterations in lobular neoplasia: a microarray compara-
tive genomic hybridization signature for early neoplastic proliferation in the breast. Genes
Chromosomes Cancer. 2006;45(11):100717.
86. Chen YY, etal. Genetic and phenotypic characteristics of pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in
situ of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(11):168394.
87. Boldt V, etal. Positioning of necrotic lobular intraepithelial neoplasias (LIN, grade
3) within the sequence of breast carcinoma progression. Genes Chromosom Cancer.
2010;49(5):46370.
88. Reis-Filho JS, etal. Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: role of comprehensive
molecular pathology in characterization of an entity. J Pathol. 2005;207(1):113.
89. Ross JS, etal. Relapsed classic E-cadherin (CDH1)-mutated invasive lobular breast
cancer shows a high frequency of HER2 (ERBB2) gene mutations. Clin Cancer Res.
2013;19(10):266876.
90. Green AR, etal. Loss of expression of chromosome 16q genes DPEP1 and CTCF in lobular
carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;113(1):5966.
91. Banerji S, etal. Sequence analysis of mutations and translocations across breast cancer sub-
types. Nature. 2012;486(7403):4059.
92. Sjoblom T, etal. The consensus coding sequences of human breast and colorectal cancers.
Science. 2006;314(5797):26874.
93. Samuels Y, etal. High frequency of mutations of the PIK3CA gene in human cancers.
Science. 2004;304(5670):554.
94. Carpten JD, etal. A transforming mutation in the pleckstrin homology domain of AKT1 in
cancer. Nature. 2007;448(7152):43944.
95. Usary J, etal. Mutation of GATA3 in human breast tumors. Oncogene.
2004;23(46):766978.
96. Kan Z, etal. Diverse somatic mutation patterns and pathway alterations in human cancers.
Nature. 2010;466(7308):86973.
97. Derksen PW, etal. Mammary-specific inactivation of E-cadherin and p53 impairs functional
gland development and leads to pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma in mice. Dis Model
Mech. 2011;4(3):34758.
98. Dabbs DJ, etal. Lobular neoplasia of the breast revisited with emphasis on the role of
E-cadherin immunohistochemistry. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(7):e111.
99. Shah SP, etal. Mutational evolution in a lobular breast tumour profiled at single nucleotide
resolution. Nature. 2009;461(7265):80913.
100. Wilkerson PM, Reis-Filho JS. The 11q13q14 amplicon: clinicopathological correlations
and potential drivers. Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2013;52(4):33355.
101. Natrajan R, etal. An integrative genomic and transcriptomic analysis reveals molecu-

lar pathways and networks regulated by copy number aberrations in basal-like, HER2 and
luminal cancers. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;121(3):57589.
102. Weigelt B, Reis-Filho JS. Histological and molecular types of breast cancer: is there a uni-
fying taxonomy? Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6(12):71830.
103. Stephens PJ, etal. The landscape of cancer genes and mutational processes in breast cancer.
Nature. 2012;486(7403):4004.
104. Gatza M. Genomic characterization of invasive lobular breast carcinoma. 2014. Available
from: http://www.genome.gov/multimedia/slides/tcga3/21_gatza.pdf.
105. Sawyer E, etal. Genetic predisposition to in situ and invasive lobular carcinoma of the
breast. PLoS Genet. 2014;10(4):e1004285.
Chapter 8
Molecular Pathology of Hormone
Regulation in Breast Cancer: Hormone
Receptor Evaluation and Therapeutic
Implications
Emad A. Rakha
Introduction
Steroids hormone receptor together with growth factors drive the development,
growth and differentiation of hormone responsive tissue including breast epithelial
tissue following activation of the nuclear estrogen (ER) and progesterone receptor
(PR) [13]. ER and PR are expressed in breast cancer respectively in 7090% and
5565% of cases. Hormone receptor activationmainly through paracrine signal-
ingtriggers diverse gene networks to activate metabolic and cell regulatory path-
ways involved in the initiation and progression of hormone receptor positive breast
cancer [4]. ER is activated by the hormone estrogen (17-estradiol) and once acti-
vated, the ER is able to translocate into the nucleus and bind to DNA to regulate
the activity of different genes functioning as a DNA-binding transcription factor.
There are two different forms of the estrogen receptor, usually referred to as and
. In this article ER refers to ER. PR is encoded by a single PR gene residing
on chromosome 11q22 and its protein product is activated by the steroid hormone
progesterone. After progesterone binds to the receptor, PR enters the nucleus and
binds to DNA.
The expression of ER and PR is predictive for endocrine response and prognos-
tic for breast cancer outcome but to a different extend for each receptor. Women
with an ER-positive breast cancer not receiving endocrine therapy have a better
outcome than women with an ER-negative tumour [5, 6]. This outcome difference
is further enhanced with endocrine therapy as ER expression predicts response to
E.A. Rakha(*)
Department of Histopathology, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells,
School of Medicine, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust,
Nottingham City Hospital, The University of Nottingham, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK

108 E.A. Rakha
anti-oestrogen therapeutic strategies [7, 8] including inhibition of hormone pro-

duction through oophorectomy or administration of drugs that inhibit hormone
synthesis in other organs of origin such as aromatase inhibitors in post-menopau-
sal women. The other approach of endocrine therapy includes the use of hormone
receptor antagonists that bind to the normal hormone receptor and prevent its acti-
vation. Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERM) are an important class of
estrogen receptor antagonist that are used primarily for the treatment and chemo-
prevention of breast cancer. Tamoxifen, which is currently first-line treatment for
nearly all pre-menopausal women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer is
an example of SERM that has partial agonist function in some tissues, such as the
endometrium. The use of Tamoxifen for 5-years after surgery reduces the risk of
recurrence by 47% and of death by 26% [9]. Example of SERM that has little or
no agonist function is Fulvestrant are used for treatment of metastatic BC.
Although ER predicts response to endocrine therapy, its predictive power
appears to decreases over time indicating that it is a time-dependent factor [10].
The PR-positivity increases the predictive power of ER but on its own does not
predict response [11, 12]. Some studies have demonstrated prognostic value for
PR but did not identify significant effect on the response to endocrine therapy [13,
14]. However, other authors have demonstrated that high PR expression is asso-
ciated with clinical outcomes and effect of hormone therapy in ER positive pre-
menopausal patients [15, 16]. Compared to ER+/PR+ cases, ER+/PR tumours
constitute a more aggressive breast cancer phenotype more often seen in the so
called luminal B breast cancers [13, 14, 17]. ER+/PR tumours tend to have a
lower nuclear ER-activity, a greater genomic instability, a higher proliferation rate,
HER2 positivity, carry frequently PI3K mutations and showing more crosstalk
between ER and growth factors [18]. It was also demonstrated that the presence
of PR in ER-negative tumours is associated with an enhanced chance of response
[19] but may mostly indicate a false-negative ER assay rather than a biologic phe-
nomenon [20]. Therefore several authors have concluded that ER and PR should
be reported in combination with the HER-2 status, since these clinical phenotypes,
available for every patient in daily routine, possess discriminative prognostic
information comparable to gene expression profiling [21, 22].
Assessment and Reporting Hormone Receptor
The substantial survival benefit from hormone therapy has made treatment with
one of these well-tolerated agents mandatory in ER-positive breast cancer; there-
fore, ER assessment of ER status has been rendered essential for all invasive pri-
mary breast carcinomas [23]. Therefore a test that can assess ER status with a high
degree of accuracy, reliability, precision and reproducibility is of crucial impor-
tance. Measurement and characterization of ER was first reported by Jensen etal.
[24] in 1960s. Until about 1990, ER was quantified using a variety of biochemical
ligand-binding assays (LBAs) that depended on homogenization of fresh-frozen
8 Molecular Pathology of Hormone Regulation 109
portion of breast cancer tissue. This assay depended on homogenization of a por-

tion of fresh-frozen breast cancer tissue and preparation of cytosol by centrifuga-
tion for the performance of a LBA involving incubation with radioactively labeled
estradiol. Separation of receptor-bound estradiol from the unbound fraction was
most frequently achieved with a suspension of dextran-coated charcoal (DCC).
Initially LBA techniques were used extensively to quantify ER concentrations in
breast cancer tissue. LBA remained the most widely used service assay until the
early 1990s. Although the results of ER measurement was quantitative most clini-
cal trials used 10fmol/mg protein as a cutoff [7]. The availability of monoclonal
antibodies to ER led to the development of an enzyme immunoassay (EIA) as a
more precise and less labour intensive alternative to the LBA/DCC. Excellent lin-
ear correlations were reported between the two methodologies [25]. Retrospective
analyses have shown that semi-quantitative analysis of ER-expression by immu-
nohistochemistry (IHC) is superior to biochemical assays for both prognostic and
predictive purposes [2629]. IHC application of monoclonal anti-ER antibodies
was initially successful only on frozen sections, but the introduction of antigen
retrieval methods and the development of new antibodies allowed application on
routinely fixed tissues. IHC approach has soon become widespread because of the
ease of the assays, low cost, use of minimal amounts of tissue, and applicability
to routine histopathological samples. IHC is also safe and usable for evaluating
cytology, fresh frozen tissue and formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens.
Additionally, IHC offers the advantage of morphology, allowing pathologists to
discriminate between malignant and benign hormone receptor positive cells. This
led laboratories around the world to abandon LBA in favour of IHC, which is cur-
rently the standard routine practice [30, 31].
However, lack of standardized protocols in the pre-analytical phase including
type of fixative and time of fixation and specimen type, in the analytical phase
including primary antibody, antigen retrieval and detection system and post ana-
lytical phase including scoring method and definition of positivity remained criti-
cal issues and were a likely reason for discordant results in different laboratories
[32, 33]. This is in addition the availability of several antibodies that recognise
different epitopes and may vary in their sensitivity. Previous studies have demon-
strated that the sensitivity of detection of ER expression is related to the quality of
fixation and antigen retrieval methods and the clone of antibody used in addition
to other analytical variables [34]. Therefore guideline recommendation that aimed
at improving assays reproducibility, accuracy and precision have been published
[23, 35]. Quality control programs have also been implemented in the UK and
elsewhere to guarantee reproducibility and comparability between different cen-
tres [36]. Indeed, false negative but also false positive results for ER do exist, with
error rates reported in some centres as high as 20% [30, 33].
Newer molecular technologies such as Real Time quantitative Reverse
Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (qRT-PCR) and gene-expression micro-
arrays are expected to further refine the assessment of hormone receptor expres-
sion. For example, the pre-treatment Oncotype DXRecurrence Score uses
RT-PCR ER gene information together with information obtained from 20 other
110 E.A. Rakha
genes and is not only a highly significant predictor of recurrence (prognostic), but
it is also being tested as a predictive tool to estimate the benefit of adjuvant chem-
otherapy as well [37]. Future studies will need to further assess and validate both
the prognostic and predictive qualities of RT-PCR compared with IHC. Although
the techniques assess ER/PR totally different, the concordance among local IHC,
central IHC, and central RT-PCR by the proprietary gene assay for ER and PR sta-
tus is high [37].
The main points recognised as a source of IHC ER assay variation include
the followings: Choice of specimen and fixation: Hormone receptor studies are
most optimally performed on the preoperative needle core biopsies. Recent stud-
ies show near 100% concordance between needle core and resection specimens
[38]. However, to reduce any possibility of false negative cases, repeat testing of
ER-negative cases on resection specimens is recommended. Bilateral carcino-
mas, histologically distinct ipsilateral carcinomas or widely separated carcinomas
considered to be separate synchronous primary tumours should each be assessed
if the core biopsy is ER negative. It is deemed reasonable not to assess multiple
ipsilateral tumours if they are histologically similar and the core biopsy was ER
positive. Currently there is no consensus on testing residual invasive tumour fol-
lowing neoadjuvant therapy, although some recommend this approach. Cases
negative on resection specimens but show true positivity on needle core biopsy
may be a reflection of poor fixation of the resection specimen. Good fixation
of specimens used for hormone receptor testing should be ensured and the cold
ischaemic time (time from removal from the patient to placing in fixative (cold
ischaemic time) should be as short as possible, certainly less than 1h [39].
Tumours samples should be fixed in buffered formalin and embedded in paraffin
wax. Other methods of tissue fixation may adversely affect antigen reactivity. At
least 6h fixation is recommended for core biopsies. Surgical specimens should
be incised as soon as possible through the carcinoma to allow initial penetra-
tion of fixative and then sliced into 510mm slices to ensure rapid penetration
and even fixation. Tissue should be placed in an adequate volume (ideally 10:1;
fixative:tissue) of fixative for at least 24h and not more than 72h Centres using
rapid fixation and processing must validate their methodology for HER2 assess-
ment (http://www.ukneqasicc.ucl.ac.uk/neqasicc.shtml) [26]. Inadequate fixation
of specimens increases the risk of false-negative ER status. Given the lack of con-
trol some laboratories have over the fixation duration, and given the liability of the
ER antigen, it is still advisable to look for built-in positive controls in the form of
non-neoplastic breast epithelium when identifying an ER-negative case.
Choice of antibody: Although a number of anti-ER antibodies are available, the
ideal antibody is one that is both robust and has been clinically validated; to date,
there are few such antibodies including the mouse monoclonal antibodies 1D5 and
6F11 and the rabbit monoclonal antibodies SP1 and EP1 clones, which have been
demonstrated to produce results that correlate with clinical outcome and have also
been demonstrated to be equal or superior to LBA [34].
Threshold for positivity: The use of reproducible clinically validated, and stand-
ardized scoring system and cutoffs for determining positive results is critical.
Several different IHC semi-quantitative scoring systems for reporting hormone

receptors have been developed over time. Amongst the first was McCarthys H
score, calculated by multiplying the percentage of positive cells by a factor rep-
resenting the intensity of immunoreactivity (1 for weak, 2 for moderate and
3 for strong), giving a minimum score of 0 and a maximum score of 300 (3+).
Originally, a score of <50 was considered negative () and a score of 50100 was
considered weakly positive (1+). Another score still in use is the immunoreactive
Remmele score [27], described in 1987 and also called IRS which is the product
of o proportion score and an intensity score with a ranger of 012. The Allred or
modified quick score which is a nine-point, semiquantitative (ranging from 0 to
8) score that combine percent of positive tumour cells stratified into 6 groups (0
no; 1 less than 1%; 2 between 1 and 10%; 3 between 11 and 33%; 4 between 34
and 66% and 5 between 67 and 100% of the cells staining) and intensity of stain-
ing (03) was introduced and used frequently in clinical trials [28]. The Allred
score was the only clinically validated scoring system and most widely used hor-
mone receptor scoring system [28]. Although there was a strong direct associa-
tion between the level of ER expression and response to hormonal therapy, studies
have revealed that a score of 3 or more that corresponds to as few as 1% of cells
showing staining define ER positivity. When <1% of the tumor cells stain (pro-
portion score=1), the tumour is per definition receptor-negative, regardless of
the intensity score [23]. However, ER percent alone was used for assessment of
hormone receptor in many laboratories and a wide range of arbitrary cutoffs (e.g.
5, 10 and 20% of tumour cells) were employed by different laboratories to define
positivity. In 2010, a consensus ASCO/CAP meeting of expert panelists have set
the consensus threshold for reporting ER as positive at 1% staining [23]. This cut-
off has also been endorsed in the UK and elsewhere. It is our practice to assess
and report percent, H-score and Allred score and define ER positivity based on a
1% cutoff. However, it is important to be aware that cases expressing ER staining
in 19% of tumour cells on needle core biopsy should be repeated on resection
specimens and the proportions of false positive and false negative results are the
highest among those cases [29]. Discordances between H-score and Allred score
for defining ER-positivity and the resulting benefit from anti-estrogen therapy also
occur when 110% of cells stain [31].
Evaluation and quality: For assessment of hormone receptor training and expe-
rience in interpretation of histological characteristics of breast tissue is essen-
tial. Hormone receptor should only be determined on the invasive portion of the
tumour. Image analysis systems may provide alternatives to manual scoring for
hormone receptor. The inclusion of controls, ideally including on slide control(s),
and their detailed scrutiny are essential to ensure test accuracy. Tissue-based con-
trols, from breast cancers, should also be used. Control material should be simi-
larly fixed and processed to the test tissue. Control sections should be ideally cut
at the same time as the test material. Long-term storage of pre-cut control sections
is strongly discouraged. There is no evidence that storage of blocks leads to dete-
rioration of signal. Crushing and edge artefact, particularly affect core biopsies
may make interpretation difficult. A repeat staining may be prudent in these cases.
112 E.A. Rakha
Fig.8.1Immunohistochemical staining of estrogen receptor showing granular/punctate brown

nuclear staining in consistent with false positive pattern [55]
The potential gradient effects of suboptimal fixation, particularly in larger surgical

specimens, should also be considered in interpretation of staining. New batches
of antibody should also be tested before commencing routine application. Use of
standardized operating procedures, including routine use of control materials, is
recommended. In the UK, participation and satisfactory performance in the UK
NEQAS IHC modules is a requirement (www.ukneqasicc.ucl.ac.uk). If a commer-
cial kit/assay is utilised, it is recommended that laboratories adhere strictly to the
kit/assay protocol.
False positive ER staining: Although 6F11 is widely used and has been vali-
dated in several studies, we and other have experienced some difficulties with the
interpretation of staining patterns, and in some instances, we observed weak gran-
ular/punctate nuclear staining on core biopsy that gave false-positive results. We
have identified some cases with this staining pattern in our routine practice and
repeated the ER assessment by using different antibodies on resection specimens
that yielded negative results (Fig.8.1), which suggested that the pattern observed
with 6F11 is likely to constitute a false-positive staining [29].
Predictive Value of Hormone Receptor Expression

in Breast Cancer
A factor is predictive if it predicts the likelihood of responding to specific types of

therapies both in the adjuvant and metastatic neoadjuvantsetting. Hormone recep-
tor expression in breast cancer is predictive of response to endocrine therapy that has
been proven to be highly effective and appropriate for nearly all women with hormone
receptor positive breast cancer, making such treatment the most widely prescribed
therapy for patients with cancer in the world. For many years, tamoxifen taken for
5years was the standard endocrine therapy for breast cancer. In a systematic review
of randomised trials of adjuvant tamoxifen among women with early breast cancer
(55 trials including 37,000 women) [40], it was demonstrated that in women with ER
negative tumours (n=8000) the overall effects of tamoxifen appeared to be small. In
ER positive women (n=30,000), adjuvant tamoxifen reduced the proportional recur-
rence during about 10years of follow-up by 21, 29, and 47%, for 1-year, 2-years and
5-years of treatment respectively. The corresponding proportional mortality reductions
were 12, 17, and 26%. The proportional mortality reductions were similar for women
with node-positive and node-negative disease, but the absolute mortality reductions
were greater in node-positive women [40]. More recently, patients who are postmeno-
pausal also have been offered the option of taking an aromatase inhibitor (AI) as an
alternative to tamoxifen or in sequence after tamoxifen [41].
Despite its advantages, the fact that patients who do not express ER do not
benefit from hormone therapy added to an approximate 40% of ER-positive BC
patients who also do not respond to hormone therapy [42] provides important
clinical context for researchers to explore more signalling pathways which may
provide alternatives for novel targeted therapies. The understanding of the molecu-
lar biology and behaviour of breast cancer and a more robust classification of its
different molecular subtypes is crucial in identifying newer therapeutic strategies.
Using cDNA microarray, Jansen etal. [43] determined 81 genes for tamoxifen
response among 46 ER-positive tumours from women with advanced ER-positive
breast cancer after tamoxifen treatment. The genes were then shortlisted to 44 and
validated on 66 tumours where they could predict tamoxifen response in 27 out of
35 cases. In another study, a new gene signature comprising 78 genes was identi-
fied using a set of 69 independent tumours from patients treated with tamoxifen
[44]. The resistance to tamoxifen was also correctly predicted in 78% of patients
with relapse using a molecular signature of 36 genes, many of them were related
to DNA proliferation and replication such as TK1 and CDC2 [45].
In patients with ER-positive disease, it is a major concern for oncologists as
whether to add chemotherapy to the treatment plan or not. It has been reported that
tumours which are ER positive are relatively resistant to chemotherapy compared
to ER-negative ones with the absolute benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy signifi-
cantly worse (7% of ER-positive tumours vs. 22.8% of ER-negative tumours)
survived to 5year disease free when receiving adjuvant chemotherapy [46, 47].
Tumours with high levels of both ER and PR are highly sensitive to endocrine
therapy and the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy is small in these cases, irrespec-
tive of menopausal status [48]. It remains unclear whether the lack of benefit from
chemotherapy in these patients is due to an excellent outcome or due to genuine
lack of biological effect. Recent data indicate that response to chemotherapy in ER
positive breast cancer can be predicted using the commercially available Oncotype
DX gene signature which is composed of a set of 16 genes with 5 reference genes
using a polymerase chain reaction-type array [49].
Currently, the use of hormonal therapy in breast cancer is restricted to patients
with tumours expressing ER and is prescribed in one of the following two clinical
114 E.A. Rakha
contexts: (1) in limited disease, it is either used in the adjuvant setting, i.e. after
surgery to halt the growth of the metastatic cancer cells or as part of the neoadju-
vant protocol to help shrink the tumour prior to surgery, OR (2) in the metastatic
setting where surgical eradication of the disease in unlikely.
Although there is a gradient of increasing response to endocrine agents with
increasing levels of ER, the gradient is skewed such that tumours expressing even
very low numbers of positive cells (e.g. 110%) show a significant benefit far
above that of ER negative tumours, which are essentially unresponsive. The pre-
dictive value of quantitative PR expression for response to tamoxifen is less clear.
Some authors showed that the benefit of endocrine adjuvant therapy is not affected
by quantitative PR expression in ER positive breast cancer [50] while others
have reported that the benefit of tamoxifen seems to be restricted to ER-positive
breast cancers with a strong expression of PR (>75%) [15]. Although some trials
reported benefit of tamoxifen in ER negative breast cancer when PR is positive
cases this may represent ER false negative assays [20, 29]. Tumours expressing
both hormone receptor and HER2 pathways may be resistant to one or both tar-
geted treatments due to interplay between these pathways and combination ther-
apy may be more beneficial. The significance of the effect of adjuvant trastuzumab
in ER-positive breast cancers is dependent on PRs presence in HERA [51].
In menopausal women with ER positive breast cancer, there is a linear relation-
ship between the quantitative expression of ER and the chance of responding to
endocrine therapy, both for tamoxifen and oral AIs [52, 53]. Metastatic post-men-
opausal breast cancer patients diagnosed with ER positive breast cancer have an
estimated clinical benefit from first line tamoxifen or AIs of 3859% [54].
In an update of guideline recommendations on adjuvant endocrine therapy for
women with ER positive breast cancer by ASCO/CAP [41], it was recommended that:
1. Pre- or perimenopausal women should be offered adjuvant endocrine therapy
with Tamoxifen for an initial duration of 5years. Additional therapy after
5years should be based on menopausal status as follows:
A. If women are pre- or perimenopausal, or if menopausal status is unknown
or cannot be determined, they should be offered continued tamoxifen for a
total duration of 10years
B. If women have become definitively postmenopausal, they should be offered
continued tamoxifen for a total duration of 10years or switching to up to
5years of AIs, for a total duration of up to 10years of adjuvant endocrine
therapy.
2. Women diagnosed with ER positive breast cancer who are postmenopausal
should be offered adjuvant endocrine therapy with Tamoxifen for a duration of
10years OR AIs for a duration of 5years OR Tamoxifen for an initial dura-
tion of 5years, then switching to an AI for up to 5years, for a total duration of
up to 10years of adjuvant endocrine therapy OR Tamoxifen for a duration of
23years and switching to an AI for up to 5years, for a total duration of up to
78years of adjuvant endocrine therapy.
3. Women who are postmenopausal and are intolerant of either tamoxifen or an

AI should be offered the alternative type of adjuvant endocrine therapy.
If women have received an AI but discontinued treatment at less than 5years,
they may be offered tamoxifen for a total of 5years.
If women have received tamoxifen for 23years, they should be offered
switching to an AI for up to 5years, for a total duration of up to 78years of
adjuvant endocrine therapy.
4. Women who have received 5years of tamoxifen as adjuvant endocrine therapy
should be offered additional adjuvant endocrine treatment.
If women are postmenopausal, they should be offered continued tamoxifen for a
total duration of 10years or switching to up to 5years AI, for a total duration of
up to 10years of adjuvant endocrine therapy.
If women are pre- or perimenopausal, or menopausal status cannot be ascer-
tained, they should be offered 5 additional years of tamoxifen, for a total duration
of 10years of adjuvant endocrine therapy.
Conclusion
Hormone receptor is a strong predictor of endocrine therapy and should be

assessed in all breast cancers including primary and recurrent. Hormone therapy is
offered to all patients with ER positive breast cancer. Guideline recommendations
for assessment of hormone receptor expression in breast cancer have been pub-
lished. Adoption of these guidelines and implementation of various quality assur-
ance methods should be encouraged to ensure high level of accuracy, precision
and reproducibility of hormone receptor assays performance
References
1. Hankinson SE, Colditz GA, Willett WC. Towards an integrated model for breast can-
cer etiology: the lifelong interplay of genes, lifestyle, and hormones. Breast Cancer Res.
2004;6(5):2138.
2. Anderson E, Clarke RB. Steroid receptors and cell cycle in normal mammary epithelium. J
Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2004;9(1):313.
3. Asselin-Labat ML, etal. Control of mammary stem cell function by steroid hormone signal-
ling. Nature. 2010;465(7299):798802.
4. Frasor J, etal. Profiling of estrogen up- and down-regulated gene expression in human breast
cancer cells: insights into gene networks and pathways underlying estrogenic control of pro-
liferation and cell phenotype. Endocrinology. 2003;144(10):456274.
5. Knight WA, etal. Estrogen receptor as an independent prognostic factor for early recurrence
in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1977;37(12):466971.
6. Blamey RW, etal. Reading the prognosis of the individual with breast cancer. Eur J Cancer.
2007;43(10):15457.
7. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and
15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet, 2005;365(9472):16871717.
116 E.A. Rakha
8. Bartlett JM, etal. Estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor as predictive biomarkers of
response to endocrine therapy: a prospectively powered pathology study in the Tamoxifen
and Exemestane Adjuvant Multinational trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(12):15318.
9. Al-Mubarak M, etal. Extended adjuvant tamoxifen for early breast cancer: a meta-analysis.
PLoS one. 2014;9(2):e88238.
10. Hilsenbeck SG, etal. Time-dependence of hazard ratios for prognostic factors in primary
breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;52(13):22737.
11. Mohsin SK, etal. Progesterone receptor by immunohistochemistry and clinical outcome in
breast cancer: a validation study. Mod Pathol. 2004;17(12):154554.
12. Bardou VJ, etal. Progesterone receptor status significantly improves outcome prediction over
estrogen receptor status alone for adjuvant endocrine therapy in two large breast cancer data-
bases. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(10):1973.
13. Rakha EA, etal. Biologic and clinical characteristics of breast cancer with single hormone
receptor positive phenotype. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(30):47728.
14. Arpino G, etal. Estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer:
association with growth factor receptor expression and tamoxifen resistance. J Natl Cancer
Inst. 2005;97(17):125461.
15. Stendahl M, etal. High progesterone receptor expression correlates to the effect of adjuvant
tamoxifen in premenopausal breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(15):46148.
16. Liu S, etal. Progesterone receptor is a significant factor associated with clinical outcomes
and effect of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
2010;119(1):5361.
17. Sorlie T, etal. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression
data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(14):841823.
18. Thakkar JP, Mehta DG. A review of an unfavorable subset of breast cancer: estrogen receptor
positive progesterone receptor negative. Oncologist. 2011;16(3):27685.
19. McGuire WL, etal. Current status of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer.
Cancer. 1977;39(6 Suppl):293447.
20. Rakha E, etal. Oestrogen receptor negative progesterone receptor positive phenotype in
breast cancer is a technical artefact. J Path. 2012;228(S1):S22.
21. Van Belle V, etal. Qualitative assessment of the progesterone receptor and HER2 improves
the Nottingham Prognostic Index up to 5years after breast cancer diagnosis. J Clin Oncol.
2010;28(27):412934.
22. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. Combinatorial biomarker expression in breast cancer.
23. Hammond ME, etal. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American
Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and
progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(16):278495.
24. Jensen EV, etal. Estrogen-receptor interactions in target tissues. Arch Anat Microsc Morphol
Exp. 1967;56(3):54769.
25. Thorpe SM. Monoclonal antibody technique for detection of estrogen receptors in human
breast cancer: greater sensitivity and more accurate classification of receptor status than the
dextran-coated charcoal method. Cancer Res. 1987;47(24 Pt 1):65725.
26. Bartlett JM, Rea D, Rimm DL. Quantification of hormone receptors to guide adjuvant ther-
apy choice in early breast cancer: better methods required for improved utility. J Clin Oncol.
2011;29(27):37156.
27. Allred DC. Issues and updates: evaluating estrogen receptor-alpha, progesterone receptor,
and HER2 in breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(Suppl 2):S529.
28. Cheang MC, etal. Immunohistochemical detection using the new rabbit monoclonal anti-
body SP1 of estrogen receptor in breast cancer is superior to mouse monoclonal antibody
1D5 in predicting survival. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(36):563744.
29. Nofech-Mozes S, etal. Cancer care Ontario guideline recommendations for hormone recep-
tor testing in breast cancer. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2012;24(10):68496.
30. Leake R, etal. Immunohistochemical detection of steroid receptors in breast cancer: a work-
ing protocol. UK receptor group, UK NEQAS, The Scottish breast cancer pathology group,
and the receptor and biomarker study group of the EORTC. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53(8):6345.
31. Rhodes A, etal. Frequency of oestrogen and progesterone receptor positivity by immunohis-
tochemical analysis in 7016 breast carcinomas: correlation with patient age, assay sensitivity,
threshold value, and mammographic screening. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53(9):68896.
32. Badve SS, etal. Estrogen- and progesterone-receptor status in ECOG 2197: comparison of
immunohistochemistry by local and central laboratories and quantitative reverse transcription
polymerase chain reaction by central laboratory. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(15):247381.
33. Hodi Z, etal. The reliability of assessment of oestrogen receptor expression on needle core
biopsy specimens of invasive carcinomas of the breast. J Clin Pathol. 2007;60(3):299302.
34. Lee AH, etal. The effect of delay in fixation on HER2 expression in invasive carcinoma
of the breast assessed with immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridisation. J Clin Pathol.
2014;67(7):5735.
35. Rakha EA, etal. Updated UK recommendations for HER2 assessment in breast cancer. J
Clin Pathol. 2015;68(2):939.
36. Remmele W, Stegner HE. Recommendation for uniform definition of an immunoreactive
score (IRS) for immunohistochemical estrogen receptor detection (ER-ICA) in breast cancer
tissue. Pathologe. 1987;8(3):13840.
37. Harvey JM, etal. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the
ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J
Clin Oncol. 1999;17(5):147481.
38. Rakha EA, etal. Low-estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: the impact of tissue sampling,
choice of antibody, and molecular subtyping. J Clin Oncol, 2012;30(23):292930; author
reply 2931.
39. Shousha S. Oestrogen receptor status of breast carcinoma: Allred/H score conversion table.
40. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2001;1:CD000486.
41. Burstein HJ etal. Adjuvant endocrine therapy for women with hormone receptor-positive
breast cancer: american society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline focused
update. J Clin Oncol, 2014;32(21):225569.
42. Osborne CK. Tamoxifen in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med.
1998;339(22):160918.
43. Jansen MPHM, etal. Molecular classification of tamoxifen-resistant breast carcinomas by
gene expression profiling. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(4):732.
44. Kok M, etal. Comparison of gene expression profiles predicting progression in breast cancer
patients treated with tamoxifen. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;113(2):27583.
45. Chanrion M, etal. A gene expression signature that can predict the recurrence of tamoxifen-
treated primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(6):1744.
46. Allegra JC, etal. An association between steroid hormone receptors and response to cyto-
toxic chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res. 1978;38(11 Pt
2):4299304.
47. Berry DA, etal. Estrogen-receptor status and outcomes of modern chemotherapy for patients
with node-positive breast cancer. JAMA. 2006;295(14):165867.
48. Thurlimann B, etal. Is chemotherapy necessary for premenopausal women with lower-risk
node-positive, endocrine responsive breast cancer? 10-year update of International Breast
Cancer Study Group trial 1193. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;113(1):13744.
49. Paik S, etal. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative
breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(27):281726.
50. Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative, G., etal., Relevance of breast cancer hormone
receptors and other factors to the efficacy of adjuvant tamoxifen: patient-level meta-analysis
of randomised trials. Lancet, 2011;378(9793):771784.
51. Untch M, etal. Estimating the magnitude of trastuzumab effects within patient subgroups in
the HERA trial. Ann Oncol. 2008;19(6):10906.
118 E.A. Rakha
52. Colleoni M, etal. Increasing steroid hormone receptors expression defines breast can-
cer subtypes non responsive to preoperative chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
2009;116(2):35969.
53. Ellis MJ, etal. Letrozole is more effective neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than tamoxifen for
ErbB-1- and/or ErbB-2-positive, estrogen receptor-positive primary breast cancer: evidence
from a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(18):380816.
54. Buzdar AU, Vergote I, Sainsbury R. The impact of hormone receptor status on the clinical
efficacy of the new-generation aromatase inhibitors: a review of data from first-line meta-
static disease trials in postmenopausal women. Breast J. 2004;10(3):2117.
55. Immunocytochemistry. Improving immunocytochemistry for over 25years. UK NEQAS
ICC and ISH for Immunocytochemistry and In Situ Hybridisation 2013, Run 103/32.
(http://www.ukneqasicc.ucl.ac.uk/Run_103_Journal.pdf).
Chapter 9
Molecular Pathology of HER Family
of Oncogenes in Breast Cancer: HER-2
Evaluation and Role in Targeted Therapy
Background
Currently, there are four different members in the epidermal growth factor receptor
(EGFR) family. These consist of the erbB lineage of proteins and include erbB1
(EGFR), erbB2 (HER2), erbB3, and erbB4. Each of these molecules consists of an
extracellular domain, a single hydrophobic transmembrane segment, an intracellu-
lar portion with a juxtamembrane segment, a protein kinase domain, and a carboxy
terminal tail [13].
The human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2 or ERBB2) gene prod-
uct is a transmembrane growth factor receptor, which is normally expressed in
secretory epithelia. It is involved in the cellular signaling that regulates growth and
development [35]. Other HER (ErbB) proteins can preferentially heterodimerize
with HER2, which leads to phosphorylation of the tyrosine residues and activation
of downstream effectors such as mitogen activating protein kinase (MAPK), phos-
phatidylinositol-3 kinase (PI3K), and signal transducer and activator of transcrip-
tion (STAT). Depending on the particular signal cascades triggered, HER2 can be
involved in different biological processes, including cell survival, proliferation,
differentiation, invasion, adhesion, migration, and angiogenesis, as well as malig-
nant transformation (Fig.9.1) [68].


Fig.9.1Signaling by ErbB homodimers in comparison with ErbB2-containing heterodimers.

Receptors are shown as two lobes connected by a transmembrane stretch. Binding of a ligand
(EGF-like or NRG) to the extracellular lobe of ErbB1, ErbB3 (note inactive kinase, marked by
a cross), or ErbB4 induces homodimer formation. Unlike homodimers, which are either inac-
tive (ErbB3 homodimers) or signal only weakly, ErbB2-containing heterodimers have attrib-
utes that prolong and enhance downstream signaling (green box) and their outputs (yellow box).
NRG Neuregulin, EGF Epidermal Growth Factor. With permission from [4]. Copyright Nature
Publishing Group 2001
Biology of HER2
HER2 protein is expressed at low levels in normal epithelial cells [9]. HER2
amplification and/or overexpression, however, is often observed in several can-
cers of epithelial origin, such as breast, colorectal, ovarian, pancreatic, and renal
cell carcinomas [9, 10]. Studies using erbB2-deficient mouse models have shown
lethal neural and cardiac defects during embryonic development [3, 11]. Over the
past 20years many mouse models have been developed to study the role of HER2
9 Molecular Pathology of HER Family of Oncogenes 121
gene expression in breast cancer. These studies have shown that theerbB2 receptor
can have a causal role in the development of breast carcinoma [12, 13].
The erbB-receptor family plays a crucial role in cell lineage differentiation into
many tissue types, including the epithelialmesenchymal transformation in epithe-
lial tissues [14]. Although no ligand has been identified for erbB2, the receptor is
recruited into heterodimers with other erbB receptors and this process increases
ligand binding affinity of other erbB-receptor family members. Among erbB-fam-
ily members, HER2 is the favored receptor for heterodimerization [6, 15].
Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the role of erbB2 in onco-
genesis. For instance, overexpression of erbB2 on the cell membrane may lead to
increased heterodimerization with the kinase-defective erbB3 (HER3). These het-
erodimers may undergo a conformational change into the ligand-active state lead-
ing to weak, but prolonged activation of the receptor. Alternatively, spontaneous
erbB2 homodimers may be formed upon overexpression of the protein with subse-
quent activation of the receptor tyrosine kinase [4, 1618].
HER2 in Clinical Setting
HER2 overexpression can be seen in a number of tumors, including, but not lim-
ited to, breast, gastroesophageal, endometrial, lung, ovarian, bladder, and pan-
creatic carcinomas [17, 1927]. HER2 gene amplification is the most common
mechanism driving HER2 protein overexpression. This mechanism is observed
in1520 % of breast and gastroesophageal carcinomas and at lower rates in
other carcinomas [21, 24, 26]. In normal breast tissue, the ductal epithelial
cells display an average of 80,000100,000 HER2 receptors on the cell surface,
whereas breast carcinoma cells can show 500,000 to 1,000,000 receptors on their
surface [2831].
Overexpression of HER2 receptor in breast cancer leads to increased homodi-
merization (HER2:HER2) and heterodimerization (e.g., HER2:HER3) of the
receptors, which initiates a strong pro-tumorigenic signaling cascade [4].
HER2 gene amplification has been associated with a more aggressive clinical
course.
In addition, HER2 gene amplification in breast carcinoma correlates with
lymph node metastasis, negative hormone receptor status, high nuclear grade, and
high proliferation index, such as high Ki67 positivity or increased mitotic activity
[3137].
Current evidence suggests that HER2 receptor overexpression can serve as a
negative prognostic indicator [38]. HER2 protein overexpression has consistently
been shown to act as an independent marker of poor prognosis in patients with
lymph node-positive disease. Interestingly, this feature is often found in concert
with other poor prognostic factors, such as large tumor size, higher histologic
grade, or positive nodal status [29, 32, 38, 39].
Therapies Targeting HER2
HER2 gene amplification represents the underlying molecular event for the vast
majority of HER2-driven breast cancers [4044]. Since HER2 receptor plays a
role in biological and clinical behavior of breast cancers, targeting this receptor
in breast carcinomas with HER2 overexpression has been an attractive therapeu-
tic approach. HER2 was the first molecule to be targeted with a novel humanized
monoclonal antibody [45].
In 1998, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration(FDA) approved trastuzumab
(Genentech, Inc., San Francisco, California), a humanized monoclonal antibody
that targets the extracellular portion of the HER2 receptor. Clinical trials with tras-
tuzumab showed that this treatment improves survival, response rates, and time
to progression when used alone or in combination with chemotherapy [4649].
Although approved for use in metastatic cancer, several prospective randomized
clinical trials have also shown therapeutic benefit of trastuzumab in early stage
breast cancers, by reducing the mortality rate by one-third and recurrence rate by
one-half [5055]. This therapy has been shown to be effective as a single agent or
in combination with more traditional chemotherapy [5659]. However, both clini-
cal and in vitro studies have demonstrated that trastuzumab is only active against
HER2-overexpressing (HER2 positive) tumors [49, 56, 58, 60]. There are also sev-
eral reports showing that patients with relatively lower expression of HER2 pro-
tein on the cell surface derive some benefit from anti-HER2 therapy [61, 62].
Lapatinib (GlaxoSmithKline, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania), a tyrosine kinase
inhibitor of HER2 and EGFR was the next therapeutic agent approved by the FDA
for the treatment of HER2 positive breast cancers. Lapatinib is an ATP competitor
that blocks phosphorylation of the HER2/EGFR1 tyrosine kinase domains inhibit-
ing activation of AKT/PIK3CA and MAP kinase pathways. Lapatinib provided a
significant improvement in disease-free survival of breast cancer patients after pro-
gression on trastuzumab [45, 6365].
More recently, additional monoclonal antibody therapies have been approved
for the treatment of HER2 positive metastatic breast cancer. In one instance, the
original trastuzumab antibody has been conjugated to the cytotoxic agent mer-
tansine. In one study, this antibody-drug conjugate, ado-trastuzumab emtansine
(T-DM1), offered a better tolerance and improved both progression-free and over-
all survival when compared with the standard drug combination lapatinibcapecit-
abine [66]. A meta-analysis indicates that this antibody-drug conjugate is effective
for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer in patients previously treated with a
variety of therapeutic agents, including trastuzumab, lapatinib, and a taxane [67,
68].
Another recently approved frontline therapy for HER2 positive metastatic
breast cancer is the monoclonal antibody pertuzumab (Genentech, Inc) [6973].
This represents a new class of monoclonal antibody that targets a different site
on the HER2 molecule. Unlike trastuzumab, which binds to extracellular domain
IV [74], a region that does not contribute to receptor dimerization, pertuzumab
binds to domain II and blocks dimerization of the HER2 receptor. In vitro stud-
ies have shown that pertuzumab is more effective than trastuzumab in disrupting
the HER1HER2 and HER3HER2 dimers [75, 76]. Several clinical trials are
currently underway to show efficacy and potential side effects of these therapeu-
tic agents (NCT01966471, NCT01855828, NCT02003209). These new HER2-
targeting agents have been tested in the adjuvant setting, including trials with
single agent or dual antibody regimens without concomitant or sequential chemo-
therapy [72, 7782]. So far, pertuzumab therapy is associated with increased pro-
gression-free survival and a strong trend toward improved overall survival [73].
All of these ongoing efforts point to the fact that accurate HER2 testing is now
more critical than ever to ensure that the patients receive thecorrect treatment.
Resistance to HER2 Targeted Therapy
The fact that still a fraction of HER2 positive breast carcinomas treated with
these targeted therapies ultimately relapse or develop a more progressive disease,
suggests that there are some de novo or acquired intrinsic mechanisms of resist-
ance to these drugs [83]. Resistance may be innate or develop during the course
ofHER2-targeted therapy. Some of these mechanisms include mutations in HER2
gene itself, the use of compensatory signaling pathways and other resistance muta-
tions affecting response to therapy (e.g., apoptosis). Mechanisms involving HER2
receptor alter the antibody binding site through alternative transcription and splic-
ing. Compensatory signaling through other receptor or intracellular signaling path-
ways, such asinsulin-like growth factor 1 receptor (IGF-1R), which widely bypass
the HER2 receptor signaling, may also occur (Fig.9.2). In addition, acquired
mutations in PIK3CA or PTEN genes have been shown to confer resistance to tras-
tuzumab. Finally, defects in cell cycle regulation or apoptosis, such as elevated
levels of the apoptosis inhibitor survivin, as well as host factors that affect the
immunomodulatory function of these drugs, may contribute to resistance [8395].
Methods of HER2 Testing
Accurate determination of HER2 status is essential, given the significant thera-

peutic benefit derived from targeted therapy in HER2 positive tumors. This is
underscored by the most recentAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology/College
of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) recommendations, which require HER2
testing of all newly diagnosed invasive breast cancers [95]. In addition, these ther-
apeutic agents are not without complications or even serious side effects, necessi-
tating the proper selection of patients who really benefit from them [9698].
There are several methods that can be used to assess routine formalin-fixed
paraffin-embedded (FFPE) clinical breast samples for HER2 status. These include
Fig.9.2Schematic depicting resistance to EGFR and HER2 inhibitors due to activation of

bypass track signaling. a model of a sensitive EGFR or HER2-addicted cancer treated with an
erbB small-molecule inhibitor or antibody resulting in suppression of downstream signaling.
EGFR or HER2 homodimers and heterodimers are shown. b Model of anEGFR-mutant or
HER2-amplified cancer with resistance due to maintenance of downstream signaling in the pres-
ence of the EGFR or HER2 inhibitors. Activation of signaling can be caused by activation of
otherreceptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) or mutational activation of downstream signaling. With
permission from [83]. Copyright Elsevier 2014
the evaluation for HER2 protein overexpression at the tumor cell membrane by
immunohistochemistry (IHC), the assessment of HER2 gene amplification by in
situ hybridization [fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), chromogenic in situ
hybridization (CISH), silver in situ hybridization (SISH)], by multiplex ligation-
dependent probe amplification or reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction
(RT-PCR) [99103].
Two of these methods, namely IHC and FISH, have been studied more thor-
oughly and gained popularity for assessing HER2 status in breast carcinomas in
routine clinical practice. These methods offer several advantages. Both of these
assays allow correlation between HER2 protein expression or HER2 gene sta-
tus and the morphologic features in tissue sections. Both methodologies have
receivedFDA approval for HER2 evaluation [104, 105].
Assessment of HER2 Status by IHC
There are two FDA-approved antibodies, namely Herceptest (Dako, Carpinteria,

California) and Pathway (Ventana, Tucson, Arizona), which may be used to assess
HER2 protein status by IHC. These IHC systems have been reviewed in more
detail elsewhere [95, 106]. A standardized scoring system for IHC studies has
been developed and was most recently updated in 2013 (Fig.9.3) [95, 104, 105].
Briefly, a positive HER2 IHC is defined by intense, complete circumferential
membrane staining in>10 %of invasive tumor cells (score 3+). HER2 IHC result
is negative if weak and incomplete pattern of staining is seen in10 % of tumor
cells (score 0/1+). In approximately20 % of cases, an equivocal result is observed
showing incomplete and/or weak to moderate circumferential staining in>10 %of
the invasive tumor cells or complete and intense circumferential membrane stain-
ing is present in10 % of the invasive tumor cells. All equivocal HER2 results
should be reflexed to an alternative testing (i.e., FISH or CISH) on the same or
another specimen, if available (Fig.9.4) [95].
Fig.9.3Algorithm for evaluation of HER2 protein expression by IHC assay of the invasive com-
ponent of a breast cancer specimen. ISH in situ hybridization. (Asterisk) Readily appreciated using
a low-power objective and observed within a homogeneous and contiguous invasivetumor cell pop-
ulation. With permission from [95]. Copyright American Society of Clinical Oncology 2014
Fig.9.4HER2 immunohistochemistry showing 3+(a); 2+(b); and 1+(c) staining in invasive

breast carcinoma (a, b, c 100 magnification)
Assessment of HER2 Status by FISH
FISHis a molecular cytogenetic technique designed to detect specific chromo-

somal DNA sequences using fluorescent-labeled complementary DNA probes
[106, 107]. There are three FDA-approved FISH probes manufactured by Abbott
(PathVysion, Des Plaines, Illinois), Dako (HER2 FISH pharmaDx), and Ventana
(INFORM, Tucson, Arizona) to assess HER2 gene status. These FISH systems
have been reviewed in more detail elsewhere [95, 106]. A standardized scor-
ing system for FISH has been developed and was most recently updated in 2013
(Figs.9.5 and 9.6) [95, 104, 105].
Probe sets for HER2 may include a single-color HER2 probe or dual-color
probes with one sequence labeled for the HER2 gene and the other for the cen-
tromere of chromosome 17 (CEP17). To determine amplification, an absolute
HER2 gene copy number or a ratio of HER2 gene to CEP17 can be used. Since
FISH studies have shown superior results in predicting a benefit from monoclo-
nal antibody therapy, this approach has gained acceptance as a primary mode for
HER2 testing in breast cancer [49, 56, 59, 100, 108112]. As HER2 gene amplifi-
cation almost always results in HER2 protein overexpression, it generally trans-
lates to 9095 % concordance between these two methods [105]. However, 315
% of breast cancers may show protein overexpression without HER2 gene ampli-
fication [63, 105, 106, 113, 114]. Recent addition of copy number to the scor-
ing guidelines may help to identify cases with polysomy (greater than 2 copies)
of chromosome 17 with HER2 protein overexpression. FISH result should be
reported as positive, if dual-probe HER2/CEP17 ratio is2.0 or an average HER2
gene copy number6.0 signals/cell. An equivocal result is defined as an average
HER2 gene copy number4.0 and<6.0 signals/cell and HER2/CEP17 ratio<2.0.
Negative result is defined as HER2/CEP17 ratio<2.0 and an average HER2 gene
copy number<4.0 signals/cell (Fig.9.7) [95, 104, 108].
Although true polysomy 17 is not a common finding in breast carcinoma [115
117], in the presence of simultaneous increase in CEP17 and HER2 gene copy
number, the ratio of HER2/CEP17 may remain less than 2.0 and mask the true
amplification of the HER2 gene [118, 119]. In this regard, several other genes on
Fig.9.5Algorithm for evaluation of HER2 gene amplification by ISH assay of the invasive compo-
nent of a breast cancer specimen using a single-signal (HER2 gene) assay (single-probe ISH). Ampli-
fication in a single-probe ISH assay is defined by examining the average HER2 genecopy number. If
there is a second contiguous population of cells with increased HER2 signals per cell, and this cell pop-
ulation consists of more than10 % of tumor cells on the slide, a separate counting of at least 20 nono-
verlappingtumor cells must also be performed within this cell population and also reported. (Asterisk)
Observed in a homogeneous and contiguous population. With permission from [95]. Copyright Ameri-
can Society of Clinical Oncology 2014
Fig.9.6Algorithm for evaluation of HER2 gene amplification by ISH assay of the invasive compo-
nent of a breast cancer specimen using a dual-signal (HER2 gene) assay (dual-probe ISH). Amplifica-
tion in a dual-probe ISH assay is defined by examining first the HER2/CEP17 ratio followed by the
average HER2 genecopy number. If there is a second contiguous population of cells with increased
HER2 signals per cell, and this cell population consists of more than10 % of tumor cells on the slide,
a separate counting of at least 20 nonoverlapping tumorcells must also be performed within this cell
population and also reported.CEP17, chromosome enumeration probe 17 (Asterisk) Observed in a
homogeneous and contiguous population. With permission from [95]. Copyright American Society of
Clinical Oncology 2014
Fig.9.7Dual-color (orange HER2, green CEP17) FISH for HER2 gene status on tissue sections
from invasive breast carcinoma (a, b, 1000 magnification). a Tumor with HER2 gene amplifica-
tion; b tumor without HER2 gene amplification
chromosome 17, such as RARA, SMS, or TP53, have been tested as alternative
probes in determining the true HER2 gene amplification and used successfully in
different studies [120].
Brightfield In Situ Hybridization (ISH)
FISH has some disadvantages, such as the need for a dark field (fluorescence) micro-
scope, which limits the ability to assess the conventional morphological details.
Brightfield ISH, which allows the user to assess HER2 gene status using light
microscopy, has recently been introduced as an alternative to FISH testing for the
detection of HER2 gene amplification. The current ASCO/CAP guidelines also
endorse brightfield ISH methods due to high concordance with FISH and com-
parable clinical utility [95, 106]. Of these, chromogenic in situ hybridization
(CISH) has recently been approved by the FDA. In contrast to FISH, the signals
from these techniques do not fade. Therefore, the slides may be archived. Since
CISH uses the brightfield microscopy, the viewer is able to easily locate the inva-
sive tumor component to evaluate the gene status [121124]. This method can be
used to enumerate gene copy number (amplification, deletion) and chromosome
translocation [125128]. CISH similar to IHC uses enzyme-linked antibodies and
chromogens to detect a hapten-labeled probe specific for the target DNA that can
be applied to formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues. Under the light
microscopy the brown and red signals are visualized with better preservation of
morphologic details. The interpretation of the signals may be difficult due to limi-
tation in discriminating between discrete and overlapping signals on light micros-
copy [129]. However, the advantage of CISH over FISH in routine practice is that
simultaneous verification of brightfield histology can be performed using CISH
[130]. Although, CISH does not permit the actual determination of gene copy
number, it has been shown to correlate with FISH [131]. Silver in situ hybridi-
zation (SISH) is a novel brightfieldISH technique [130]. It is a fully automated
system which uses an enzyme-linked probe to deposit silver ions on the target site
that improves the efficacy and consistency of ISH and reduces the risk of error.
Automated detection of chromogenic signals also allows HER2 and CEP17 assays
to be performed on consecutive tissue slides [130], making interpretation easier
and resulting in a readily identifiable signals [129, 130, 132, 133]. This strategy
allows HER2 gene status to be determined in reference to chromosome 17, so that
a HER2/CEP17 ratio can be determined using the same reported ranges as those
recommended by ASCO/CAP guidelines for FISH [129, 134]. The main disadvan-
tage of these assays is an inherent risk of sectioning through the smaller tumors,
when biopsy material is used for analysis [129, 135].
Correlation of Immunohistochemistry (IHC) with

Fluorescence in Situ Hybridization (FISH)
In most studies, only cases with uniform intense circumferential membrane stain-
ing (score 3+) show a good concordance with HER2 gene amplification detected
by FISH assay. This group of patients will be the most likely to benefit from
HER2 monoclonal antibody therapies [49, 56, 58, 111, 136142]. On the contrary,
when there is no HER2 membrane staining or only faint and barely perceptible
incomplete staining is observed (scores 0 or 1+), gene amplification studies typi-
cally demonstrate a normal HER2 gene status and these cases are regarded as neg-
ative [137, 138, 141, 143145]. Cases with incomplete and/or weak to moderate
circumferential membranous staining (score 2+) show poor agreement with FISH
results and are considered inconclusive [66, 138, 143]. In this regard, an accurate
and quantitative assessment of hormone receptor (HR) results is critical, when
using IHC studies to determine therapeutic targets [95, 146, 147]. It should be
emphasized that a number of pre-analytical (such as tissue handling and fixation),
analytical (such as reagents, antibodies, protocols), and post-analytical (reporting,
quality analysis, interpretation) factors can adversely affect immune reactivity of
HER2 protein [108, 148]. These are discussed in more detail in chap. 19.
Key Points
Currently, there are four members in EGFR family of molecules. They include
erbB1 (EGFR), erbB2 (HER2), erbB3 and erbB4.
In normal states, HER2 is expressed at low levels on the surface of epithelial
cells.
HER2 protein overexpression can be seen in a number of epithelial tumors,
including breast, gastroesophageal, endometrial, ovarian and lung carcinomas.
HER2 gene amplification as the most common mechanism for HER2 protein
overexpression is seen in 15 % to 20 % of breast carcinomas.
HER2 protein overexpression can serve as a negative prognostic factor.
HER2 overexpression can be determined at the protein or gene levels by IHC or
ISH assays.
HER2 overexpressing breast carcinomas can be targeted by several therapeutics,
including monoclonal anti-HER2 antibodies or small molecules.
Currently trastuzumab, pertuzumab and lapatinib have been approved by FDA
as targeted therapies for breast carcinomas with HER2 protein overexpression.
References
1. Roskoski R Jr. The ErbB/HER receptor protein-tyrosine kinases and cancer. Biochem
Biophys Res Commun. 2004;319(1):111.
2. Roskoski R Jr. ErbB/HER protein-tyrosine kinases: structures and small molecule inhibi-
tors. Pharmacol Res. 2014;87C:4259.
3. Burgess AW. EGFR family: structure physiology signalling and therapeutic targets. Growth
Factors. 2008;26(5):26374.
4. Yarden Y, Sliwkowski MX. Untangling the ErbB signalling network. Nat Rev Mol Cell
Biol. 2001;2(2):12737.
5. Waterman H, etal. The C-terminus of the kinase-defective neuregulin receptor ErbB-3 con-
fers mitogenic superiority and dictates endocytic routing. EMBO J. 1999;18(12):334858.
6. Citri A, Skaria KB, Yarden Y. The deaf and the dumb: the biology of ErbB-2 and ErbB-3.
Exp Cell Res. 2003;284(1):5465.
7. Wallasch C, etal. Heregulin-dependent regulation of HER2/neu oncogenic signaling by het-
erodimerization with HER3. EMBO J. 1995;14(17):426775.
8. Seliger B, Kiessling R. The two sides of HER2/neu: immune escape versus surveillance.
Trends Mol Med. 2013;19(11):67784.
9. Press MF, Cordon-Cardo C, Slamon DJ. Expression of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in
normal human adult and fetal tissues. Oncogene. 1990;5(7):95362.
10. Seidman JD, Frisman DM, Norris HJ. Expression of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in
serous ovarian neoplasms. Cancer. 1992;70(12):285760.
11. Negro A, Brar BK, Lee KF. Essential roles of Her2/erbB2 in cardiac development and func-
tion. Recent Prog Horm Res. 2004;59:112.
12. Suda Y, etal. Induction of a variety of tumors by c-erbB2 and clonal nature of lymphomas
even with the mutated gene (Val659Glu659). EMBO J. 1990;9(1):18190.
13. Ursini-Siegel J, etal. Insights from transgenic mouse models of ERBB2-induced breast can-
cer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2007;7(5):38997.
14. Burden S, Yarden Y. Neuregulins and their receptors: a versatile signaling module in organo-
genesis and oncogenesis. Neuron. 1997;18(6):84755.
15. Citri A, Yarden Y. EGF-ERBB signalling: towards the systems level. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol.
2006;7(7):50516.
16. Di Fiore PP, etal. erbB-2 is a potent oncogene when overexpressed in NIH/3T3 cells.
Science. 1987;237(4811):17882.
17. Hudziak RM, Schlessinger J, Ullrich A. Increased expression of the putative growth factor
receptor p185HER2 causes transformation and tumorigenesis of NIH 3T3 cells. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA. 1987;84(20):715963.
18. Kokai Y, etal. Synergistic interaction of p185c-neu and the EGF receptor leads to transfor-
mation of rodent fibroblasts. Cell. 1989;58(2):28792.
19. Gonzaga IM, etal. Alterations in epidermal growth factor receptors 1 and 2 in esophageal
squamous cell carcinomas. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:569.
20. Cappuzzo F, Bemis L, Varella-Garcia M. HER2 mutation and response to trastuzumab ther-
apy in non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(24):261921.
21. Boku N. HER2-positive gastric cancer. Gastric Cancer. 2014;17(1):112.
22. Boku N. Molecular target for Her2 positive gastric cancer. Nihon Shokakibyo Gakkai
Zasshi. 2012;109(12):201420.
23. Bang YJ, etal. Trastuzumab in combination with chemotherapy versus chemother-
apy alone for treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal
junction cancer (ToGA): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet.
2010;376(9742):68797.
24. Yan M, etal. HER2 aberrations in cancer: implications for therapy. Cancer Treat Rev.
2014;40(6):77080.
25. Zhang HT, etal. New perspectives on anti-HER2/neu therapeutics. Drug News Perspect.
2000;13(6):3259.
26. Koeppen HK, etal. Overexpression of HER2/neu in solid tumours: an immunohistochemi-
cal survey. Histopathology. 2001;38(2):96104.
27. Chan DS, Twine CP, Lewis WG. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the influence of
HER2 expression and amplification in operable oesophageal cancer. J Gastrointest Surg.
2012;16(10):18219.
28. Ross JS, etal. The Her-2/neu gene and protein in breast cancer 2003: biomarker and target
of therapy. Oncologist. 2003;8(4):30725.
29. Slamon DJ, etal. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplifica-
tion of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987;235(4785):17782.
30. Stefano R, etal. Expression levels and clinical-pathological correlations of HER2/neu in
primary and metastatic human breast cancer. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2004;1028:46372.
31. Yaziji H, Gown AM. Accuracy and precision in HER2/neu testing in breast cancer: are we
there yet? Hum Pathol. 2004;35(2):1436.
32. Yu D, Hung MC. Overexpression of ErbB2 in cancer and ErbB2-targeting strategies.
Oncogene. 2000;19(53):611521.
33. Penault-Llorca F, Cayre A. Assessment of HER2 status in breast cancer. Bull Cancer.
2004;91(Suppl 4):S2115.
34. Varga Z, etal. Assessment of HER2 status in breast cancer: overall positivity rate and accu-
racy by fluorescence in situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry in a single institution
over 12years: a quality control study. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:615.
35. Dowsett M, etal. Assessment of HER2 status in breast cancer: why, when and how? Eur J
Cancer. 2000;36(2):1706.
36. Yarden Y. Biology of HER2 and its importance in breast cancer. Oncology. 2001;61(Suppl
2):113.
37. Eccles SA. The role of c-erbB-2/HER2/neu in breast cancer progression and metastasis. J
Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2001;6(4):393406.
38. Pegram MD. Treating the HER2 pathway in early and advanced breast cancer. Hematol
Oncol Clin North Am. 2013;27(4):75165.
39. Slamon DJ, etal. Studies of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian
cancer. Science. 1989;244(4905):70712.
40. Gown AM. Current issues in ER and HER2 testing by IHC in breast cancer. Mod Pathol.
2008;21(Suppl 2):S815.
41. Garcia-Caballero T, etal. Determination of HER2 amplification in primary breast cancer
using dual-colour chromogenic in situ hybridization is comparable to fluorescence in situ
hybridization: a European multicentre study involving 168 specimens. Histopathology.
2010;56(4):47280.
42. Owens MA, Horten BC, Da Silva MM. HER2 amplification ratios by fluorescence in situ
hybridization and correlation with immunohistochemistry in a cohort of 6556 breast cancer
tissues. Clin Breast Cancer. 2004;5(1):639.
43. Peintinger F, etal. Hormone receptor status and pathologic response of HER2-positive
breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and trastuzumab. Ann Oncol.
2008;19(12):20205.
44. Paik S, Kim C, Wolmark N. HER2 status and benefit from adjuvant trastuzumab in breast
cancer. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(13):140911.
45. Robidoux A, etal. Lapatinib as a component of neoadjuvant therapy for HER2-positive
operable breast cancer (NSABP protocol B-41): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.
Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(12):118392.
46. Slamon D, Pegram M. Rationale for trastuzumab (Herceptin) in adjuvant breast cancer tri-
als. Semin Oncol. 2001;28(1 Suppl 3):139.
47. Horton J. Trastuzumab use in breast cancer: clinical issues. Cancer Control.
2002;9(6):499507.
48. Tan-Chiu E, Piccart M. Moving forward: herceptin in the adjuvant setting. Oncology.
2002;63(Suppl 1):5763.
49. Vogel CL, etal. Efficacy and safety of trastuzumab as a single agent in first-line treatment of
HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(3):71926.
50. Ferretti G, etal. Adjuvant trastuzumab with docetaxel or vinorelbine for HER-2-positive
breast cancer. Oncologist. 2006;11(7):8534.
51. Joensuu H, etal. Adjuvant docetaxel or vinorelbine with or without trastuzumab for breast
cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(8):80920.
52. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, etal. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive
53. Untch M, etal. Neoadjuvant treatment with trastuzumab in HER2-positive breast cancer:
results from the GeparQuattro study. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(12):202431.
54. Romond EH, etal. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive
55. Smith I, etal. 2-year follow-up of trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-
positive breast cancer: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2007;369(9555):2936.
56. Slamon DJ, etal. Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for meta-
static breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(11):78392.
57. Pegram MD, etal. Rational combinations of trastuzumab with chemotherapeutic drugs used
in the treatment of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96(10):73949.
58. Tedesco KL, etal. Docetaxel combined with trastuzumab is an active regimen in HER-2
3+overexpressing and fluorescent in situ hybridization-positive metastatic breast cancer: a
multi-institutional phase II trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(6):10717.
59. Cobleigh MA, etal. Multinational study of the efficacy and safety of humanized anti-HER2 mono-
clonal antibody in women who have HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer that has pro-
gressed after chemotherapy for metastatic disease. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(9):263948.
60. Pegram M, Slamon D. Biological rationale for HER2/neu (c-erbB2) as a target for monoclo-
nal antibody therapy. Semin Oncol. 2000;27(5 Suppl 9):139.
61. Borley A, etal. Impact of HER2 copy number in IHC2+/FISH-amplified breast cancer on
outcome of adjuvant trastuzumab treatment in a large UK cancer network. Br J Cancer.
2014;110(8):213943.
62. Dowsett M, etal. Disease-free survival according to degree of HER2 amplification for
patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy with or without 1year of trastuzumab: the
HERA Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(18):29629.
63. Sauter G, etal. Guidelines for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing: biologic
and methodologic considerations. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(8):132333.
64. Inoue T, etal. Clinical evaluation of lapatinib therapy in metastatic breast cancer using the
Bayes meta-analysis. Gan Kagaku Ryoho. 2014;41(3):34752.
65. Garcia-Munoz C, etal. Lapatinib plus transtuzumab for HER-2 positiva metastatic breast
cancer: experience of use. Farm Hosp. 2014;38(2):1304.
66. Verma S, etal. Trastuzumab emtansine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J
Med. 2012;367(19):178391.
67. Krop IE, etal. Trastuzumab emtansine versus treatment of physicians choice for pretreated
HER2-positive advanced breast cancer (TH3RESA): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.
Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(7):68999.
68. Corrigan PA, etal. Ado-trastuzumab Emtansine: A HER2-positive targeted antibody-drug
conjugate. Ann Pharmacother. 2014;48:148493.
69. Lynce F, Swain SM. Pertuzumab for the treatment of breast cancer. Cancer Invest.
2014;32:4308.
70. McCormack PL. Pertuzumab: a review of its use for first-line combination treatment of
HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Drugs. 2013;73(13):1491502.
71. OSullivan CC, Connolly RM. Pertuzumab and its accelerated approval: evolving treat-
ment paradigms and new challenges in the management of HER2-positive breast cancer.
Oncology (Williston Park). 2014;28(3):18694 196.
72. Gianni L, etal. Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant pertuzumab and trastuzumab in women
with locally advanced, inflammatory, or early HER2-positive breast cancer (NeoSphere): a
randomised multicentre, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2012;13(1):2532.
73. Schneeweiss A, etal. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab in combination with standard neoad-
juvant anthracycline-containing and anthracycline-free chemotherapy regimens in patients
with HER2-positive early breast cancer: a randomized phase II cardiac safety study
(TRYPHAENA). Ann Oncol. 2013;24(9):227884.
74. Cho HS, etal. Structure of the extracellular region of HER2 alone and in complex with the
Herceptin Fab. Nature. 2003;421(6924):75660.
75. Jhaveri K, Esteva FJ. Pertuzumab in the treatment of HER2+breast cancer. J Natl Compr
Canc Netw. 2014;12(4):5918.
76. Franklin MC, etal. Insights into ErbB signaling from the structure of the ErbB2-
pertuzumab complex. Cancer Cell. 2004;5(4):31728.
77. Swain SM, etal. Pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for HER2-positive metastatic
breast cancer (CLEOPATRA study): overall survival results from a randomised, double-
blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(6):46171.
78. Baselga J, etal. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N
Engl J Med. 2012;366(2):10919.
79. de Azambuja E, etal. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer
(NeoALTTO): survival outcomes of a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial and
their association with pathological complete response. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(10):113746.
80. Baselga J, etal. Lapatinib with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast can-
cer (NeoALTTO): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet.
2012;379(9816):63340.
81. Baselga J, Swain SM. CLEOPATRA: a phase III evaluation of pertuzumab and trastuzumab
for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2010;10(6):48991.
82. Blackwell KL, etal. Randomized study of Lapatinib alone or in combination with trastu-
zumab in women with ErbB2-positive, trastuzumab-refractory metastatic breast cancer. J
Clin Oncol. 2010;28(7):112430.
83. Arteaga CL, Engelman JA. ERBB receptors: from oncogene discovery to basic science to
mechanism-based cancer therapeutics. Cancer Cell. 2014;25(3):282303.
84. Engelman JA, etal. MET amplification leads to gefitinib resistance in lung cancer by acti-
vating ERBB3 signaling. Science. 2007;316(5827):103943.
85. Nahta R, etal. Insulin-like growth factor-I receptor/human epidermal growth factor recep-
tor 2 heterodimerization contributes to trastuzumab resistance of breast cancer cells. Cancer
Res. 2005;65(23):1111828.
86. Lu Y, etal. Insulin-like growth factor-I receptor signaling and resistance to trastuzumab
(Herceptin). J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93(24):18527.
87. Berns K, etal. A functional genetic approach identifies the PI3K pathway as a major deter-
minant of trastuzumab resistance in breast cancer. Cancer Cell. 2007;12(4):395402.
88. Nagata Y, etal. PTEN activation contributes to tumor inhibition by trastuzumab, and loss of
PTEN predicts trastuzumab resistance in patients. Cancer Cell. 2004;6(2):11727.
89. Esteva FJ, etal. PTEN, PIK3CA, p-AKT, and p-p70S6K status: association with trastu-
zumab response and survival in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Am J
Pathol. 2010;177(4):164756.
90. Xia W, etal. A model of acquired autoresistance to a potent ErbB2 tyrosine kinase inhibi-
tor and a therapeutic strategy to prevent its onset in breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2006;103(20):7795800.
91. Valabrega G, etal. HER2-positive breast cancer cells resistant to trastuzumab and lapatinib
lose reliance upon HER2 and are sensitive to the multitargeted kinase inhibitor sorafenib.
92. Oliveras-Ferraros C, etal. Inhibitor of Apoptosis (IAP) survivin is indispensable for survival
of HER2 gene-amplified breast cancer cells with primary resistance to HER1/2-targeted
therapies. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2011;407(2):4129.
93. Musolino A, etal. Immunoglobulin G fragment C receptor polymorphisms and clinical effi-
cacy of trastuzumab-based therapy in patients with HER-2/neu-positive metastatic breast
cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(11):178996.
94. Gennari R, etal. Pilot study of the mechanism of action of preoperative trastuzumab in
patients with primary operable breast tumors overexpressing HER2. Clin Cancer Res.
2004;10(17):56505.
95. Wolff AC, etal. Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in
breast cancer: American Society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists clini-
cal practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(31):39974013.
96. Keefe DL. Trastuzumab-associated cardiotoxicity. Cancer. 2002;95(7):1592600.
97. Ewer SM, Ewer MS. Cardiotoxicity profile of trastuzumab. Drug Saf. 2008;31(6):45967.
98. Babar T, etal. Anti-HER2 cancer therapy and cardiotoxicity. Curr Pharm Des.
2014;20(30):49119.
99. Moelans CB, etal. Current technologies for HER2 testing in breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol
Hematol. 2011;80(3):38092.
100. Pauletti G, etal. Assessment of methods for tissue-based detection of the HER-2/neu altera-
tion in human breast cancer: a direct comparison of fluorescence in situ hybridization and
immunohistochemistry. J Clin Oncol. 2000;18(21):365164.
101. Xing WR, etal. FISH detection of HER-2/neu oncogene amplification in early onset breast
cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1996;39(2):20312.
102. Persons DL, etal. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) for detection of HER-

2/neu amplification in breast cancer: a multicenter portability study. Ann Clin Lab Sci.
2000;30(1):418.
103. Susini T, etal. Preoperative assessment of HER-2/neu status in breast carcinoma: the role of
quantitative real-time PCR on core-biopsy specimens. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(2):2349.
breast cancer: American Society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists clini-
cal practice guideline update. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(2):24156.
105. Wolff AC, etal. American Society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists
guideline recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast
cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(1):1843.
106. Wolff AC, etal. American Society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists
107. Bartlett J, Mallon E, Cooke T. The clinical evaluation of HER-2 status: which test to use? J
Pathol. 2003;199(4):4117.
108. Cornejo KM, etal. Theranostic and molecular classification of breast cancer. Arch Pathol
Lab Med. 2014;138(1):4456.
109. Shak S. Overview of the trastuzumab (Herceptin) anti-HER2 monoclonal antibody clinical
program in HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. Herceptin multinational investi-
gator study group. Semin Oncol. 1999;26((4 Suppl 12)):717.
110.
Ross JS, etal. HER-2/neu testing in breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol.
2003;120(Suppl):S5371.
111. Press MF, etal. Evaluation of HER-2/neu gene amplification and overexpression: compari-
son of frequently used assay methods in a molecularly characterized cohort of breast cancer
specimens. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20(14):3095105.
112. Addition of trastuzumab to chemotherapy produces 50% increase in survival in patients
selected by FISH. Oncology (Williston Park), 2001; 15(10): 1345, 1364.
113. Dyhdalo KS, etal. Laboratory compliance with the american society of clinical oncol-
ogy/college of american pathologists human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 test-
ing guidelines: a 3-year comparison of validation procedures. Arch Pathol Lab Med.
2014;138(7):87684.
114. Grimm EE, etal. Achieving 95% cross-methodological concordance in HER2 testing:
causes and implications of discordant cases. Am J Clin Pathol. 2010;134(2):28492.
115. Moelans CB, de Weger RA, van Diest PJ. Absence of chromosome 17 polysomy in breast
cancer: analysis by CEP17 chromogenic in situ hybridization and multiplex ligation-
dependent probe amplification. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120(1):17.
116. Yeh IT, etal. Clinical validation of an array CGH test for HER2 status in breast cancer
reveals that polysomy 17 is a rare event. Mod Pathol. 2009;22(9):116975.
117. Viale G. Be precise! The need to consider the mechanisms for CEP17 copy number changes
in breast cancer. J Pathol. 2009;219(1):12.
118. Vranic S, etal. Assessment of HER2 gene status in breast carcinomas with polysomy of
chromosome 17. Cancer. 2011;117(1):4853.
119. Perez EA, etal. HER2 and chromosome 17 effect on patient outcome in the N9831 adjuvant
trastuzumab trial. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(28):430715.
120. Tse CH, etal. Determining true HER2 gene status in breast cancers with polysomy by using
alternative chromosome 17 reference genes: implications for anti-HER2 targeted therapy. J
Clin Oncol. 2011;29(31):416874.
121. Clark BZ, Bhargava R. Bright-field microscopy for HER2 gene assessment: not just DISH-
ful thinking? Am J Clin Pathol. 2013;139(2):1379.
122. Bhargava R, Lal P, Chen B. Chromogenic in situ hybridization for the detection of HER-
2/neu gene amplification in breast cancer with an emphasis on tumors with borderline and
low-level amplification: does it measure up to fluorescence in situ hybridization? Am J Clin
Pathol. 2005;123(2):23743.
123. Isola J, etal. Interlaboratory comparison of HER-2 oncogene amplification as detected by
chromogenic and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(14):47938.
124. Mayr D, etal. Chromogenic in situ hybridization for Her-2/neu-oncogene in breast cancer:
comparison of a new dual-colour chromogenic in situ hybridization with immunohisto-
chemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Histopathology. 2009;55(6):71623.
125. Kato N, etal. Evaluation of HER2 gene amplification in invasive breast cancer using a dual-
color chromogenic in situ hybridization (dual CISH). Pathol Int. 2010;60(7):5105.
126. Todorovic-Rakovic N, etal. Prognostic value of HER2 gene amplification detected by
chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH) in metastatic breast cancer. Exp Mol Pathol.
2007;82(3):2628.
127. Di Palma S, etal. Chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH) should be an accepted

method in the routine diagnostic evaluation of HER2 status in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol.
2007;60(9):10678.
128. Arnould L, etal. Agreement between chromogenic in situ hybridisation (CISH) and FISH in
the determination of HER2 status in breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2003;88(10):158791.
129. Francis GD, etal. Bright-field in situ hybridization for HER2 gene amplification in

breast cancer using tissue microarrays: correlation between chromogenic (CISH) and
automated silver-enhanced (SISH) methods with patient outcome. Diagn Mol Pathol.
2009;18(2):8895.
130. Park K, etal. Silver-enhanced in situ hybridization as an alternative to fluorescence in situ
hybridization for assaying HER2 amplification in clinical breast cancer. J Breast Cancer.
2011;14(4):27682.
131. Schnitt SJ, Jacobs TW. Current status of HER2 testing: caught between a rock and a hard
place. Am J Clin Pathol. 2001;116(6):80610.
132. Bae YK, etal. HER2 status by standardized immunohistochemistry and silver-enhanced in
situ hybridization in Korean breast cancer. J Breast Cancer. 2012;15(4):3817.
133. Koh YW, etal. Dual-color silver-enhanced in situ hybridization for assessing HER2 gene
amplification in breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(6):794800.
134. Unal B, etal. Determination of HER2 gene amplification in breast cancer using dual-color
silver enhanced in situ hybridization (dc- SISH) and comparison with fluorescence ISH
(FISH). Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(10):61314.
135. Jacquemier J, etal. SISH/CISH or qPCR as alternative techniques to FISH for determina-
tion of HER2 amplification status on breast tumors core needle biopsies: a multicenter expe-
rience based on 840 cases. BMC Cancer. 2013;13:351.
136. Dowsett M, etal. Correlation between immunohistochemistry (HercepTest) and fluores-
cence in situ hybridization (FISH) for HER-2 in 426 breast carcinomas from 37 centres. J
Pathol. 2003;199(4):41823.
137. Bilous M, etal. Current perspectives on HER2 testing: a review of national testing guide-
lines. Mod Pathol. 2003;16(2):17382.
138. Ridolfi RL, Jamehdor MR, Arber JM. HER-2/neu testing in breast carcinoma: a com-
bined immunohistochemical and fluorescence in situ hybridization approach. Mod Pathol.
2000;13(8):86673.
139. Tubbs RR, Hicks DG. HER-2 testing in breast cancer. JAMA. 2004; 292(15): p 1817-8
(author reply 1818).
140. Lal P, etal. HER-2 testing in breast cancer using immunohistochemical analysis and fluo-
rescence in situ hybridization: a single-institution experience of 2,279 cases and comparison
of dual-color and single-color scoring. Am J Clin Pathol. 2004;121(5):6316.
141. Yaziji H, etal. HER-2 testing in breast cancer using parallel tissue-based methods. JAMA.
2004;291(16):19727.
142. Elkin EB, etal. HER-2 testing and trastuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer: a cost-
effectiveness analysis. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(5):85463.
143. Zhang H, etal. HER-2 gene amplification by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) com-
pared with immunohistochemistry (IHC) in breast cancer: a study of 528 equivocal cases.
144. Goud KI, etal. Evaluation of HER-2/neu status in breast cancer specimens using immuno-
histochemistry (IHC) & fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH) assay. Indian J Med Res.
2012;135:3127.
145. Kemp JD, Royer MC. 2+HER-2/neu IHC results: positively equivocal. J Cutan Pathol.
2010; 37(8): p. 915; author reply 916.
146. Hammond ME, etal. American Society of clinical oncology/college of American pathol-
ogists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and
progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med.
2010;134(7):e4872.
147. Hammond ME, etal. American Society of clinical oncology/college of American patholo-
gists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and proges-
terone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(16):278495.
148. Penault-Llorca F, etal. Optimization of immunohistochemical detection of ERBB2 in

human breast cancer: impact of fixation. J Pathol. 1994;173(1):6575.
Chapter 10
Molecular Classification of Breast Cancer
Introduction
Breast cancer represents a heterogeneous group of tumours with different histo-

logical appearances, molecular features, varied behaviour and response to ther-
apy. Scrutiny of these parameters at the individual level should improve patient
management and therefore improves both the quality of life and the overall sur-
vival of the patient. The management of breast cancer patients currently relies on
robust well-validated traditional clinicopathological prognostic factors and a lim-
ited number of predictive biomarkers (namely hormone receptors and HER2).
Clinicopathological variables were the earliest used classification systems with
strong overall association with patients outcome [1]. In addition to staging vari-
ables, histological grade, which represents morphological surrogate of tumour
biological features has been validated by several independent studies as an inde-
pendent prognostic stratifier in breast cancer [2]. Grade is incorporated into the
well-validated Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) with equal weighting to that of
lymph node stage to guide patients management [3]. Histological type refers to
the growth pattern of the breast cancer as per microscopic examination [4] has also
recognised to have prognostic value and can provide complementary prognostic
information with grade [5]. Other clinicopathological prognostic variables include
lymphovascular invasion, patients age, and menopausal status. Less validated
variables include presence and extent of in situ component and tumour-associated
inflammatory response.
M.A. Aleskandarany I.O. Ellis E.A. Rakha(*)

Department of Histopathology, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine, The
University of Nottingham and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham City
Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK

138 M.A. Aleskandarany et al.
There are several lines of evidence to suggest that the parameters currently
available are insufficient to reflect fully the biological heterogeneity of tumours,
and breast cancers of similar morphological appearances still vary in their behav-
iour and response to therapy. For instance, up to one-third of lymph node-negative
breast cancer patients, classified as being within the good prognostic group, have
been reported to develop recurrence later in their disease course [6]. Similarly, an
equivalent proportion of node-positive patients, assigned into the poor prognosis
group, remain free of distant metastases [7]. In addition, approximately 60% of
patients with breast cancer present as node negative, 80% as oestrogen receptor
positive and more than 40% as grade 2 tumours. Further stratification of these
cohorts is critically needed. Moreover, the widespread use of mammographic
screening, improved understanding of the nature and biology of breast cancer and
the increasing array of systemic therapy options (hormone, chemo and targeted
therapy) [8] further emphasises our need to identify and stratify novel prognostic
and predictive variables in breast cancer. This, in addition to the increasingly avail-
able systemic therapies and the move towards precision medicine have emphasised
the need for identification of additional molecular prognostic classifiers that can
reflect the degree of breast cancer biological and clinical heterogeneity.
Whenever possible, a molecular classifier test should be able to stratify patients
into well-defined clinical outcome subgroups or into high positive and negative pre-
dictive response to a specific therapy. If assessment of a molecular marker does not
lead to a decision in clinical practice, then its use in routine practice is discouraged
[9]. Furthermore, recommendations for clinical introduction of molecular testing
should be made only when the diagnostic methodologies are reliable, patients have
access to the clinical services necessary to make informed decisions and interpret
the results of testing, and it becomes clinically apparent how to utilise the results.
Biological variables in breast cancer can be assessed in routine practice using
morphological surrogates such as tumour differentiation, proliferation status, and
lymphovascular invasion or more accurately using molecular parameters such as
assessment of gene/protein status individually or in consort (e.g. molecular profil-
ing at the level of DNA, RNA or protein). Assessment of individual gene status in
routine practice can be performed using different techniques such as immunohisto-
chemistry (IHC; proteins), in situ hybridization (HER2) and enzyme-linked immu-
nosorbent assay (tumour markers). Recent advances in human genome research,
high-throughput molecular technologies and advances in bioinformatics have ena-
bled the analysis of several hundreds and thousands of genes and gene products
in one experiment and allowed the analysis of genes in the context of pathways
and networks tackling the molecular complexity of breast cancer. Genome-wide
profiling of chromosomal changes and rapid screening of genes for mutations/sin-
gle nucleotide polymorphisms and methylation can be performed using techniques
such as high-resolution single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays (SNP chips)
[10], array comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) [11], multiplex polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) and massively parallel sequencing (next-generation sequenc-
ing) [12]. Transcriptome and proteome profiling techniques include differential
display [13], serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE) [14], gene expression
10 Molecular Classification of Breast Cancer 139
microarrays (global gene expression profiling; GEP) [15] and massively parallel
sequencing [16]. Massively parallel sequencing combines the high throughput of
SAGE with the accuracy of EST sequencing. These molecular techniques hold
promise for improving diagnosis, for the prediction of recurrence, and in aiding
selection of therapies for individual patients.
Single Biomarker Classifiers
Of the individual molecular markers, the oestrogen receptor (ER), the proges-
terone receptor (PR) and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 genes
(HER2) have proven predictive and prognostic value. ER, PR and HER2 status,
which are essential part of the diagnostic workup of all breast cancer patients and
they are routinely determined using a standardised technique and well-defined
published guidelines [1719]. It is currently recognised that the main considera-
tion for treatment decision is endocrine responsiveness. Adjuvant endocrine ther-
apy accounts for almost two-thirds of the overall benefit of adjuvant therapy in
patients with ER-positive breast cancer. Use of anti-HER2 therapy is based on
risk stratification and tumour HER2 status [20]. The current gold standard to asses
ER status is IHC performed on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded cancer tissue.
This diagnostic test is routinely used in the clinic, and major therapeutic decision-
making dependent on the results; however, its reliability is not perfect. It has been
reported that the existing IHC assays have only modest positive predictive value
(3060%) for response to single-agent hormonal therapies. However, the nega-
tive predictive value of ER expression is high (i.e. ER-negativity which accounts
for 2030% of breast cancer can identify the population of patients who will not
benefit from endocrine therapy) [2124]. Therefore, it is important to identify vari-
ables that allow identification of patients who can be safely spared adjuvant ther-
apy or benefit from hormone therapy alone or combined with chemotherapy and/
or targeted therapy. Approximately 40% of ER-positive tumours are PR negative.
Lack of PR expression in ER-positive tumours may be a surrogate marker of aber-
rant growth factor signalling that could contribute to tamoxifen resistance and that
ER+/PR tumours are generally less responsive than ER+/PR+ tumours [25,
26]. PR status can help to predict respond to hormone treatment, both in patients
with metastatic disease [27] and in the adjuvant setting. Multiple studies have pro-
vided evidence for the prognostic and predictive importance of PR assessment in
BC [26, 2830].
Amplification of HER2 gene occurs in 1320% of BC and more than half
(approximately 55%) of these cases are ER-negative [31, 32]. Numerous stud-
ies found that HER2 gene amplification/protein overexpression is a predictor of
poor prognosis and response for systemic chemotherapy [3335]. Following the
development of a humanised monoclonal antibody against HER2 and clinical tri-
als demonstrating benefit of the use of anti-HER2 agents in patients with HER2
positive breast cancer [36], the reasons for establishing the HER2 status in routine
clinical practice has changed, since it is a prerequisite for clinical use of anti-
HER2 in patients with HER2-positive advanced disease as well as in the adjuvant
setting for HER2-positive early stage disease.
Hormone receptor and HER2 are assessed in routine practice to provide infor-
mation on response to endocrine therapy and anti-HER2 targeted therapy respec-
tively. However, the expression of these biomarkers overlap and their prognostic
and predictive value can be improved by using them in combination [37] or com-
bined with the proliferation marker Ki67 [38]. Most IHC studies have also used
a combination of ER, PR and HER2 as IHC surrogates to define the molecular
classes initially identified by GEP. For instance, ER/PR positivity was used as
a surrogate for luminal class and HER2 expression for HER2-positive tumours,
while triple-negative (ER, PR, HER2) phenotype is used to define the basal-
like molecular class (BLBC) [39, 40]. In addition, some authors have classified
HR-positive tumours that are also HER2-positive as the Luminal B subclass [39,
41]. Therefore, ER, PR and HER2 status provides an accessible biological molec-
ular classifier of breast cancer with defined prognostic and predictive value and
their value increases when they are used in combination where they can provide a
valid practical surrogate of the GEP-defined molecular classes. Some other genes
which are assessed individually in breast cancer such as Ki67 [42] have been
proven of specific clinical utility. IHC expression of Ki67 is now widely used as
an objective molecular measure of proliferation to overcome problems related to
tumour fixation and mitotic figures identification [43, 44]. Although controversy
regarding routine use of Ki67 in pathology practice, several studies have yielded
promising results particularly its prognostic significance in node-negative [45,
46], ER-positive [47] and in histologic grade 2 tumours [48] and as a predictor of
response to chemotherapy [49, 50].
Multigene Classifiers: Gene Expression Profiling

and Molecular Taxonomy
Gene expression is a technical term to describe how a particular gene is active, or

how many times it is expressed or transcribed, to produce the protein it encodes.
This activity is measured by counting the number of mRNA molecules in a given
cell type or tissue, though protein and not RNA is the functional product of genes.
Although the first description of cDNA microarrays as a tool for profiling gene
expressions was in 1987 [51], GEP technique was not widely used until advances
in fluorescent labelling technologies, cDNA library construction and sequenc-
ing techniques have been achieved. The total gene expression pattern of a given
sample is known as a gene expression profile and such expression data are often
referred to as signatures or portraits as most tumours show certain expression
profiles that are unique and related to a specific biological features [52, 53].
The introduction of the concept that breast cancer can be classified using GEP by
Peru and colleagues in 2000 [54] has revolutionised breast cancer research and the
number of studies classifying breast cancer using molecular classifiers have markedly
exceeded our expectation. In fact GEP studies have not only contributed to our current
understanding of breast cancer molecular complexity but also led to the identifica-
tion of distinct molecular class of clinical relevance and the development of prognos-
tic and predictive multigene signatures. Most GEP studies of breast cancer aimed
at: (i) identifying specific molecular classes (class discovery; molecular taxonomy)
that have biological and clinical relevance, which are unidentifiable by conventional
means [5456]. (ii) identifying specific molecular profile gene signatures that can
predict tumour behaviour [5760] and/or response to therapy [6163] (class predic-
tion). (iii) comparison of different predefined classes of breast cancer (class com-
parison) that aims to determine whether the expression profiles are different between
these classes and, if so, to identify the differentially expressed genes [6469].
Molecular taxonomy of breast cancer have been identified three main classes
including (1) a luminal subgroup, which encompasses tumours that express ER
and genes related to activation of the ER pathway; (2) a HER2 subgroup, which
is characterised by overexpression of HER2 and by genes pertaining to HER2
amplicon; and (3) a subgroup of tumours that do not cluster with either luminal
or HER2-positive tumours; the basal-like class, which is largely characterised by
positive expression of basal cytokeratins and other genes that are characteristic
of basal-like cells of the breast and by high proliferative activity [911, 19, 43].
Although HER2 positive and ER-positive luminal tumours were known before
the advent of this GEP molecular taxonomy, BLBC class attracted attention as a
novel class characterised not only by triple-negative phenotype (ER-negative,
PR-negative and HER2-negative) but also by the a generally similar molecular
profile (tumours clustered together at the molecular level) and the poor outcome
[10, 11, 19]. Importantly, these classes showed distinct clinical outcome, with
luminal subtype having the most favourable, HER2 overexpressing having the
most detrimental and BLBC having poor prognosis, yet still relatively better than
the HER2 overexpressing non-Herceptin treated cancers [55, 70]. The luminal
class has further been classified into at least two subclasses; luminal A and luminal
B with significant difference in molecular profile and clinical outcome. Luminal
A tumours show high expression levels of ER-activated genes and low levels of
proliferation related genes and have a good outcome whilst luminal B breast can-
cers show higher proliferation rates and/or HER2 expression with a significantly
worse prognosis than luminal A tumours [71]. Other luminal subclasses have
been described including luminal C [72] and luminal N [73] subclasses. Similarly,
BLBC class has further been subclassified into subgroups such as claudin-low
[74] and molecular apocrine subtype, which is characterised by androgen recep-
tor (AR) expression and AR-related pathway with paradoxical expression of ER-
related genes [75]. In addition, there are a few less defined molecular subtypes,
such as normal breast-like class that displays a triple-negative phenotype but does
not cluster with the basal-like centroid and is characterised by expression profiles
similar to those found in normal breast tissue.
Early GEP studies suggest that the luminal class of breast cancer is character-
ised by ER positivity and other features characteristic of luminal mammary epi-
thelial cells but is heterogeneous with respect to the expression of other genes
and outcome. Subsequent studies [76] have demonstrated that that precise posi-
tioning of an individual within the spectrum of luminal breast cancer is based on
expression of other genes. For instance luminal A tumours are characterised by
high expression of luminal epithelial CKs and other luminal associated markers
including ER and genes associated with ER function such as LIV1, hepatocyte
nuclear factor 3 alpha (FOXA1), X-box binding protein 1 (XBP1) and GATA-
binding protein 3 (GATA3) [77]. Whereas the luminal B group is characterised by
low-to-moderate expression of the luminal A genes mentioned above, but is fur-
ther distinguished by high expression of additional genes, mainly related to pro-
liferation such as v-MYB, GGH, LAPTMB4, NSEP1 and CCNE1 [76]. Luminal
tumour subclasses are also characterised by distinct type of genomic copy altera-
tion and different level of amplification [78]. Although the class of breast cancer
that is characterised by expression of markers characteristic of basal/myoepithelial
cell was actually described many years ago [79, 80], they have attracted a lot of
attention in recent years after their identification in GEP as a molecularly distinct
subtype of breast cancer [54]. These tumours are known as BLBC represent 16%
up to 37% of all breast cancer cases [68, 72, 81]. This class has received atten-
tion because of its nature as a poor prognostic group and as a good candidate for
development of new targeted therapy. Most studies have shown that basal tumours
are mainly included within a cluster in the ER-negative and HER2 negative
tumours and are largely characterised by positive expression of basal cytokeratins
(CK) and other genes characteristic of basal cells of the breast. Several basal class
gene products identified are important structural elements of the basal cells of the
breast [54, 8284] and extracellular matrix (ECM) receptor proteins [85]. Other
gene products included several proteins that activate signalling pathways, which
are commonly deregulated in cancer [86] and gene products that have been impli-
cated in cellular proliferation, suppression of apoptosis, cell migration, invasion
and extracellular remodelling have been identified [8789]. Basal class of breast
cancer (BLBC) shows a high recurrence score and a poor 70-gene profile [90].
However, these results were not confined to BLBC and found also in the HER2
and Luminal-B subtypes. When BLBC were characterised using comparative
genomic hybridisation (CGH) a greater genetic complexity with high frequency
of DNA losses and gains was identified when compared to other breast cancer sub-
types, suggesting a greater degree of genetic instability [9193]. These tumours
seem to harbour a dysfunctional BRCA1 pathway [94] and tumours arising in
BRCA1 mutation carriers often display a basal-like phenotype [95, 96].
Although molecular taxonomy of breast cancer has attracted a lot of attention
and speculation that this would result in dramatic improvements in breast can-
cer management, to date actual practical adoption appears limited. Certain criti-
cal issues have been raised such as validation, reproducibility and clinical utility.
Most luminal tumours are ER-positive and can be identified in routine practice
using IHC. ER expression and not luminal phenotype is recognised as a validated
predictor to hormone therapy. The significance of luminal ER-negative tumours

is not defined. Similarly, HER2-positive breast cancer patients are likely to be
offered anti-HER2 therapy when indicated regardless of their molecular classifica-
tion, while it is currently not justified to offer patients with cancers classified in the
HER2-positive class if their tumours did not show evidence of HER2 gene ampli-
fication. Clinical relevance needs to be considered and factored into any emerging
classification system to ensure that patients are treated appropriately. Furthermore,
the so-called normal breast-like class is not well-defined [97] and the propor-
tion of some classes defined by GEP varied substantially [98100]. Moreover, it
remains unknown how many molecular classes exist and more importantly how
many classes can be reliably identified with the currently available data. From 4
[54] up to 10 [101] classes have been described. There remain major limitations
in the ability to consistently assign a molecular class to new cases of breast can-
cer. The four main molecular classes frequently reported can be considered as
an oversimplification of a novel molecular classification system and add little to
our understanding of the biology and behaviour of breast cancer. The clinical dif-
ference between BLBC (GEP) and triple-negative (IHC) is disputed with triple-
negativity provides more practical routinely applicable classification preferred by
oncologists. Lumping of pure tubular carcinoma with micropapillary, invasive lob-
ular or ductal NST carcinomas into a single luminal class or high-grade ductal
NST, high-grade metaplastic and medullary carcinomas with low-grade adenos-
quamous and adenoid cystic carcinomas into BLBC class cannot be justified
biologically or clinically.
It is also important to mention that other studies have reported different number
and definition of molecular classes. For instance, in a study of 2000 breast cancers
using an integrated approach of copy number and gene expression in a discovery
and validation sets of 997 and 995 primary breast cancers, 10 novel molecular
subgroups were reported [101]. These molecular classes were names as integra-
tive clusters since they were defined based on both geneomic and transcriptomic
profiles with consideration of the impact of somatic copy number variation on the
transcriptome [101].
Microarray studies have primarily generated using invasive ductal carcinomas
of no special type. However, subsequent studies have studied the gene expression
pattern of some special types including medullary [102, 103], metaplastic [104],
adenoid cystic carcinoma [105] and others [105]. Interestingly, tubular, muci-
nous and neuroendocrine carcinomas consistently displayed a luminal phenotype,
whereas adenoid cystic, medullary and metaplastic carcinomas a basal-like pheno-
type [106]. For classification system that is applicable to all breast cancer patients,
future studies of breast cancer classification should include samples of special
types that comprise 25% of breast cancer to provide standardised classification
system and unravel the molecular basis of their specific morphologic patterns.
Multigene Signatures
In addition to the molecular classes, a number of multigene signatures have been

identified through analysing GEP-derived data using different statistical/bioinfor-
matics approaches. These gene signatures were developed based on the differential
expression of a selected set of genes in a specific subgroup of tumours. Expression
of these genes when analysed in combination can predict specific endpoint that is
used to generate it. Multigene signatures include prognostic gene signature that
can predict outcome. Other gene signatures were developed based on prediction
of response to specific therapy and are used as predictive signatures. Prognostic
signatures include the 70 gene signature or MammaPrint [81], the 76 gene signa-
ture [59], the genomic grade index (GGI) [107] and the Recurrence Scores (RS) of
OncotypeDXTM [108]. A common character shared by all these signatures is the
use of combinations of genes, rather than using single genes, to predict a certain
outcome which appears to reflect the overall genetic derangements underlying the
complex tumour biology. Of critical importance is the very minimal to negligible
degree of overlap between these signatures regarding their gene sets/lists [109].
This minimal overlap has mostly been attributed to the different/limited breast
cancer tissue samples used in these studies, different gene chips utilised and var-
ied approaches followed for data analysis [110]. Nonetheless, the widely accepted
assumption is that although gene lists overlap minimally, distinct genes may track
similar biological processes and the overall predictive power of different array-
based models shows significant concordance [90, 111].
There is growing consensus that multigene prognostic tests provide useful
complementary information to well-established traditional clinicopathological
variables. Importantly, these tests primarily rely on quantification of ER and pro-
liferation-associated genes and combine these into multivariate prediction models.
Due to the higher proliferation rates in ER-negative cancers, the prognostic value
of these tests in ER-negative cancers is limited. It is not surprising that clinically
useful prognostic signatures for ER-negative cancers are still non-existing [112].
Therefore, these signatures have so far not replaced the currently used prognostic/
predictive factors in the management of breast cancer. Nevertheless, the two cur-
rently clinically utilised assays, MammaPrint and OncotypeDX, are used in con-
junction with the clinicopathologic factors [113, 114].
Immunohistochemical Molecular Classification
Due to the aforementioned technical, cost and reproducibility issues, some groups
have pioneered the use of expression data of IHC biomarkers in the routinely uti-
lised paraffin-embedded breast cancer tissue sections. Many studies, using surro-
gate immunohistochemical panels of markers, have recapitulated these prognostic
classes with considerable success and reproducibility [115118]. The feature com-
mon to GEP subtying and their IHC surrogates is the use of a group of genes in
the former, or tissue markers in the latter to define classes which has proven to
be prognostically more informative than using these genes/markers individually.
The choice of these biomarker panels was essentially based on the realisation that
the GEP-derived molecular subtypes are a reflection of the ER status, HER2 status
and proliferation status in breast cancer [119].
Different authorities have utilised IHC expression data to classify breast can-
cer patients into distinct subtypes significantly different in prognosis. For instance,
data for the expression levels for a selective panel of 25 BC-related biomarkers
evaluated using IHC on tissue microarray (TMA) was analysed using supervised
classification approaches and artificial neuronal network. Markers were those
related to epithelial cell lineage, differentiation, hormone and growth factor recep-
tors and gene products known to be altered in some forms of breast cancer. Six
groups or BC classes were identified which were significantly different in clinico-
pathological parameters and patient outcome in terms of overall and disease-free
survival, independent of standard prognostic parameters; grade, tumour size and
lymph node stage [117]. Of note, is the HER2 group was only 7% of the studied
patient population, which is below those reported in literature and in other studies.
Several groups have used IHC expression of ER, PR, HER2, basal cytokerat-
ins (CKs) to devise a pragmatic molecular classification of breast cancer in
routine practice. The resulting subtypes were classified as luminal, the HER2-
overexpressing, and the triple negative/BLBC. The luminal subtype was subse-
quently subdivided into at least two subtypes, however, the criteria of defining
luminal breast cancer subclasses are still based on different approaches utilising
Ki67, PR expression and/or HER2 expression. It was initially proposed that those
ER+ cancers overexpressing HER2 and being Ki67 high expressors (14%) as
luminal B, while the ER+, HER2 negative, Ki67 low as luminal A [47]. Later on,
the international expert panel gathered in the St Gallen International Breast Cancer
Conference in 2013, have endorsed the use of PR positive expression (20%)
to define luminal A breast cancer. They have recommended a Ki67 threshold of
20% as an indicative of high Ki67 status in defining luminal B cancers [120].
The HER2 overexpressing/enriched breast cancers are those which showed evi-
dent unequivocal IHC expression of HER2 (3+), or those proven as HER2 amplified
as assessed by in situ hybridisation (ISH) techniques. Because HER2 is an oncogene
with the known impact of dismal outcome, based on the oncogene addiction theory
[121], it has been proposed by many authorities, including our group, that HER2 over-
expressing breast cancers should be allocated into the HER2 class/subtype irrespec-
tive of hormone receptor status [115]. The latter opinion, therefore, considers luminal
B breast cancer to be those breast cancer characterised by high proliferative fraction
as assessed by Ki67 expression at specific cut-off point. According to this definition,
luminal B breast cancer has poorer outcome, and could benefit from adjuvant chemo-
therapy, which works better in tumour with high growth/proliferative fraction [122].
Probably, the most intensively debated issue within the topic IHC-defined
breast cancer subtypes is BLBC. Although triple-negative breast cancer is defined
by absence expression of ER, PR and HER2, there is no consensus definition,
using IHC surrogate markers, for BLBC. Both TN and BLBC have poor clinical
outcome and lack any modality of specific targeted therapy as those possessed by
the HER2 overexpressing breast cancers. Different IHC markers have been used
in defining the basal phenotype including: lack of ER, PR, HER2 expression (i.e.
TN), and expressing one or more of the high-molecular-weight/basal CKs (CK5/6,
CK14, or CK17) or being TN with expression of CK5/6 and/or EGFR and oth-
ers [116, 123, 124]. However, comparative studies between the GEP-defined
basal-like and IHC-defined BLBC are scarce [125]. This subtype is reported in the
1520% within most of the studied series. Therefore, this relatively low frequency
hindered the development of consensus regarding BLBC. However, in their semi-
nal meta-analysis of more than 10,000 breast cancer cases, Blows etal. reported
the superior advantage of using five markers in definition of different molecular
subtypes of breast cancer including the BLBC [118]. However, it is imperative
that regardless of the panel of markers used in the characterisation of BLBC, most
studies have reported poorer prognosis than the TN breast cancers [115, 116, 123].
The Nottingham Prognostic Index Plus (NPI+)
This algorithm devised by Abd El-Rehim etal. [56] was further refined through
fuzzy rule induction algorithm to reduce the number of classifying markers/pro-
teins to the minimum required to retain classification [126, 127]. Importantly,
this approach used different multivariate clustering techniques, rather than a
single clustering technique, with the main goal to derive a classification that is
robust across different multivariate procedures. The initial step was dependent
on the determination of the biological class of the tumour, through assessing the
expression level of a ten biomarker panel; and the second step is the analysis of
traditional clinicopathologic prognostic parameters. These ten biomarkers are ER,
PR, HER2/c-erbB2, cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, CK7/8, p53, epidermal growth factor
receptor (EGFR/HER1), c-erbB3/HER3, c-erbB4/HER4 and Mucin 1. These were
selected from a large group of 25 markers of close relevance to breast cancer biol-
ogy used in the original study [56] as the lowest number of markers that can pre-
serve the same structure of the previous molecular classes [128]. This resulted in
three main classes of luminal, basal and HER2, as previously established by Sorlie
etal. [55] and with proportions consistent with breast cancer subtypes reported
in other studies [116, 123]. Moreover, three further biologically and clinically
relevant subclasses (luminal N, basalp53 altered, and basalp53 normal [73])
were identified. Using this panel of 10 IHC markers, we were able to subclas-
sify unselected breast cancer series into seven distinct molecular classes that were
biologically and clinically similar to those generated using 25 biomarkers [56].
These classes were used to develop a modified version of NPI by incorporating
molecular and clinicopathological variables in a two-tier system [73]. Applying
clinicopathological variables to each of the seven molecular classes using specific
formulae generated novel prognostic index known as NPI-plus (NPI+), which
improved patients outcome stratification that is superior to the traditional NPI.
Molecular Classification Challenges
Molecular classification of breast cancer is still in evolution. With the increas-

ing use of more sophisticated techniques such as next-generation sequencing and
other high-throughput techniques, large amounts of data will continue to emerge,
which could potentially lead to identification of more molecular types of breast
cancer having prognostic/predictive utilities. However, transfer of these classifica-
tions and predictive algorithms from the bench to the bedside is a lengthy process
requiring mounting clinical evidence and robust validation. Moreover, cost-effec-
tiveness and quality control of such classifications/algorithms are additional
challenges.
Currently, the lack of a gold standard definition of the luminal class com-
bined with lack of evidence that luminal class diagnosis provides better biological
refinement than ER positivity alone has resulted in continuation of treatment of
these patients based on ER expression and HER2 status. In addition, although fur-
ther prognostic markers are needed to refine classification of ER+ tumours, iden-
tification of predictive markers is equally important. As stated by Allred [129] new
more powerful predictors of hormonal therapy response are needed, and they will
most likely be based on multiple biomarkers. These are likely to be recognised by
their relationship to a biological pathway or a therapeutic target, defined at either
the transcriptional or biochemical level and have direct clinical therapeutic impli-
cations. Most of the previous GEP studies suffered from drawbacks in terms of
the molecular approach employed, the size of cohorts, analytical method used and
lack of detailed genetic, clinicopathological and immunophenotypical characteri-
sation of the tumours [130, 131]. Although several studies have tried to develop
molecular signatures that can identify a poor prognostic class within ER+ tumours
[60, 108, 132134], and define molecular pathways characteristic of luminal A
tumours, debate remains over the validity of the predictors defined in most of these
studies.
A common problem also noted with most of the prognostic gene signature
stratifier is the limited insight into the oncogenic or biological pathways which
drive tumours to progress, metastasise and develop resistance to therapy despite
prognostic importance. So far studies have not been very successful in integrat-
ing data from both RNA and DNA partly as a result of the inherited difficulty in
getting stable reproducible results from cancer genomes which are known to be
unstable, and partly due to the low proportion of gene expression alteration which
can be attributed to underlying variation in copy number in breast cancer [135].
Array-CGH is a powerful biological classifier in cancer [136] and using parallel
analysis of data from both gene copy number (DNA) and gene expression using
gene transcripts (RNA) and when possible proteins (i.e. IHC) may help to accu-
rately stratify breast cancer into relevant molecular classes with improved clinical
relevance in addition to identification of key molecules and potential therapeutic
targets.
References
1. Elston CW, Ellis IO, Pinder SE. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Crit Rev
Oncol Hematol. 1999;31(3):20923.
2. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH, Elston CW, Grainge MJ, Hodi Z, etal. Prognostic
significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol.
2008;26(19):31538. PubMed PMID: 18490649. Epub 2008/05/21. eng.
3. Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO. The Nottingham Prognostic Index in pri-
mary breast-cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1992;22(3):20719. PubMed PMID:
ISI:A1992JQ41500005.
4. Sinn H-P, Kreipe H. A brief overview of the WHO classification of breast tumors, 4th edi-
tion, focusing on issues and updates from the 3rd edition. Breast Care. 2013;8(2):14954.
PubMed PMID: PMC3683948.
5. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Menon S, Green AR, Lee AH, Ellis IO. Histologic grading is an
independent prognostic factor in invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer Res
Treat. 2008;111(1):1217.
6. Cole BF, Gelber RD, Gelber S, Coates AS, Goldhirsch A. Polychemotherapy for early breast
cancer: an overview of the randomised clinical trials with quality-adjusted survival analysis.
The Lancet. 2001;358(9278):27786.
7. Feng Y, Sun B, Li X, Zhang L, Niu Y, Xiao C, etal. Differentially expressed genes between
primary cancer and paired lymph node metastases predict clinical outcome of node-positive
breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;103(3):31929.
8. Peto R, Boreham J, Clarke M, Davies C, Beral V. UK and USA breast cancer deaths down
25% in year 2000 at ages 2069 years. Lancet. 2000;355(9217):1822.
9. Hayes DF, Bast RC, Desch CE, Fritsche H Jr, Kemeny NE, Jessup JM, etal. Tumor marker
utility grading system: a framework to evaluate clinical utility of tumor markers. J Natl
Cancer Inst. 1996;88(20):145666.
10. Wang DG, Fan JB, Siao CJ, Berno A, Young P, Sapolsky R, etal. Large-scale identifica-
tion, mapping, and genotyping of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the human genome.
Science. 1998;280(5366):107782.
11. Pinkel D, Segraves R, Sudar D, Clark S, Poole I, Kowbel D, etal. High resolution analysis
of DNA copy number variation using comparative genomic hybridization to microarrays.
Nat Genet. 1998;20(2):20711.
12. Schweiger MR, Kerick M, Timmermann B, Albrecht MW, Borodina T, Parkhomchuk
D, etal. Genome-wide massively parallel sequencing of formaldehyde fixed-paraffin
embedded (FFPE) tumor tissues for copy-number- and mutation-analysis. PLoS ONE.
2009;4(5):e5548.
13. Liang P, Pardee AB. Differential display of eukaryotic messenger RNA by means of the pol-
ymerase chain reaction. Science. 1992;257(5072):96771.
14. Velculescu VE, Zhang L, Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. Serial analysis of gene expression.
Science. 1995;270(5235):4847.
15. Brown PO, Botstein D. Exploring the new world of the genome with DNA microarrays. Nat
Genet. 1999;21(1 Suppl):337.
16. Torres TT, Metta M, Ottenwalder B, Schlotterer C. Gene expression profiling by massively
parallel sequencing. Genome Res. 2008;18(1):1727. PubMed PMID: 18032722. Pubmed
Central PMCID: 2134766.
17. Rakha EA, Pinder SE, Bartlett JM, Ibrahim M, Starczynski J, Carder PJ, etal. Updated UK
recommendations for HER2 assessment in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol. 2015;68(2):939.
PubMed PMID: 25488926. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4316916.
18. Pathology reporting of breast disease. A Joint Document Incorporating the Third Edition
of the NHS Breast Screening Programmes Guidelines for Pathology Reporting in Breast
Cancer Screening and the Second Edition of The Royal College of Pathologists Minimum
Dataset for Breast Cancer Histopathology, Jan 2005. NHSBSP Pub. No 58p.
19. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, Allred DC, Hagerty KL, Badve S, etal. American
Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations
for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J
Clin Oncol. 2010;28(16):278495.
20. Goldhirsch A, Glick JH, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ. Meeting high-
lights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005.
Ann Oncol. 2005;16(10):156983.
21. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and
15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365(9472):1687717.
PubMed PMID: 15894097.
22. Effects of adjuvant tamoxifen and of cytotoxic therapy on mortality in early breast cancer.
An overview of 61 randomized trials among 28,896 women. Early Breast Cancer Trialists
Collaborative Group. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(26):168192. PubMed PMID: 3205265.
23. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast
Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1998;351(9114):145167. PubMed PMID:
9605801.
24. Fisher B, Dignam J, Bryant J, DeCillis A, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N, etal. Five versus
more than five years of tamoxifen therapy for breast cancer patients with negative lymph
nodes and estrogen receptor-positive tumors. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1996;88(21):152942.
25. Bardou VJ, Arpino G, Elledge RM, Osborne CK, Clark GM. Progesterone receptor status
significantly improves outcome prediction over estrogen receptor status alone for adjuvant
endocrine therapy in two large breast cancer databases. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21(10):19739.
26. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, Paish EC, Powe DG, Gee J, etal. Biologic and clini-
cal characteristics of breast cancer with single hormone receptor positive phenotype. J Clin
Oncol. 2007;25(30):47728.
27. Ravdin PM, Green S, Dorr TM, McGuire WL, Fabian C, Pugh RP, etal. Prognostic signifi-
cance of progesterone receptor levels in estrogen receptor-positive patients with metastatic
breast cancer treated with tamoxifen: results of a prospective Southwest Oncology Group
study. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10(8):128491.
28. Colomer R, Beltran M, Dorcas J, Cortes-Funes H, Hornedo J, Valentin V, etal. It is not time
to stop progesterone receptor testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(16):38689;
author reply 970. PubMed PMID: 15923595.
29. Stendahl M, Ryden L, Nordenskjold B, Jonsson PE, Landberg G, Jirstrom K. High proges-
terone receptor expression correlates to the effect of adjuvant tamoxifen in premenopausal
breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12(15):46148.
30. Regan MM, Viale G, Mastropasqua MG, Maiorano E, Golouh R, Carbone A, etal.
Re-evaluating adjuvant breast cancer trials: assessing hormone receptor status by immuno-
histochemical versus extraction assays. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(21):157181.
31. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL. Human breast can-
cer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene.
Science. 1987;235(4785):17782.
32. Dandachi N, Dietze O, Hauser-Kronberger C. Chromogenic in situ hybridization: a novel
approach to a practical and sensitive method for the detection of HER2 oncogene in archival
human breast carcinoma. Lab Invest. 2002;82(8):100714.
33. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Schwartz JN, Hagerty KL, Allred DC, Cote RJ, etal. American
Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommenda-
tions for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol.
2007;25(1):11845.
34. Bartlett J, Mallon E, Cooke T. The clinical evaluation of HER-2 status: which test to use? J
Pathol. 2003;199(4):4117.
35. Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Bear HD, Buzdar A, McGale P, Bonnefoi H, etal.
Recommendations from an international expert panel on the use of neoadjuvant
(primary) systemic treatment of operable breast cancer: new perspectives 2006. Ann Oncol.
2007;18(12):192734.
36. Ward S, Pilgrim H, Hind D. Trastuzumab for the treatment of primary breast can-
cer in HER2-positive women: a single technology appraisal. Health Technol Assess.
2009;13(Suppl 1):16.
37. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. Combinatorial biomarker expression in breast can-
cer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;120(2):293308. PubMed PMID: 20107892. Epub
2010/01/29. eng.
38. Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Wale C, Salter J, Quinn E, Zabaglo L, etal. Prognostic value of a
combined ER, PgR, Ki67, HER2 immunohistochemical (IHC4) score and comparison with
the GHI recurrence scoreresults from TransATAC. Cancer Res. 2009;Suppl 24: Abstract
74.
39. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, Dressler LG, Cowan D, Conway K, etal. Race, breast
cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. J Am Med Assoc
(JAMA). 2006;295(21):2492502. PubMed PMID: ISI:000238057300024.
40. Kreike B, van Kouwenhove M, Horlings H, Weigelt B, Bartelink H, Van de Vijver MJ. Gene
expression profiling and histopathological characterization of triple negative/basal-like
breast carcinomas. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9(5):R65.
41. Kurebayashi J, Moriya T, Ishida T, Hirakawa H, Kurosumi M, Akiyama F, etal. The preva-
lence of intrinsic subtypes and prognosis in breast cancer patients of different races. The
Breast. 2007;16(2, Suppl 1):727.
42. Aleskandarany MA, Rakha EA, Macmillan RD, Powe DG, Ellis IO, Green AR. MIB1/Ki-67
labelling index can classify grade 2 breast cancer into two clinically distinct subgroups.
43. Colozza M, Azambuja E, Cardoso F, Sotiriou C, Larsimont D, Piccart MJ. Proliferative
markers as prognostic and predictive tools in early breast cancer: where are we now? 2005.
p. 172339.
44. Viale G, Regan MM, Mastropasqua MG, Maffini F, Maiorano E, Colleoni M, etal.
Predictive value of tumor Ki-67 expression in two randomized trials of adjuvant chemoen-
docrine therapy for node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100(3):20712.
45. Baak JP, Gudlaugsson E, Skaland I, Guo LH, Klos J, Lende TH, etal. Proliferation is the
strongest prognosticator in node-negative breast cancer: significance, error sources, alter-
natives and comparison with molecular prognostic markers. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
2009;115(2):24154.
46. Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Ravdin PM, Hayes MM, Gelmon KA. Ki67 in breast cancer: prog-
nostic and predictive potential. Lancet Oncol. 2010;11(2):17483.
47. Cheang MC, Chia SK, Voduc D, Gao D, Leung S, Snider J, etal. Ki67 index, HER2
status, and prognosis of patients with luminal B breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2009;101(10):73650.
48. Aleskandarany MA, Rakha EA, Macmillan RD, Powe DG, Ellis IO, Green AR. MIB1/Ki-67
labelling index can classify grade 2 breast cancer into two clinically distinct subgroups.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010. PubMed PMID: 20623333. Epub 2010/07/14. Eng.
49. Aleskandarany MA, Green AR, Rakha EA, Mohammed RA, Elsheikh SE, Powe DG, etal.
Growth fraction as a predictor of response to chemotherapy in node-negative breast cancer.
Int J Cancer. 2010. PubMed PMID: 19711345.
50. Colleoni M, Orvieto E, Nole F, Orlando L, Minchella I, Viale G, etal. Prediction
of response to primary chemotherapy for operable breast cancer. Eur J Cancer.
1999;35(4):5749.
51. Augenlicht LH, Wahrman MZ, Halsey H, Anderson L, Taylor J, Lipkin M. Expression
of cloned sequences in biopsies of human colonic tissue and in colonic carcinoma cells
induced to differentiate in vitro. Cancer Res. 1987;47(22):601721. PubMed PMID:
3664505. Epub 1987/11/15. eng.
52. Bertucci F, Finetti P, Cervera N, Maraninchi D, Viens P, Birnbaum D. Gene expression pro-
filing and clinical outcome in breast cancer. OMICS. 2006;10(4):42943. PubMed PMID:
17233555. Epub 2007/01/20. eng.
53. Cowin PA, Anglesio M, Etemadmoghadam D, Bowtell DD. Profiling the cancer genome.
Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet. 2010;11:13359. PubMed PMID: 20590430. Epub
2010/07/02. eng.
54. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, etal. Molecular
portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):74752. PubMed PMID:
ISI:000088767700049.
Acad Sci USA. 2001;98(19):1086974.
56. Abd El-Rehim DM, Ball G, Pinder SE, Rakha E, Paish C, Robertson JF, etal. 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. 2005;116(3):34050.
57. Foekens JA, Atkins D, Zhang Y, Sweep FC, Harbeck N, Paradiso A, etal. Multicenter vali-
dation of a gene expression-based prognostic signature in lymph node-negative primary
breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(11):166571.
58. van t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, etal. Gene expression
profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415(6871):5306.
59. Wang Y, Klijn JG, Zhang Y, Sieuwerts AM, Look MP, Yang F, etal. Gene-expression pro-
files to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet.
2005;365(9460):6719. PubMed PMID: 15721472.
60. Ma XJ, Wang Z, Ryan PD, Isakoff SJ, Barmettler A, Fuller A, etal. A two-gene expression
ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Cancer Cell.
2004;5(6):60716.
61. Zhang Y, Sieuwerts AM, McGreevy M, Casey G, Cufer T, Paradiso A, etal. The 76-gene
signature defines high-risk patients that benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. Breast
62. Hess KR, Anderson K, Symmans WF, Valero V, Ibrahim N, Mejia JA, etal.
Pharmacogenomic predictor of sensitivity to preoperative chemotherapy with pacli-
taxel and fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol.
2006;24(26):423644.
63. Potti A, Dressman HK, Bild A, Riedel RF, Chan G, Sayer R, etal. Genomic signatures to
guide the use of chemotherapeutics. Nat Med. 2006;12(11):1294300.
64. Ma XJ, Salunga R, Tuggle JT, Gaudet J, Enright E, McQuary P, etal. Gene expression pro-
files of human breast cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100(10):59749.
65. Schuetz CS, Bonin M, Clare SE, Nieselt K, Sotlar K, Walter M, etal. Progression-specific
genes identified by expression profiling of matched ductal carcinomas in situ and invasive
breast tumors, combining laser capture microdissection and oligonucleotide microarray
analysis. Cancer Res. 2006;66(10):527886.
66. Korkola JE, DeVries S, Fridlyand J, Hwang ES, Estep AL, Chen YY, etal. Differentiation
of lobular versus ductal breast carcinomas by expression microarray analysis. Cancer Res.
2003;63(21):716775.
67. Zhao H, Langerod A, Ji Y, Nowels KW, Nesland JM, Tibshirani R, etal. Different gene
expression patterns in invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas of the breast. Mol Biol Cell.
2004;15(6):252336.
68. West M, Blanchette C, Dressman H, Huang E, Ishida S, Spang R, etal. Predicting the clin-
ical status of human breast cancer by using gene expression profiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci
USA. 2001;98(20):114627.
69. Huang E, Cheng SH, Dressman H, Pittman J, Tsou MH, Horng CF, etal. Gene expression
predictors of breast cancer outcomes. Lancet. 2003;361(9369):15906.
traits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406(6797):74752.
71. Habashy HO, Powe DG, Abdel-Fatah TM, Gee JM, Nicholson RI, Green AR, etal. A
review of the biological and clinical characteristics of luminal-like oestrogen receptor-pos-
itive breast cancer. Histopathology. 2012;60(6):85463. PubMed PMID: 21906125. Epub
2011/09/13. eng.
72. Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, Korn EL, Long PM, Jazaeri A, etal. Breast cancer clas-
sification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100(18):103938.
73. Rakha EA, Soria D, Green AR, Lemetre C, Powe DG, Nolan CC, etal. Nottingham
Prognostic Index Plus (NPI+): a modern clinical decision making tool in breast cancer.
Br J Cancer. 2014;110(7):168897. PubMed PMID: 24619074. Pubmed Central PMCID:
3974073.
74. Herschkowitz JI, Simin K, Weigman VJ, Mikaelian I, Usary J, Hu Z, etal. Identification
of conserved gene expression features between murine mammary carcinoma models and
human breast tumors. Genome Biol. 2007;8(5):R76. PubMed PMID: 17493263. Pubmed
75. Farmer P, Bonnefoi H, Becette V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Fumoleau P, Larsimont D, etal.
Identification of molecular apocrine breast tumours by microarray analysis. Oncogene.
2005;24(29):466071.
76. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron JS, Nobel A, etal. Repeated observation
of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2003;100(14):841823. PubMed PMID: ISI:000184222500069.
77. Sotiriou C, Neo SY, McShane LM, Korn EL, Long PM, Jazaeri A, etal. Breast cancer clas-
sification and prognosis based on gene expression profiles from a population-based study.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100(18):103938. PubMed PMID: ISI:000185119300048.
78. Anna Bergamaschi YHKPWTSTH-BPELRTA-LB-DJRP. Distinct patterns of DNA copy
number alteration are associated with different clinicopathological features and gene-
expression subtypes of breast cancer. Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2006;45(11):103340.
79. Dairkee SH, Ljung BM, Smith H, Hackett A. Immunolocalization of a human basal epi-
thelium specific keratin in benign and malignant breast disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
1987;10(1):1120.
80. Santini D, Ceccarelli C, Taffurelli M, Pileri S, Marrano D. Differentiation pathways in pri-
mary invasive breast carcinoma as suggested by intermediate filament and biopathological
marker expression. J Pathol. 1996;179(4):38691.
81. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, vant Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW, etal. A
gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med.
2002;347(25):19992009.
82. Savage K, Lambros MB, Robertson D, Jones RL, Jones C, Mackay A, etal. 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. 2007;13(1):90101.
83. Yehiely F, Moyano JV, Evans JR, Nielsen TO, Cryns VL. Deconstructing the molecular por-
trait of basal-like breast cancer. Trends Mol Med. 2006;12(11):53744.
84. Hu Z, Fan C, Oh DS, Marron JS, He X, Qaqish BF, etal. The molecular portraits of breast
tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genom. 2006;7:96.
85. Wilhelmsen K, Litjens SH, Sonnenberg A. Multiple functions of the integrin alpha6beta4 in
epidermal homeostasis and tumorigenesis. Mol Cell Biol. 2006;26(8):287786.
86. Vogelstein B, Kinzler KW. Cancer genes and the pathways they control. Nat Med.
2004;10(8):78999.
87. Koshikawa N, Giannelli G, Cirulli V, Miyazaki K, Quaranta V. Role of cell surface
metalloprotease MT1-MMP in epithelial cell migration over laminin-5. J Cell Biol.
2000;148(3):61524.
88. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100(1):5770.

89. Dumont N, Arteaga CL. Targeting the TGF beta signaling network in human neoplasia.
Cancer Cell. 2003;3(6):5316.
90. Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L, Weigelt B, Nuyten DS, Nobel AB, etal. Concordance among
gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355(6):5609.
91. Bergamaschi A, Kim YH, Wang P, Sorlie T, Hernandez-Boussard T, Lonning PE, etal.
Distinct patterns of DNA copy number alteration are associated with different clinico-
pathological features and gene-expression subtypes of breast cancer. Genes Chromosomes
Cancer. 2006;45(11):103340.
92. Chin K, DeVries S, Fridlyand J, Spellman PT, Roydasgupta R, Kuo WL, etal. Genomic
and transcriptional aberrations linked to breast cancer pathophysiologies. Cancer Cell.
2006;10(6):52941.
93. Vincent-Salomon A, Gruel N, Lucchesi C, Mac Grogan G, Dendale R, Sigal-Zafrani B,
etal. Identification of typical medullary breast carcinoma as a genomic sub-group of basal-
like carcinomas, a heterogeneous new molecular entity. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9(2):R24.
94. Rakha E, Reis-Filho JS. Basal-like breast carcinoma: from expression profiling to rou-
tine practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(6):8608. PubMed PMID: 19492878. Epub
2009/06/06. eng.
95. Turner NC, Reis-Filho JS. Basal-like breast cancer and the BRCA1 phenotype. Oncogene.
2006;25(43):584653.
96. Leidy J, Khan A, Kandil D. Basal-like breast cancer: update on clinicopathologic, immuno-
histochemical, and molecular features. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(1):3743. PubMed
PMID: 24377810. Epub 2014/01/01. eng.
97. Weigelt B, Baehner FL, Reis-Filho JS. The contribution of gene expression profiling to
breast cancer classification, prognostication and prediction: a retrospective of the last dec-
ade. J Pathol. 2010;220(2):26380.
98. Weigelt B, Mackay A, AHern R, Natrajan R, Tan DS, Dowsett M, etal. Breast cancer
molecular profiling with single sample predictors: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol.
2010;11(4):33949.
99. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, Hastie T, Marron JS, Nobel A, etal. Repeated observation
of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S
A. 2003;100(14):841823.
100. Calza S, Hall P, Auer G, Bjohle J, Klaar S, Kronenwett U, etal. Intrinsic molecular sig-
nature of breast cancer in a population-based cohort of 412 patients. Breast Cancer Res.
2006;8(4):R34.
101. Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin SF, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, Dunning MJ, etal. The genomic
and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature.
2012;486(7403):34652. PubMed PMID: 22522925. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3440846.
102. Bertucci F, Finetti P, Cervera N, Charafe-Jauffret E, Mamessier E, Adelaide J, etal. Gene
expression profiling shows medullary breast cancer is a subgroup of basal breast cancers.
Cancer Res. 2006;66(9):463644.
103. Vincent-Salomon A, Gruel N, Lucchesi C, MacGrogan G, Dendale R, Sigal-Zafrani B, etal.
Identification of typical medullary breast carcinoma as a genomic sub-group of basal-like
carcinomas, a heterogeneous new molecular entity. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9(2):R24.
PubMed PMID: 17417968. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC1868916. Epub 2007/04/10. eng.
104. Weigelt B, Kreike B, Reis-Filho JS. Metaplastic breast carcinomas are basal-like breast can-
cers: a genomic profiling analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;117(2):27380.
105. Weigelt B, Horlings HM, Kreike B, Hayes MM, Hauptmann M, Wessels LF, etal.

Refinement of breast cancer classification by molecular characterization of histological spe-
cial types. J Pathol. 2008;216(2):14150.
106. Weigelt B, Geyer FC, Reis-Filho JS. Histological types of breast cancer: how special are
they? Mol Oncol. 2010;4(3):192208.
107. Sotiriou C, Wirapati P, Loi S, Harris A, Fox S, Smeds J, etal. Gene expression profiling in
breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J
Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(4):26272.
108. Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, etal. A multigene assay to pre-
dict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med.
2004;351(27):281726.
109. Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S, Farmer P, Pradervand S, Haibe-Kains B, etal. Meta-
analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of
breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(4):R65.
110. Cheang MCU, van de Rijn M, Nielsen TO. Gene expression profiling of breast cancer. Annu
Rev Pathol. 2008;3(1):6797.
111. Prat A, Parker JS, Fan C, Cheang MC, Miller LD, Bergh J, etal. Concordance among gene
expression-based predictors for ER-positive breast cancer treated with adjuvant tamoxifen.
Ann Oncol. 2012;23(11):286673. PubMed PMID: 22532584. Pubmed Central PMCID:
3477878.
112. Gyorffy B, Hatzis C, Sanft T, Hofstatter E, Aktas B, Pusztai L. Multigene prognostic tests
in breast cancer: past, present, future. Breast Cancer Res. 2015;17(1):11. PubMed PMID:
doi:10.1186/s13058-015-0514-2.
113. Kim C, Paik S. Gene-expression-based prognostic assays for breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin
Oncol. 2010;7(6):3407. PubMed PMID: 20440284. Epub 2010/05/05. eng.
114. Azim HA, Jr., Michiels S, Zagouri F, Delaloge S, Filipits M, Namer M, etal. Utility of
prognostic genomic tests in breast cancer practice: The IMPAKT 2012 Working Group
Consensus Statement. Ann Oncol (official journal of the European Society for Medical
Oncology/ESMO). 2013;24(3):64754. PubMed PMID: 23337633. Epub 2013/01/23. eng.
Cancer Res. 2009;15(7):230210.
116. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, etal. Immunohistochemical
and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin
Cancer Res. 2004;10(16):536774.
117. Abd El-Rehim DM, Ball G, Pinder SE, Rakha E, Paish C, Robertson JFR, etal. High-
throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large
well-characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirm-
ing recent cDNA expression analyses. Int J Cancer. 2005;116(3):34050. PubMed PMID:
ISI:000230466100002.
118. Blows FM, Driver KE, Schmidt MK, Broeks A, van Leeuwen FE, Wesseling J, etal.
Subtyping of breast cancer by immunohistochemistry to investigate a relationship between
subtype and short and long term survival: a collaborative analysis of data for 10,159 cases
from 12 studies. PLoS Med. 2010;7(5):e1000279. PubMed PMID: 20520800. Pubmed
119. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO. Expression profiling technology: its con-
tribution to our understanding of breast cancer. Histopathology. 2008;52(1):6781.
120. Goldhirsch A, Winer EP, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Piccart-Gebhart M, Thurlimann B,

etal. Personalizing the treatment of women with early breast cancer: highlights of the St
Gallen International Expert Consensus on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer
2013. Ann Oncol (official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology/ESMO).
2013;24(9):220623. PubMed PMID: 23917950. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3755334.
Epub 2013/08/07. eng.
121. Weinstein IB, Joe A. Oncogene addiction. Cancer Res. 2008;68(9):307780.
122. Aleskandarany MA, Green AR, Benhasouna AA, Barros FF, Neal K, Reis-Filho JS, etal.
Prognostic value of proliferation assay in the luminal, HER2-positive, and triple-negative
biologic classes of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2012;14(1):R3. PubMed PMID:
22225836. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3496118. Epub 2012/01/10. eng.
123. Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C, Leung S, McKinney S, Chia SK, etal. Basal-like breast
cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative pheno-
type. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(5):136876.
124. Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R, Tretiakova MS, Olopade OI, Moore DT, etal.

Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol.
2006;19(2):26471.
125. Badve S, Dabbs DJ, Schnitt SJ, Baehner FL, Decker T, Eusebi V, etal. Basal-like and triple-
negative breast cancers: a critical review with an emphasis on the implications for patholo-
gists and oncologists. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(2):15767.
126. Green AR, Powe DG, Rakha EA, Soria D, Lemetre C, Nolan CC, etal. Identification of
key clinical phenotypes of breast cancer using a reduced panel of protein biomarkers. Br J
Cancer. 2013;109(7):188694.
127. Soria D, Garibaldi Jm, Ambrogi F, Green AR, Powe D, Rakha E, Macmillan RD, etal. A
methodology to identify consensus classes from clustering algorithms applied to immuno-
histochemical data from breast cancer patients. 2010 20100308 DCOM- 20100701(1879-
0534 (Electronic)). eng.
key clinical phenotypes of breast cancer using a reduced panel of protein biomarkers. Br
J Cancer. 2013;109(7):188694. PubMed PMID: 24008658. Pubmed Central PMCID:
3790179.
129. Allred DC. Commentary: hormone receptor testing in breast cancer: a distress signal from
Canada. Oncologist. 2008;13(11):11346.
130. Simon R, Radmacher MD, Dobbin K, McShane LM. Pitfalls in the use of DNA microarray
data for diagnostic and prognostic classification. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2003;95(1):148.
131. Forster T, Roy D, Ghazal P. Experiments using microarray technology: limitations and
standard operating procedures. J Endocrinol. 2003;178(2):195204.
132. Jansen MP, Foekens JA, van Staveren IL, Dirkzwager-Kiel MM, Ritstier K, Look MP, etal.
Molecular classification of tamoxifen-resistant breast carcinomas by gene expression profil-
ing. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23(4):73240.
133. Loi S, Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Wirapati P, Lallemand F, Tutt AM, etal. Predicting
prognosis using molecular profiling in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer treated with
tamoxifen. BMC Genom. 2008;9:239.
134. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC, Leung S, Voduc D, Vickery T, etal. Supervised risk pre-
dictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(8):11607.
135. Pollack JR, Sorlie T, Perou CM, Rees CA, Jeffrey SS, Lonning PE, etal. Microarray analy-
sis reveals a major direct role of DNA copy number alteration in the transcriptional program
of human breast tumors. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2002;99(20):129638.
136. Fritz B, Schubert F, Wrobel G, Schwaenen C, Wessendorf S, Nessling M, etal. Microarray-
based copy number and expression profiling in dedifferentiated and pleomorphic liposar-
coma. Cancer Res. 2002;62(11):29938.
Chapter 11
Triple-Negative Breast Cancer:
Subtypes with Clinical Implications
Dina Kandil and Ashraf Khan
Background
Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) are a heterogeneous group of malignant

breast tumors traditionally defined by their lack of expression of estrogen receptor
(ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and over-expression of human epidermal growth
factor receptor 2 (HER-2). TNBC accounts for about 1015% of all breast cancers.
Population-based studies show that women with high body mass index and those
who reported no recreational physical activity are at a higher risk for developing
TNBC than women who are physically active and those with low body mass index
[1, 2]. Interestingly, some factors that are known to decrease the risk of breast cancer
in general, do increase the risk of TNBC. These include first childbirth at an early
age and multiparity. Racial disparity is also well-documented with African-American
women having the highest incidence rates for TNBC, followed by Hispanic women
[3]. The negativity of these tumors for ER and PR as well as their lack of HER-2
over-expression, render them resistant to hormonal and trastuzumab (Herceptin) ther-
apy, making treatment a challenging task. Although, by DNA microarray analysis,
most TNBC will fall into the basal-like category of breast cancers, and therefore will
theoretically have a poor prognosis compared to other subtypes, basal-like breast can-
cer is one of several faces of TNBC, albeit the ugly face. In this chapter, we will
discuss the different subtypes of TNBC, their morphological features, immunophe-
notype, molecular background and the clinical implications of these subtypes. The
immunohistochemical and molecular characteristics are summarized in Table11.1.
D. Kandil A. Khan(*)

158 D. Kandil and A. Khan
Table11.1Subtypes of TNBC with their characteristic immunohistochemical and molecular

features
TNBC Subtype Immunohistochemistry Molecular characteristics
Adenoid cystic carcinoma ER/PR/HER2 in t(6, 9)(q2223;p2324) MYB-
>90% C-KIT+, P63+, NFIB fusion gene
EGFR+HCM, calponin No EGFR gene amplification
Ki67 low, TP53low Topo No KIT mutation
II expression
Metaplastic ER/PR/HER2 in >90% Claudin-low associated
Carcinoma Cytokeratin panel (CK903, Low expression of GATA3-
AE1/AE3, CK903) variable regulated genes and genes
P63+(>90%) responsible for cell-cell
adhesion
Increase in markers linked to
stem cell function
Carcinoma with apocrine ER/PR usually Gains in 1p, 1q and 2q
HER2 (>50%) Losses of 1p, 12q, 16q, 17q,
and 22q19
Differentiation GCDFP15+ (diffuse)
AR+, BCL2
Pleomorphic ER/PR (all cases) Aneuploidy and high S-phase
Carcinoma HER2 (usually)
Pankeratin+, CAM 5.2+
EMA+ (weak and focal)
P53+ (71%), Ki67 (high)
BCL2
Secretory carcinoma ER/PR/HER2. t(12, 15) ETV6-NTRK3 gene
EMA+, S-100 protein+, fusion. Alteration of the ETV6
E-cadherin+. CK5/6 and 14+ gene in both the in situ and
invasive components
Carcinoma with medullary ER/PR/HER2 in >90% EGFR gene amplification
features CK5/6, EGFR, TP53+ TP53 gene mutation
(variable)
KI-67 high BRCA1 gene mutations
common
Epstein-Barr virus infection?
Basal-like breast ER/PR/HER2 (all TP53 mutation (83%)
cases)
Carcinoma CK5/6+, EGFR+ (4570%) Alteration in BRCA-1 activity
and loss of function
CK14+, IMP3+, CKIT+
(45%)
P53+. Others: VEGF+, X-chromosome abnormalities
maspin+
osteopontin, Integrin 4 ID4 and cyclin E1 expression
Caveolin1 and 2+ VEGF and Fascin expression
(+): Positive, (): negative
11 Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Subtypes 159
Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma
Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC) of the breast is a rare and morphologically dis-
tinct form of breast cancer, comprising less than 1% of all cases [4]. In contrast to
other TNBC, the incidence of mammary ACC among Blacks is significantly lower
than in Whites [5]. Histologically, these tumors are identical to their salivary gland
counterparts. The tumor is composed of two cell types: cuboidal epithelial cells
with rather abundant cytoplasm and pale nuclei lining tubular duct-like structures
that contain neutral polysaccharides (PAS positive, diastase sensitive), and myoep-
ithelial-like cells that elaborate acid mucopolysaccharides (alcian blue positive)
and abundant basal lamina material. Mammary ACC can assume several architec-
tural patterns including: solid, cribriform, tubular, and trabecular configurations.
These patterns may not be distributed homogenously in a given tumor causing a
potential diagnostic dilemma, especially on core needle biopsies. A predominant
cribriform pattern may be confused with invasive or in situ cribriform carcinoma,
and collagenous spherulosis (Fig.11.1a). DCIS in association with ACC is seen in
a minority of cases and may be difficult to distinguish from the surrounding nests
of invasive carcinoma.
Fig. 11.1a Adenoid cystic carcinoma, H&E 100. b Metaplastic Carcinoma with mesenchy-
mal differentiation, 100. c Carcinoma with apocrine differentiation, 100. d Pleomorphic car-
cinoma, 100
Immunohistochemistry
Immunohistochemistry is helpful in cases of ACC, not only to confirm the diag-

nosis, but also to differentiate it from its mimickers. A panel including C-KIT
(CD117), P63, heavy chain myosin, and calponin is very helpful [6]. ACC is usu-
ally positive for C-KIT and P63, and negative for both heavy chain myosin and
calponin. Collagenous spherulosis and cribriform DCIS are positive for all myoep-
ithelial cell markers but negative for C-KIT, while invasive cribriform carcinoma
will not express any of those markers. Although, typically negative for ER, PR,
and HER-2, up to 12% of mammary ACC have been reported to be ER+/PR+
[5]. Other immunohistochemical studies dedicated solely to mammary ACC are
identified in the literature, but are all limited by the small number of cases studied.
These studies show a low proliferation index manifested by Ki-67, lack of P53
expression [7], and low Topoisomerase II expression, while demonstrating an
over-expression of EGFR in 65% of ACC cases [8].
Molecular Characteristics
Microarray-based gene expression studies have included ACC in the basal-like cat-
egory due to their triple negative phenotype and expression of basal cell markers.
However, studies focusing only on ACC show some molecular differences that dis-
tinguish ACC from the crowd of TNBC. ACC consistently displays t(6;9)(q2223;
pp 2324) translocation, which generates a fusion transcript involving the MYB and
NFIB genes [9]. This translocation is considered the key oncogenic mechanism in
the pathogenesis of ACC. EGFR gene amplification which has been shown in some
basal-like breast cancers, has not been demonstrated in ACC [8]. Similarly, C-KIT
expression characteristic of ACC does not reflect an underlying KIT mutation.
Metaplastic Carcinoma
The term metaplastic carcinoma refers to a heterogeneous group of invasive breast

carcinoma with microscopic features that diverge from glandular differentiation.
These include either squamous or mesenchymal cell differentiation (e.g., spindle
cell, chondroid, osseous, or myoid). Metaplastic carcinoma accounts for approxi-
mately 1% of all invasive breast carcinomas. Clinically, patients present in a
similar fashion to patients with invasive ductal carcinoma, NOS, in terms of their
age at presentation and the manner in which the tumor is detected. The mammo-
graphic appearance of metaplastic carcinoma is not specific, except in tumors with
osseous metaplasia, where bone-forming areas can be radiologically identified.
Microscopically, metaplastic carcinoma varies in the type and extent of metaplastic
change. In some tumors, the metaplastic foci may be present as isolated microscopic
foci in an otherwise typical invasive ductal carcinoma. In other cases, particularly

tumors with squamous and spindle cell metaplasia, the metaplastic component can
present in a pure form without any recognizable glandular component. The latter
may be difficult to differentiate from a malignant phyllodes tumor or a sarcoma on
needle core biopsies. The most common heterologous elements in metaplastic car-
cinoma are osseous and chondroid differentiation (Fig.11.1b). In these tumors, the
bone and cartilage may appear histologically benign or frankly malignant, further
raising the possibility of a sarcoma. The presence of DCIS in tumors with a predom-
inant mesenchymal component, supports the diagnosis of metaplastic carcinoma.
The diagnosis of metaplastic carcinoma in challenging cases lies in the identifi-

cation of the epithelial origin of the tumor cells. This may require the use of a
panel of low-and high-molecular weight cytokeratins since many metaplastic
carcinomas show only focal positivity for CK or may even be negative to some.
CK903(34betaE12) and P63 have been reported as sensitive markers for metaplas-
tic carcinomas [10]. As other members of the TNBC family, >90% of metaplastic
carcinomas are negative for ER, PR, and HER2.
Metaplastic carcinoma are thought to arise from altered epithelial and/or myoepi-
thelial cells. This theory is supported by cytogenetic and molecular studies that
demonstrate the same clonality in both the glandular and non-glandular compo-
nents of the tumor, indicating a common stem cell origin [11, 12]. Collectively,
metaplastic carcinomas fall into the category of basal-like breast cancer, however,
recent studies suggested that a subset of these tumors displays transcriptomic fea-
tures consistent with cells undergoing epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition. These
are referred to as Claudin-low tumors. Metaplastic carcinomas and claudin-low
tumors are shown by comparative genomic hybridization to have low expression
of GATA3-regulated genes and of genes responsible for cell-cell adhesion with
enrichment for markers linked to stem cell function [13].
Carcinomas with Apocrine Differentiation
Focal apocrine differentiation can be seen in many types of breast carcinoma

including: lobular, ductal, tubular, micropapillary, and even medullary carci-
noma. However, carcinomas with extensive apocrine differentiation represent
approximately 4% of breast cancer and are represented in this category [14].

Histologically, the majority of the tumor cells display features reminiscent of apo-
crine cells such as enlarged round nuclei with prominent nucleoli and abundant
granular eosinophilic cytoplasm that is PAS-positive (Type A cells) (Fig.11.1c).
Some cells may have abundant foamy cytoplasm, which is referred to as Type B
cells, while other tumors may have a combination of both.
A typical apocrine carcinoma shows diffuse positivity for GCDFP-15 [14], and
BCL-2 negativity. Staining for ER, PR is usually negative. A portion of these
tumors is also negative for HER2 protein over-expression (triple negative).
Androgen receptor expression in ER-negative breast tumors was found to be asso-
ciated with apocrine differentiation [15].
The immunophenotypic signature described above has inspired researchers to look

for a similar apocrine molecular signature. Microarray studies show increased
androgen signaling and overlap with the HER2 group of tumors. However, this
proposed molecular signature does not correlate well with apocrine morphol-
ogy. Approximately, only half of carcinomas with apocrine differentiation show
this molecular signature. Comparative genomic hybridization has identified sev-
eral copy number alterations in carcinomas with apocrine differentiation includ-
ing gains of 1p, 1q and 2q, as well as losses of 1p, 12q, 16q, 17q, and 22q [16].
However, these are also common alteration regions that are seen in breast carci-
noma in general. This data suggests that although carcinomas with apocrine dif-
ferentiation may have a characteristic morphology and immunophenotype, they do
not represent a distinct molecular entity.
Pleomorphic Carcinoma
This unusual and rare tumor is considered a variant of high-grade invasive

ductal carcinoma, NOS. Morphologically, it is characterized by proliferation
of pleomorphic, bizarre cells with greater than sixfold variation in nuclear size.
Multinucleated tumor giant cells are common and account for more than 50% of
the tumor cells. Areas of conventional adenocarcinoma may be present. However,
pure pleomorphic carcinoma and cases associated with metaplastic carcinoma,
especially of the spindle cell type, may be seen and can be misdiagnosed as
sarcoma or metastatic tumors. The presence of adjacent foci of ductal carcinoma

in situ supports a breast primary in challenging cases (Fig.11.1d). Axillary lymph
node metastases are present in almost half the cases.
In the original series by Silver and Tavassoli, all tumors showed strong, diffuse
positivity for pan-cytokeratin and CAM 5.2, which is useful in differentiating these
tumors from sarcomas. EMA was positive in areas of conventional ductal carcinoma,
but was very weak and focal in the multinucleated tumor cells. All tumors were neg-
ative for ER and PR. HER-2 was also negative in the majority of cases, especially
those with node-negative disease [17]. P53 expression was present in 71%, but none
expressed bcl-2. Ki-67 proliferation index was also increased with a mean of 33%.
The data on pleomorphic carcinoma is very sparse due to the rarity of these
tumors. Nevertheless, the majority of these tumors show aneuploid DNA content
and high S-phase.
Secretory Carcinoma
Secretory carcinoma (SC) is an exceptionally rare, low-grade carcinoma account-

ing for <0.15% of all breast cancers. They occur over a wide age range, but more
commonly in children and young adults Juvenile carcinoma. Clinically, they
are well-circumscribed tumors, located close to the areola. Grossly, the tumor
size ranges from 0.5 to 12cm with an average of 3cm. Microscopically, secretory
carcinoma has pushing borders and is composed of polygonal cells with granular
eosinophilic to foamy cytoplasm (Fig.11.2a). A consistent finding is the presence
of intracellular and extracellular, eosinophilic, secretory material that is positive
for PAS and alcian blue (Fig.11.2b, c). The tumor displays one or more of three
growth patterns: solid, tubular, and microcyctic. The latter resembles thyroid fol-
licles. Most tumors contain a mixture of all three patterns.
The tumor cells are negative for ER, PR, and HER-2, and frequently positive for
epithelial membrane antigen (EMA), S-100 protein, and E-cadherin (Fig.11.2d).
Expression of basal cytokeratins (CK 5/6 and 14) was also identified in five out of
Fig.11.2Secretory carcinoma. a H&E, 100. b Luminal secretions are strongly PAS-D posi-
tive. c Alcian blue positive. d S-100 protein is also strongly positive
six cases in one study, suggesting that secretory carcinoma belongs to the basal-
like group of breast cancer [18].
In 2002, Tognon etal. [19] have shown that secretory carcinoma is characteristi-
cally associated with t(12, 15) that results in ETV6-NTRK3 gene fusion, the same
translocation which was originally described in congenital fibrosarcoma and cel-
lular mesoblastic nephroma. Additionally, FISH analysis shows alteration of the
ETV6 gene in both the in situ and invasive components [18].
Carcinoma with Medullary Features
Classic medullary carcinoma (MC) is very rare, representing less than 1% of

all breast cancers. The diagnosis of classic MC requires stringent diagnostic cri-
teria which include histological circumscription, lack of tubular formation with
syncytial architecture in >75% of the tumor, intense lymphoplasmacytic infiltra-

tion, and highly pleomorphic tumor cells with numerous mitoses. Tumors that lack
some of these features are classified as atypical medullary carcinoma or inva-
sive ductal carcinoma with medullary features. However, these criteria are often
difficult to apply resulting in a high interobserver variability. For the same reasons,
the new WHO Classification of Tumors of The Breast has now grouped classic
and atypical medullary as well as a subset of invasive carcinoma of no special type
under Carcinomas with medullary features. Foci of squamous metaplasia can
also be seen in MC and should not be considered as a metaplastic carcinoma.
The majority (>90%) of MC are negative for ER, PR, and HER-2, with variable
expression of basal cytokeratin (CK5/6), EGFR, and P53. The intense lymphocytic
infiltrate is predominantly CD3+T lymphocytes. Not surprisingly, MC shows a
high proliferation index with Ki-67.
MC heirs a lot of its molecular features from its basal-like family of breast cancers,
including EGFR gene amplification, TP53 gene mutation, and increased incidence in
patients with BRCA1 gene mutations [20]. Some questioned the role of Epstein-Barr
virus infection in MC given its morphologic similarities with lymphoepithelial carci-
nomas of other organs. Whereas, one study showed an association between Epstein-
Barr virus and MC, another study failed to reproduce this link [21, 22].
Basal-like Breast Carcinoma
Basal-like breast carcinomas (BLBC) is a distinct group of breast carcinoma that

has evolved as a separate molecular subtype from gene expression profiling stud-
ies [23, 24]. They usually present as rapidly growing breast masses, most prob-
ably as interval breast cancers (those diagnosed between annual mammograms)
[25]. Radiologically, they are often ill-defined, oval, round, or lobulated masses.
Extensive necrosis may give the impression of a partially solid and cystic mass on
ultrasound. Except for circumscription and geographic necrosis, BLBC shares a
lot of histologic features with medullary carcinoma. The tumor is usually grade III
invasive ductal carcinoma with focal/absent in situ component, high nuclear grade,
absence of tubular formation, and high-mitotic rate. There is usually a dense stro-
mal lymphocytic infiltrate, a solid architecture with pushing borders and areas of
Fig.11.3Basal-like breast cancer. a H&E stain, 100. b CK5/6 immunostain showing positive
staining of the tumor cells. c IMP3 immunostain is diffusely positive
geographic necrosis (Fig.11.3a). Like medullary carcinoma, BRCA-1 associated

carcinomas are often BLBC.
Expression of basal cytokeratins, particularly CK5/6 and CK14 is considered the

sine-qua-non of BLBC (Fig.11.3b). CK17 is also present in approximately 50%
of cases, but may be focal and weak. The expression of EGFR in BLBC varies
in several studies, ranging from 45 to 70%. Since more than 80% of BRCA-1
associated cancers cluster in the basal-like category, it is not surprising that basal
CKs and EGFR expression are also observed in BRCA-1 associated breast can-
cers. However, attempts to use these markers together with hormone receptors to
predict mutation status in these patients has not been successful due to the high
overlap between both BRCA-1 and non BRCA-1 associated BLBC [26]. Various
other immunohistochemical markers have been studied as a tool to recognize
and further characterize this specific subset of tumors. Insulin-like growth factor-
II mRNA-binding protein 3 (IMP3), which was first introduced as a marker of
aggressive behavior in renal cell and urothelial carcinomas [27], has been demon-
strated in 78% of TNBC, and correlates with CK5/6 expression (Fig.11.3c) [28].
C-KIT has been reported in approximately 45% of BLBC. P53 over-expression is
also more common in BLBC compared to all breast cancers. Vascular endothelial
growth factor (VEGF), maspin, osteopontin, integrin 4, caveolin1 and 2 have all
been reported to be preferentially expressed in BLBC [2933]. However, the only
IHC signature of BLBC that has been validated by expression profiling demon-
strates that a panel composed of ER, HER2, CK 5/6, and EGFR can identify these
tumors with 100% specificity and 76% sensitivity [34].
The literature has been enriched by many studies that focus on better understand-
ing of the molecular background of BLBC, in attempt to translate this molecular
phenotype into targeted therapy. TP53 mutation has been identified in up to 83%
BLBC cases. The mutation is thought to be an early event in tumorigenesis and is
related to poor prognosis and resistance to chemotherapy [35, 36]. The link with
BRCA-1 gene mutation is well established. More than 80% of BRCA-1 asso-
ciated cancers cluster in the basal-like category [37], and many sporadic BLBC
were shown to have altered BRCA1 activity and loss of function. Approximately
1020% of BLBC show methylation of gene promoter, and some have decreased
BRCA1 mRNA. X-chromosome abnormalities, including defects in inactivation,
were also identified. Additionally, the dominant-negative transcriptional regula-
tor ID4 has been shown to regulate BRCA1 expression and to be preferentially
expressed in BLBC [3840]. Additionally, the loss of one TP53 allele in mice with
mammary-specific deletion of BRCA1 dramatically accelerates mammary tumo-
rigenesis, suggesting that TP53 mutations may act synergistically with BRCA1
defects in sporadic BLBC to drive tumor initiation.
The high-mitotic index and high rates of proliferation that characterize BLBC
reflect the expression of several proliferation-related genes. EGFR is expressed in
a large percentage of BLBC. A recent study on IMP-3 in BLBC showed it to be
the effector of EGFR-mediated tumor migration and invasion suggesting a mecha-
nism by which IMP-3 may be regulated in breast cancer. Cyclin E1 over-expres-
sion has also been shown in BLBC. ELISA studies reveal a three-fold increase
in VEGF expression levels in TNBC compared to non-TNBC. Moreover, high
VEGF-receptor2 expression was observed in a subset of TNBC and correlates
with a shorter survival. The expression of Fascin, an invasion promoting gene, was
observed in 54% of BLBC, and in 83% of BRCA1-associated carcinomas.
Prognosis
TNBC has gained a bad reputation as a tumor of poor prognosis largely because
the terms TNBC and BLBC are often incorrectly used as synonyms. Studies have
proven that this is not necessarily the case, and using the term TNBC to imply a
badly behaving tumor will expose many patients to unnecessary treatments with
ample side effects. Members of this diverse family of tumors behave differently
and have variable prognoses.
Perhaps the most innocent member in this family is ACC. Despite its triple neg-
ative nature and paucity of treatment regimens, ACC is considered a low-grade car-
cinoma with an excellent prognosis. The data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology
and End Results (SEER) program show that the 5-year, 10-year, and 15-year sur-
vival for patients with mammary ACC are 98, 95, and 91%, respectively [5]. Many
cases are treated with lumpectomy, but simple mastectomy is generally curative.
Axillary dissection is unnecessary except for the very rare cases of nodal metastases.
Local recurrence is rare, and is usually related to incomplete excision.
Prognostic data on patients with metaplastic carcinomas is somewhat limited
due to the uncommon nature of the disease, and have been based largely on patients
treated by mastectomy with axillary dissection. It is unclear if the type and amount
of metaplasia has a significant effect on prognosis. However, specific subtypes such
as low-grade adenosquamous carcinoma, have a good prognosis compared to other
types of metaplastic carcinoma. On the contrary, recent data suggests that Claudin-
low carcinomas may have a lower response rate to conventional chemotherapy and
a worse clinical outcome than other metaplastic carcinomas [13].
With approximately 38% mortality rate in the first 2 years, pleomorphic carci-
noma has a very poor prognosis [17]. Conversely, secretory carcinoma has a favorable
prognosis, especially in children and adolescents. In older patients, the tumor may
take a more aggressive clinical course with late metastases [41]. Axillary lymph node
and distant metastases are very rare and usually manifested in older patients.
Medullary carcinoma, when defined by strict morphologic criteria, also has a
favorable prognosis. This may be related to the intense lymphocytic infiltration that
represents the host immune response, the well circumscription that makes resection
with wide clear margins a relatively easier task for surgeons, and the high mitotic
rate that makes these tumors very sensitive to chemotherapy. Gene expression profil-
ing studies have demonstrated that the expression levels of immune response genes
are independent predictors of the outcome in patients with highly proliferative breast
cancers. This suggests that the relatively good prognosis of tumors with medullary
features may be attributed to the prominent lymphoplasmacytic stromal response.
The 10-year survival for patients with pure MC is greater than 80% in some reports.
Axillary lymph node metastases are uncommon and, when present, are usually in
fewer than four lymph nodes. However, patients with tumors larger than three cm or
those with metastases to more than four lymph nodes do not have the same favorable
prognosis. Additionally, patients with BRCA1 mutations who develop MC do not
have the same prognosis as those without the mutation. The low level of reproduc-
ibility in diagnosing MC, and the concern for under calling an aggressive BLBC
tumor as a MC, has led to a decrease in the number of reported MC cases and a
marked shrinkage of this controversial subtype. Currently, it is a common practice to
treat MC in a similarly aggressive fashion as BLBC.
BLBC represents the ugly face of TNBC. It is well-documented now that
BLBC has the worst behavior amongst breast cancers. This poor prognosis may be
attributable to the over expression of genes promoting proliferation, angiogenesis,
and migration. Studies have shown a decreased disease-free survival and overall sur-
vival compared to other types of breast cancer. Patients with BLBC are at a higher
risk for early relapse/recurrence. A large, central fibrotic scar, occasionally seen
histologically, was suggested as a poor prognostic feature, associated with a higher
risk of distant metastases [42]. Interestingly, BLBC has a different pattern of distant
metastases. Brain metastases, which in itself carry a poor prognosis, are more com-
mon among patients with BLBC [43]. The expression of basal cytokeratins in breast
cancer has been shown to be associated with a poor outcome [44]. Further, expres-
sion of these cytokeratins in node-negative breast carcinoma, is a poor prognostic
factor, independent of tumor size and grade [44]. Multivariate analysis indicates that
EGFR is also a significant, independent prognostic factor in breast cancer patients,
whose expression is associated with shorter disease-free survival [45].
Of all the TNBC subtypes, treatment for BLBC remains the greatest chal-
lenge because of its clinically aggressive nature and limited therapeutic options.
Traditionally, oncologists have used anthracycline and paclitaxel to treat these
breast cancer patients. Even though neoadjuvant chemotherapy results in com-
plete pathologic response in 1525% of BLBC [46], most patients continue to
have residual disease and remain at a high risk for relapse and death within the
first 5 years of diagnosis. Moreover, the nonspecific cytotoxicity of these agents
may result in significant, dose-limiting side effects. Thus, the development of tar-
geted therapies with improved therapeutic indices is of paramount importance.
One approach was to explore platinum based chemotherapy agents (carboplatin,
cisplatin, etc.). Platinum agents produce DNA cross-links, leading to DNA double-
strand breaks, normally repaired by BRCA. Since many BLBC exhibits BRCA-1
gene defects, these cells become highly sensitive to the apoptosis induced by these
agents. Cisplatin also promotes apoptosis in BLBC by disrupting a complex in the
TP53 family that is present selectively in BLBC with mutant TP53. In a recent
study, 22% of patients with TNBC showed complete pathological remission with
single-agent neoadjuvant cisplatin [47]. This rate is similar to that observed with
non-platinum agents. Platinum agents appear to be the most promising therapy
that may improve survival in BLBC.
BRCA1 pathway dysfunction is also the basis for treating BLBC with Poly
(ADP) Ribose Polymerase Inhibitors (PARP-I). PARP is involved in base exci-
sion repair; an important pathway in the repair of single-strand breaks in DNA
[48]. Single-strand breaks become double-strand breaks at replication forks, creat-
ing more DNA lesions to be repaired by homologous combination in the absence
of functioning PARP. This occurs without increasing or affecting the process of
homologous recombination [49]. Combined with the effects of BRCA-1 gene
mutations on homologous recombination, increased numbers of DNA errors
may lead to a cell cycle arrest and, potentially, permanent arrest and apoptosis
in tumors. Cell lines with BRCA dysfunction have been proven to be extremely
sensitive to PARP-I [50]. PARP-I are relatively nontoxic compared to general
cytotoxic chemotherapy because they do not directly damage DNA, therefore, tar-
geting cooperative pathways that may lead to the development of specific and less
toxic therapy. Depending on whether the tumor is due to a BRCA germline muta-
tion, or a sporadic mutation with BRCA-like effects, normal tissue outside the
tumor maintains at least one copy of wild type BRCA, thus enabling the repair of
normal cells affected by the PARP inhibition [50]. This approach uses the concept
of synthetic lethality by targeting DNA repair pathways in a complementary man-
ner, leading to a lethal combination [51].
Aberrant VEGF pathway activation shown in BLBC has led to the investiga-
tion of targeting anti-angiogenic therapeutic strategy to VEGF and its downstream
receptors. Bevacizumab, the anti-VEGF antibody, was shown to increase dis-
ease-free survival when combined with paclitaxel in patients with TNBC by four
months, compared to paclitaxel alone. However, the overall survival was unaffected
[52]. Other small-molecule multikinase inhibitors have been developed as possible
anti-angiogenic agents. These inhibit VEGFR and other receptor tyrosine kinases
[53]. Sunitinib (Sutent) is a multi-targeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor.

Sunitinib inhibits cellular signaling by targeting multiple receptor tyrosine kinases
(RTKs), including platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF-Rs) and VEGFRs, which
play a role in both tumor angiogenesis and tumor cell proliferation. This simulta-
neous inhibition leads to reduced tumor vascularization, cancer cell death, and
ultimately tumor shrinkage. Sunitinib was shown to induce an 11% response rate
when used as a single agent in patients with previously treated metastatic breast
carcinoma. Fifteen percent of BLBC patients responded to treatment [54]. Other
studies have demonstrated a response in one third of patients with metastatic
or locally advanced BLBC to treatment with sunitinib added to paclitaxel. Other
VEGFR multikinase inhibitors have not been as promising [55]. The currently dem-
onstrated limited response to antiangiogenic agents is considered disappointing.
Since EGFR is upregulated in the majority of BLBC, it represents a poten-
tial therapeutic target. Lapatinib is a dual inhibitor of EGFR and HER2 tyrosine
kinases [56]. In randomized trials, the use of lapatinib with placitaxel was shown
to have a significant benefit in HER2-amplified tumors [57]. In contrast, patients
with HER2-negative tumors and overexpression of EGFR did not benefit from the
addition of lapatinib [56]. This suggests that although EGFR overexpression is
present in the majority of BLBC, it may not be a helpful therapeutic target.
Multiple other downstream kinases are under consideration as targeted ther-
apy for BLBC patients. Constitutive activity of these pathways downstream from
EGFR may be an explanation for the lack of response to EGFR-targeted therapies.
One such target currently being explored is the mitogen-activated protein kinase
(MAPK)/extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK) kinase (MEK), a signaling
pathway with a central role in promoting tumor initiation and progression [58].
Activation of this pathway has been shown to be associated with an increased risk
of metastasis in breast cancer patients [59]. As a therapeutic target, early clinical
studies have demonstrated a limited response [60, 61]. A more recent study has
shown that BLBC appears to be particularly sensitive to MEK inhibitors. This
study also elucidated the interaction and potential negative feedback loop between
the MEK cascade and the phosphoindositide 3-kinase (PI3K)-PTEN-AKT sign-
aling cascade, which counteracts the effects of MEK inhibition of cell cycle and
apoptosis induction. These findings may, in part, explain why initial studies showed
only a modest response to MEK inhibition and suggest concurrent treatment with
both MEK and PI3K inhibitors is a promising therapeutic possibility [58].
Summary
TNBC is a heterogenous group of breast carcinoma with varying morphology,

immunophenotype and molecular characteristics. Treatment and prognosis are
highly variable amongst the group. Morphologic correlation with immunohisto-
chemistry and molecular signature is the key to establish an accurate diagnosis,
which will then dictate further management.
Key Points
TNBC is a heterogeneous group of tumors accounting for about 1015% of all

breast cancers.
ACC is a low-grade carcinoma, morphologically identical to its salivary gland
counterpart and has excellent prognosis.
Claudin-low associated tumors are considered subsets of metaplastic carcinoma
with low expression of GATA3-regulated genes and genes responsible for cell-
cell adhesion.
Carcinomas with apocrine differentiation have characteristic morphology and
immunophenotype (GCDFP and AR positive), but do not represent a distinct
molecular entity.
Pleomorphic carcinomas are poorly differentiated tumors with highly pleomor-
phic, bizarre cells, and tumor giant cells mimicking sarcoma. These tumors have
very poor prognosis.
Secretory carcinoma has a favorable prognosis in children and young adults but
can be aggressive in older patients.
More than 80% of BRCA-1 associated cancers cluster in the basal-like category.
A panel of ER, HER2, CK 5/6, and EGFR can identify BLBC with 100% spec-
ificity and 76% sensitivity.
MC are now commonly treated as BLBC due to the low level of reproducibility
in its diagnosis and concern for under-treating an aggressive BLBC.
References
1. Trivers KF, Lund MJ, Porter PL, Liff JM, Flagg EW, Coates RJ, Eley JW. The epidemiology
of triple-negative breast cancer, including race. Cancer Causes Control. 2009;20:107182.
2. Phipps AI, Chlebowski RT, Prentice R, McTiernan A, Stefanick ML, Wactawski-Wende J,
Kuller LH, Adams-Campbell LL, Lane D, Vitolins M, Kabat GC, Rohan TE, Li CI. Body
size, physical activity, and risk of triple-negative and estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2011;20:45463 (a publication of the American Association
for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology).
3. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen
receptor (er)-negative, progesterone receptor (pr)-negative, and her2-negative invasive breast
cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: A population-based study from the california
cancer registry. Cancer. 2007;109:17218.
4. Sumpio BE, Jennings TA, Merino MJ, Sullivan PD. Adenoid cystic carcinoma of the
breast. Data from the connecticut tumor registry and a review of the literature. Ann Surg.
1987;205:295301.
5. Ghabach B, Anderson WF, Curtis RE, Huycke MM, Lavigne JA, Dores GM. Adenoid cystic
carcinoma of the breast in the united states (1977 to 2006): A population-based cohort study.
Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12:R54.
6. Rabban JT, Swain RS, Zaloudek CJ, Chase DR, Chen YY. Immunophenotypic overlap
between adenoid cystic carcinoma and collagenous spherulosis of the breast: Potential diag-
nostic pitfalls using myoepithelial markers. Modern Pathol. 2006;19:13511357 (an official
journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc).
7. Pastolero G, Hanna W, Zbieranowski I, Kahn HJ. Proliferative activity and p53 expression in
adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast. Modern Pathol. 1996;9:215219 (an official journal
of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc).
8. Vranic S, Frkovic-Grazio S, Lamovec J, Serdarevic F, Gurjeva O, Palazzo J, Bilalovic N,
Lee LM, Gatalica Z. Adenoid cystic carcinomas of the breast have low topo II expression
but frequently overexpress EGFR protein without EGFR gene amplification. Hum Pathol.
2010;41:161723.
9. Persson M, Andren Y, Mark J, Horlings HM, Persson F, Stenman G. Recurrent fusion of
MYB and NFIB transcription factor genes in carcinomas of the breast and head and neck.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:187404.
10. Dunne B, Lee AH, Pinder SE, Bell JA, Ellis IO. An immunohistochemical study of meta-
plastic spindle cell carcinoma, phyllodes tumor and fibromatosis of the breast. Hum Pathol.
2003;34:100915.
11. Teixeira MR, Qvist H, Bohler PJ, Pandis N, Heim S. Cytogenetic analysis shows that
carcinosarcomas of the breast are of monoclonal origin. Genes Chromosom Cancer.
1998;22:14551.
12. Wada H, Enomoto T, Tsujimoto M, Nomura T, Murata Y, Shroyer KR. Carcinosarcoma of the
breast: Molecular-biological study for analysis of histogenesis. Hum Pathol. 1998;29:13248.
13. Hennessy BT, Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Stemke-Hale K, Gilcrease MZ, Krishnamurthy S, Lee
JS, Fridlyand J, Sahin A, Agarwal R, Joy C, Liu W, Stivers D, Baggerly K, Carey M, Lluch
A, Monteagudo C, He X, Weigman V, Fan C, Palazzo J, Hortobagyi GN, Nolden LK, Wang
NJ, Valero V, Gray JW, Perou CM, Mills GB. Characterization of a naturally occurring breast
cancer subset enriched in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and stem cell characteristics.
Cancer Res. 2009;69:411624.
14. Eusebi V, Millis RR, Cattani MG, Bussolati G, Azzopardi JG. Apocrine carcinoma of the
breast. A morphologic and immunocytochemical study. Am J Pathol. 1986;123:53241.
15. Niemeier LA, Dabbs DJ, Beriwal S, Striebel JM, Bhargava R. Androgen receptor in breast
cancer: Expression in estrogen receptor-positive tumors and in estrogen receptor-negative
tumors with apocrine differentiation. Modern Pathol. 2010;23:205212 (an official journal of
the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc).
16. Jones C, Damiani S, Wells D, Chaggar R, Lakhani SR, Eusebi V. Molecular cytogenetic
comparison of apocrine hyperplasia and apocrine carcinoma of the breast. Am J Pathol.
2001;158:20714.
17. Silver SA, Tavassoli FA. Pleomorphic carcinoma of the breast: Clinicopathological analy-
sis of 26 cases of an unusual high-grade phenotype of ductal carcinoma. Histopathology.
2000;36:50514.
18. Lae M, Freneaux P, Sastre-Garau X, Chouchane O, Sigal-Zafrani B, Vincent-Salomon A.
Secretory breast carcinomas with ETV6-NTRK3 fusion gene belong to the basal-like car-
cinoma spectrum. Modern Pathol. 2009;22:291298 (an official journal of the United States
and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc).
19. Tognon C, Knezevich SR, Huntsman D, Roskelley CD, Melnyk N, Mathers JA, Becker L,
Carneiro F, MacPherson N, Horsman D, Poremba C, Sorensen PH. Expression of the ETV6-
NTRK3 gene fusion as a primary event in human secretory breast carcinoma. Cancer Cell.
2002;2:36776.
20. Stratton M. RPathology of familial breast cancer: Differences between breast cancers in car-
riers of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and sporadic cases. Breast cancer linkage consortium.
Lancet. 1997;349:15051510.
21. Bonnet M, Guinebretiere JM, Kremmer E, Grunewald V, Benhamou E, Contesso G,
Joab I. Detection of epstein-barr virus in invasive breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst.
1999;91:137681.
22. Lespagnard L, Cochaux P, Larsimont D, Degeyter M, Velu T, Heimann R. Absence
of epstein-barr virus in medullary carcinoma of the breast as demonstrated by immu-
nophenotyping, in situ hybridization and polymerase chain reaction. Am J Clin Pathol.
1995;103:44952.
23. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, Pollack JR, Ross DT,
Johnsen H, Akslen LA, Fluge O, Pergamenschikov A, Williams C, Zhu SX, Lonning PE,
Borresen-Dale AL, Brown PO, Botstein D. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours.
Nature. 2000;406:74752.
24. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, Hastie T, Eisen MB, van de
Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Thorsen T, Quist H, Matese JC, Brown PO, Botstein D, Eystein Lonning
P, Borresen-Dale AL. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor sub-
classes with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001;98:1086910874.
25. Kirsh VA, Chiarelli AM, Edwards SA, OMalley FP, Shumak RS, Yaffe MJ, Boyd NF. Tumor
characteristics associated with mammographic detection of breast cancer in the ontario breast
screening program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 103:942950.
26. Collins LC, Martyniak A, Kandel MJ, Stadler ZK, Masciari S, Miron A, Richardson AL,
Schnitt SJ, Garber JE. Basal cytokeratin and epidermal growth factor receptor expression are
not predictive of BRCA1 mutation status in women with triple-negative breast cancers. Am J
Surg Pathol. 2009;33:10937.
27. Jiang Z, Chu PG, Woda BA, Rock KL, Liu Q, Hsieh CC, Li C, Chen W, Duan HO,
McDougal S, Wu CL. Analysis of rna-binding protein IMP3 to predict metastasis and prog-
nosis of renal-cell carcinoma: A retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7:55664.
28. Walter O, Prasad M, Lu S, Quinlan RM, Edmiston KL, Khan A. IMP3 is a novel biomarker
for triple negative invasive mammary carcinoma associated with a more aggressive pheno-
type. Hum Pathol. 2009;40:152833.
29. Lu S, Simin K, Khan A, Mercurio AM. Analysis of integrin beta4 expression in human breast
cancer: Association with basal-like tumors and prognostic significance. Clin Cancer Res.
2008;14:10508.
30. Ryden L, Jirstrom K, Haglund M, Stal O, Ferno M. Epidermal growth factor receptor and
vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 are specific biomarkers in triple-negative breast
cancer. Results from a controlled randomized trial with long-term follow-up. Breast Cancer
Res Treat. 120:491498.
31. Elsheikh SE, Green AR, Rakha EA, Samaka RM, Ammar AA, Powe D, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis
IO. Caveolin 1 and caveolin 2 are associated with breast cancer basal-like and triple-negative
immunophenotype. Br J Cancer. 2008;99:32734.
32. Umekita YD, Ohi YD, Souda MD, Rai YD, Sagara YD, Sagara YD, Tamada SD, Tanimoto
AD. Maspin expression is frequent and correlates with basal markers in triple-negative breast
cancer. Diagn Pathol. 6:36.
33. Wang X, Chao L, Ma G, Chen L, Tian B, Zang Y, Sun J. Increased expression of osteopontin
in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Eur J Clin Invest. 2008;38:43846.
34. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, Hernandez-Boussard T, Livasy
C, Cowan D, Dressler L, Akslen LA, Ragaz J, Gown AM, Gilks CB, van de Rijn M, Perou
CM. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive
breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:536774.
35. Hollstein M, Sidransky D, Vogelstein B, Harris CC. P53 mutations in human cancers.
Science. 1991;253:4953.
36. Borresen-Dale AL. TP53 and breast cancer. Hum Mutat. 2003;21:292300.
37. Waddell N, Arnold J, Cocciardi S, da Silva L, Marsh A, Riley J, Johnstone CN, Orloff M,
Assie G, Eng C, Reid L, Keith P, Yan M, Fox S, Devilee P, Godwin AK, Hogervorst FB,
Couch F, Grimmond S, Flanagan JM, Khanna K, Simpson PT, Lakhani SR, Chenevix-Trench
G. Subtypes of familial breast tumours revealed by expression and copy number profiling.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;123:66177.
38. Schneider BP, Winer EP, Foulkes WD, Garber J, Perou CM, Richardson A, Sledge GW,
Carey LA. Triple-negative breast cancer: Risk factors to potential targets. Clinical Cancer
Res. 2008;14:80108 (an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research).
39. Valentin MD, da Silva SD, Privat M, Alaoui-Jamali M, Bignon YJ. Molecular insights on
basal-like breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;1:2130.
40. Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A. Hallmarks of brcaness in sporadic cancers. Nat Rev Cancer.
2004;4:8149.
41. Krausz T, Jenkins D, Grontoft O, Pollock DJ, Azzopardi JG. Secretory carcinoma of the
breast in adults: Emphasis on late recurrence and metastasis. Histopathology. 1989;14:2536.
42. Van den Eynden GG, Smid M, Van Laere SJ, Colpaert CG, Van der Auwera I, Bich TX, van
Dam P, den Bakker MA, Dirix LY, Van Marck EA, Vermeulen PB, Foekens JA. Gene expres-
sion profiles associated with the presence of a fibrotic focus and the growth pattern in lymph
node-negative breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:294452.
43. Hicks DG, Short SM, Prescott NL, Tarr SM, Coleman KA, Yoder BJ, Crowe JP, Choueiri
TK, Dawson AE, Budd GT, Tubbs RR, Casey G, Weil RJ. Breast cancers with brain metas-
tases are more likely to be estrogen receptor negative, express the basal cytokeratin CK 5/6,
and overexpress HER2 or EGFR. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30:1097104.
44. van de Rijn M, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Haas P, Kallioniemi O, Kononen J, Torhorst J,
Sauter G, Zuber M, Kochli OR, Mross F, Dieterich H, Seitz R, Ross D, Botstein D, Brown P.
Expression of cytokeratins 17 and 5 identifies a group of breast carcinomas with poor clinical
outcome. Am J Pathol. 2002;161:19916.
45. Liu D, He J, Yuan Z, Wang S, Peng R, Shi Y, Teng X, Qin T. EGFR expression correlates
with decreased disease-free survival in triple-negative breast cancer: A retrospective analysis
based on a tissue microarray. Med Oncol. 2012;29:401405.
46. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, Ibrahim N, Cristofanilli M, Anderson K, Hess KR,
Stec J, Ayers M, Wagner P, Morandi P, Fan C, Rabiul I, Ross JS, Hortobagyi GN, Pusztai
L. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin
Cancer Res. 2005;11:567885 (an official journal of the American Association for Cancer
Research).
47. Silver DP, Richardson AL, Eklund AC, Wang ZC, Szallasi Z, Li Q, Juul N, Leong CO,
Calogrias D, Buraimoh A, Fatima A, Gelman RS, Ryan PD, Tung NM, De Nicolo A,
Ganesan S, Miron A, Colin C, Sgroi DC, Ellisen LW, Winer EP, Garber JE. Efficacy of neo-
adjuvant cisplatin in triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:114553 (official
journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology).
48. Hoeijmakers JH. Genome maintenance mechanisms for preventing cancer. Nature.
2001;411:36674.
49. Schultz N, Lopez E, Saleh-Gohari N, Helleday T. Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP-1)
has a controlling role in homologous recombination. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003;31:495964.
50. Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, Tutt AN, Johnson DA, Richardson TB, Santarosa M, Dillon
KJ, Hickson I, Knights C, Martin NM, Jackson SP, Smith GC, Ashworth A. Targeting the
DNA repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature. 2005;434:91721.
51. Ashworth A. A synthetic lethal therapeutic approach: Poly(ADP) ribose polymerase inhibi-
tors for the treatment of cancers deficient in DNA double-strand break repair. J Clin Oncol.
2008;26:378590 (official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology).
52. Miller K, Wang M, Gralow J, Dickler M, Cobleigh M, Perez EA, Shenkier T, Cella D,
Davidson NE. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast can-
cer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:266676.
53. Ivy SP, Wick JY, Kaufman BM. An overview of small-molecule inhibitors of VEGFR signal-
ing. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009;6:56979.
54. Burstein HJ, Elias AD, Rugo HS, Cobleigh MA, Wolff AC, Eisenberg PD, Lehman M,
Adams BJ, Bello CL, DePrimo SE, Baum CM, Miller KD. Phase ii study of sunitinib malate,
an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with metastatic breast cancer pre-
viously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:18106 (official
journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology).
55. Moreno-Aspitia A, Morton RF, Hillman DW, Lingle WL, Rowland KM Jr, Wiesenfeld M,
Flynn PJ, Fitch TR, Perez EA. Phase ii trial of sorafenib in patients with metastatic breast
cancer previously exposed to anthracyclines or taxanes: North central cancer treatment group
and mayo clinic trial n0336. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(11):15 (official journal of the American
Society of Clinical Oncology).
56. Finn RS, Press MF, Dering J, Arbushites M, Koehler M, Oliva C, Williams LS, Di Leo A.
Estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (her2),
and epidermal growth factor receptor expression and benefit from lapatinib in a randomized
trial of paclitaxel with lapatinib or placebo as first-line treatment in HER2-negative or
unknown metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:390815 (official journal of the
American Society of Clinical Oncology).
57. Geyer CE, Forster J, Lindquist D, Chan S, Romieu CG, Pienkowski T, Jagiello-Gruszfeld
A, Crown J, Chan A, Kaufman B, Skarlos D, Campone M, Davidson N, Berger M, Oliva
C, Rubin SD, Stein S, Cameron D. Lapatinib plus capecitabine for HER2-positive advanced
breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:273343.
58. Mirzoeva OK, Das D, Heiser LM, Bhattacharya S, Siwak D, Gendelman R, Bayani N, Wang
NJ, Neve RM, Guan Y, Hu Z, Knight Z, Feiler HS, Gascard P, Parvin B, Spellman PT, Shokat
KM, Wyrobek AJ, Bissell MJ, McCormick F, Kuo WL, Mills GB, Gray JW, Korn WM. Basal
subtype and MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK)-phosphoinositide 3-kinase feedback signaling deter-
mine susceptibility of breast cancer cells to mek inhibition. Cancer Res. 2009;69:56572.
59. Adeyinka A, Nui Y, Cherlet T, Snell L, Watson PH, Murphy LC. Activated mitogen-activated
protein kinase expression during human breast tumorigenesis and breast cancer progression.
Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:174753 (an official journal of the American Association for Cancer
Research).
60. Rinehart J, Adjei AA, Lorusso PM, Waterhouse D, Hecht JR, Natale RB, Hamid O,
Varterasian M, Asbury P, Kaldjian EP, Gulyas S, Mitchell DY, Herrera R, Sebolt-Leopold
JS, Meyer MB. Multicenter phase II study of the oral MEK inhibitor, CI-1040, in patients
with advanced non-small-cell lung, breast, colon, and pancreatic cancer. J Clin Oncol.
2004;22:445662 (official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology).
61. Adjei AA, Cohen RB, Franklin W, Morris C, Wilson D, Molina JR, Hanson LJ, Gore L,
Chow L, Leong S, Maloney L, Gordon G, Simmons H, Marlow A, Litwiler K, Brown S,
Poch G, Kane K, Haney J, Eckhardt SG. Phase i pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic
study of the oral, small-molecule mitogen-activated protein kinase kinase 1/2 inhibitor
AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in patients with advanced cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:2139
46 (official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology).
Chapter 12
Molecular-Based Diagnostic, Prognostic
and Predictive Tests in Breast Cancer
Abir A. Muftah, Mohammed A. Aleskandarany,

Ian O. Ellis and Emad A. Rakha
Introduction
Generally speaking, a prognostic factor is any measurable parameter capable of

providing information on patient clinical outcome, i.e. assessing the risk of disease
recurrence at the time of primary diagnosis, independent of therapy. Prognostic
factors are usually indicators of tumour growth, invasiveness and metastatic poten-
tial. Apredictivefactor is any measurable parameter capable of providing infor-
mation on the likelihood of response to a particular therapeutic modality [1, 2].
A Prognostic/predictive factor could be either a single trait or signature of traits
that can stratify patients into different population. Although prognostic and pre-
dictive factors could be separately classified, several factors in breast cancer pro-
vide both prognostic and predictive information [e.g. oestrogen receptor (ER)
expression and human epidermal growth factor receptors 2 (HER2) overexpres-
sion]. Biological molecular prognostic and predictive variables are primary tumour
molecular characteristics that reflect the underlying genetic abnormalities and their
assessment, using different platforms, can be used to determine tumour behaviour
and response to therapy.
ER, progesterone receptor (PR), HER2, tumour size, lymph node stage and
histological grade are the existing practical prognostic and predictive parameters
[3]. The last three prognostic parameters are combinatorially incorporated into
the Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI); [4], a well-recognised prognostic tool in
A.A. Muftah M.A. Aleskandarany I.O. Ellis E.A. Rakha(*)

Department of Histopathology, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine,
The University of Nottingham and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust,
Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham NG5 1PB, UK

178 A.A. Muftah et al.
breast cancer because of its simplicity and clinical utility [5]. However, there are
increasing concerns that these parameters are not sufficient to assess prognosis
and response to therapy in view of the diversity and heterogeneity of breast cancer
behaviour. In addition, although positivity of hormonal receptors and overexpres-
sion of HER2 in breast cancer provide prognostic information and act as predictive
parameters for the response of hormonal therapy and anti-HER2 targeted agents,
respectively [68], there remains a need for further refinement of management
decision. In recent years, personalised systemic therapy has become an increas-
ingly required in patient management, especially in early stage breast cancer.
Accordingly, there is a need to develop or update the existing prognostic and pre-
dictive classifiers.
Gene-expression profiling studies have attracted attention by demonstrating the
presence of different molecular classes with clinical relevance and that breast can-
cer morphologic heterogeneity can be linked to specific molecular profiles. Most
of these molecular profiling studies have identified at least four distinctive molecu-
lar/biological subgroups: two luminal subtypes; namely luminal A and luminal B,
the HER2-enriched and the basal-like types [9, 10].
Despite the prognostic relevance of molecular taxonomies and the well-docu-
mented prognostic power of certain gene signatures, there remain technical and
cost-effectiveness issues regarding their incorporation into routine practice.
Previous studies have demonstrated that the behaviour of well-established clini-
cal parameters varies in the different molecular classes. Therefore, performance of
current clinical prognostic indices may not provide the same information within
the different molecular classes. Adjustment of the performance of the clinical
parameters and prognostic indices to the most recent advancement in molecular
classification of breast cancer is considered a way forward for personalised patient
management. An additional problem with this approach is the cost and feasibil-
ity of microarray and chip gene expression technology for routine management of
breast cancer. Alternatively, immunohistochemistry (IHC) is considered a practi-
cal, cost-effective and reliable technique for molecular classification and the gold
standard in the routine assessment of the essential predictive molecular biomark-
ers; ER, PR and HER2 [11, 12].
Hormonal Receptors: Oestrogen Receptor (ER)

andProgesterone Receptor (PR)
The expression of ER and PR acts as a prognostic and a predictive parameters

and assessment of their expression is an established standard procedure in breast
pathology. Oestrogen receptor is one of the steroid receptor families and localised
predominantly in the nuclear compartment [13, 14]. These receptors stimulated by
steroid hormones as oestrogen which both are taken part in several processes such
as suppression of apoptosis, cellular proliferation, angiogenesis and invasion [15].
12 Molecular-Based Diagnostic, Prognostic and Predictive Tests 179
The oestrogen receptors, which are normally expressed in breast tissue, are two
types ER- [16] and ER- [17], ER-, ER- gene includes six functional domains
and encodes a 67 KDa protein [11], is connected directly to the pathological pro-
cesses which one of them is breast cancer [18].
Several studies assessed the prognostic value of ER negative status and its
association with decrease in survival in node negative patients with breast cancer
[1922]. In addition, its expression in breast cancer has a high clinical importance
as a predictive parameter and existence of oestrogen receptor confers favourable
biology because the expression of ER by tumour cells was related to the benefit of
hormonal therapy. Patient with ER-negative disease cannot benefit from endocrine
therapy while the ER positive group does. For instance, the Early Breast Cancer
Trialists Collaborative Group represented that treatment of patients with tamox-
ifen; an anti-oestrogen therapy which can block cellular proliferation in breast
cancer had an effect on the 5-years breast cancer mortality and recurrence [6].
Moreover, in a meta-analysis, tamoxifen and other selective oestrogen receptor
modulators have shown an overall improvement by 38% and 42 in the 10 years
and 5 years follow-up, respectively [23]. Furthermore, several studies supported
the relation between hormonal receptor status and response to chemotherapy as
ER negative group (2133%) had a better response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy
than the hormonal receptors positive group (78%) [2426].
ER expressed in 6080% of breast cancer cases at the same time most of the
oestrogen receptors cases express PRs as well [27, 28]. However, the discrepancy
between PR and ER expression are sometimes present [28, 29]. PR is an ER-
regulated gene; therefore the expression of this receptor is highly related to the
existence of the ER. ER/PR+is an uncommon variety, constituting less than
1% of all breast cancers [30]. Some benefits had been reported from tamoxifen
therapy in this ER/PR+sub-group while no effect of PR receptor in oestrogen
receptor positive cases [31].
Hormone receptor and HER2 also provide important diagnostic informa-
tion in breast cancer. Hormone receptor positivity in primary or metastatic car-
cinoma is considered as strong diagnostic clue to breast origin. ER is expressed
in both breast carcinomas and tumours of gynaecological origin. Although aber-
rant ER expression may be observed in other tissues such as lung carcinoma and
colorectal carcinoma, the expression is usually weak and focal. For a diagnostic
purpose, ER is often combined with other biomarkers based on initial assessment
of the index tumour. Markers that can be used to determine origin of carcinoma
with ER expression include CDX2 (colorectal), PAX8 (gynaecological tumours),
TTF1 (lung and thyroid carcinoma), S100 and HMB45 (Melanoma). Interpretation
of these markers is usually considered in combination together with morphology
of the tumours and none of these markers alone can provide absolute specificity.
Other diagnostic biomarkers for breast cancer include ER-related genes such as
GATA3. As a diagnostic marker ER-alpha must be used; ER-beta is not specific
to the breast and its expression can be seen in different organs. Other diagnos-
tic breast biomarkers include GCDFP-15, mammaglobin and lactalbumin. Gross
cystic disease fluid protein-15 (GCDFP-15) is a marker of apocrine differentiation
that is considered to be specific to the breast, but it has low sensitivity and is also
expressed in apocrine glands and submandibular salivary glands. Mammaglobin, a
mammary-specific member of the uteroglobin family that is known to be overex-
pressed in human breast cancer; however, it is also expressed in some non-breast
cancer sites such as endometroid carcinomas, endocervical adenocarcinoma in situ
and sweat gland carcinomas.
Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 (HER2)
HER2 is a member of the transmembrane receptors epidermal growth fam-

ily (EGFR) of receptors; EGFR-/ErbB1, HER2/ErbB2, HER3/ErbB3 and
HER4/ErbB4 [32]. Overexpression of HER2 occurs in 1320% of breast cancer
cases, up to half of these cases are ER negative [33, 34]. Overexpression of HER2
is a well-established poor prognostic indicator of invasive breast cancer [2729].
HER2 is the main predictive factor for anti-HER2 targeted therapy including
Herceptin as well as other HER2 dual inhibitor tyrosine kinase such as Lapatinib
which is dual inhibitor of HER2 and HER1 and HER dimerization inhibitor
such as pertuzumab [3537]. HER2 can also predict response to certain chemo-
therapeutic agents [38]. In addition to its prognostic value as a single marker with
HER2 positive Herceptin nave tumours show the worst outcome in breast cancer,
HER2 when combined with hormone receptor with or without Ki67 can provide
addition prognostic information similar to multiparameter prognostic gene signa-
tures [39].
HER2 is also used to diagnose Pagets disease of the breast in which it is
expressed in more than 90% of Pagets cells; therefore, it can be used to differen-
tiate Pagets disease from melanocytic lesion and Bowens disease of the nipple. In
addition HER2 amplification in breast tumours can be used to indicate malignancy
as benign tumours do not show HER2 amplification. Some benign tumours show
weak to moderate HER2 membrane staining.
Ki67 Expression
Cell proliferation is considered as one of the well-recognised prognostic factors

in breast cancer [40]. Nuclear positivity of Ki67 protein is an indication of cel-
lular proliferation and that the cells are in the proliferative pool/entered cell cycle
but not necessarily in mitosis [41, 42]. Ki67 expression has long been reported
as a prognostic marker in breast cancer [4346]. Breast cancer positive for Ki67
is associated with worse prognosis than those tumours negative for Ki67. In ret-
rospective analysis, we and others reported better response to adjuvant therapy
in tumours with higher expression levels of Ki67 than those tumour having low
levels of Ki67 [46, 47]. However, these results need validation on prospective
basis. Importantly, Ki67 expression has been reported as an independent predic-
tive factor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients [48, 49] as well
as the neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal patients [50]. Patients
with high post-treatment Ki67 expression levels were reported to have higher
risk for disease relapse and death more than those with low or intermediate Ki67
expression [51]. In 2013, the St. Gallen International Breast Cancer Conference
reinforced the addition of Ki67 into the definition of intrinsic subtype of breast
cancer [52]. The most significant prognostic value of Ki67 in breast cancer is seen
in ER+luminal class and in grade 2 tumours. Ki67 has limited prognostic value
in ER and triple negative tumours. Consistent with its prognostic value, some
centres have introduced Ki67 in the routine diagnostic practice.
Gene Expression Profiling
The introduction of modern technologies having the ability of simultaneous anal-

ysis of thousands of genes in a single assay combined with rigorous analytical
approaches gave an opportunity for classifying breast cancer into distinct groups
depend on gene expression profiles. This approach developed our understanding of
breast cancer and opened new avenues for novel prognostic/predictive signatures
in human breast cancer.
Breast Cancer Molecular Classes
Gene-expression profiling studies initially have led to invasive breast cancer clas-
sification into four distinctive molecular groups as discussed in Chap.10. These
molecularly classified subgroups have distinct clinical outcomes, with luminal A
having the most favourable outcome, followed by luminal B, basal-like, and lastly
the HER2-enriched [10, 53]. In addition to the prognostic value of this molecu-
lar classification, there is some evidences indicating that luminal A sub-group is
particularly sensitive to endocrine therapy and it has a more positive natural his-
tory than HER2 and basal-like subgroups in spite of the sensitivity of HER2 sub-
type tumours to the chemotherapy [54]. Molecular classification of breast cancer
was thought to provide predictive information superior to that provided by ER and
HER2 alone. This concept was based on the fact that the classification of tumours
within each class is based on several hundreds of genes reflecting the molecular
portraits of the tumour. Global gene expression profiles are expected to provide
more accurate information on the biological feature of the tumour and reflect the
activity of important pathways and interaction of key driving molecules, and sub-
sequently determine the behaviour of the tumour and response to specific therapy
better than that provided by a single molecule. In addition, molecular classes were
expected to provide information for resistance of some tumours to specific therapy
such as HER2 positive tumours not responding to HER2 targeted therapy may be
classified as luminal or basal tumours using gene expression profiling. Similar ER
positive tumours that are assigned to basal or HER2 positive classes may explain
resistance to endocrine therapy. However, the predictive value of molecular classes
over ER and HER2 status remain limited and currently not used in clinical practice
to predict response to targeted therapy. Molecular classification of breast does not
have diagnostic value.
Prognostic Gene Signatures
Oncotype DX [21-Gene Genomic Health Recurrence Score

(GHI-RS)]
A multistep approach was followed to develop a commercially available robust

reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay of 21 prospec-
tively selected genes for invasive breast cancer. The initial step used a real-time
RT-PCR to assess the gene expression from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded
(FFPE) tissue sections. The initial 250 genes were selected from genomic data-
bases, along with review of literature and DNA array-based experiments (using
fresh-frozen tissues). To test the correlation between recurrence of breast cancer
and gene expressions of these 250 candidates, data from 447 patients from three
independent clinical studies of breast cancer was analysed. Using the results of
these studies, a panel of 21 genes (16 cancer-related genes and 5 other refer-
ence genes) was selected. Depending on the levels of expression of these genes,
an algorithm was designed to calculate a recurrence score (RS) for each sample.
The cancer-related genes include genes of the ER group (ER, PR, SCUBE2 and
BCL2), HER2 group (HER2 and GRB7), cell proliferation group (Ki67, CCNB1,
Survivin, STK15 and MYBL2), invasion group (MMP11 and CTSL2) and GSTM1,
BAG1 and CD68. The reference genes include ACTB (b-actin), GAPDH, RPLPO,
GUS and TFRC. The expression of these 21 genes was presented as a recurrence
score (RS); a continuous variable ranging between 0 and 100, where higher scores
reflect a greater possibility of recurrence. The RS was divided into three catego-
ries: low risk (<18); intermediate risk (18, but<31) and high risk (31) [55].
The Oncotype DX breast cancer assay is designed to predict the 10-year risks of
breast cancer recurrence in women with ER positive newly diagnosed node nega-
tive early stage (III) breast cancer, treated with tamoxifen. Oncotype DX is more
than just a risk assessment tool: it can provide further information, including to
what extent the woman would benefit from chemotherapy as well as tamoxifen
therapy [56].
MammaPrint
MammaPrint is a diagnostic classifier developed by Vant Veer and colleagues,

who identified a 70-gene signature significantly associated with prognosis in
breast cancer patients using inkjet-synthesised oligonucleotide microarrays.
The initial study was applied on 98 lymph node negative breast cancer patients
younger than 55years, with primary breast tumour size less than 5cm [57]. The
subsequent study of a cohort of 295 was validated for both lymph node nega-
tive and positive breast cancer cases [58]. MammaPrint can predict the probabil-
ity of distant metastases within 5years, and it can divide breast cancer patients
into two groups with significantly different distant metastasis-free survival. In a
good profile group, patients are more likely to remain free of distant metastases,
while those classified as a poor profile group have a high risk of developing distant
metastases [57, 59]. MammaPrint was the first FDA approved, gene expression-
based prognostic test for stage III lymph node negative breast cancer [60].
Furthermore, an exploratory study resulted in the prediction that gene
expression signatures (including the 70-gene signature) developed on fro-
zen tissue showed a high level of concordance between fresh-frozen and FFPE
matched pairs, [61] as validated by a subsequent study [62]. Recently in 2015,
the MammaPrint as a breast cancer test using FFPE was FDA approved [63].
Importantly, the Microarray in Node negative Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy
(MINDACT) phase III randomised trial, prospectively tests the of MammaPrint
assay, in parallel with Adjuvant! Online tool, on 6600 breast cancer patients
form 9 countries [64]. The results of pilot study of MINDACT concludes
that proportion of discordantly classified patients, the potential reduction in
chemotherapy using the genomic signature, and compliance to treatment assign-
ment are in accordance with the trial hypotheses are in accordance with the trial
hypotheses [65].
Genomic Grade Index (GGI)
Sotiriou etal. used five datasets of gene expression with total number 661 breast
cancer patients. They examined the association between the histologic grade and
gene expression profiles of breast cancers for the reason of improving histologic
grading by measuring the expression of 97 genes. Therefore, instead of the classic
grades 1, 2 and 3, GGI divides histologic grade into low and high risk. The pro-
posed gene expression grade index was able to reclassify the intermediate grade of
ER positive cases into a high and low gene expression grade index [53]. Moreover,
the GGI ability to predict response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in ER positive
and ER negative evaluated patients [66].
Breast Cancer Index (BCI)
It is a RT-PCR test of the ratio of two genes expression, HOXB13 and IL17BR,
joined with Molecular Grade Index (MGI) to test the risk of recurrence for
ER+and LN negative early invasive breast cancer patients. Initially, a genome-
wide microarray analysis of frozen tumour specimens of 60 ER positive breast can-
cer patients treated with tamoxifen alone was performed [67]. Then, a two-gene
expression ratio was identified which is highly predictive of clinical outcome. This
expression ratio adapted to use analysis based on PCR of standard FFPE, which
was established using an independent set of 20 FFPE tissues samples [68]. The
BCI risk score ranges from 0 to 10 and divides patients into three categories, When
the score is<5 (low risk group); between 5 and 6.3 (intermediate risk group);6.4
(high risk group) [69]. Subsequent studies have demonstrated that both genes
(HOXB13 and IL17BR) have a prognostic as well as a predictive value [7072].
PAM50 (Prediction Analysis of Microarray 50)
This a gene expression assay using 50 genes (PAM50), representing a reduced

gene set assayed by quantitative real-time reverse transcription-PCR (qRT-PCR). It
accurately identifies the four intrinsic biological/molecular subtypes of breast can-
cer and generates risk-of-relapse (ROR) scores. Moreover, its prognostic value in
both untreated and tamoxifen-treated patient populations has been confirmed [73,
74]. A combined prognostic marker that includes the proliferation genes of PAM50
and tumour size identifies a subpopulation with an excellent outcome if treated
with hormonal therapy alone and produces a score of estimating a probability of
disease recurrence [75]. The PAM50 test was further adapted to be performed to
develop a simplified workflow that could be easily and efficiently to measure gene
expression in a local pathology lab (Prosigna Breast Cancer Gene Signature
Assay, NanoString Technologies, Seattle) in frozen or FFPE tissues [7678].
Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS)
Nucleic acid sequencing is a method for determining the exact order of nucleotides
present in a given DNA or RNA molecule. Over the past decade, the use of nucleic
acid sequencing has increased exponentially following attempt to complete human
genome sequence and increasing demand for cheaper and faster sequencing meth-
ods. This demand has driven the development of next-generation sequencing (NGS)
which perform massively parallel sequencing, during which millions of fragments
of DNA from a single sample are sequenced in unison. NGS allows fast sequenc-
ing of the entire genome and it provides very sensitive quantifying applications
including gene expression analysis more than traditional microarray-based meth-

ods. NGS can allow high-throughput sensitive analysis of the genome transcriptome
and epigenome which is expected to provide important prognostic and predictive
information. In addition it can provide information about the molecular nature of
the tumour and detect previous unknown mutation that can useful in diagnosis and
prediction of response to specific therapy. In breast, 45 regions of sequence altera-
tions are demarcated by Curtis etal. to have a role in the development of the can-
cer [79]. The whole-genome sequencing data provide an overall view of individual
tumour and understanding of the full catalogue of somatic genetic changes will be
the way for personalised treatment of breast cancer patients [80].
Circulated Tumour Cells
Circulating tumour cells (CTC) are cells that originate from the primary tumour
and circulate through blood stream and greatly contribute to the metastatic spread
of cancer [81]. Currently, detection and molecular characterisation of CTCs in
breast cancer patients is an active area of translational breast cancer research.
Different detection systems have been developed for characterisation and enumer-
ation of CTC with acceptable sensitivity and specificity. For instance, theprotein-
based CellSearch system (FDA-USA cleared), the functional EPISPOT assay
(for EPithelial ImmunoSPOT) [82], Ephesia-chip [83] and others [84, 85]. In addi-
tion, mRNA-based assays targeting specific mRNAs (e.g. CK19 mRNA), and the
highly sensitive RT-qPCRassay (e.g. Adna-Test) [86],are the widely used alterna-
tives to identify CTCs [87].
Different studies have reported CTC as a reliable prognostic factor in patients
with early stage and metastatic breast cancer, irrespective of the CTC detection
method and time point of blood sample withdrawal [88, 89]. Some studies also
showed that CTC load in peripheral blood is associated with shorter survival in
patients with early breast cancer [90, 91]. Moreover, CTC can be used as an effec-
tive independent prognostic factor before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy
[92]. CTC detection is able to monitor efficacy of adjuvant therapies [93], and
assess therapeutic responses of advanced disease earlier than traditional imaging
methods [94]. In addition to the analysis of peripheral blood CTC, some studies
have assessed the prognostic value of breast cancer cells in bone marrow aspirates
and demonstrated a correlation with outcome [95].
Tumour Markers
Some tumour markers are used in breast cancer diagnosis, prognosis and moni-
toring of the disease. Cancer antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3) and CA27.29, carcinoem-
bryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen 27.29 (CA 27.29) are found in a high
proportion of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Elevated levels of these

markers above certain limits can be used to indicate the presence of cancer hence
diagnostic value. CA15-3 and CA27.29 are found on the surface of cancer cells
and shed into the blood stream and can be used to monitor metastatic breast can-
cer. Urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) and plasminogen activator inhibitor
(PAI-1) play essential roles in tumour invasion and metastasis. High levels of uPA
and PAI-1 are associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer [96].
Immunohistochemistry-Based Indices
Recently, instead of using a single marker approach, panels of biomarkers have

been tested to predict the prognosis and to predict responses to specific therapies.
Such an approach was adopted following the successful classification of breast
cancer using global gene expression profiling, and the introduction of molecular
classification based on the expression of several genes with clinical relevance.
Multiple immunohistochemistry markers are used in combination to provide rou-
tine cost effective surrogates to gene expression profiling. Examples of IHC-based
assays include Mammostrat, IHC4 and Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI+).
Mammostrat
Ring etal. designed a multiple marker test using genes based on IHC assessment,
and produced it to examine the likelihood of developing an IHC-based assay by
using data from various gene expression studies. In this study, three retrospec-
tive breast cancer cohorts were used. The first cohort (n=466) was a discovery
cohort and other two (n =299 and 344 patients, respectively) were independent
validating cohorts. Using conventional FFPE samples, this primary study resulted
in an IHC assay which calculates a relative risk of recurrence; currently commer-
cially available as the Mammostrat assay [97]. Further validation of Mammostrat
had been conducted by other investigators [98, 99]. Mammostrat uses five IHC
markers: P53, SLC7A5 (solute carrier family 7 cationic amino acid transporter),
NDRG1 (N-myc downstream-regulated gene 1), CEACAM5 (carcinoembryonic
antigen cell adhesion molecule 5) and HTF9C (HpaII tiny fragments locus 9C),
which stratify ER+tamoxifen-treated breast cancer patients into three risk groups.
Prognostic index0 represents the low risk group; prognostic index>0 and0.7
represents the moderate-risk group; and prognostic index>0.7 represents the high
risk group [97, 98].
IHC4 Score
IHC4 is a prognostic score that assesses the levels of four widely measured pro-
teins in breast cancer (ER, PR, HER2 and Ki67). Cuzick etal. developed IHC4
and compared it to the Oncotype DX to assess its utility on 1125 ER positive
cases that had GHI-RS data and whether it can add a prognostic and predictive
value to the classical prognostic parameters (tumour size, lymph node status and
histological grade) in early stage breast cancer patients. The IHC4 score proved
as an independent prognostic factor in addition to the existing classical variables.
Importantly, the result provided by the IHC4 score were found to be identical to
that presented by Oncotype DX. In addition, the IHC4 prognostic value was vali-
dated on an independent cohort of 786 patients with their outcome were equal as
assessed by both Oncotype DX and IHC4 assay [100].
Nottingham Prognostic Index Plus (NPI+)
The NPI is an approved and widely accepted method for prognosis as well as sur-
vival prediction in operable cases of primary breast cancer [101]. It was one of the
earliest indices to be developed. In 1982, it was applied throughout a retrospec-
tive study of 387 women with primary operable breast cancer using multivariate
regression analysis; [102] and in 1991, the prognostic importance of NPI in breast
cancer was initially expressed [103]. Then, after the long-term follow-up [4] and
independent validation in different centres [104106].
In their recently published study, Rakha etal. have devised an IHC marker-
based prognostic index; NPI+, by incorporating the IHC expression data of 10
markers along with the clinicopathological parameters, resulting in a structured
NPI-like formulae for each class [107] (see Chap.10). The NPI+distinctive
classes of breast cancer reveal a significant relationship with patient outcome.
Additionally, they improve the prognostic value to the classic NPI [108, 109].
Online Prognostic Algorithms
Some prognostic algorithms have been developed and published online. These
algorithms use molecular biomarkers mainly ER and HER2 and Ki67 combined
with other well-established prognostic variables to predict breast cancer outcome
in terms of probability of recurrences within specific period of time with or with-
out consideration of hormone therapy. They main aim is to predict those who are
likely to benefit from chemotherapy and those who should save such toxic drugs.
They are not specifically predictive and they do not have any diagnostic value.
Adjuvant! Online
Adjuvant! Online is a free widely accepted prognostic and predictive online cal-
culator for risk stratification of breast cancer patients (https://www.adjuvantonl
ine.com). It allows the entry of a patients age, comorbidity, menopausal status,
tumour size and stage, number of positive lymph nodes and oestrogen receptor sta-
tus in order to estimate mortality and disease recurrence at 10years, as well as
the potential benefit offered by adjuvant therapy [110]. The tool was established
using a database that was recorded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End-
results (SEER) registry. This model has been validated in USA, Canada, Asian and
European studies [111116].
Predict
It is a mathematical online model (http://www.predict.nhs.uk/predict.html), a

prognostication tool to predict overall survival using cancer registration data
identified by the Eastern Cancer Registration and Information Centre (ECRIC).
The study population was 5694 breast cancer patients and was validated with
another set of 5468 patients recorded in West Midlands Cancer Intelligence Unit
(WMCIU) [117]. Wishart etal. incorporated the prognostic effect of HER2 sta-
tus to produce the new version; PREDICT+, using the cohort cases from British
Columbia which was used to validate the original PREDICT [111, 118]. It esti-
mates the benefit of treatment from hormone treatment, chemotherapy and
trastuzumab at 10-year time points. Improvement in the tool performance and
clinical decision making for ER+patients was achieved by adding Ki67 to

PREDICT [119].
References
1. Gasparini G, Pozza F, Harris AL. Evaluating the potential usefulness of new prognos-
tic and predictive indicators in node-negative breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst.
1993;85(15):120619.
2. Hayes DF, Trock B, Harris AL. Assessing the clinical impact of prognostic factors: when is
statistically significant clinically useful? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998;52(13):30519.
PubMed PMID: 10066089. Epub 1999/03/05. eng.
3. Pathology reporting of breast disease. A Joint Document Incorporating the Third Edition
of the NHS Breast Screening Programmes Guidelines for Pathology Reporting in Breast
Cancer Screening and the Second Edition of The Royal College of PathologistsMinimum
Datasetfor Breast Cancer Histopathology. NHSBSP Pub. No 58. 2005.
4. Galea MH, Blamey RW, Elston CE, Ellis IO. The Nottingham Prognostic Index in primary
5. Elston CW, Ellis IO, Pinder SE. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. Crit Rev
Oncol Hematol. 1999;31(3):20923.
6. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence
and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005 May
1420;365(9472):1687717. PubMed PMID: 15894097.
7. Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast
Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group. Lancet. 1998 May 16;351(9114):145167. PubMed
PMID: 9605801.
8. Mauri D, Pavlidis N, Polyzos NP, Ioannidis JP. Survival with aromatase inhibitors and inac-
tivators versus standard hormonal therapy in advanced breast cancer: meta-analysis. J Natl
Cancer Inst. 2006 Sep 20;98(18):128591. PubMed PMID: 16985247. Epub 2006/09/21.
eng.
traits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000 Aug;406(6797):74752. PubMed PMID:
ISI:000088767700049.
Acad Sci USA. 2001 Sep 11;98(19):1086974. PubMed PMID: 11553815. Pubmed Central
PMCID: Pmc58566. Epub 2001/09/13. eng.
11. Badve S, Nakshatri H. Oestrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer: towards bridging histo-
pathological and molecular classifications. J Clin Pathol. 2009;62(1):612.
12. Park D, Karesen R, Noren T, Sauer T. Ki-67 expression in primary breast carcinomas
and their axillary lymph node metastases: clinical implications. Virchows Arch. 2007
Jul;451(1):118. PubMed PMID: 17554555. Epub 2007/06/08. eng.
13. King WJ, Greene GL. Monoclonal antibodies localize oestrogen receptor in the nuclei of
target cells. Nature. 1984 Feb 2329;307(5953):7457. PubMed PMID: 6700704. Epub
1984/02/23. eng.
14. Welshons WV, Lieberman ME, Gorski J. Nuclear localization of unoccupied oestrogen
receptors. Nature. 1984 Feb 2329;307(5953):7479. PubMed PMID: 6700705. Epub
1984/02/23. eng.
15. Snoj NDP, Bedard P, Sotiriou C. Molecular biology of breast cancer. In: Coleman WB,
Tsongalis GJ, editors. Essential concepts in molecular pathology. San Diego: Elsevier Press;
2012.
16. Green S, Walter P, Kumar V, Krust A, Bornert JM, Argos P, etal. Human oestrogen
receptor cDNA: sequence, expression and homology to v-erb-A. Nature. 1986 Mar
17. Mosselman S, Polman J, Dijkema R. ER beta: identification and characterization of a novel
human estrogen receptor. FEBS Lett. 1996;392:4953. (Netherlands).
18. Li X, Huang J, Yi P, Bambara RA, Hilf R, Muyan M. Single-chain estrogen receptors
(ERs) reveal that the ERalpha/beta heterodimer emulates functions of the ERalpha dimer in
genomic estrogen signaling pathways. Mol Cell Biol. 2004 Sep;24(17):768194. PubMed
PMID: 15314175. Pubmed Central PMCID: Pmc506997. Epub 2004/08/18. eng.
19. Crowe JP, Hubay CA, Pearson OH, Marshall JS, Rosenblatt J, Mansour EG, etal. Estrogen
receptor status as a prognostic indicator for stage I breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res
Treat. 1982;2(2):1716. PubMed PMID: 7171837. Epub 1982/01/01. eng.
20. Fisher B, Redmond C, Fisher ER, Caplan R. Relative worth of estrogen or progesterone
receptor and pathologic characteristics of differentiation as indicators of prognosis in node
negative breast cancer patients: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel
Project Protocol B-06. J Clin Oncol. 1988 Jul;6(7):107687. PubMed PMID: 2856862.
Epub 1988/07/01. eng.
21. Pichon MF, Broet P, Magdelenat H, Delarue JC, Spyratos F, Basuyau JP, etal. Prognostic
value of steroid receptors after long-term follow-up of 2257 operable breast cancers. Br J
Cancer. 1996;73(12):154551.
22. Railo M, Lundin J, Haglund C, von Smitten K, von Boguslawsky K, Nordling S. Ki-67,
p53, Er-receptors, ploidy and S-phase as prognostic factors in T1 node negative breast can-
cer. Acta Oncol. 1997;36(4):36974. PubMed PMID: 9247096. Epub 1997/01/01. eng.
23. Cuzick J, Sestak I, Bonanni B, Costantino JP, Cummings S, DeCensi A, etal. Selective
oestrogen receptor modulators in prevention of breast cancer: an updated meta-analysis
of individual participant data. Lancet. 2013 May 25;381(9880):182734. PubMed PMID:
24. von Minckwitz G, Untch M, Nuesch E, Loibl S, Kaufmann M, Kummel S, etal. Impact
of treatment characteristics on response of different breast cancer phenotypes: pooled
analysis of the German neo-adjuvant chemotherapy trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
2011;125(1):14556.
25. Ring AE, Smith IE, Ashley S, Fulford LG, Lakhani SR. Oestrogen receptor status, patho-
logical complete response and prognosis in patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy for
early breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004 Dec 13;91(12):20127. PubMed PMID: 15558072.
Pubmed Central PMCID: Pmc2409783. Epub 2004/11/24. eng.
26. Colleoni M, Viale G, Zahrieh D, Pruneri G, Gentilini O, Veronesi P, etal. Chemotherapy
is more effective in patients with breast cancer not expressing steroid hormone receptors:
a study of preoperative treatment. Clin Cancer Res. 2004 Oct 1;10(19):66228. PubMed
PMID: 15475452. Epub 2004/10/12. eng.
27. Dobrescu A, Chang M, Kirtani V, Turi GK, Hennawy R, Hindenburg AA. Study of estro-
gen receptor and progesterone receptor expression in breast ductal carcinoma in situ by
immunohistochemical staining in ER/PgR-negative invasive breast cancer. ISRN Oncol.
2011;2011:673790. PubMed PMID: 22091428. Pubmed Central PMCID: 3200125.
28. Cui X, Schiff R, Arpino G, Osborne CK, Lee AV. Biology of progesterone receptor
loss in breast cancer and its implications for endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2005 Oct
29. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, Paish EC, Powe DG, Gee J, etal. Biologic and clini-
cal characteristics of breast cancer with single hormone receptor positive phenotype. J Clin
Oncol. 2007;25(30):47728.
30. Hefti MM, Hu R, Knoblauch NW, Collins LC, Haibe-Kains B, Tamimi RM, etal. Estrogen
receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive breast cancer is not a reproducible subtype.
Breast Cancer Res. 2013 Aug 23;15(4):R68. PubMed PMID: 23971947. Epub 2013/08/27.
eng.
31. Dowsett M, Houghton J, Iden C, Salter J, Farndon J, AHern R, etal. Benefit from adjuvant
tamoxifen therapy in primary breast cancer patients according oestrogen receptor, progester-
one receptor, EGF receptor and HER2 status. Ann Oncol. 2006;17(5):81826.
32. Prenzel N, Fischer OM, Streit S, Hart S, Ullrich A. The epidermal growth factor receptor
family as a central element for cellular signal transduction and diversification. Endocr Relat
Cancer. 2001 Mar;8(1):1131. PubMed PMID: 11350724. Epub 2001/05/15. eng.
33. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL. Human breast can-
cer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene.
Science. 1987;235(4785):17782.
34. Slamon DJ, Godolphin W, Jones LA, Holt JA, Wong SG, Keith DE, etal. Studies
of the HER-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian cancer. Science.
1989;244(4905):70712.
35. Cortes J, Fumoleau P, Bianchi GV, Petrella TM, Gelmon K, Pivot X, etal. Pertuzumab mon-
otherapy after trastuzumab-based treatment and subsequent reintroduction of trastuzumab:
activity and tolerability in patients with advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor
2-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(14):1594600.
36. Baselga J, Bradbury I, Eidtmann H, Di Cosimo S, de Azambuja E, Aura C, etal. Lapatinib
with trastuzumab for HER2-positive early breast cancer (NeoALTTO): a randomised, open-
label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9816):63340.
37. Blackwell KL, Burstein HJ, Storniolo AM, Rugo HS, Sledge G, Aktan G, etal. Overall
survival benefit with lapatinib in combination with trastuzumab for patients with human
epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer: final results from the
EGF104900 Study. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(21):258592.
38. Tolaney SM, Barry WT, Dang CT, Yardley DA, Moy B, Marcom PK, etal. Adjuvant pacli-
taxel and trastuzumab for node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015
Jan 8;372(2):13441. PubMed PMID: 25564897. Pubmed Central PMCID: 4313867.
39. Dowsett M, Sestak I, Lopez-Knowles E, Sidhu K, Dunbier AK, Cowens JW, etal.
Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and IHC4 for predicting
risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(22):278390.
40. Clahsen PC, van de Velde CJ, Duval C, Pallud C, Mandard AM, Delobelle-Deroide A,
etal. The utility of mitotic index, oestrogen receptor and Ki-67 measurements in the crea-
tion of novel prognostic indices for node-negative breast cancer. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1999
Aug;25(4):35663. PubMed PMID: 10419704. Epub 1999/07/27. eng.
41. Lehr HA, Hansen DA, Kussick S, Li M, Hwang H, Krummenauer F, etal. Assessment
of proliferative activity in breast cancer: MIB-1 immunohistochemistry versus mitotic
figure count. Hum Pathol. 1999 Nov;30(11):131420. PubMed PMID: 10571511. Epub
1999/11/26. eng.
42. Thor AD, Liu S, Moore DH, 2nd, Edgerton SM. Comparison of mitotic index, in vitro bro-
modeoxyuridine labeling, and MIB-1 assays to quantitate proliferation in breast cancer.
JClin Oncol. 1999 Feb;17(2):4707. PubMed PMID: 10080587. Epub 1999/03/18. eng.
43. Trihia H, Murray S, Price K, Gelber RD, Golouh R, Goldhirsch A, etal. Ki-67 expression in
breast carcinoma: its association with grading systems, clinical parameters, and other prog-
nostic factorsa surrogate marker? Cancer. 2003;97(5):132131.
44. Domagala W, Markiewski M, Harezga B, Dukowicz A, Osborn M. Prognostic significance
of tumor cell proliferation rate as determined by the MIB-1 antibody in breast carcinoma:
its relationship with vimentin and p53 protein. Clin Cancer Res. 1996 Jan;2(1):14754.
45. de Azambuja E, Cardoso F, de Castro G, Jr., Colozza M, Mano MS, Durbecq V, etal. Ki-
67 as prognostic marker in early breast cancer: a meta-analysis of published studies involv-
ing 12,155 patients. Br J Cancer. 2007 May 21;96(10):150413. PubMed PMID: 17453008.
Pubmed Central PMCID: Pmc2359936. Epub 2007/04/25. eng.
46. Viale G, Giobbie-Hurder A, Regan MM, Coates AS, Mastropasqua MG, DellOrto P,
etal. Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed Ki-67 labeling index in post-
menopausal women with endocrine-responsive breast cancer: results from Breast
International Group Trial 1-98 comparing adjuvant tamoxifen with letrozole. J Clin Oncol.
2008;26(34):556975.
47. Aleskandarany MA, Green AR, Rakha EA, Mohammed RA, Elsheikh SE, Powe DG, etal.
Growth fraction as a predictor of response to chemotherapy in node negative breast cancer.
Int J Cancer. 2009 Aug 26. PubMed PMID: 19711345.
48. Brown JR, DiGiovanna MP, Killelea B, Lannin DR, Rimm DL. Quantitative assessment
Ki-67 score for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Lab
Invest. 2014 Jan;94(1):98106. PubMed PMID: 24189270. Epub 2013/11/06. eng.
49. Ingolf J-B, Russalina M, Simona M, Julia R, Gilda S, Bohle RM, etal. Can Ki-67 play
a role in prediction of breast cancer patients response to Neoadjuvant chemotherapy?
BioMed Res Int. 2014 03/25 01/13/received 02/11/accepted;2014:628217. PubMed PMID:
PMC3982412.
50. Takei H, Kurosumi M, Yoshida T, Hayashi Y, Higuchi T, Uchida S, etal. Neoadjuvant endo-
crine therapy of breast cancer: which patients would benefit and what are the advantages?
Breast Cancer (Tokyo, Japan). 2011 Apr;18(2):8591. PubMed PMID: 21104350. Epub
2010/11/26. eng.
51. von Minckwitz G, Schmitt WD, Loibl S, Muller BM, Blohmer JU, Sinn BV, etal. Ki67
measured after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for primary breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013
Aug 15;19(16):452131. PubMed PMID: 23812670. Epub 2013/07/03. eng.
52. Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, Gelber RD, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ, etal. Strategies
for subtypes-dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the St. Gallen inter-
national expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2011. Ann Oncol.
2011;22:173647. (England).
breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis.
JNatl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(4):26272.
54. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, Ibrahim N, Cristofanilli M, Anderson K, etal. Breast
cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer
Res. 2005;11(16):567885.
2004;351(27):281726.
56. Paik S, Tang G, Shak S, Kim C, Baker J, Kim W, etal. Gene expression and benefit of
chemotherapy in women with node-negative, estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin
Oncol. 2006;24(23):372634.
57. van t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AA, Mao M, etal. Gene expression
profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415:5306. (England).
58. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, vant Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW, etal. A gene-expres-
sion signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1999
2009. (United States: 2002 Massachusetts Medical Society).
59. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, vant Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AA, Voskuil DW, etal. A gene-
expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002 Dec
19;347(25):19992009. PubMed PMID: 12490681.
60. Li X, Quigg RJ, Zhou J, Gu W, Nagesh Rao P, Reed EF. Clinical utility of microarrays:
current status, existing challenges and future outlook. Curr Genomics. 2008 07/25/received
08/11/revised 08/14/accepted;9(7):46674. PubMed PMID: PMC2691672.
61. Mittempergher L, de Ronde JJ, Nieuwland M, Kerkhoven RM, Simon I, Rutgers EJ, etal.
Gene expression profiles from formalin fixed paraffin embedded breast cancer tissue are
largely comparable to fresh frozen matched tissue. PLoS One. 2011;6(2):e17163. PubMed
PMID: 21347257. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3037966. Epub 2011/02/25. eng.
62. Sapino A, Roepman P, Linn SC, Snel MH, Delahaye LJ, van den Akker J, etal.
MammaPrint molecular diagnostics on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue. J Mol
Diagn. 2014 Mar;16(2):1907. PubMed PMID: 24378251. Epub 2014/01/01. eng.
63. http://www.agendia.com/agendia-receives-new-fda-clearance-for-mammaprint-ffpe-breast-
cancer-test/ 2015 [cited 2015 09/04].
64. Bogaerts J, Cardoso F, Fau-Buyse M, Buyse M, Fau-Braga S, Braga S, Fau-Loi S, Loi
S, Fau-Harrison JA, Harrison Ja, Fau-Bines J, etal. Gene signature evaluation as a prog-
nostic tool: challenges in the design of the MINDACT trial. 2006 20061004 DCOM-
20061024(1743-4262 (Electronic)). eng.
65. Rutgers E, Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Bogaerts J, Delaloge S, Veer LV, Rubio IT, etal. The
EORTC 10041/BIG 03-04 MINDACT trial is feasible: results of the pilot phase. Eur J
Cancer. 2011 Dec;47(18):27429. PubMed PMID: 22051734. Epub 2011/11/05. eng.
66. Filho OM, Ignatiadis M, Sotiriou C. Genomic Grade Index: An important tool for assessing
breast cancer tumor grade and prognosis. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2011 1//;77(1):209.
67. Ma XJ, Salunga R, Dahiya S, Wang W, Carney E, Durbecq V, etal. A five-gene molecu-
lar grade index and HOXB13:IL17BR are complementary prognostic factors in early stage
breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14(9):26018.
68. Ma XJ, Wang Z, Ryan PD, Isakoff SJ, Barmettler A, Fuller A, etal. A two-gene expression
ratio predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients treated with tamoxifen. Cancer Cell.
2004;5:60716. (United States).
69. Jerevall PL, Ma XJ, Li H, Salunga R, Kesty NC, Erlander MG, etal. Prognostic utility of
HOXB13:IL17BR and molecular grade index in early-stage breast cancer patients from the
Stockholm trial. Br J Cancer. 2011;104:17629. (England).
70. Ma XJ, Hilsenbeck SG, Wang W, Ding L, Sgroi DC, Bender RA, etal. The
HOXB13:IL17BR expression index is a prognostic factor in early-stage breast cancer. J Clin
Oncol. 2006;24:46119. (United States).
71. Goetz MP, Suman VJ, Ingle JN, Nibbe AM, Visscher DW, Reynolds CA, etal. A two-gene
expression ratio of homeobox 13 and interleukin-17B receptor for prediction of recurrence
and survival in women receiving adjuvant tamoxifen. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:20807.
(United States).
72. Jerevall PL, Brommesson S, Strand C, Gruvberger-Saal S, Malmstrom P, Nordenskjold B,
etal. Exploring the two-gene ratio in breast cancer-independent roles for HOXB13 and
IL17BR in prediction of clinical outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 Jan;107(2):225
34. PubMed PMID: 17453342. Epub 2007/04/25. eng.
73. Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S, Voduc D, Ebbert M, Vickery T, etal. A comparison of
PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors
in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Nov
1;16(21):522232. PubMed PMID: 20837693. Pubmed Central PMCID: 2970720.
74. Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MC, Leung S, Voduc D, Vickery T, etal. Supervised risk pre-
dictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(8):11607.
75. Nielsen TO, Parker JS, Leung S, Voduc D, Ebbert M, Vickery T, etal. A comparison of
PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry and clinical prognostic factors in
tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2010 Aacr.;
2010;16:522232. (United States).
76. Geiss GK, Bumgarner RE, Birditt B, Dahl T, Dowidar N, Dunaway DL, etal. Direct mul-
tiplexed measurement of gene expression with color-coded probe pairs. Nature Biotechnol.
2008 Mar;26(3):31725. PubMed PMID: 18278033. Epub 2008/02/19. eng.
77. Reis PP, Waldron L, Goswami RS, Xu W, Xuan Y, Perez-Ordonez B, etal. mRNA transcript
quantification in archival samples using multiplexed, color-coded probes. BMC Biotechnol.
2011;11:46. PubMed PMID: 21549012. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3103428. Epub
2011/05/10. eng.
78. Nielsen T, Wallden B, Schaper C, Ferree S, Liu S, Gao D, etal. Analytical validation of the
PAM50-based Prosigna breast cancer prognostic gene signature assay and nCounter analy-
sis system using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded breast tumor specimens. BMC Cancer.
2014;14(1):177. PubMed PMID: doi:10.1186/1471-2407-14-177.
79. Curtis C, etal. The genomic andtranscriptomic architecture of 2000 breast tumours reveals
novel subgroups. Nature. 2012;34652. (England).
80. Bieche I, Lidereau R. Genome-based and transcriptome-based molecular classification of
breast cancer. Curr Opin Oncol. 2011 Jan;23(1):939. PubMed PMID: 21076301. Epub
2010/11/16. eng.
81. Aceto N, Bardia A, Miyamoto DT, Donaldson MC, Wittner BS, Spencer JA, etal.
Circulating tumor cell clusters are oligoclonal precursors of breast cancer metastasis.
Cell. 2014 Aug 28;158(5):111022. PubMed PMID: 25171411. Pubmed Central PMCID:
PMC4149753. Epub 2014/08/30. eng.
82. Alix-Panabieres C. EPISPOT assay: detection of viable DTCs/CTCs in solid tumor
patients. Recent results in cancer research Fortschritte der Krebsforschung Progres dans les
recherches sur le cancer. 2012;195:6976. PubMed PMID: 22527495. Epub 2012/04/25.
eng.
83. Saliba AE, Saias L, Psychari E, Minc N, Simon D, Bidard FC, etal. Microfluidic sorting
and multimodal typing of cancer cells in self-assembled magnetic arrays. Proc Natl Acad
Sci USA. 2010 Aug 17;107(33):145249. PubMed PMID: 20679245. Pubmed Central
PMCID: PMC2930475. Epub 2010/08/04. eng.
84. Pecot CV, Bischoff FZ, Mayer JA, Wong KL, Pham T, Bottsford-Miller J, etal. A novel
platform for detection of CK+and CK CTCs. Cancer discovery. 2011 Dec;1(7):5806.
85. Issadore D, Chung J, Shao H, Liong M, Ghazani AA, Castro CM, etal. Ultrasensitive
clinical enumeration of rare cells ex vivo using a micro-hall detector. Science translational
medicine. 2012 Jul 4;4(141):141ra92. PubMed PMID: 22764208. Pubmed Central PMCID:
PMC3603277. Epub 2012/07/06. eng.
86. Andreopoulou E, Yang LY, Rangel KM, Reuben JM, Hsu L, Krishnamurthy S, etal.
Comparison of assay methods for detection of circulating tumor cells in metastatic breast
cancer: AdnaGen AdnaTest BreastCancer Select/Detect versus Veridex CellSearch system.
Int J Cancer. 2012 Apr 1;130(7):15907. PubMed PMID: 21469140. Epub 2011/04/07. eng.
87. Pantel K, Alix-Panabires C. Detection methods of circulating tumor cells. J Thoracic Dis.
2012 07/20/received 08/23/accepted;4(5):4467. PubMed PMID: PMC3461061.
88. Zhang L, Riethdorf S, Wu G, Wang T, Yang K, Peng G, etal. Meta-analysis of the prog-
nostic value of circulating tumor cells in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Oct
89. Giuliano M, Giordano A, Jackson S, De Giorgi U, Mego M, Cohen EN, etal. Circulating
tumor cells as early predictors of metastatic spread in breast cancer patients with limited
metastatic dissemination. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(5):440. PubMed PMID: 25223629.
Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC4303121. Epub 2014/09/17. eng.
90. Stathopoulou A, Vlachonikolis I, Mavroudis D, Perraki M, Kouroussis C, Apostolaki S,
etal. Molecular detection of cytokeratin-19-positive cells in the peripheral blood of patients
with operable breast cancer: evaluation of their prognostic significance. J Clin Oncol.
2002;20(16):340412.
91. Zach O, Kasparu H, Wagner H, Krieger O, Lutz D. Prognostic value of tumour cell detec-
tion in peripheral blood of breast cancer patients. Acta Med Austriaca Suppl. 2002;59:324.
92. Rack B, Schindlbeck C, Jckstock J, Andergassen U, Hepp P, Zwingers T, etal. Circulating
tumor cells predict survival in early average-to-high risk breast cancer patients. J Nat Cancer
Inst. 2014 May 1;106(5).
93. Bardia A, Haber DA. Solidifying liquid biopsies: can circulating tumor cell monitoring
guide treatment selection in breast cancer? J Clin Oncol. 2014 November 1;32(31):34701.
94. Budd GT, Cristofanilli M, Ellis MJ, Stopeck A, Borden E, Miller MC, etal. Circulating
tumor cells versus imagingpredicting overall survival in metastatic breast cancer. Clin
Cancer Res. 2006 November 1;12(21):64039.
95. Funke I, Schraut W. Meta-analyses of studies on bone marrow micrometastases: an inde-
pendent prognostic impact remains to be substantiated. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(2):55766.
96. Look MP, van Putten WL, Duffy MJ, Harbeck N, Christensen IJ, Thomssen C, etal. Pooled
analysis of prognostic impact of urokinase-type plasminogen activator and its inhibitor
PAI-1 in 8377 breast cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94(2):11628.
97. Ring BZ, Seitz RS, Beck R, Shasteen WJ, Tarr SM, Cheang MC, etal. Novel prognostic
immunohistochemical biomarker panel for estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin
Oncol. 2006;24(19):303947.
98. Ross DT, Kim CY, Tang G, Bohn OL, Beck RA, Ring BZ, etal. Chemosensitivity and strat-
ification by a five monoclonal antibody immunohistochemistry test in the NSABP B14 and
B20 trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:66029. (United States).
99. Bartlett JM, Thomas J, Ross DT, Seitz RS, Ring BZ, Beck RA, etal. Mammostrat as a
tool to stratify breast cancer patients at risk of recurrence during endocrine therapy. Breast
Cancer Res. 2010;12:R47. (England).
100. Cuzick J, Dowsett M, Pineda S, Wale C, Salter J, Quinn E, etal. Prognostic value of a com-
bined estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, Ki-67, and human epidermal growth factor
receptor 2 immunohistochemical score and comparison with the Genomic Health recurrence
score in early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(32):42738.
101. Blamey RW, Pinder SE, Ball GR, Ellis IO, Elston CW, Mitchell MJ, etal. Reading the prog-
nosis of the individual with breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43(10):15457.
102. Haybittle JL, Blamey RW, Elston CW, Johnson J, Doyle PJ, Campbell FC, etal. A prognos-
tic index in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 1982;45(3):3616.
103. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of his-
tological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up.
104. Balslev I, Axelsson CK, Zedeler K, Rasmussen BB, Carstensen B, Mouridsen HT. The
Nottingham Prognostic Index applied to 9,149 patients from the studies of the Danish
Breast Cancer Cooperative Group (DBCG). Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1994;32(3):28190.
105. DEredita G, Giardina C, Martellotta M, Natale T, Ferrarese F. Prognostic factors in breast
cancer: the predictive value of the Nottingham Prognostic Index in patients with a long-term
follow-up that were treated in a single institution. Eur J Cancer. 2001;37(5):5916.
106. Brown J, Jones M, Benson EA. Comment on the Nottingham Prognostic Index. Breast
Cancer Res Treat. 1993;25(3):283. PubMed PMID: 8267734. Epub 1993/01/01. eng.

Prognostic Index Plus (NPI+): a modern clinical decision making tool in breast cancer.
2014 20140402 DCOM- 20140530(1532-1827 (Electronic)). eng.
key clinical phenotypes of breast cancer using a reduced panel of protein biomarkers. Br J
Cancer. 2013 Oct 1;109(7):188694. PubMed PMID: 24008658. Pubmed Central PMCID:
3790179.

Prognostic Index Plus (NPI+): a modern clinical decision making tool in breast cancer. Br J
Cancer. 2014 Mar 11. PubMed PMID: 24619074. Epub 2014/03/13. Eng.
110. Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Davis GJ, Mercer MB, Hewlett J, Gerson N, etal. Computer pro-
gram to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast can-
cer. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19(4):98091.
111. Olivotto IA, Bajdik CD, Ravdin PM, Speers CH, Coldman AJ, Norris BD, etal. Population-
based validation of the prognostic model ADJUVANT! for early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol.
2005;23(12):271625.
112. Mook S, Schmidt MK, Rutgers EJ, van de Velde AO, Visser O, Rutgers SM, etal.

Calibration and discriminatory accuracy of prognosis calculation for breast cancer with
the online Adjuvant! program: a hospital-based retrospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol.
2009;10(11):10706.
113. Hajage D, de Rycke Y, Bollet M, Savignoni A, Caly M, Pierga JY, etal. External valida-
tion of Adjuvant! Online breast cancer prognosis tool. Prioritising recommendations for
improvement. PLoS One. 2011;6:e27446. (United States).
114. Bhoo-Pathy N, Yip CH, Hartman M, Saxena N, Taib NA, Ho GF, etal. Adjuvant! Online
is overoptimistic in predicting survival of Asian breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer.
2012;48:9829. (England: 2012 Elsevier Ltd).
115. Campbell HE, Taylor MA, Harris AL, Gray AM. An investigation into the performance of
the Adjuvant! Online prognostic programme in early breast cancer for a cohort of patients in
the United Kingdom. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:107484. (England).
116. Engelhardt EG, Garvelink MM, de Haes JH, van der Hoeven JJ, Smets EM, Pieterse

AH, etal. Predicting and communicating the risk of recurrence and death in women with
early-stage breast cancer: a systematic review of risk prediction models. J Clin Oncol.
2014;32:23850. (United States).
117. Wishart GC, Azzato EM, Greenberg DC, Rashbass J, Kearins O, Lawrence G, etal.

PREDICT: a new UK prognostic model that predicts survival following surgery for invasive
breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12:R1. (England).
118. Wishart GC, Bajdik CD, Dicks E, Provenzano E, Schmidt MK, Sherman M, etal.

PREDICT Plus: development and validation of a prognostic model for early breast cancer
that includes HER2. Br J Cancer. 2012;107:8007. (England).
119. Wishart GC, Rakha E, Green A, Ellis I, Ali HR, Provenzano E, etal. Inclusion of KI67 sig-
nificantly improves performance of the PREDICT prognostication and prediction model for
early breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:908. (England).
Chapter 13
Role of MicroRNAs in Breast Cancer
Jennifer L. Clark, Dina Kandil, Ediz F. Cosar and Ashraf Khan
Introduction
MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short noncoding RNAs involved in post-transcriptional

gene silencing. Deregulation of miRNA expression has been implicated in the
initiation and progression of many human cancers, including breast. Expression
profiling in many breast cancer subtypes and characterization of deranged miRNA
expression has lead to the development of multiple miRNA expression signatures
with implications for diagnosis, treatment, and prognostication. These small RNAs
will be important targets in the development of novel molecular classification sys-
tems for the individualized treatment of breast cancer.
Biology of MicroRNA
miRNAs are noncoding single-stranded RNAs approximately 22 nucleotides(nt)

in length, ranging from 20 to 25nt [1, 2]. Altogether, genes encoding miRNAs
comprise 1% of the human genome, predicted to encode more than 1000miR-
NAs [3, 4]. These genes are highly conserved and generally located in noncoding
intergenic regions or within introns in a protein coding region [5]. The target of
a miRNA is an mRNA transcript, leading to the degradation of the transcript and
inhibition of protein translation [1, 3]. Though miRNAs bind their targets through
J.L. Clark D. Kandil E.F. Cosar A. Khan(*)

Department of Pathology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, UMassMemorial
Medical Center, Three Biotech, One Innovation Drive, Worcester, MA 01605, USA

198 J.L. Clark et al.
sequence complementarity, a single miRNA is capable of targeting a multitude of

genes, and a single gene may be repressed by multiple miRNAs [6].
Though a mature miRNA measures only~22nt in length, miRNA precursors
are longer and undergo a maturation process involving trimming and cleavage of
the primary transcript [3]. The initial transcription of a miRNA gene results in a
long primary miRNA (pri-miRNA) measuring several kilobases in length and con-
taining a stem-loop secondary structure or hairpin [7]. The hairpin portion is iso-
lated through trimming of the 5 and 3 ends by the nuclear ribonuclease Drosha,
resulting in a precursor miRNA (pre-miRNA) approximately 60100nt in total
length [8]. The pre-miRNA is exported out of the nucleus for further processing by
the nuclear transport receptor exportin-5 [911]. Once in the cytoplasm, the hair-
pin loop structure of the pre-miRNA is cleaved off by the cytoplasmic ribonucle-
ase DICER, resulting in a 22nt miRNA duplex [7]. See Fig.13.1 for a schematic
demonstrating miRNA processing.
The miRNA duplex is then incorporated into the RNA-induced silencing com-
plex (RISC) where the two strands are separated and the nonselected passenger
strand degraded, resulting in a mature miRNA guide strand which is loaded into
the complex [7]. This requires the core component argonaute protein and possibly
an additional unidentified helicase [7, 12]. The guide strand in association with the
RISC complex binds to the complementary sequence on the target mRNA tran-
script. This interaction acts to either repress translation or promote cleavage and
Fig.13.1MicroRNA processing and the RISC complex. The gene encoding the microRNA is
transcribed to produce a pri-miRNA which is cleaved by DROSHA to produce a pre-miRNA.
The pre-miRNA is exported from the nucleus to the cytoplasm via exportin-5. In the cytoplasm,
the pre-miRNA is cleaved again by DICER to produce a miRNA duplex. The leading strand then
separates from the duplex and associates with the RISC complex at the target gene sequence on
mRNA transcripts. The target gene is silenced through cleavage of the mRNA transcript and/or
suppression of translation
13 Role of MicroRNAs in Breast Cancer 199
degradation of the mRNA transcript, effectively resulting in suppression of the tar-

geted gene [7]. See Fig.13.1 for schematic demonstrating miRNA-mediated gene
silencing through incorporation into the RISC complex.
The cellular outcomes of gene silencing by miRNAs vary widely depending on
the function of the target gene and physiological context. Initial studies of miRNA
investigated the role of these molecules in worm development. A number of miR-
NAs have been identified in C. elegans which target specific transcription factors
expressed only in early stages of development whose downregulation hastens tran-
sition to the next step in the developmental program (i.e., lin-4, let-7) [7]. In other
physiological processes, the role of miRNAs is often more complex. For exam-
ple, a miRNA might target a gene encoding a suppressor of a particular signaling
pathway. Silencing of this gene by a miRNA will decrease production of the sup-
pressor and lead ultimately to upregulation of the signaling pathway. For example,
miR-210 represses COX10, relieving its suppression of the production of reactive
oxygen species in the developing placenta [13]. Other miRNAs play vital roles in
complex negative feedback loops, holding signals in dynamic balance depending
on cellular and environmental context. The role of miR-146 in regulation of NF-
B signaling is a notable example [14, 15]. See Fig.13.2 for a schematic outlining
possible outcomes of deranged miRNA expression.
Fig.13.2MicroRNA defects contributing to carcinogenesis. In normal physiology, miRNA reg-

ulate growth in a balanced fashion. Amplification or upregulation of miRNAs which target tumor
suppressor genes and deletion or downregulation of miRNAs which target oncogenes may result
in cancer. Mutation of miRNAs or their target sequences may result in context-dependent effects
on tumorigenesis
Roles of miRNAs and Associated Proteins

in Cancer Biology
As with genes encoding protein products, those encoding miRNAs are also subject
to amplification, deletion, mutation, and other derangements which may contribute
to human disease (see Fig.13.2). Indeed, miRNAs and associated proteins have
been implicated in both hematologic and solid tumor malignancies. Consistent
with increased genetic activity in cancer, miRNAs are globally downregulated
in the malignant cell [16]. However, particular miRNAs, as well as components of
the miRNA processing machinery, have been shown to play varied roles in tumor
initiation and disease progression.
A variety of miRNAs have been shown to be upregulated in cancer. Similar
in concept to oncogenes, such miRNAs are termed oncomiRs [14]. These
oncomiRs generally exert their oncogenic effect by suppressing genes encoding
antiproliferative, proapoptotic, or other antitumor factors. One of the first exam-
ples of an oncomiR and the first example of oncomiR addiction was miR-21, a
miRNA found to be overexpressed in human tumors [1720]. Several groups have
shown in mouse models that forced overexpression of miR-21 or expression in the
presence of an oncogene such as Kras results in malignancy [17, 21]. Furthermore,
deleting miR-21 or restoring normal levels of miR-21 expression results in
reduced cancer incidence or regression of primary tumors, respectively [17, 22].
In order to exert its oncogenic effects, miR-21 is thought to repress PTEN and
other targets to suppress proapoptotic pathways [14, 23]. Another notable example
is the miR-1792 cluster, a group of miRNAs expressed polycistronically, which
is amplified in a number of human malignancies [2427]. Its targets include the
proapoptotic gene BCL-2-like protein 11 (BIM) and tumor suppressor PTEN [28].
Many miRNAs have tumor suppressive properties, suppressing genes with
oncogenic potential. Similar to tumor suppressor proteins, loss of a tumor suppres-
sive miRNA through deletion or mutation increases susceptibility to malignancy.
Such miRNAs are often downregulated or absent in malignant cells. The first miR-
NAs implicated in such a role were miR-15 and miR-16a, both members of the
miR-1516 cluster [29]. The cluster is located within a fragile site which is fre-
quently deleted in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia [29]. The cluster normally
exerts tumor suppressive effects through suppression of cyclin D1, and restoration
of miR-1516 indeed results in decreased cellular proliferation [3032].
In many cases, miRNAs have context-dependent roles in cancer. As mentioned
previously, miR-146 plays a complex role in signaling through NF-B which may
have oncogenic or tumor suppressive effects depending on the interplay of other
signaling pathways [14]. Similarly, miR-29 has been shown to have tumor sup-
pressive effects in aggressive CLL by targeting the oncogenes such as TCL1, but
recent evidence suggests that miR-29 might also act as an oncomiR by targeting
the tumor suppressor peroxidasin [3335]. More generally, the functions of vari-
ous miRNAs may be altered through mutation of the miRNA itself or mutations in
the sequence of potential target genes, with various effects on tumorigenicity.
Proteins involved in miRNA processing and function have also been implicated
in tumorigenesis. A number of perturbations in the miRNA processing machinery
have been identified which contribute to human cancers. DICER has been most stud-
ied in this context as the central molecule in miRNA processing due to the observed
global downregulation of miRNA in cancer [16]. Indeed, DICER is often hemizy-
gously deleted or downregulated in human tumors [3645]. Interestingly, homozy-
gous deletion does not increase tumorigenicity though miRNA expression is absent,
suggesting that DICER itself is a haploinsufficient tumor suppressor [36, 46].
Association of miRNAs with Breast Cancer
In the normal physiology of breast, the expression of various miRNAs directs dif-
ferent stages of mammary gland development, as well as the transition from the
mature breast to lactation and involution [47, 48]. Deregulation of physiologic
miRNA expression and aberrant suppression or upregulation of various miRNAs
may contribute to tumorigenesis, disease progression, and response to therapy.
Those miRNAs which have been most widely studied are mentioned here. A more
complete, though not exhaustive, list can be found in Tables13.1 and 13.2.
OncomiRs
As previously discussed, though miRNAs are generally considered to have sup-

pressive properties, multiple miRNAs have been implicated as oncomiRs in breast
cancer, most of which function through the suppression of tumor suppressors.
One such oncomiR is miR-155, a miRNA which targets the tumor suppressor
SOCS1 directly, thereby indirectly activating JAK-STAT signaling [49]. Similarly,
miR-181 directly targets the tumor suppressor ATM and has been shown to sup-
port malignant transformation and tumorigenesis in both cell culture and mouse
models, respectively [50]. Other potential oncomiRs have been identified as
biomarkers. miR-21 was initially identified as a biomarker in breast cancer and
subsequently shown to target a number of tumor suppressors to promote breast
tumorigenesis and metastasis [5153]. See Table13.1 for a partial list of miRNAs
identified as oncomiRs in breast cancer.
Tumor Suppressive miRNAs
In line with the suppressive functions of miRNAs, a larger number have been iden-
tified as potential tumor suppressors in breast cancer. One of the first miRNAs ever
identified and one of the first to be designated a bona fide tumor suppressor in
Table13.1Example MicroRNAs with significance in breast cancer

MicroRNA Significance Example gene targets References
let-7 Generally downregulated, ER, IL-6 [109112]
upregulated in lymph node
negative disease, expres-
sion associated with luminal
subtypes
miR-10b Downregulated HOXD1, Tiam1 [65, 110, 113]
miR-16 Upregulation sensitizes MYB, WIP1 [114116]
HER2+/ER+ cancer to
tamoxifen, downregulation
associated with tamoxifen
resistance
miR-1792 Frequently deleted, HIF1, STAT3, AIB1, [117123]
upregulated in ER-lymph BRCA1, ER
node negative cancer
miR-21 Upregulated PTEN, PDCD4, TIMP3, [110, 124128]
RHOB, BCL2
miR-26 Upregulated in ER+ disease EZH2, MTDH, MCL-1 [110, 129, 130]
miR-27 Upregulated in disease FOXO1, ZBTB10, CYP1B1 [131133]
progression
miR-29 Upregulated in both ER+ SPARC, TTP, DNMT3b [110, 134136]
and PR+ disease, reduced
expression associated with
basal-like subtype
miR-30 Upregulated in both ER+ UBC9, ITGB3, FOXD1, [110, 137139]
and PR+ disease AVEN
miR-125 Downregulated ERBB2, ERBB3, BAK1, [61, 95, 110, 140]
MUC1
miR-126 Downregulated in cancer VEGF-A, PIK3R2, IRS1 [66, 141, 142]
and metastatic disease
miR-145 Downregulated MUC1, ER [110, 143, 144]
miR-146 Context-dependent effects as IRAK1, TRAF6, BRCA1, [145147]
outlined in text BRCA2
miR-155 Upregulated, associated with FOXO3, SOCS1, RHOA [49, 93, 110, 148]
chemoresistance
miR-185 Downregulated in ER+ SIX1 [110, 149]
disease
miR-200 Downregulated in epithelial ZEB1, ZEB2 [57, 59]
mesenchymal transition
miR-205 Downregulated in cancer ZEB1, VEGF-A, ERBB3 [59, 111, 150,
and epithelial-mesenchymal 151]
transition, expression associ-
ated with ductal morphology
miR-206 Generally upregulated, ER, GATA3, SRC3 [110, 152154]
downregulated in ER+
miR-210 Upregulated in cancer and MNT, RAD52 [110, 155158]
triple negative disease,
associated with invasiveness
(continued)
Table13.1(continued)
MicroRNA Significance Example gene targets References
miR-221 Generally downregulated, ER, p27KIP1, TRPS1 [91, 92, 159, 160]
upregulation in invasive
disease, associated with
tamoxifen resistance
miR-326 Downregulated in late stage MRP-1 [161]
disease, associated with
chemoresistance
miR-335 Downregulated in metastatic SOX4, TNC [66, 162]
disease
miR-373 Upregulated in metastatic CD44, TXNIP, RABEP1 [163, 164]
lesions
miR-375 Upregulated in progres- MTDH, RASD1 [165167]
sive lobular carcinoma,
downregulated in tamoxifen
resistance
miR-520 Upregulated in metastatic CD44, TGFBR2 [163, 168]
lesions
Table13.2Example circulating MicroRNAs associated with breast cancer

MicroRNA Significance References
let-7 Serum biomarker for breast cancer [169]
miR-10 Increased serum concentration associated with metastatic disease, [85, 170,
specific for bone metastasis 171]
miR-19 Serum biomarker for inflammatory breast cancer, higher levels [172]
associated with improved outcome in HER2+ metastatic disease
miR-21 Serum biomarker for breast cancer, serum levels correlated to [77, 81]
distant metastasis and lymph node positivity
miR-30 Serum biomarker for breast cancer (decreased levels) [86]
miR-34 Increased serum concentration associated with metastatic disease [170]
miR-92 Serum biomarker for breast cancer (decreased levels), decreased [81]
serum levels associated with lymph node positivity
miR-122 Increased serum concentration associated with metastatic [173]
recurrence
miR-125 Increased serum levels associated with chemoresistance [83]
miR-155 Higher serum levels in PR+ breast cancer [174]
miR-181 Serum biomarker for breast cancer (decreased levels) [175]
miR-182 Serum biomarker for breast cancer, higher serum levels [88]
in PR breast cancer
miR-195 Serum biomarker for breast cancer, differentiates breast from [169, 176]
other malignancies
miR-210 Serum biomarker for breast cancer, increased serum levels associ- [82]
ated with lymph node positivity and resistance to traztuzumab
miR-214 Serum biomarker for breast cancer, increased serum levels [177]
associated with lymph node positivity
miR-373 Increased serum concentration associated with lymph node [85]
positivity
Fig.13.3MicroRNAs in tumor progression. Various miRNAs contribute to breast tumor initia-

tion, progression to invasive disease, and metastasis to distant sites. Those miRNAs which are
downregulated at each step are marked in red, and those miRNAs which are upregulated at each
step are marked in green
breast cancer was let-7 [54]. Let-7 targets the oncogene RAS and is a regulator of
the mammary stem cell population [54, 55]. Upregulation of this miRNA forces
stem cells to exit the self-renewing population thought to harbor cancer-initiating
cells [55]. Another regulator of the stem cell population is miR-200 which func-
tions in a similar manner [56]. miR-200 also suppresses tumorigenesis by promot-
ing mesenchymalepithelial transition (MET) and targeting the AKT prosurvival
pathway [5760]. Another identified tumor suppressor is miR-125 which was
shown to directly target HER2 in this aggressive subtype of breast carcinoma
[61]. See Table13.1 for a partial list of miRNAs identified as tumor suppressors in
breast cancer. See Fig.13.3 for a list of miRNAs involved in breast carcinogenesis
and disease progression.
Context-Dependent miRNAs
In addition, to the context-dependent miRNAs discussed previously, many miR-

NAs have been shown to have varied and conflicting roles in breast cancer. A nota-
ble example is the miR-1792 cluster, originally identified as a tumor suppressor
in breast cancer by targeting cyclin D1 and IL-8 to inhibit the aggressive features
of cancer, including proliferation, motility, and invasion [62, 63]. However, more
recent studies have found an oncogenic role for this cluster, suggesting that it may
have tumor suppressive or oncogenic effects depending on cellular context [64].

It is likely that many miRNAs will ultimately be determined to have multiple and
conflicting roles in breast cancer in a context-dependent manner.
miRNAs Involved in Disease Progression
Many miRNAs with no identified role in breast tumorigenesis have been impli-
cated specifically in disease progression and metastasis. Best studied is miR-10b
which, though absent or downregulated in primary tumors, is upregulated in meta-
static lesions as it is induced by the epithelialmesenchymal transition (EMT)
transcription factor Twist. Homeobox D10 (HOXD10) is targeted by miR-10b,
indirectly inducing RAS homolog C (RHOC) to promote invasion and motility
[65]. Other miRNAs such as miR-335 and miR-126 have been identified which are
suppressed in metastatic lesions and likely inhibit disease progression by targeting
genes involved in invasion and motility [66]. In experimental models, reconstitut-
ing expression of these miRNAs can suppress carcinoma cell migration and inhibit
metastasis in mice [66]. A partial list of miRNAs involved in disease progression
can be found in Table13.1.
miRNAs Associated with Histologic Phenotypes
Though there is currently little evidence associating particular miRNAs with the
various morphologies of breast carcinoma, many miRNAs have been associated
more broadly with histopathologic phenotypes. For example, a number of miR-
NAs have been associated with hormone receptor status, an immensely important
clinicopathologic feature in predicting prognosis and guiding treatment. For exam-
ple, miR-191 is upregulated in estrogen receptor (ER) positive cancer compared
to ER negative breast cancer [67, 68]. Other miRNAs have been associated with
HER2 status, molecular or intrinsic subtypes (to be discussed further in the next
section), and broad morphologic categories (i.e., ductal vs. lobular). Many of these
are mentioned in Table13.1.
miRNA Signatures Associated with Breast Cancer
Advancements in microarray technology have made molecular profiling of large

numbers of specimens possible. While the molecular profile of a tumor may hint
at particular miRNAs which might play a role in tumor initiation and progression,
the greatest strength of miRNA profiling technology is the ability to efficiently
analyze a large number of tumors to identify miRNA signatures associated with
important clinicopathologic variables. A large number of studies have identi-

fied miRNA signatures which may predict the clinical behavior of breast tumors.
Those best validated will be discussed here.
The Cancer Genome Atlas Network (TCGA) published their landmark study in
2012 outlining the molecular profile of more than 500 breast tumors and approxi-
mately 20 normal breast samples [69]. In addition to whole genome sequencing,
the study included gene expression analysis and reported on both mRNA and
miRNA expression. Clustering analysis revealed 7 subtypes of tumors within the
tested tumor subset correlating to mRNA profiling subsets (particularly those
correlating to the basal-like intrinsic subtype as predicted by PAM50), hormone
receptor status, and HER2 status [69].
Other groups have used this same patient cohort to identify miRNA signatures
with clinical significance. These identified signatures are then applied to data from
other existing cohorts to assess applicability more broadly. To date, miRNA and
integrated miRNA/mRNA signatures have been validated in multiple cohorts to
predict both distant relapse-free and overall survival, invasiveness or risk of transi-
tion from ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) to invasive carcinoma, aggressiveness in
inflammatory breast carcinoma, likelihood of metastasis based on tumor-initiating
properties, and possibly others [7073]. The greatest promise seems to lie with the
integrated 9miRNA/11mRNA signature developed by Volinia and Croce which
demonstrated a higher prognostic value in early stage tumors than the popular
Oncotype DX and MammaPrint assays [70].
Clinical Relevance of miRNA Expression Data
Though miRNA expression analysis and miRNA profiling of tumors is used

widely in cancer research, these methodologies are not currently used in the stand-
ard treatment of breast cancer. Many academic groups and commercial companies
are exploring the clinical usefulness of miRNA expression data in the diagnosis
and management of breast cancer and other malignancies. Though evaluation of
single miRNAs with known diagnostic or prognostic significance may prove clini-
cally useful, miRNA signatures will likely be more widely used in the future.
Diagnosis
Though analysis of particular miRNAs or miRNA signatures in breast tumor sam-

ples will be useful in patient management once validated, detection and accurate
diagnosis of breast cancer remains an invasive process involving biopsy and/or
lumpectomy. Much recent work in diagnostics has focused on noninvasive means
of detection in order to detect breast cancers early and avoid unnecessary inva-
sive procedures. The miRNAs expressed in normal and malignant tissues are
frequently detectable in the body fluids of patients. As miRNAs are remarkably

stable in the serum and detection methodologies advancing, it is possible that a
simple blood test could detect cancer-associated miRNAs with high sensitivity and
specificity [7476]. In particular, miR-21 has been used in several studies to dif-
ferentiate patients with and without breast cancer, suggesting this may be a prom-
ising candidate serum biomarker [7781]. A variety of other miRNAs have been
identified in the serum whose expression levels correlate to various clinicopatho-
logic features [8288].
Prognosis
Great advances in molecular pathology have revolutionized breast cancer medi-

cine, identifying particular biomarkers with prognostic significance such as ER/
PR and HER2. However, the management dilemma remains that prediction of
relapse-free and overall survival is not perfect, and many patients with low risk
cancer based on ER and PR positivity, for example, will experience local or distant
relapse at various timepoints after the initial diagnosis. New diagnostic molecu-
lar assays such as Oncotype DX and Mammaprint attempt to bridge that gap with
some success. miRNA and integrated miRNA/mRNA analysis to identify certain
prognostic signatures as discussed previously show great promise as alternative or
additional tests to determine which patients are most likely to relapse and require
more aggressive treatment. Such tests may become commercially available in the
near future.
Treatment Response
Resistance to standard chemotherapy is currently one of the major areas of focus

in breast cancer research. Though certain markers are known to associate with
sensitivity to particular therapies, such as HER2 for Herceptin or ER for tamox-
ifen, we do not currently have markers of resistance in widespread clinical use. A
number of large studies have identified genetic signatures associated with treat-
ment response, including a study that identified miRNA signatures associated with
sensitivity to several commonly used chemotherapeutics [89]. A variety of other
studies have used miRNA profiling to identify particular miRNAs which are up-
and downregulated in drug-sensitive versus drug-resistant cell lines [9095]. Many
of these are mentioned in Table1. In the study of treatment resistance, miRNAs
have become attractive targets, as more therapeutic options exist for overcoming
resistance associated with these genetic elements [96]. Current studies have not
used this information in clinical decision-making, and further characterization of
identified miRNAs and miRNA signatures will be required to apply this data in
patient studies.
miRNA Therapeutics
As investigation continues to develop new therapeutics for resistant and difficult-

to-treat cancer (i.e., triple negative), miRNAs have recently become attractive tar-
gets for therapy. These molecules are minimally antigenic compared to protein and
carbohydrate biological drugs and small enough to penetrate a cell as a nanoparti-
cle, liposome, or exosome without the need for potentially dangerous viral vectors
[47]. However, tumor-specific drug delivery is a major concern, as systemic expo-
sure to a miRNA or antagomiR (antisense oligonucleotide specific to a particular
miRNA) could have unforeseen consequences in other organ systems. Tumor-
specific antibody- and ligand-mediated systems will likely help to solve this major
challenge [47].
Though miRNA therapeutics have not yet been studied in human patients,
a number of potential therapies have been successfully tested in animal models.
AntagomiR-10b has been used by Weinbergs group to inhibit motility and inva-
siveness of a mouse mammary tumor cell line in a mouse model without adverse
effect [97]. AntagomiR-21 has also been used to inhibit angiogenesis and induce
apoptosis in a murine breast cancer model [98]. Other groups have used antago-
miRs to treat neuroblastoma and cardiac hypertrophy, among others [99101].
Though only one study has explored miRNA replacement therapy in breast cancer
cells in vitro for radio-sensitization, miRNA replacement therapy has been tested
with some success in cancers of the liver, colon, and lung using adenoviral, nano-
particle, or lipid-based delivery systems [102106]. Unfortunately, tumor-specific
delivery was not possible in these studies. However, successful treatment with-
out major adverse effects is promising for the development of safe, effective new
miRNA-based therapeutics in the near future.
Laboratory Methods
Knowledge of the techniques through which miRNA are purified and analyzed
is vital for the accurate interpretation of miRNA data gathered from clinical
specimens.
Detection and Quantitation
The analysis of miRNA expression requires isolation of RNA from clinical speci-
mens, including plasma samples, fine needle aspirates, and formalin-fixed tis-
sues. There is a remarkable stability of small RNAs in the blood, particularly in
the exosomal fraction, and miRNA can be isolated from the plasma with relative
ease [107]. Most commonly, RNA is isolated using commercial kits and reagents,
though the underlying methodology is the same. In brief, organic components are
isolated through fluid phase separation by centrifugation. Chloroform and phenol
in an aqueous buffer are added to the sample prior to centrifugation. A denaturing
reagent, often guanidinium isothiocyanate, is also added to denature ribonucleo-
proteins which may complex with RNA, as well as RNAases. Following centrifu-
gation, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) will be found in the aqueous phase, lipids
in the chloroform interphase, and other organic molecules in the phenol organic
phase. The aqueous phase is then mixed with ethanol or isopropanol to precipi-
tate nucleic acids. This mixture can then be applied to a silica-based column (i.e.,
RNeasy) to isolate total RNA (see Fig.13.4) [74].
Though isolation of RNA from plasma is relatively rapid and simple, miRNA
analysis of a tumor often requires fine needle aspirates of the lesion or formalin-
fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue blocks, as fresh tissue is not frequently
available in the clinical setting. Fortunately, the small size of miRNAs is relatively
protective against the damaging effects of formalin. Tissue is isolated from paraf-
fin tissue curls treated with xylene by centrifugation. The resulting tissue pellet is
treated with the broad specificity enzyme proteinaseK to degrade contaminating
Fig.13.4Laboratory methods for microRNA detection in clinical samples. Total RNA may be
isolated from tissues and body fluids through phase separation and precipitation in alcohol. Indi-
vidual miRNAs may be detected using Northern blot or RT-PCR. Microarray analysis can be
used to profile a large of miRNAs from a single sample. In paraffin-embedded tissues, individual
miRNAs may be detected using fluorescent in situ hybridization and visualized through fluores-
cent microscopy
proteins in the preparation. Nucleic acids are then precipitated in ethanol and total
RNA isolated as previously discussed, usually using a commercially available sil-
ica-based column (see Fig.13.4) [74].
As these techniques separate total RNA from the tissue specimen, miRNAs of
interest must then be specifically detected. This is normally accomplished in one
of two ways: (1) Northern blot or (2) real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase
chain reaction (RT-PCR). In Northern blotting, total RNA extracts are separated
by charge and size in an agarose or polyacrylamide gel, transferred to a nylon
membrane, hybridized to sequence-specific probes, and detected radiographically
or by chemiluminescence. While blotting is semiquantitative and best for deter-
mining qualitatively whether a miRNA is expressed, RT-PCR is truly quantitative.
First, extracted RNA is reverse transcribed by the enzyme reverse transcriptase in
a thermal cycler to produced complementary DNA (cDNA). Next, traditional PCR
is used to amplify the target miRNA sequence using specific primers. A variety
of fluorescent dyes and sequence-specific oligonucleotide probes are commer-
cially available for detection of amplified miRNA sequences which utilize straight
fluorescence or Frster resonance energy transfer (FRET), respectively. Direct
detection of miRNAs in situ is also possible using locked nucleic acid (LNA) or
Morpholino oligonucleotide probes (see Fig.13.4) [74, 108].
Microarray Analysis
Though the ability to detect specific miRNAs has allowed great advances in our
understanding of these molecules in human disease, microarray analysis has allowed
the simultaneous investigation of hundreds of miRNAs. Briefly, extracted RNA from
a clinical sample is applied to a chip containing hundreds of specific oligonucleo-
tide probes to which miRNAs in the sample will hybridize, allowing detection and
quantitation of many miRNAs at once in a single sample. By utilizing probes for
housekeeping genes in the microarray, the resulting data can be normalized, allow-
ing comparison of multiple clinical samples. For example, it is possible to determine
which miRNAs are up- or downregulated in tumor samples compared to normal tis-
sue or identify miRNA signatures associated with a particular tumor subtype, hint-
ing at potential biomarkers and pharmacological targets (see Fig.13.4) [74].
Key Points
MicroRNAs are small, noncoding RNAs measuring~22 nucleotides in length

which are processed by the ribonucleases Drosha and DICER from longer tran-
scripts containing a hairpin structure
Mature microRNAs silence genes containing complementary sequences through
the RISC silencing complex
A single microRNA may silence multiple genes, and a single gene may be
silenced by multiple microRNAs
OncomiRs are microRNAs with oncogenic properties, often through silencing
of a tumor suppressor gene
Tumor suppressive microRNAs generally exert suppressive effects by silencing
an oncogene
MicroRNAs have a number of context-dependent roles in tumor initiation, dis-
ease progression, prognosis, and response to therapy
MicroRNAs are readily detectable in the blood and other body fluids, FNA
material, and FFPE blocks
Microarray technology has made possible the detection of hundreds of micro-
RNAs at once in large numbers of tumors, allowing for the development of
microRNA signatures associated with various clinical parameters
Though not currently in clinical use, detection of particular microRNAs and
microRNA profiling of blood and tumor samples may soon contribute to clinical
decision-making as an adjunct to traditional pathologic evaluation
AntagomiRs (antisense oligonucleotides) and miRNA replacement therapy have
been used successfully in animal models and are potential candidates for new
therapeutics in breast cancer
References
1. Ambros V. microRNAs: tiny regulators with great potential. Cell. 2001;107(7):8236.

2. Ambros V, etal. A uniform system for microRNA annotation. RNA. 2003;9(3):2779.
3. Kim VN. MicroRNA biogenesis: coordinated cropping and dicing. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol.
2005;6(5):37685.
4. Kozomara A, Griffiths-Jones S. miRBase: annotating high confidence microRNAs using
deep sequencing data. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42(1):D6873.
5. Lau NC, etal. An abundant class of tiny RNAs with probable regulatory roles in
Caenorhabditis elegans. Science. 2001;294(5543):85862.
6. Lewis BP, etal. Prediction of mammalian microRNA targets. Cell. 2003;115(7):78798.
7. Bartel DP. MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function. Cell.
2004;116(2):28197.
8. Lee Y, etal. The nuclear RNase III Drosha initiates microRNA processing. Nature.
2003;425(6956):4159.
9. Lund E, etal. Nuclear export of microRNA precursors. Science. 2004;303(5654):958.
10. Yi R, etal. Exportin-5 mediates the nuclear export of pre-microRNAs and short hairpin
RNAs. Genes Dev. 2003;17(24):30116.
11. Bohnsack MT, Czaplinski K, Gorlich D. Exportin 5 is a RanGTP-dependent dsRNA-bind-
ing protein that mediates nuclear export of pre-miRNAs. RNA. 2004;10(2):18591.
12. Tang G. siRNA and miRNA: an insight into RISCs. Trends Biochem Sci.
2005;30(2):10614.
13. Doridot L, etal. Trophoblasts, invasion, and microRNA. Front Genet. 2013;4:248.
14. Kasinski AL, Slack FJ. Epigenetics and genetics. MicroRNAs en route to the clinic:
progress in validating and targeting microRNAs for cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer.
2011;11(12):84964.
15. Taganov KD, etal. NF-kappaB-dependent induction of microRNA miR-146, an inhibi-
tor targeted to signaling proteins of innate immune responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2006;103(33):124816.
16. Sassen S, Miska EA, Caldas C. MicroRNA: implications for cancer. Virchows Arch.
2008;452(1):110.
17. Medina PP, Nolde M, Slack FJ. OncomiR addiction in an in vivo model of microRNA-
21-induced pre-B-cell lymphoma. Nature. 2010;467(7311):8690.
18. Chan JA, Krichevsky AM, Kosik KS. MicroRNA-21 is an antiapoptotic factor in human
glioblastoma cells. Cancer Res. 2005;65(14):602933.
19. Landgraf P, etal. A mammalian microRNA expression atlas based on small RNA library
sequencing. Cell. 2007;129(7):140114.
20. Volinia S, etal. A microRNA expression signature of human solid tumors defines cancer
gene targets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103(7):225761.
21. Hatley ME, etal. Modulation of K-Ras-dependent lung tumorigenesis by MicroRNA-21.
Cancer Cell. 2010;18(3):28293.
22. Ma X, etal. Loss of the miR-21 allele elevates the expression of its target genes and reduces
tumorigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(25):101449.
23. Meng F, etal. MicroRNA-21 regulates expression of the PTEN tumor suppressor gene in
human hepatocellular cancer. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(2):64758.
24. He L, etal. A microRNA polycistron as a potential human oncogene. Nature.
2005;435(7043):82833.
25. Hayashita Y, etal. A polycistronic microRNA cluster, miR-17-92, is overexpressed in
human lung cancers and enhances cell proliferation. Cancer Res. 2005;65(21):962832.
26. Rinaldi A, etal. Concomitant MYC and microRNA cluster miR-17-92 (C13orf25) amplifi-
cation in human mantle cell lymphoma. Leuk Lymphoma. 2007;48(2):4102.
27. Reichek JL, etal. Genomic and clinical analysis of amplification of the 13q31 chromosomal
region in alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma: a report from the Childrens Oncology Group. Clin
Cancer Res. 2011;17(6):146373.
28. Xiao C, etal. Lymphoproliferative disease and autoimmunity in mice with increased miR-
17-92 expression in lymphocytes. Nat Immunol. 2008;9(4):40514.
29. Calin GA, etal. Frequent deletions and down-regulation of micro-RNA genes miR15
and miR16 at 13q14 in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2002;99(24):155249.
30. Deshpande A, etal. 3UTR mediated regulation of the cyclin D1 proto-oncogene. Cell
Cycle. 2009;8(21):358492.
31. Salerno E, etal. Correcting miR-15a/16 genetic defect in New Zealand Black mouse model
of CLL enhances drug sensitivity. Mol Cancer Ther. 2009;8(9):268492.
32. Klein U, etal. The DLEU2/miR-15a/16-1 cluster controls B cell proliferation and its dele-
tion leads to chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Cancer Cell. 2010;17(1):2840.
33. Pekarsky Y, etal. Tcl1 expression in chronic lymphocytic leukemia is regulated by miR-29
and miR-181. Cancer Res. 2006;66(24):115903.
34. Pekarsky Y, Croce CM. Is miR-29 an oncogene or tumor suppressor in CLL? Oncotarget.
2010;1(3):2247.
35. Santanam U, etal. Chronic lymphocytic leukemia modeled in mouse by targeted miR-29
expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(27):122105.
36. Kumar MS, etal. Dicer1 functions as a haploinsufficient tumor suppressor. Genes Dev.
2009;23(23):27004.
37. Tokumaru S, etal. let-7 regulates Dicer expression and constitutes a negative feedback loop.
Carcinogenesis. 2008;29(11):20737.
38. Pampalakis G, etal. Down-regulation of dicer expression in ovarian cancer tissues. Clin
Biochem. 2010;43(3):3247.
39. Wu JF, etal. Down-regulation of Dicer in hepatocellular carcinoma. Med Oncol.
2011;28(3):8049.
40. Dedes KJ, etal. Down-regulation of the miRNA master regulators Drosha and Dicer is asso-
ciated with specific subgroups of breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47(1):13850.
41. Torres A, etal. Major regulators of microRNAs biogenesis Dicer and Drosha are down-reg-
ulated in endometrial cancer. Tumour Biol. 2011;32(4):76976.
42. Faggad A, etal. Down-regulation of the microRNA processing enzyme Dicer is a prognostic
factor in human colorectal cancer. Histopathology. 2012;61(4):55261.
43. Zhu DX, etal. Downregulated Dicer expression predicts poor prognosis in chronic lympho-
cytic leukemia. Cancer Sci. 2012;103(5):87581.
44. Wu D, etal. Downregulation of Dicer, a component of the microRNA machinery, in bladder
cancer. Mol Med Rep. 2012;5(3):6959.
45. Kitagawa N, etal. Downregulation of the microRNA biogenesis components and its asso-
ciation with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Sci. 2013;104(5):54351.
46. Lambertz I, etal. Monoallelic but not biallelic loss of Dicer1 promotes tumorigenesis in
vivo. Cell Death Differ. 2010;17(4):63341.
47. Liu H. MicroRNAs in breast cancer initiation and progression. Cell Mol Life Sci.
2012;69(21):358799.
48. Piao HL, Ma L. Non-coding RNAs as regulators of mammary development and breast can-
cer. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2012;17(1):3342.
49. Jiang S, etal. MicroRNA-155 functions as an OncomiR in breast cancer by targeting the
suppressor of cytokine signaling 1 gene. Cancer Res. 2010;70(8):311927.
50. Wang Y, etal. Transforming growth factor-beta regulates the sphere-initiating stem cell-like
feature in breast cancer through miRNA-181 and ATM. Oncogene. 2011;30(12):147080.
51. Yan LX, etal. MicroRNA miR-21 overexpression in human breast cancer is associated
with advanced clinical stage, lymph node metastasis and patient poor prognosis. RNA.
2008;14(11):234860.
52. Qian B, etal. High miR-21 expression in breast cancer associated with poor disease-
free survival in early stage disease and high TGF-beta1. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
2009;117(1):13140.
53. Buscaglia LE, Li Y. Apoptosis and the target genes of microRNA-21. Chin J Cancer.
2011;30(6):37180.
54. Johnson SM, etal. RAS is regulated by the let-7 microRNA family. Cell.
2005;120(5):63547.
55. Ibarra I, etal. A role for microRNAs in maintenance of mouse mammary epithelial progeni-
tor cells. Genes Dev. 2007;21(24):323843.
56. Shimono Y, etal. Downregulation of miRNA-200c links breast cancer stem cells with nor-
mal stem cells. Cell. 2009;138(3):592603.
57. Park SM, etal. The miR-200 family determines the epithelial phenotype of cancer cells by
targeting the E-cadherin repressors ZEB1 and ZEB2. Genes Dev. 2008;22(7):894907.
58. Korpal M, etal. The miR-200 family inhibits epithelial-mesenchymal transition and cancer
cell migration by direct targeting of E-cadherin transcriptional repressors ZEB1 and ZEB2.
J Biol Chem. 2008;283(22):149104.
59. Gregory PA, etal. The miR-200 family and miR-205 regulate epithelial to mesenchymal
transition by targeting ZEB1 and SIP1. Nat Cell Biol. 2008;10(5):593601.
60. Hyun S, etal. Conserved MicroRNA miR-8/miR-200 and its target USH/FOG2 control
growth by regulating PI3K. Cell. 2009;139(6):1096108.
61. Scott GK, etal. Coordinate suppression of ERBB2 and ERBB3 by enforced expression of
micro-RNA miR-125a or miR-125b. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(2):147986.
62. Yu Z, etal. A cyclin D1/microRNA 17/20 regulatory feedback loop in control of breast can-
cer cell proliferation. J Cell Biol. 2008;182(3):50917.
63. Yu Z, etal. microRNA 17/20 inhibits cellular invasion and tumor metastasis in breast cancer
by heterotypic signaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107(18):82316.
64. Li H, etal. miR-17-5p promotes human breast cancer cell migration and invasion through
suppression of HBP1. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;126(3):56575.
65. Ma L, Teruya-Feldstein J, Weinberg RA. Tumour invasion and metastasis initiated by micro-
RNA-10b in breast cancer. Nature. 2007;449(7163):6828.
66. Tavazoie SF, etal. Endogenous human microRNAs that suppress breast cancer metastasis.
Nature. 2008;451(7175):14752.
67. Di Leva G, etal. Estrogen mediated-activation of miR-191/425 cluster modulates tumo-

rigenicity of breast cancer cells depending on estrogen receptor status. PLoS Genet.
2013;9(3):e1003311.
68. Nagpal N, etal. MicroRNA-191, an estrogen-responsive microRNA, functions as an onco-
genic regulator in human breast cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2013;34(8):188999.
69. Network TCGA. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature.
2012;490(7418):6170.
70. Volinia S, Croce CM. Prognostic microRNA/mRNA signature from the integrated analysis
of patients with invasive breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110(18):74137.
71. Volinia S, etal. Breast cancer signatures for invasiveness and prognosis defined by deep
sequencing of microRNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(8):30249.
72. Lerebours F, etal. miRNA expression profiling of inflammatory breast cancer iden-
tifies a 5-miRNA signature predictive of breast tumor aggressiveness. Int J Cancer.
2013;133(7):161423.
73. Wang L, etal. A microRNA expression signature characterizing the properties of tumor-
initiating cells for breast cancer. Oncol Lett. 2012;3(1):11924.
74. Sethi S, etal. Clinical implication of MicroRNAs in molecular pathology. Clin Lab Med.
2013;33(4):77386.
75. Gallo A, etal. The majority of microRNAs detectable in serum and saliva is concentrated in
exosomes. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(3):e30679.
76. Cuk K, etal. Plasma microRNA panel for minimally invasive detection of breast cancer.
PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e76729.
77. Asaga S, etal. Direct serum assay for microRNA-21 concentrations in early and advanced
breast cancer. Clin Chem. 2011;57(1):8491.
78. Wang B, Zhang Q. The expression and clinical significance of circulating microRNA-21 in
serum of five solid tumors. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2012;138(10):165966.
79. Gao J, etal. Clinical significance of serum miR-21 in breast cancer compared with CA153
and CEA. Chin J Cancer Res. 2013;25(6):7438.
80. Kumar S, etal. Overexpression of circulating miRNA-21 and miRNA-146a in plasma sam-
ples of breast cancer patients. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 2013;50(3):2104.
81. Si H, etal. Circulating microRNA-92a and microRNA-21 as novel minimally invasive bio-
markers for primary breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2013;139(2):2239.
82. Jung EJ, etal. Plasma microRNA 210 levels correlate with sensitivity to trastuzumab and
tumor presence in breast cancer patients. Cancer. 2012;118(10):260314.
83. Wang H, etal. Circulating MiR-125b as a marker predicting chemoresistance in breast can-
cer. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(4):e34210.
84. Sun Y, etal. Serum microRNA-155 as a potential biomarker to track disease in breast can-
cer. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(10):e47003.
85. Chen W, etal. The level of circulating miRNA-10b and miRNA-373 in detecting lymph
node metastasis of breast cancer: potential biomarkers. Tumour Biol. 2013;34(1):45562.
86. Zeng RC, etal. Down-regulation of miRNA-30a in human plasma is a novel marker for
breast cancer. Med Oncol. 2013;30(1):477.
87. Eichelser C, etal. Deregulated serum concentrations of circulating cell-free microRNAs
miR-17, miR-34a, miR-155, and miR-373 in human breast cancer development and progres-
sion. Clin Chem. 2013;59(10):148996.
88. Wang PY, etal. Higher expression of circulating miR-182 as a novel biomarker for breast
cancer. Oncol Lett. 2013;6(6):16816.
89. Salter KH, etal. An integrated approach to the prediction of chemotherapeutic response in
patients with breast cancer. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(4):e1908.
90. Kovalchuk O, etal. Involvement of microRNA-451 in resistance of the MCF-7 breast cancer
cells to chemotherapeutic drug doxorubicin. Mol Cancer Ther. 2008;7(7):21529.
91. Miller TE, etal. MicroRNA-221/222 confers tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer by tar-
geting p27Kip1. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(44):29897903.
92. Zhao JJ, etal. MicroRNA-221/222 negatively regulates estrogen receptor alpha and is asso-
ciated with tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(45):3107986.
93. Kong W, etal. MicroRNA-155 regulates cell survival, growth, and chemosensitivity by tar-
geting FOXO3a in breast cancer. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(23):1786979.
94. Pogribny IP, etal. Alterations of microRNAs and their targets are associated with acquired
resistance of MCF-7 breast cancer cells to cisplatin. Int J Cancer. 2010;127(8):178594.
95. Zhou M, etal. MicroRNA-125b confers the resistance of breast cancer cells to paclitaxel
through suppression of pro-apoptotic Bcl-2 antagonist killer 1 (Bak1) expression. J Biol
Chem. 2010;285(28):21496507.
96. Weidhaas JB, etal. MicroRNAs as potential agents to alter resistance to cytotoxic anticancer
therapy. Cancer Res. 2007;67(23):111116.
97. Ma L, etal. Therapeutic silencing of miR-10b inhibits metastasis in a mouse mammary
tumor model. Nat Biotechnol. 2010;28(4):3417.
98. Zhao D, etal. In vivo monitoring of angiogenesis inhibition via down-regulation of mir-21
in a VEGFR2-luc murine breast cancer model using bioluminescent imaging. PLoS ONE.
2013;8(8):e71472.
99. Fontana L, etal. Antagomir-17-5p abolishes the growth of therapy-resistant neuroblastoma
through p21 and BIM. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(5):e2236.
100. Ge YF, etal. AntagomiR-27a targets FOXO3a in glioblastoma and suppresses U87 cell
growth in vitro and in vivo. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(2):9638.
101. Care A, etal. MicroRNA-133 controls cardiac hypertrophy. Nat Med. 2007;13(5):6138.
102. Liang Z, etal. MicroRNA-302 replacement therapy sensitizes breast cancer cells to ionizing
radiation. Pharm Res. 2013;30(4):100816.
103. Kota J, etal. Therapeutic microRNA delivery suppresses tumorigenesis in a murine liver
cancer model. Cell. 2009;137(6):100517.
104. Ibrahim AF, etal. MicroRNA replacement therapy for miR-145 and miR-33a is efficacious
in a model of colon carcinoma. Cancer Res. 2011;71(15):521424.
105. Trang P, etal. Regression of murine lung tumors by the let-7 microRNA. Oncogene.

2010;29(11):15807.
106. Wiggins JF, etal. Development of a lung cancer therapeutic based on the tumor suppressor
microRNA-34. Cancer Res. 2010;70(14):592330.
107. Mraz M, etal. MicroRNA isolation and stability in stored RNA samples. Biochem Biophys
Res Commun. 2009;390(1):14.
108. Lagendijk AK, Moulton JD, Bakkers J. Revealing details: whole mount microRNA in situ
hybridization protocol for zebrafish embryos and adult tissues. Biol Open. 2012;1(6):5669.
109.
Iliopoulos D, Hirsch HA, Struhl K. An epigenetic switch involving NF-kappaB,
Lin28, Let-7 MicroRNA, and IL6 links inflammation to cell transformation. Cell.
2009;139(4):693706.
110. Iorio MV, etal. MicroRNA gene expression deregulation in human breast cancer. Cancer
Res. 2005;65(16):706570.
111. Quesne JL, etal. Biological and prognostic associations of miR-205 and let-7b in breast
cancer revealed by in situ hybridization analysis of micro-RNA expression in arrays of
archival tumour tissue. J Pathol. 2012;227(3):30614.
112. Zhao Y, etal. Let-7 family miRNAs regulate estrogen receptor alpha signaling in estrogen
receptor positive breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127(1):6980.
113. Moriarty CH, Pursell B, Mercurio AM. miR-10b targets Tiam1: implications for Rac activa-
tion and carcinoma migration. J Biol Chem. 2010;285(27):205416.
114. Cittelly DM, etal. Oncogenic HER216 suppresses miR-15a/16 and deregulates BCL-2 to
promote endocrine resistance of breast tumors. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31(12):204957.
115. Chung EY, etal. c-Myb oncoprotein is an essential target of the dleu2 tumor suppressor
microRNA cluster. Cancer Biol Ther. 2008;7(11):175864.
116. Zhang X, etal. Oncogenic Wip1 phosphatase is inhibited by miR-16 in the DNA damage
signaling pathway. Cancer Res. 2010;70(18):717686.
117. Zhang L, etal. microRNAs exhibit high frequency genomic alterations in human cancer.
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103(24):913641.
118. Janssen EA, etal. Biologic profiling of lymph node negative breast cancers by means of
microRNA expression. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(12):156776.
119. Taguchi A, etal. Identification of hypoxia-inducible factor-1 alpha as a novel target for miR-
17-92 microRNA cluster. Cancer Res. 2008;68(14):55405.
120. Brock M, etal. Interleukin-6 modulates the expression of the bone morphogenic pro-
tein receptor type II through a novel STAT3-microRNA cluster 17/92 pathway. Circ Res.
2009;104(10):118491.
121. Hossain A, Kuo MT, Saunders GF. Mir-17-5p regulates breast cancer cell proliferation by
inhibiting translation of AIB1 mRNA. Mol Cell Biol. 2006;26(21):8191201.
122. Shen J, Ambrosone CB, Zhao H. Novel genetic variants in microRNA genes and familial
breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 2009;124(5):117882.
123. Castellano L, etal. The estrogen receptor-alpha-induced microRNA signature regulates
itself and its transcriptional response. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106(37):157327.
124. Huang GL, etal. Clinical significance of miR-21 expression in breast cancer: SYBR-
Green I-based real-time RT-PCR study of invasive ductal carcinoma. Oncol Rep.
2009;21(3):6739.
125. Frankel LB, etal. Programmed cell death 4 (PDCD4) is an important functional target of the
microRNA miR-21 in breast cancer cells. J Biol Chem. 2008;283(2):102633.
126. Song B, etal. MicroRNA-21 regulates breast cancer invasion partly by targeting tissue
inhibitor of metalloproteinase 3 expression. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2010;29:29.
127. Connolly EC, etal. Overexpression of miR-21 promotes an in vitro metastatic phenotype by
targeting the tumor suppressor RHOB. Mol Cancer Res. 2010;8(5):691700.
128. Si ML, etal. miR-21-mediated tumor growth. Oncogene. 2007;26(19):2799803.
129. Gao J, etal. MiR-26a inhibits proliferation and migration of breast cancer through repres-
sion of MCL-1. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(6):e65138.
130. Zhang B, etal. Pathologically decreased miR-26a antagonizes apoptosis and facili-

tates carcinogenesis by targeting MTDH and EZH2 in breast cancer. Carcinogenesis.
2011;32(1):29.
131. Tang W, etal. MiR-27 as a prognostic marker for breast cancer progression and patient sur-
vival. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(12):e51702.
132. Guttilla IK, White BA. Coordinate regulation of FOXO1 by miR-27a, miR-96, and miR-182
in breast cancer cells. J Biol Chem. 2009;284(35):2320416.
133. Tsuchiya Y, etal. MicroRNA regulates the expression of human cytochrome P450 1B1.
Cancer Res. 2006;66(18):90908.
134. Gebeshuber CA, Zatloukal K, Martinez J. miR-29a suppresses tristetraprolin, which is a
regulator of epithelial polarity and metastasis. EMBO Rep. 2009;10(4):4005.
135. Gerson KD, etal. Integrin beta4 regulates SPARC protein to promote invasion. J Biol
Chem. 2012;287(13):983544.
136. Sandhu R, etal. Dysregulation of microRNA expression drives aberrant DNA hypermeth-
ylation in basal-like breast cancer. Int J Oncol. 2014;44(2):56372.
137. Wu F, etal. MicroRNA-mediated regulation of Ubc9 expression in cancer cells. Clin Cancer
Res. 2009;15(5):15507.
138. Yu F, etal. Mir-30 reduction maintains self-renewal and inhibits apoptosis in breast tumor-
initiating cells. Oncogene. 2010;29(29):4194204.
139. Ouzounova M, etal. MicroRNA miR-30 family regulates non-attachment growth of breast
cancer cells. BMC Genom. 2013;14:139.
140. Rajabi H, etal. Mucin 1 oncoprotein expression is suppressed by the miR-125b oncomir.
Genes Cancer. 2010;1(1):628.
141.
Zhu N, etal. Endothelial-specific intron-derived miR-126 is down-regulated in
human breast cancer and targets both VEGFA and PIK3R2. Mol Cell Biochem.
2011;351(12):15764.
142. Zhang J, etal. The cell growth suppressor, mir-126, targets IRS-1. Biochem Biophys Res
Commun. 2008;377(1):13640.
143. Sachdeva M, Mo YY. MicroRNA-145 suppresses cell invasion and metastasis by directly
targeting mucin 1. Cancer Res. 2010;70(1):37887.
144. Spizzo R, etal. miR-145 participates with TP53 in a death-promoting regulatory loop
and targets estrogen receptor-alpha in human breast cancer cells. Cell Death Differ.
2010;17(2):24654.
145. Bhaumik D, etal. Expression of microRNA-146 suppresses NF-kappaB activity with reduc-
tion of metastatic potential in breast cancer cells. Oncogene. 2008;27(42):56437.
146. Garcia AI, etal. Down-regulation of BRCA1 expression by miR-146a and miR-146b-5p in
triple negative sporadic breast cancers. EMBO Mol Med. 2011;3(5):27990.
147. Shen J, etal. A functional polymorphism in the miR-146a gene and age of familial breast/
ovarian cancer diagnosis. Carcinogenesis. 2008;29(10):19636.
148. Kong W, etal. MicroRNA-155 is regulated by the transforming growth factor beta/Smad
pathway and contributes to epithelial cell plasticity by targeting RhoA. Mol Cell Biol.
2008;28(22):677384.
149. Imam JS, etal. MicroRNA-185 suppresses tumor growth and progression by targeting the
Six1 oncogene in human cancers. Oncogene. 2010;29(35):49719.
150. Sempere LF, etal. Altered MicroRNA expression confined to specific epithelial cell sub-
populations in breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2007;67(24):1161220.
151. Wu H, Zhu S, Mo YY. Suppression of cell growth and invasion by miR-205 in breast cancer.
Cell Res. 2009;19(4):43948.
152. Kondo N, etal. miR-206 expression is down-regulated in estrogen receptor alpha-positive
human breast cancer. Cancer Res. 2008;68(13):50048.
153. Adams BD, Furneaux H, White BA. The micro-ribonucleic acid (miRNA) miR-206 targets
the human estrogen receptor-alpha (ERalpha) and represses ERalpha messenger RNA and
protein expression in breast cancer cell lines. Mol Endocrinol. 2007;21(5):113247.
154. Adams BD, Cowee DM, White BA. The role of miR-206 in the epidermal growth factor
(EGF) induced repression of estrogen receptor-alpha (ERalpha) signaling and a luminal
phenotype in MCF-7 breast cancer cells. Mol Endocrinol. 2009;23(8):121530.
155. Radojicic J, etal. MicroRNA expression analysis in triple-negative (ER, PR and Her2/neu)
breast cancer. Cell Cycle. 2011;10(3):50717.
156. Zhang Z, etal. MicroRNA miR-210 modulates cellular response to hypoxia through the
MYC antagonist MNT. Cell Cycle. 2009;8(17):275668.
157. Crosby ME, etal. MicroRNA regulation of DNA repair gene expression in hypoxic stress.
Cancer Res. 2009;69(3):12219.
158. Rothe F, etal. Global microRNA expression profiling identifies MiR-210 associated with
tumor proliferation, invasion and poor clinical outcome in breast cancer. PLoS ONE.
2011;6(6):e20980.
159. Hui AB, etal. Robust global micro-RNA profiling with formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded
breast cancer tissues. Lab Invest. 2009;89(5):597606.
160. Stinson S, etal. TRPS1 targeting by miR-221/222 promotes the epithelial-to-mesenchymal
transition in breast cancer. Sci Signal. 2011;4(177):ra41.
161. Liang Z, etal. Involvement of miR-326 in chemotherapy resistance of breast cancer through
modulating expression of multidrug resistance-associated protein 1. Biochem Pharmacol.
2010;79(6):81724.
162. Negrini M, Calin GA. Breast cancer metastasis: a microRNA story. Breast Cancer Res.
2008;10(2):203.
163. Huang Q, etal. The microRNAs miR-373 and miR-520c promote tumour invasion and
metastasis. Nat Cell Biol. 2008;10(2):20210.
164. Yan GR, etal. Global identification of miR-373-regulated genes in breast cancer by quanti-
tative proteomics. Proteomics. 2011;11(5):91220.
165. Giricz O, etal. Hsa-miR-375 is differentially expressed during breast lobular neoplasia and
promotes loss of mammary acinar polarity. J Pathol. 2012;226(1):10819.
166. Ward A, etal. Re-expression of microRNA-375 reverses both tamoxifen resistance and
accompanying EMT-like properties in breast cancer. Oncogene. 2013;32(9):117382.
167. de Simonini PSR, etal. Epigenetically deregulated microRNA-375 is involved in a

positive feedback loop with estrogen receptor alpha in breast cancer cells. Cancer Res.
2010;70(22):917584.
168. Keklikoglou I, etal. MicroRNA-520/373 family functions as a tumor suppressor in estrogen
receptor negative breast cancer by targeting NF-kappaB and TGF-beta signaling pathways.
Oncogene. 2012;31(37):415063.
169. Heneghan HM, etal. Circulating microRNAs as novel minimally invasive biomarkers for
breast cancer. Ann Surg. 2010;251(3):499505.
170. Roth C, etal. Circulating microRNAs as blood-based markers for patients with primary and
metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(6):R90.
171. Zhao FL, etal. Serum overexpression of microRNA-10b in patients with bone metastatic
primary breast cancer. J Int Med Res. 2012;40(3):85966.
172. Anfossi S, etal. High serum miR-19a levels are associated with inflammatory breast can-
cer and are predictive of favorable clinical outcome in patients with metastatic HER2(+)
inflammatory breast cancer. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(1):e83113.
173. Wu X, etal. De novo sequencing of circulating miRNAs identifies novel markers predicting
clinical outcome of locally advanced breast cancer. J Transl Med. 2012;10:42.
174. Zhu W, etal. Circulating microRNAs in breast cancer and healthy subjects. BMC Res
Notes. 2009;2:89.
175. Guo LJ, Zhang QY. Decreased serum miR-181a is a potential new tool for breast cancer
screening. Int J Mol Med. 2012;30(3):6806.
176. Heneghan HM, etal. Systemic miRNA-195 differentiates breast cancer from other malig-
nancies and is a potential biomarker for detecting noninvasive and early stage disease.
Oncologist. 2010;15(7):67382.
177. Schwarzenbach H, etal. Diagnostic potential of PTEN-targeting miR-214 in the blood of
breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;134(3):93341.
Chapter 14
Molecular Pathology of Fibroepithelial
Neoplasms of the Breast
Michelle Yang, Dina Kandil and Ashraf Khan
Introduction
Fibroepithelial neoplasms (FEN) of thebreast are biphasic tumors characterized

by proliferation of both epithelial and stromal components. Fibroadenoma (FA)
and phyllodes tumor (PT) account for over 90% of all FEN. FA is a benign tumor
that occurs in young women usually in the third or fourth decade, although it can
be seen in older patients as well. Rarely, FA may progress to invasive and in situ
carcinoma with a reported incidence of 0.10.3% [1]. It has also been suggested
that a small percentage of FA are monoclonal and can progress to PT [2]. In con-
trast, PT is a much rare neoplasm accounting for approximately 2.5% of FEN
of the breast and occurs in older patients usually after the fourth decade. Unlike
FA, PT can recur locally and up to 25% have the potential to metastasize to dis-
tant organs. In the current WHO classification, PT is categorized into three grades,
which include benign, borderline, and malignant PT to predict their progno-
sis and clinical behavior based primarily on the histomorphology of the stromal
component.
FA and PT share some overlapping histologic features but have significant dif-
ferences in their clinical behavior, therefore differentiating various grades of PT
and phyllodes tumor from FA directly affects the appropriate management and
outcome for these patients. Core needle biopsy (CNB) or fine needle aspiration
(FNA) is often performed for preoperative management in patients with breast
M. Yang D. Kandil A. Khan(*)


220 M. Yang et al.
lesions. Although CNB can provide high negative and positive predictive values,
accurate classification of FEN of the breast on a CNB may at times be challeng-
ing due to the heterogeneity and overlapping features in these lesions [35].
FNA appears to have higher false-negative rate probably due to the lack of char-
acteristic architectural features that assist in the differentiation of PT from FA.
In addition, FA can show increased cellularity mimicking PT, and PT may have
areas similar to FA. Many studies have suggested the need for biomarkers espe-
cially Ki67 immunoreactivity in addition to the histologic features for more accu-
rate preoperative evaluation and classification of FEN [6, 7]. However, there is
no single magic biomarker yet to differentiate PT from FA [3]. In our practice
a cellular fibroepithelial lesion on CNB that is difficult to be classified as FA or
PT is best completely excised for further evaluation and accurate classification.
Understanding their molecular pathways and developing more specific and sensi-
tive biomarkers is of great interest to both basic scientists and clinicians. In this
chapter, we give an overview of the molecular pathways involved in tumorigenesis
and progression of FEN. We have also reviewed biomarkers investigated in the dif-
ferential diagnosis of these tumors.
Molecular Pathways Related to Fibroepithelial Tumors
FA was initially found to be polyclonal and hyperplastic lesion, whereas PT

showed clonal or neoplastic stromal cells and polyclonal epithelial component
[8]. PCR-based clonal analysis in later studies revealed that some FA may also
be monoclonal in origin, although majority were believed to be polyclonal [9].
Therefore, FA is not only closely related to PT morphologically, but monoclonal
FA may progress to PT due to some but unknown molecular changes. In addition,
carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma rarely arises within FA, suggesting that
FA may progress in an epithelial direction as well [10]. FA and PT appear to rep-
resent the two ends of the spectrum of the FEN.
Insulin-Like Growth Factor (IGF) Signaling Pathway
Insulin-like growth factor signaling pathway involves two polypeptide hormones

(IGF1 and IGF2), two transmembrane receptors (IGF1R and IGF2R), several
IGF-binding proteins (IGFBP1-6), and many downstream effectors such as PI3K
and MAPK pathways [11]. In general, IGF not only plays an important role in
regulating normal fetal cell growth and differentiation including mammary gland
development and involution [12, 13], but it also regulates cell proliferation and
apoptosis during tumorigenesis. Targeting IGF1, IGFBP and IGF1 receptor system
14 Molecular Pathology of Fibroepithelial Neoplasms of the Breast 221
for breast cancer treatment is under investigation [14]. IGF bioavailability can also
be regulated by IGFBP proteases. IGFBP form a complex with IGF and may func-
tion as a latent reservoir of IGF. In breast tissues, IGF1 is thought to be produced
in the stroma in response to growth hormone and synergizes with estrogen to pro-
mote terminal end duct formation and mammary duct growth. IGF2 overexpres-
sion in mice can induce mammary gland tumor growth after multiple pregnancies.
Both IGF1 and IGF2 can bind to IGF1 receptor, which is upregulated in the epi-
thelia, and activate downstream intracellular signaling pathways to promote cell
proliferation and inhibit apoptosis. Increased IGF signaling has been found in vari-
ous human tumors including breast cancer.
Interestingly, both IGF1 and IGF2 are overexpressed in the stroma of FEN [15].
In PT, they are particularly found in the densely cellular stromal regions away
from the ductal epithelium, although IGF1 expression appeared weak in malig-
nant PT. In the same study, no IGF were expressed in the epithelial component
or normal breast tissue [15]. It is believed that the epithelialstromal interaction
is required for normal development, differentiation and functioning of the breast
[16, 17]. Disruption of this interaction may contribute to the development and pro-
gression of neoplasia. It remains unclear how stromal IGF interacts with epithelial
IGFR1 in biphasic fibroepithelial tumors. Additionally, moderate or strong IGF1
expression was associated with moderate/strong -catenin nuclear localization,
suggesting a crosstalk between the IGF-signaling pathway and other signaling
transduction pathways in the development of the PT.
Wnt--Catenin Signaling Pathway
Wnt--catenin signaling pathway also plays an important role in normal mam-

mary gland development and tumorigenesis [18]. Wnt proteins are secreted gly-
coproteins regulating cell polarity and adhesion, apoptosis and tumorigenesis
through direct and indirect interactions with other cell signaling pathways [19].
Deregulation of the Wnt signaling pathway has been implicated in many cancers
and causes cytoplasmic -catenin stabilization, nuclear translocation, and activa-
tion of Wnt target genes including oncogenes c-myc, c-jun, Fra, and cyclin D1.
Interestingly, in PT abnormal stromal -catenin nuclear translocation was found
in 72% of the tumors in a study by Sawyer etal. [15]. Meanwhile, aberrant
nuclear localization of -catenin was not associated with CTNNB1 (gene encoding
-catenin) mutations or loss of heterozygosity of tumor suppressor gene APC, but
associated with increased Wnt5a expression in the epithelium and to less extent
with Wnt2 overexpression in the stroma in PT [20]. The crosstalk of -catenin
with IGF-signaling pathway is also evidenced by a moderate to strong association
between -catenin nuclear staining and IGF1 overexpression in the stroma of the
PT as mentioned above.
222 M. Yang et al.
Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR)

Signaling Pathway
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a family of transmembrane recep-

tor tyrosine kinases regulating cell proliferation, survival, migration, and differ-
entiation. Four members have been identified, including ERBB1/EGFR, ERBB2
(HER2/neu), ERBB3 (HER3), and ERBB4 [21]. These transmembrane recep-
tors are activated by cognate ligand to form homo- or heterodimers and transduce
extracellular signals into cells and play important physiological roles includ-
ing normal mammary development. Abnormal EGFR signaling is involved in
many types of cancers including breast, lung, pancreas, and colorectal cancers
[21]. Interestingly, a complex expression pattern of the EGFR family members in
breast tumors has been observed. For example, ERBB2 and ERBB3 proteins were
often expressed in carcinomas but not in the benign tumors. EGFR showed lim-
ited expression in the breast carcinoma, whereas both PT and FA showed EGFR
expression. Kersting etal. showed that EGFR was overexpressed in the stromal
cells in 12.5% benign, 10% borderline, and 63% malignant PT, with less fre-
quency of gene amplifications [22]. Zelada-Hedman etal. reported that EGFR
expression was observed in all FA, which is contradictory to the lack of EGFR
overexpression reported by Kersting etal. [23]. These findings suggest that the
EGFR may play an important role in the development and progression of FEN.
Insulin-like Growth Factor-2 Binding Proteins (IGF2BPs)
Insulin-like growth factor-2 binding proteins (IGF2BPs, or IMP1, 2, and 3) are a

family of proteins related to the IGF-signaling pathway but have distinct role from
the previously discussed insulin-like growth factor binding proteins (IGFBPs).
They were identified based on their ability to bind to the 5-UTR of IGF2 mRNA
and enhance IGF2 translation [24, 25]. Except for IMP2 protein, IMP1 and IMP3
proteins were only expressed during embryogenesis to promote cell growth and
migration and not expressed in normal adult tissues. Mechanistically, unlike
IGFBPs that directly bind IGFs, IGF2BPs (particularly IMP3) were positive regu-
lators for the stability and translation of IGF2 mRNA [25, 26]. IMP3 knockdown
by siRNA in K562 human leukemia cell line can inhibit the translation of IGF2
leader-3 mRNA without affecting the mRNA level of IGF2 [27]. IMP1 and IMP3
protein level exerted profound effects on cellular adhesion and formation of inv-
adopodia by stabilizing CD44 mRNA, suggesting that re-expression of IMPs in
cancer cells may promote tumor invasion and metastasis [28]. Consistent with the
notion that re-expression of IMP3 in cancers is important for cancer progression
and invasion, knockdown of IMP3 by siRNA is associated with decreased IGF2
protein expression, increased apoptosis, reduced cell migration and invasion in
several cell lines including cervical carcinoma cell line HeLa and breast cancer
cell line MDA-231 [29, 30]. In the past decade, many studies have demonstrated
that IMP3 expression can be used in diagnosis of malignancy and is associated
with a poor prognosis in various types of cancer [31]. In breast cancer, our pre-
vious study showed that IMP3 may serve as a marker for triple-negative breast
cancer and is associated with more aggressive phenotype [32]. Interestingly, more
recent data shows that EGFR signaling can induce IMP3 expression, suggesting a
complex regulatory pathway of IGF signaling in breast tumorigenesis and progres-
sion [30, 33].
The molecular mechanisms by which IMP3 is re-expressed in cancer cells
remain unclear. In breast cancer cells, estrogen receptor beta (ER) appears to
function as a transcriptional repressor of IMP3 [30]. It is conceivable that epi-
genetic mechanisms for the IMP3 promoter might also play a role for its tran-
scriptional reactivation given that IMP3 promoter possesses CpG island that is
potentially a target for DNA demethylases and/or histone modification enzymes.
Interestingly, IGFBP3 (not to be confused with IGF2BP3 or IMP3), one mem-
ber of IGFBP family with an opposite effect to cell growth compared to IMP3,
also has a CpG island at its promoter. IGFBP3 expression can be re-induced by
DNA demethylation agent 5-AZA-2-deoxycytidine treatment in hepatoblastoma
cell line and consequently restoring IGFBP3 expression in these cells resulted in
reduced colony formation, migration, and invasion [34].
Other Signaling Pathways
Using next-generation sequencing, Jardim etal. identified three aberrant genes

including activating mutation of NRAS, inactivating mutation of RB1, and TP53
loss in metastatic malignant PT. In addition, phosphorylated AKT (p-AKT),
PDGFR, EGFR, TLE3, mTOR, and SPARC expressions were increased with
tumor grade by immunohistochemistry. These data suggested possible involve-
ment and crosstalk of PI3K and MAPK signaling pathways in PT and more com-
plex regulations in tumor progression [35].
Molecular Biomarkers Investigated

in Fibroepithelial Tumors
Currently, the differentiation of the PT from FA is primarily based on the archi-

tecture, stromal cellularity, stromal cell nuclear pleomorphism, mitoses, and
Ki67 proliferation index of the stromal cells. Misdiagnosis of these two entities
in CNB may occur due to the histopathologic heterogeneity in PT or presence of
some overlapping features between the FEN [6, 36]. On the other hand, grading
of the PT can be more difficult in CNB due to limited samples. Many immunohis-
tological markers have been investigated to compare their expression in FA and
224 M. Yang et al.
PT and their association with tumor grade for the latter. Majority of these markers
are related to the signaling pathways involved in tumorigenesis and progression
of fibroepithelial tumors discussed above. To the best of our knowledge, there is
to this date no single magic marker to distinguish PT from FA, or to accurately
classify PT into benign, borderline, and malignant categories. However, a number
of biomarkers have been investigated and some of them may be useful in the dif-
ferential diagnosis of fibroepithelial tumors.
Ki67 and Cell Proliferation Markers
The nuclear protein Ki67 is a cell proliferation marker expressed only in cycling
cells. As a result, quantitative assessment of Ki67 nuclear staining on tumor sam-
ples provides a good estimate of the proliferation index of individual tumors.
Ki67 index is defined as the percentage of cells with positive nuclear stains by
MIB-1 antibody, which recognizes Ki67 antigen in the nucleus. Consistent with
other studies, our unpublished data also showed that Ki67 index increased in
borderline and especially malignant PT. Ki67 proliferation index has been sig-
nificantly correlated with disease-free and with overall survival [37]. Evaluation
of the proliferative activity of the PT by Ki67 index is one of the current WHO
criteria for grading of PT. It seems Ki67 index is considered useful in classifica-
tion of fibroepithelial lesions but a practical problem that exists is that there is no
well-established threshold for Ki67 index for categorizing various grades of PT.
The other issue is how the percentage of Ki67 immunoreactivity in tumor cells
is estimated by quantitative or semi-quantitative methods. Given its utility and
promise as a biomarker, large multicenter study with long-term clinical follow-up
and utilizing computer-based image analysis systems to estimate the percentage
of Ki67 positive cells may be valuable. Other cell proliferation markers that have
been used include DNA Topoisomerase II and anaphase-promoting complex 7,
whose expression has been shown to correlate well with Ki67 expression [38, 39].
CD117 (c-kit)
CD117 is a transmembrane protein of the type III receptor tyrosine kinase fam-
ily. It is crucial in regulating cell survival, proliferation, and differentiation. It is
recognized as a proto-oncogene with frequent activating mutations and/or overex-
pression in several types of neoplasms, including gastrointestinal stromal tumors,
seminomas, melanomas, and hematopoietic malignancies. Although increased
CD117 expression in PT has also been reported in several studies [4042], there
is no association of CD117 expression and the tumor grade and furthermore,
KIT activating mutations have not been found in PT in other studies [4345].
Platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) is also a cell mem-
brane tyrosine kinase receptor of the platelet-derived growth factor family and
activating mutations of PDGFRA have been associated with gastrointestinal stro-

mal tumors and a variety of other cancers. However, no overexpression or muta-
tion of PDGFRA has been observed in PT so far. In one study, none of the 41 PT
expressed CD117 [46]. Based on current data, the application of CD117 in differ-
entiating FA from PT or in the grading of the latter remains to be investigated.
p53
The prototype tumor suppressor p53 is essential for cell cycle control, DNA dam-
age repair, and apoptosis. Defective p53 may lead to abnormal cell proliferation
and decreased cell death, resulting in tumorigenesis. It is therefore not a surprise
that deregulation of p53 protein is observed in approximately 50% of all human
tumors. Under normal cellular conditions, p53 is rapidly degraded by the protea-
some in a process mediated by MDM2 and jun kinase. After cellular stresses, such
as exposure to DNA-damaging agents, the half-life of the p53 protein is signifi-
cantly increased, and p53 accumulates in the nucleus of affected cells. In PT, sev-
eral studies have shown strong but variable degree of nuclear p53 staining in the
stromal cells of malignant PT and p53 positivity was associated with an increased
Ki67 index [41, 4750]. No p53 nuclear staining was observed in benign tumors
or FA. p53 immunohistochemistry may be helpful in the grading of PT, but not for
the differentiation of FA from benign PT, and the sensitivity is variable.
CD10
Contradictory results of CD10 positivity have been reported. One study by

Zamecnik etal. showed frequent CD10 positivity in both FA and PT (60 and 67%,
respectively) [51]. Thus, they believed that this antibody could not assist in the dif-
ferential diagnosis between FA and PT. This finding is in contrast with other stud-
ies in which CD10 was preferentially expressed in borderline and especially
malignant PT but not in FA or benign PT, and its expression was associated with
tumor grade [5254]. Moritani and colleagues showed that CD10 appears to high-
light the myoepithelial cells in many benign breast lesions including FA and
PT [55]. Based on these data, CD10 immunohistochemistry seems to be only helpful
in differentiating benign from borderline or malignant PT but not from FA.
Cytokeratins
Chia and colleagues investigated a larger cohort of PTs using a wide panel of
commonly used keratins including MNF116, 34E12, CK7, CK14, Cam5.2 and
AE1/3. Contrary to other studies, they observed some expression of keratins
226 M. Yang et al.
MNF116, 34bE12, CK7, CK14, AE1/3, and Cam5.2 in stromal cells of 11.9, 22,
28.4, 1.8, 8.3 and 1.8% of PTs, respectively [56]. However, keratin positivity was
focal and patchy and found in only 15% of stromal cells in these cases and the
explanation for keratin expression is uncertain. In an earlier study by Dunne etal.,
who applied a panel of keratins (AE1/AE3, 34E12, CK5 and CK14, Cam5.2,
CK7 and CK19, EMA) for which all were negative in stromal components of 26
PTs [57]. There has been another study by Auger etal. showing the presence of
stromal keratin expression in malignant PT [58]. In our recent study using a panel
of cytokeratins including AE1/AE3, Cytokeratin-OSCAR, CAM 5.2, CK903,
CK5/6, we did not find stromal cell immunoreactivity in any case of PT (unpub-
lished data). Overall, the stromal keratin positivity in PT remains inconclusive but
given some reported cross reactivity between keratins and stromal cells in malig-
nant PT, differentiation from spindle cell metaplastic carcinoma may be difficult
on needle core biopsies, where the entire lesion with its architecture is not seen.
Beta-Catenin and E-cadherin
Many genes are involved in the Wnt- catenin signaling pathway. The expres-
sion of five key markers from the Wnt pathway, including markers -catenin,
E-cadherin, Wnt1, Wnt5a and SFRP4, in the PT were examined by Karim etal.
[20]. Results suggested that stromal nuclear -catenin increased from normal
breast tissue to benign PT to borderline PT, and then decreased in malignant PT,
although the expression in the latter was still greater than that in normal breast
tissue and benign PT. This finding suggested that nuclear stromal accumulation of
-catenin may be involved in the initiation and progression of PT. However, some
degree of nuclear -catenin staining was observed in the stroma of all 30 FAs
reported by Sawyer etal. [15]. Furthermore mammary fibromatosis was also asso-
ciated with nuclear localization of -catenin and mutation in the -catenin gene
[59]. Therefore -catenin immunostain has limited role in the differential diagno-
sis of spindle cell lesions of the breast on needle core biopsies. For E-cadherin, an
adhesion molecule forming complex with catenins at epithelial cellcell junctions
and lost during epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, a positive membrane staining
was only seen in the epithelial cells not the stromal cells. Interestingly, decreased
E-cadherin expression in the epithelial cell membrane was significantly correlated
with increased mean time to recurrence [20].
IGF
The expression of IGF1 and IGF2 in both PT and FA has been studied by Sawyer
etal. in 2003 [15]. Many of these tumors showed widespread overexpression of
IGF1 and to less extent IGF2 throughout the stroma in both PT and FA. In particu-
lar, IGF1 was largely found in the densely cellular stromal regions away from the
epithelium. In the normal tissue surrounding the tumors, a very low level of IGF1
and IGF2 expression could be seen in the stroma. No IGF1 or IGF2 expression
was seen in the normal or tumor epithelium. Although IGF1 and IGF2 overexpres-
sion may be important in the pathogenesis of FEN of the breast, these markers
may not be useful in differentiating FA from PT.
EGFR
Several groups have shown EGFR expression in PT and its association with tumor
progression [46, 60]. Tse etal. investigated 453 PTs (296 benign, 98 borderline,
59 malignant) for EGFR expression using immunohistochemistry and fluorescence
in situ hybridization (FISH) for gene amplification [60]. The results showed a cor-
relation between EGFR expression and tumor margin status, tumor grade, stromal
cellularity, mitotic activity, nuclear pleomorphism, and stromal overgrowth. The
overall positive rate for EGFR was 16.2% (48/296), 30.6% (30/98), and 56%
(33/59) for benign, borderline, and malignant PT respectively. FISH demonstrated
EGFR gene amplification in 8% of EGFR positive cases by immunohistochemis-
try. In another study by Kersting etal. [22], EGFR positivity was detected in 19%
of all PTs (75% of malignant tumors) in stromal tumor cells but not in the epithe-
lial component and it was correlated to p53 expression. Like many other biomark-
ers, the overall low sensitivity can limit their application in daily practice.
P16/Rb
The cell cycle regulators Rb and p16 have been investigated in breast biphasic tumors.
Karim etal. reported an increase in p16 and Rb protein by immunohistochemistry
in high grade PT [61]. These results were consistent with the report of Kuijper etal.
[62]. However, Esposito etal. found there was no significant association between
p16 expression and tumor grade in PT [63]. Recent data by Cimino-Mathews etal.
showed that there were 2 distinct expression patterns for p16 and Rb in malignant PT
including diffuse p16+/Rb or diffuse Rb+/p16 in 50% cases [64]. None of
these patterns was observed in borderline, benign PT or FA. Instead, 100% border-
line, 70% benign, and 100% FA showed low p16+/low Rb+ staining pattern. P16
positivity was not associated high risk human papillomavirus [64].
EpithelialMesenchymal Transition (EMT) Related Markers
EpithelialMesenchymal Transition (EMT) is a cellular event characterized by

aseries of molecular and morphological changes in epithelial cells, therefore the
epithelial cells gain mesenchymal phenotype and become more motile. EMT was
228 M. Yang et al.
initially characterized in early embryogenesis and later identified as a common phe-

nomenon during cancer progression and invasion. Loss of E-cadherin expression
and gain of N-cadherin and transcriptional factors such as Snail, TWIST, ZEB1
and ZEB3 have been well characterized molecular changes during tumor progres-
sion. Kwon etal. [65] studied several EMT related markers in a cohort of 207
PTs including 157 benign, 34 borderline, and 16 malignant cases. These markers
including TWIST, HMGA2, TGF were significantly increased in the stromal com-
ponent of higher grade PT. In addition, high expression of TWIST was correlated
with poor overall survival. However, other studies showed TWIST gene methyla-
tion was correlated with tumor grade and both methylation and protein expression
were found in breast cancers [66]. These results seem to be contradictory to each
other if methylation generally plays a role in gene suppression. Therefore, more
investigations are needed to further characterize the use of EMT markers in PT.
Other Proteins Evaluated in PT
Autophagy-related proteins and redox proteins were recently evaluated by Koo

group [67, 68]. Autophagy is a lysosomal self-degradation process that is impor-
tant for balancing sources of energy during development and in response to nutri-
ent stress. Autophagy also plays a housekeeping role in removing misfolded or
aggregated proteins, clearing damaged organelles, and eliminating intracellular
pathogens. It is an alternative metabolic pathway to conserve energy within tumor
cells. Several autophagy proteins including beclin-1, LC3A, LC3B, and p62 were
associated with increased stromal cellularity, stromal atypia, mitosis and stromal
overgrowth. Particularly, stromal cell nuclear expression of beclin-1 was associ-
ated with poor prognosis [68].
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) is known to induce genetic instability, pro-
mote angiogenesis and aid proliferating cells to escape apoptosis. ROS signaling
is known to be increased in tumor cells. Several redox related proteins were evalu-
ated by immunohistochemistry by Kim etal. [67]. They found an increased expres-
sion of catalase, TxNR, TxNIP, and MnSOD redox proteins in stromal cells with
the increase in tumor grade in PT. Hypoxia inducing factor (HIF1) expression
was also increased in PT with higher tumor grades, suggesting that excessive stro-
mal growth may induce tissue hypoxia and higher level of ROS-related proteins.
Ang etal. [69] recently identified a group of 29 genes over- or under-expressed
in PT by Affymetrix gene chip profiling. Several of these genes showed differen-
tial expression in benign, borderline, and malignant PT. HOXB13 was one of the
upregulated genes confirmed by immunohistochemistry for protein expression in
malignant PT. Nuclear HOXB13 overexpression in stromal cells was correlated
with stromal hypercellularity and atypia. However, this study was limited by small
number of cases, including 6 benign, 10 borderline, and 5 malignant PT.
IMP3
IMP3 has been recently demonstrated as a novel biomarker in many cancers

including lung [70], renal [71], pancreatic [72], cervical adenocarcinoma [29],
thyroid [73], and malignant mesotheliomas [74]. In a series of 138 breast cancer
cases, our study showed that IMP3 expression was seen in 45 (33%) cases and
25 of the IMP3+ cases were triple-negative breast carcinoma [32]. There was a
significant correlation between IMP3 expression and higher grade, necrosis, triple-
negative phenotype, and CK5/6 expression. Cox multivariate analysis showed a
hazard ratio of IMP3 expression at 3.14. IMP3 was identified as a novel biomarker
for triple-negative (basal-like) invasive mammary carcinoma, and its expression
was associated with a more aggressive phenotype and decreased overall survival.
Other studies showed that membranous positivity of IMP3 was seen in 81.3% of
primary adenoid cystic carcinomas of breast, a variant of triple-negative breast
cancers [75, 76]. In PT of the breast, our recent data showed that IMP3 is pref-
erentially expressed in all malignant PT but not in borderline and benign PT, or
benign residual breast tissue [77], suggesting IMP3 may serve as a potential bio-
marker to identify malignant PT especially in limited material such as CNB.
Chromosomal and Methylation Changes
In a study by Lae etal. [76] results showed that 83% of the PT had chromo-
somal imbalance, which segregated into two groups. Benign PT showed one or
a few chromosomal changes, compared to numerous chromosomal imbalances
in borderline and malignant PT. Among these changes, gain of chromosome 1q
and loss of 13q were the hallmark alterations in PT. The role of these chromo-
somal or genetic changes in the fibroepithelial lesions needs to be further inves-
tigated. Huang etal. selectively studied the methylation profile of 11 genes in 15
benign, 28 borderline, 43 malignant PTs, and 26 FAs. They observed significant
level of methylation changes in 2 genes including RASSF1A (24.4%) and TWIST1
(7.1%) in some PT but none in FA, suggesting that assessment of methylation of
RASSF1A and TWIS T1 may aid in the differentiating PT from FA [78]. Kim etal.
[79] studied promoter methylation of several genes and found there was a higher
methylation status in borderline and malignant PT than in benign tumors, although
no significant difference was found between the borderline and malignant ones.
However, the specificity has not been addressed and it remains unclear whether FA
also have methylation changes. Currently the variable sensitivity of methylation of
these genes makes this method impractical.
230 M. Yang et al.
Fig.14.1Schematic representation biphasic progression of fibroepithelial tumors
Summary
Fibroepithelial tumors of the breast are a heterogeneous group of biphasic lesions

with FA and PT being the most common lesions. Based on the current understand-
ing, we propose a simplified progressive model in which FA and PT may represent
the two ends of the spectrum of FEN (Fig.14.1). Studies have shown that clonal
evolution while less common can occur in the stromal cells of FA and the trans-
formation or progression to PT from FA may also occur (Fig.14.1). On the other
hand, when clonal changes occur in the epithelial component, epithelial prolif-
eration into hyperplasia, carcinoma in situ, or invasive carcinoma can also occur
(Fig.14.1). This progressive model might explain why FA are much more common
biphasic lesions than PT, and carcinoma only rarely arising within the FA or PT.
PT is further classified into benign, borderline and malignant categories. Due
to some overlapping histologic features, differentiation of FA and benign PT and
accurate grading of PT may be difficult on small biopsies. Due to significant dif-
ferences in their clinical behavior, complete excision of such indeterminate lesions
on needle biopsies may be needed with appropriate clinical correlation for defini-
tive classification of fibroepithelial tumors. Some immunohistochemical markers
have shown promise to aid in this differential diagnosis, especially Ki67 prolif-
eration index. But as of now, there is no magic marker with high sensitivity and
specificity and morphology on a completely resected tumor remains the gold
standard. Large scale or multi-institutional studies with long follow-up may be
needed to address these issues in the future.
References
1. Dupont WD, Page DL, Parl FF, Vnencak-Jones CL, Plummer WD Jr, Rados MS, Schuyler
PA. Long-term risk of breast cancer in women with fibroadenoma. N Engl J Med.
1994;331(1):105.
2. Noguchi S, Yokouchi H, Aihara T, Motomura K, Inaji H, Imaoka S, Koyama H.
Progression of fibroadenoma to phyllodes tumor demonstrated by clonal analysis. Cancer.
1995;76(10):177985.
3. Giri D. Recurrent challenges in the evaluation of fibroepithelial lesions. Arch Pathol Lab
Med. 2009;133(5):71321.
4. Komenaka IK, El-Tamer M, Pile-Spellman E, Hibshoosh H. Core needle biopsy as
a diagnostic tool to differentiate phyllodes tumor from fibroadenoma. Arch Surg.
2003;138(9):98790.
5. Jacobs TW, Chen YY, Guinee DG Jr, Holden JA, Cha I, Bauermeister DE, Hashimoto
B, Wolverton D, Hartzog G. Fibroepithelial lesions with cellular stroma on breast core
needle biopsy: are there predictors of outcome on surgical excision? Am J Clin Pathol.
2005;124(3):34254.
6. Tsang AK, Chan SK, Lam CC, Lui PC, Chau HH, Tan PH, Tse GM. Phyllodes tumours of
the breastdifferentiating features in core needle biopsy. Histopathology. 2011;59(4):6008.
7. Jara-Lazaro AR, Akhilesh M, Thike AA, Lui PC, Tse GM, Tan PH. Predictors of phyl-
lodes tumours on core biopsy specimens of fibroepithelial neoplasms. Histopathology.
2010;57(2):22032.
8. Noguchi S, Motomura K, Inaji H, Imaoka S, Koyama H. Clonal analysis of fibroadenoma
and phyllodes tumor of the breast. Cancer Res. 1993;53(17):40714.
9. Noguchi S, Aihara T, Koyama H, Motomura K, Inaji H, Imaoka S. Clonal analysis of benign
and malignant human breast tumors by means of polymerase chain reaction. Cancer Lett.
1995;90(1):5763.
10. Kuijper A, Buerger H, Simon R, Schaefer KL, Croonen A, Boecker W, van der Wall E, van
Diest PJ. Analysis of the progression of fibroepithelial tumours of the breast by PCR-based
clonality assay. J Pathol. 2002;197(5):57581.
11. Flint DJ, Tonner E, Beattie J, Allan GJ. Role of insulin-like growth factor binding proteins in
mammary gland development. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2008;13(4):44353.
12. Gross JM, Yee D. The type-1 insulin-like growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase and breast
cancer: biology and therapeutic relevance. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2003;22(4):32736.
13. Allan GJ, Beattie J, Flint DJ. The role of IGFBP-5 in mammary gland development and invo-
lution. Domest Anim Endocrinol. 2004;27(3):25766.
14. Mohanraj L, Oh Y. Targeting IGF-I, IGFBPs and IGF-I receptor system in cancer: the current
and future in breast cancer therapy. Recent Pat Anticancer Drug Discov. 2011;6(2):16677.
15. Sawyer EJ, Hanby AM, Poulsom R, Jeffery R, Gillett CE, Ellis IO, Ellis P, Tomlinson
IP. Beta-catenin abnormalities and associated insulin-like growth factor overexpres-
sion are important in phyllodes tumours and fibroadenomas of the breast. J Pathol.
2003;200(5):62732.
16. Sawyer EJ, Hanby AM, Ellis P, Lakhani SR, Ellis IO, Boyle S, Tomlinson IP. Molecular
analysis of phyllodes tumors reveals distinct changes in the epithelial and stromal compo-
nents. Am J Pathol. 2000;156(3):10938.
17. Sawhney N, Garrahan N, Douglas-Jones AG, Williams ED. Epithelialstromal interac-
tions in tumors. A morphologic study of fibroepithelial tumors of the breast. Cancer.
1992;70(8):211520.
18. Paul S, Dey A. Wnt signaling and cancer development: therapeutic implication. Neoplasma.
2008;55(3):16576.
19. Howe LR, Brown AM. Wnt signaling and breast cancer. Cancer Biol Ther. 2004;3(1):3641.
232 M. Yang et al.
20. Karim RZ, Gerega SK, Yang YH, Horvath L, Spillane A, Carmalt H, Scolyer RA, Lee CS.
Proteins from the Wnt pathway are involved in the pathogenesis and progression of mam-
mary phyllodes tumours. J Clin Pathol. 2009;62(11):101620.
21. Mahipal A, Kothari N, Gupta S. Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors: coming of age.
Cancer Control. 2014;21(1):749.
22. Kersting C, Kuijper A, Schmidt H, Packeisen J, Liedtke C, Tidow N, Gustmann C, Hinrichs
B, Wulfing P, Tio J, etal. Amplifications of the epidermal growth factor receptor gene (egfr)
are common in phyllodes tumors of the breast and are associated with tumor progression.
Lab Invest. 2006;86(1):5461.
23. Zelada-Hedman M, Werer G, Collins P, Backdahl M, Perez I, Franco S, Jimenez J, Cruz J,
Torroella M, Nordenskjold M, etal. High expression of the EGFR in fibroadenomas com-
pared to breast carcinomas. Anticancer Res. 1994;14(5A):167988.
24. Nielsen FC, Nielsen J, Christiansen J. A family of IGF-II mRNA binding proteins (IMP)
involved in RNA trafficking. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl. 2001;234:939.
25. Dai N, Rapley J, Angel M, Yanik MF, Blower MD, Avruch J. mTOR phosphoryl-
ates IMP2 to promote IGF2 mRNA translation by internal ribosomal entry. Genes Dev.
2011;25(11):115972.
26. Liao B, Hu Y, Herrick DJ, Brewer G. The RNA-binding protein IMP-3 is a translational acti-
vator of insulin-like growth factor II leader-3 mRNA during proliferation of human K562
leukemia cells. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(18):1851724.
27. Liao B, Hu Y, Brewer G. RNA-binding protein insulin-like growth factor mRNA-binding
protein 3 (IMP-3) promotes cell survival via insulin-like growth factor II signaling after ion-
izing radiation. J Biol Chem. 2011;286(36):3114552.
28. Vikesaa J, Hansen TV, Jonson L, Borup R, Wewer UM, Christiansen J, Nielsen FC.
RNA-binding IMPs promote cell adhesion and invadopodia formation. EMBO J.
2006;25(7):145668.
29. Lu D, Yang X, Jiang NY, Woda BA, Liu Q, Dresser K, Mercurio AM, Rock KL, Jiang Z.
IMP3, a new biomarker to predict progression of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia into inva-
sive cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(11):163845.
30. Samanta S, Sharma VM, Khan A, Mercurio AM. Regulation of IMP3 by EGFR signaling and
repression by ERbeta: implications for triple-negative breast cancer. Oncogene 2012; 19
(Epub ahead of print).
31. Findeis-Hosey JJ, Xu H. The use of insulin like-growth factor II messenger RNA binding
protein-3 in diagnostic pathology. Hum Pathol. 2011;42(3):30314.
32. Walter O, Prasad M, Lu S, Quinlan RM, Edmiston KL, Khan A. IMP3 is a novel biomarker
for triple negative invasive mammary carcinoma associated with a more aggressive pheno-
type. Hum Pathol. 2009;40(11):152833.
33. Jin T, George Fantus I, Sun J. Wnt and beyond Wnt: multiple mechanisms control the tran-
scriptional property of beta-catenin. Cell Signal. 2008;20(10):1697704.
34. Regel I, Eichenmuller M, Joppien S, Liebl J, Haberle B, Muller-Hocker J, Vollmar A, von
Schweinitz D, Kappler R. IGFBP3 impedes aggressive growth of pediatric liver cancer and is
epigenetically silenced in vascular invasive and metastatic tumors. Mol Cancer. 2012;11(1):9.
35. Jardim DL, Conley A, Subbiah V. Comprehensive characterization of malignant phyllodes
tumor by whole genomic and proteomic analysis: biological implications for targeted therapy
opportunities. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:112.
36. Huo L, Gilcrease MZ. Fibroepithelial lesions of the breast with pleomorphic stromal giant
cells: a clinicopathologic study of 4 cases and review of the literature. Ann Diagn Pathol.
2009;13(4):22632.
37. Niezabitowski A, Lackowska B, Rys J, Kruczak A, Kowalska T, Mitus J, Reinfuss M,
Markiewicz D. Prognostic evaluation of proliferative activity and DNA content in the phyl-
lodes tumor of the breast: immunohistochemical and flow cytometric study of 118 cases.
38. Lynch BJ, Guinee DG Jr, Holden JA. Human DNA topoisomerase II-alpha: a new marker of
cell proliferation in invasive breast cancer. Hum Pathol. 1997;28(10):11808.
39. Kang Y, Kim JH, Lee TH, Kim TS, Jung WH, Chung HC, Park BW, Sheen SS, Han JH.
Expression of anaphase-promoting complex7 in fibroadenomas and phyllodes tumors of
breast. Hum Pathol. 2009;40(1):98107.
40. Tse GM, Putti TC, Lui PC, Lo AW, Scolyer RA, Law BK, Karim R, Lee CS. Increased
c-kit (CD117) expression in malignant mammary phyllodes tumors. Mod Pathol.
2004;17(7):82731.
41. Tan PH, Jayabaskar T, Yip G, Tan Y, Hilmy M, Selvarajan S, Bay BH. p53 and c-kit (CD117)
protein expression as prognostic indicators in breast phyllodes tumors: a tissue microarray
study. Mod Pathol. 2005;18(12):152734.
42. Chen CM, Chen CJ, Chang CL, Shyu JS, Hsieh HF, Harn HJ. CD34, CD117, and actin
expression in phyllodes tumor of the breast. J Surg Res. 2000;94(2):8491.
43. Korcheva VB, Levine J, Beadling C, Warrick A, Countryman G, Olson NR, Heinrich MC,
Corless CL, Troxell ML. Immunohistochemical and molecular markers in breast phyllodes
tumors. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2011;19(2):11925.
44. Djordjevic B, Hanna WM. Expression of c-kit in fibroepithelial lesions of the breast is a mast
cell phenomenon. Mod Pathol. 2008;21(10):123845.
45. Bose P, Dunn ST, Yang J, Allen R, El-Khoury C, Tfayli A. c-Kit expression and mutations in
phyllodes tumors of the breast. Anticancer Res. 2010;30(11):47316.
46. Agelopoulos K, Kersting C, Korsching E, Schmidt H, Kuijper A, August C, Wulfing P, Tio
J, Boecker W, van Diest PJ, etal. Egfr amplification specific gene expression in phyllodes
tumours of the breast. Cell Oncol. 2007;29(6):44351.
47. Chan YJ, Chen BF, Chang CL, Yang TL, Fan CC. Expression of p53 protein and Ki-67 anti-
gen in phyllodes tumor of the breast. J Chin Med Assoc. 2004;67(1):38.
48. Kuenen-Boumeester V, Henzen-Logmans SC, Timmermans MM, van Staveren IL, van Geel
A, Peeterse HJ, Bonnema J, Berns EM. Altered expression of p53 and its regulated proteins
in phyllodes tumours of the breast. J Pathol. 1999;189(2):16975.
49. Tse GM, Putti TC, Kung FY, Scolyer RA, Law BK, Lau TS, Lee CS. Increased p53 protein
expression in malignant mammary phyllodes tumors. Mod Pathol. 2002;15(7):73440.
50. Yonemori K, Hasegawa T, Shimizu C, Shibata T, Matsumoto K, Kouno T, Ando M,
Katsumata N, Fujiwara Y. Correlation of p53 and MIB-1 expression with both the sys-
temic recurrence and survival in cases of phyllodes tumors of the breast. Pathol Res Pract.
2006;202(10):70512.
51. Zamecnik M, Kinkor Z, Chlumska A. CD10+ stromal cells in fibroadenomas and phyllodes
tumors of the breast. Virchows Arch. 2006;448(6):8712.
52. Tse GM, Tsang AK, Putti TC, Scolyer RA, Lui PC, Law BK, Karim RZ, Lee CS. Stromal
CD10 expression in mammary fibroadenomas and phyllodes tumours. J Clin Pathol.
2005;58(2):1859.
53. Tsai WC, Jin JS, Yu JC, Sheu LF. CD10, actin, and vimentin expression in breast phyl-
lodes tumors correlates with tumor grades of the WHO grading system. Int J Surg Pathol.
2006;14(2):12731.
54. Ibrahim WS. Comparison of stromal CD10 expression in benign, borderline, and malig-
nant phyllodes tumors among Egyptian female patients. Indian J Pathol Microbiol.
2011;54(4):7414.
55. Moritani S, Kushima R, Sugihara H, Bamba M, Kobayashi TK, Hattori T. Availability of
CD10 immunohistochemistry as a marker of breast myoepithelial cells on paraffin sections.
Mod Pathol. 2002;15(4):397405.
56. Chia Y, Thike AA, Cheok PY, Yong-Zheng Chong L, Man-Kit Tse G, Tan PH. Stromal kera-
tin expression in phyllodes tumours of the breast: a comparison with other spindle cell breast
lesions. J Clin Pathol. 2012;65(4);339347.
57. Dunne B, Lee AH, Pinder SE, Bell JA, Ellis IO. An immunohistochemical study of meta-
plastic spindle cell carcinoma, phyllodes tumor and fibromatosis of the breast. Hum Pathol.
2003;34(10):100915.
58. Auger M, Hanna W, Kahn HJ. Cystosarcoma phylloides of the breast and its mimics. An
immunohistochemical and ultrastructural study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1989;113(11):12315.
234 M. Yang et al.
59. Lacroix-Triki M, Geyer FC, Lambros MB, Savage K, Ellis IO, Lee AH, Reis-Filho JS.
Beta-catenin/Wnt signalling pathway in fibromatosis, metaplastic carcinomas and phyllodes
tumours of the breast. Mod Pathol. 2010;23(11):143848.
60. Tse GM, Lui PC, Vong JS, Lau KM, Putti TC, Karim R, Scolyer RA, Lee CS, Yu AM, Ng
DC, etal. Increased epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression in malignant mam-
mary phyllodes tumors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2009;114(3):4418.
61. Karim RZ, Gerega SK, Yang YH, Spillane A, Carmalt H, Scolyer RA, Lee CS. p16 and pRb
immunohistochemical expression increases with increasing tumour grade in mammary phyl-
lodes tumours. Histopathology. 2010;56(7):86875.
62. Kuijper A, de Vos RA, Lagendijk JH, van der Wall E, van Diest PJ. Progressive deregulation
of the cell cycle with higher tumor grade in the stroma of breast phyllodes tumors. Am J Clin
Pathol. 2005;123(5):6908.
63. Esposito NN, Mohan D, Brufsky A, Lin Y, Kapali M, Dabbs DJ. Phyllodes tumor: a clin-
icopathologic and immunohistochemical study of 30 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med.
2006;130(10):151621.
64. Cimino-Mathews A, Hicks JL, Sharma R, Vang R, Illei PB, De Marzo A, Emens LA, Argani
P. A subset of malignant phyllodes tumors harbors alterations in the Rb/p16 pathway. Hum
Pathol. 2013;44(11):2494500.
65. Kwon JE, Jung WH, Koo JS. Molecules involved in epithelial-mesenchymal transition and
epithelial-stromal interaction in phyllodes tumors: implications for histologic grade and
prognosis. Tumour Biol. 2012;33(3):78798.
66. Gort EH, Suijkerbuijk KP, Roothaan SM, Raman V, Vooijs M, van der Wall E, van Diest
PJ. Methylation of the TWIST1 promoter, TWIST1 mRNA levels, and immunohis-
tochemical expression of TWIST1 in breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev.
2008;17(12):332530.
67. Kim S, Kim do H, Jung WH, Koo JS. The expression of redox proteins in phyllodes tumor.
68. Kim SK, Jung WH, Koo JS. Expression of autophagy-related proteins in phyllodes tumor. Int
J Clin Exp Pathol. 2013;6(10):214556.
69. Ang MK, Ooi AS, Thike AA, Tan P, Zhang Z, Dykema K, Furge K, Teh BT, Tan
PH. Molecular classification of breast phyllodes tumors: validation of the histologic
grading scheme and insights into malignant progression. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
2011;129(2):31929.
70. Bellezza G, Cavaliere A, Sidoni A. IMP3 expression in non-small cell lung cancer. Hum
Pathol. 2009;40(8):12056.
71. Jiang Z, Chu PG, Woda BA, Rock KL, Liu Q, Hsieh CC, Li C, Chen W, Duan HO,
McDougal S, etal. Analysis of RNA-binding protein IMP3 to predict metastasis and progno-
sis of renal-cell carcinoma: a retrospective study. Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(7):55664.
72. Schaeffer DF, Owen DR, Lim HJ, Buczkowski AK, Chung SW, Scudamore CH, Huntsman
DG, Ng SS, Owen DA. Insulin-like growth factor 2 mRNA binding protein 3 (IGF2BP3)
overexpression in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma correlates with poor survival. BMC
Cancer. 2010;10:59.
73. Slosar M, Vohra P, Prasad M, Fischer A, Quinlan R, Khan A. Insulin-like growth factor
mRNA binding protein 3 (IMP3) is differentially expressed in benign and malignant follicu-
lar patterned thyroid tumors. Endocr Pathol. 2009;20(3):14957.
74. Shi M, Fraire AE, Chu P, Cornejo K, Woda BA, Dresser K, Rock KL, Jiang Z. Oncofetal pro-
tein IMP3, a new diagnostic biomarker to distinguish malignant mesothelioma from reactive
mesothelial proliferation. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(6):87882.
75. Vranic S, Gurjeva O, Frkovic-Grazio S, Palazzo J, Tawfik O, Gatalica Z. IMP3, a pro-
posed novel basal phenotype marker, is commonly overexpressed in adenoid cystic carci-
nomas but not in apocrine carcinomas of the breast. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol.
2011;19(5):4136.
76. Lae M, Vincent-Salomon A, Savignoni A, Huon I, Freneaux P, Sigal-Zafrani B, Aurias A,

Sastre-Garau X, Couturier J. Phyllodes tumors of the breast segregate in two groups accord-
ing to genetic criteria. Mod Pathol. 2007;20(4):43544.
77. Yang X, Kandil D, Cosar EF, Khan A. Fibroepithelial tumors of the breast: pathologic
and immunohistochemical features and molecular mechanisms. Arch Pathol Lab Med.
2014;138(1):2536.
78. Huang KT, Dobrovic A, Yan M, Karim RZ, Lee CS, Lakhani SR, Fox SB. DNA methyla-
tion profiling of phyllodes and fibroadenoma tumours of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
2010;124(2):55565.
79. Kim JH, Choi YD, Lee JS, Lee JH, Nam JH, Choi C, Park MH, Yoon JH. Borderline and
malignant phyllodes tumors display similar promoter methylation profiles. Virchows Arch.
2009;455(6):46975.
Chapter 15
Molecular Features of Mesenchymal
Tumors of the Breast
Marjan Mirzabeigi, Ashraf Khan and Dina Kandil
Background
Mesenchymal lesions of the breast represent a rare, heterogeneous group of benign

and malignant lesions. Most mesenchymal lesions occurring anywhere in the body
have also been reported in the breast, the vast majority being of fibroblastic or myofi-
broblastic origin, reflecting the normal constituents of the breast parenchyma. Other
mesenchymal lesions include those of vascular, lipomatous and muscle origin.
These lesions resemble their extramammary counterparts, both histologically and
immunophenotypically. Additionally, the molecular changes that characterize these
extramammary mesenchymal lesions have also been identified in cases that affect the
breast. Although the molecular characteristics have been described in most of these
lesions, some, such as pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia and hemangiomas,
have not been identified. Since detailed discussion of all mesenchymal lesions of
the breast is beyond the scope of this chapter, the focus will be on those lesions with
identifiable molecular changes with a review of their histological and immunopheno-
typical profiles. A summary of these lesions and their characteristic immunopheno-
typic and molecular features is given in Table15.1.
M. Mirzabeigi A. Khan D. Kandil(*)

A. Khan

238 M. Mirzabeigi et al.
Table15.1Summary of mesenchymal lesions of the breast and their characteristic immunophe-

notypic and molecular features
Lesion Immunohistochemistry Molecular characteristics
Nodular fasciitis Pos: SMA, MSA, vimentin, Deletion of chromosome 2 and
calponin and desmin (rare) 13, der(15), t(2; 15)(q31; q26),
Neg: CK, S100-protein, tetraploidy and del (6), gains of
CD34, Beta-catenin 10p and 20q, USP6 rearrange-
ment, t(17; 22)(p13; q13) (MYH
9USP6 gene fusion)
Myofibroblastoma Pos: desmin, CD34, SMA, Partial monosomy of 13q and 16q
BCL2, CD99, CD10, ER, PR, monoallelic loss of FOXO1 gene,
AR, H-caldesmon (rare) deletion of 13q14 region
Neg: CK
Desmoid-type Pos: Beta-catenin (80%, Trisomy 8 and 20, loss of 5q,
fibromatosis nuclear), ER (rare) 5qallelic loss, nonrandom
Neg: CK, CD34 X chromosome inactivation,
Beta-catenin gene mutations,
somatic or germline APC gene
alterations mutation
Inflammatory Pos: ALK (50%), desmin, Rearrangement of the ALK gene.
myofibroblastic tumor SMA, keratin () Common fusion partners are
TPM3, TPM4, ATIC, RANBP2,
CLTC, CARS, PPF1BP1,
SEC31l1, RANBP2
Lipoma S-100 protein
Coventional lipoma Karyotypic aberrations of 12q, 6p,
13q, t(3; 12) (q2728; q1415)
resulting in HMGA2-LPP gene
fusion, 12q15 rearrangements,
and t(3; 6)(q27; p21) resulting in
HMGA1-LPP gene rearrangement
Hibernoma 11q1321 rearrangements
Lipoblastoma 8q1113 rearrangements
Chondrolipoma t(11; 16) (q13; p1213) resulting
inC11orf95-MLK gene fusion
Spindle cell/pleomorphic Aberration or partial monosomy
lipomas of16q, and loss of 13q14
Granular cell tumor Pos: S-100 protein, CD68, Losses of 13q21, 4, 18q, 10, 1p, 22q
PGP9.5, CEA and vimentin Gains of 1p32-pter, 9q33-qter,
(focal) 20q, 7
Neg: CK Some associations with ( germline
PTEN mutation, PTPN11
mutation)
Malignant lesions: Nonspecific
complex clonal karyotype, Losses
(-5, -6, -13, -15, -17, 17q-, -18
and-21)
(continued)
15 Molecular Features of Mesenchymal Tumors of the Breast 239
Peripheral nerve sheath Pos: S-100 protein, GFAP, Trisomy 10, loss of 9p21
tumor EMA (capsule), SOX10 (), (harboring INK4A/p16 and
ALK () INK4A/p14 genes). 22q12
Neg: SMARCB1 hyperploidy (EWSR1gene). May
be associated with NF1 gene and
NF2 gene mutations. Alterations
of9p and 22q
Solitary fibrous tumor Pos: CD34, BCL-2, vimentin, Breakpoints in 12q13 resulting
Beta-catenin, STAT6, GRIA2 inNAB2-STAT6 fusion gene
Angiosarcoma Pos: CD31, CD34, Factor Amplifications on chromosome
VIII, MYC and prox-1 8q24.21 10p12.33 and 5q35.3,
(negative in AVL), CK (focal) 8q24.21 (MYC, in secondary AS).
Co-amplification of FLT4
Liposarcoma Pos: S-100 protein
Well-differentiated LS MDM2/CDK4 Supernumerary ring and giant
marker chromosomes with
12q amplification resulting in
overexpression of MDM2 and
CDK4 genes
De-differentiated LS MDM2/CDK4 Co-amplification of 1p32, 6q23
and 6q25
Myxoid/round cell LS t(12; 16)(q13; p11) resulting in
FUS-DDIT3 gene fusion. t(12; 22)
(q13; q12) resulting in EWSR1-
DDIT3 gene fusion
Spindle cell LS Monosomy 7 alone, or
rearrangement of 13q
Rhabdo-myosarcoma Pos: Myogenin, MyoD1,
Embryonal RMS CK, neuroendocrine markers, Loss or uniparental disomy of
PAX5, ALK1, CK (focal) 11p15.5, gains in chromosomes 2,
8, 11, 12, 13, and 20 resulting in
gene overexpression (IGF2, H19,
CDKN1C and HOTS)
Alveolar RMS FOXO1 gene rearrangements
including: t(2; 13)(q35; q14)
(PAX3-FOXO1), t(1; 13)(p36;
q14)(PAX7-FOXO1) and t(8; 13)
(p12; q13)
FOXO1-FGFR1 gene fusion.
t(x; 2)(q13; q35), t(2; 2)(q35;
p23), t(2; 8)(q35; q13) resulting
in PAX3-FOX04, PAX3-NCOA1
and PAX3-NCOA2 respectively.
N-MYC amplification (poor
prognostic feature)
Spindle cell/sclerosing 8q13 rearrangements resulting in
RMS SRF-NCOA2 or TEAD1-NCOA2
gene fusions
(continued)
Osteosarcoma Pos: ALP, vimentin, SMA, Diploid to near tetraploidy,
desmin, S-100 protein, Gain in chromosome 1, loss of
SATB2 chromosome 9, 10, 13, and 17.
Rearrangement: 1p11,1q21, 11p14,
14p11, 15p11, 17p and 19q13
Gains and losses in DNA copy
numbers
Amplifications of 6p21, 8q24, and
12q14 and loss of heterozygosity
of 10q21.1
TP53 and Rb genes dysfunction
Leiomyosarcoma Pos: desmin, SMA, CK, Loss of 13q (Rb1 gene) and 10q
EMA (PTEN)
Point mutation of PTEN gene.
DNA copy number gains
(high-grade lesions), and
DNA copy number loss (low-grade
lesions)
Nodular Fasciitis
Nodular fasciitis (NF) is a rare lesion, which classically occurs in the subcuta-
neous tissue of the extremities and trunk in young adults. Few cases have been
reported in the breast [1, 2]. Clinically, it presents as a painful, rapidly growing,
well-circumscribed lesion, which can arise within the breast parenchyma or the
subcutaneous tissue. Typically, the lesion undergoes spontaneous regression
within a 12month period, which contributes to the low rate of cases sampled.
Histologically, the lesion is composed of uniform fibroblasts or myofibroblasts
arranged in short fascicles with alternating hypo- and hyper-cellular areas creat-
ing a zonation effect. The stroma is loose and myxoid with a tissue culture
appearance, and contains inflammatory cells, erythrocytes and thin-walled blood
vessels. Brisk mitotic activity and significant cytologic atypia may be seen, raising
the suspicion for malignancy. In those problematic cases, a panel of immunohisto-
chemical stains is helpful in making this distinction.
NF should always be distinguished from malignant spindle cell lesions of the

breast. Negative immunoreactivity to keratins helps exclude a metaplastic carci-
noma of spindle cell type (carcinosarcoma) and fibromatosis-like variant. In NF,
the lesional cells are consistently positive for smooth-muscle actin with tram
track (sub-membranous pattern of staining of myofibroblasts), vimentin, and

rarely for desmin [3]. S100-protein and CD34 are typically negative.
This lesion was initially considered as a polyclonal reactive process. However,

subsequent studies showed cytogenetic abnormalities, pointing to a clonal neo-
plastic process. Several case studies are noted in the literature reporting a wide
array of chromosomal abnormalities in NF of the breast including, deletion of
chromosome 2 and 13, derivative chromosome (15), t(2; 15)(q31; q26), tetraploidy
and del (6) [4, 5] as well as gains of 10p and 20q. A more recent study of 48 cases
of NF from different sites, highlighted both genomic rearrangements of the USP6
locus and a balanced translocation t(17; 22) (p13; q13) resulting in fusion of MYH
9 promoter region to the entire coding region of USP6, causing an overexpression
of USP6 gene in these lesions [6]. USP6 is a proto-oncogene, located on chromo-
some 17p13, and is part of a large family of de-ubiquitinating enzymes, involved
in processes such as intracellular trafficking, protein turnover, inflammatory sign-
aling and cell transformation [7, 8]. Therefore, it acts as a transcription upregu-
lator. MYH9 is a proto-oncogene, located on chromosome 22q12.3-q13, and
belongs to non-muscle myosin class II family [912] that encodes for a protein
involved in cytokinesis, cell motility, and maintenance of cell shapes and plays a
role in actin network disassembly of moving cells. These genetic alterations cou-
pled with spontaneous regression, suggest that NF may represent an interesting
form of transient neoplasia.
Myofibroblastoma
Myofibroblastoma is a benign stromal spindle cell neoplasm composed of fibro-

blasts and myofibroblasts. It occurs in women between the ages of 25 and
87years. It can also occur in men, occasionally in the setting of gynecomastia
[13, 14]. Clinically, the lesion presents as a slow-growing solitary mass. It appears
on imaging studies as a well-circumscribed, solid nodule that usually measures
three cm or less. Calcifications are not seen. Microscopically, the lesion is well-
circumscribed, unencapsulated mass with pushing borders. The classic type is
composed of spindle cells that are haphazardly oriented in short fascicles within
a collagenous stroma. In the epitheloid variant, the cells are larger with small
nucleoli, mimicking an invasive lobular carcinoma. A prominent adipocytic com-
ponent is usually present, mimicking a spindle cell lipoma. Smooth muscle, car-
tilaginous or osseous metaplasia may also be focally present. Normally there isnt
any entrapment of mammary ducts or lobules, which helps to differentiate it from
fibromatosis.
The lesional cells may be positive for desmin, CD34, smooth-muscle actin, BCL2,
CD99 and CD10 [14]. Negative immunoreactivity to keratins helps distinguish
epitheloid myofibroblastoma from invasive lobular carcinoma, especially since
both express estrogen and progesterone receptors. Androgen receptor is also
positive in these lesions. H-caldesmon has been described in rare cases showing
smooth-muscle differentiation [15].
Being a part of the same spectrum as spindle cell lipoma, myofibroblastoma shares
the same cytogenetic abnormalities affecting chromosome 13, mainly partial mon-
osomy of 13q with monoallelic loss of FOXO1 gene. Deletion of 13q14 region
was also identified by fluorescence in situ hybridization [1618]. Partial mono-
somy of 16q has also been reported [16].
Desmoid-Type Fibromatosis
Desmoid-type fibromatosis is a locally infiltrative lesion that arises from the fibro-
blasts and myofibroblasts of the breast parenchyma or, more commonly, from
the pectoral fascia and extending into the breast. The lesion is more common in
females and can occur at any age. It is rare and is usually associated with a history
of trauma or surgery, including breast implants [19, 20]. The lesion commonly
presents as a non-tender, palpable mass with occasional retraction of the overly-
ing skin [2022], concerning for malignancy. Histologically, the lesion resembles
fibromatosis arising elsewhere in the body. It is composed of long, intersecting
fascicles of bland spindle cells with infiltrating borders, and entrapment of the nor-
mal breast parenchyma. Lymphocytes are often present, especially at the tumor
edges (Fig.15.1a).
Nuclear beta-catenin expression is a characteristic feature of these lesions

(Fig.15.1b), seen in about 80% of cases [23]. Although this helps to differenti-
ate mammary fibromatosis from NF, which is negative for beta-catenin, expres-
sion may be seen with other lesions including spindle cell carcinoma, phyllodes
tumors, and fibrosarcoma [24, 25]. Therefore, additional markers such as keratin
panels and CD34 are helpful in this differentiation as they are both negative in
Fig.15.1Desmoid-type fibromatosis of the breast. a H&E stain, 100X. b Positive nuclear

staining with B-catenin, 100X. c Capillary electropherogram showing a heterozygous mutation
(nucleotide c.121A>AG, black arrow) involving codon 41 in exon 3 of CTNNB1 gene (encod-
ing for beta-catenin). This results in substitution of amino acid Threonine by Alanine. Courtesy
of Dr. Ediz Cosar, Department of Pathology, UMass Memorial Medical Center
fibromatosis. A weak expression of estrogen receptor has also been reported in

mammary fibromatosis [26].
Desmoid tumors have been proven to be clonal and, therefore, true neoplastic
lesions rather than a reactive process. Early publications reported recurrent, non-
random chromosomal aberrations such as trisomy 8 and trisomy 20 as well as loss
of 5q [27, 28] with a suggestion of an increased risk of recurrence in cases asso-
ciated with trisomy 8. Another study showed nonrandom X chromosome inacti-
vation in some tumors, with the same inactivation patterns identified in multiple
recurrent lesions, suggesting that they were derived from the same cell clone as the
primary lesions. The morphologic resemblance of these tumors to deep fibroma-
tosis elsewhere in the body is also evident at the molecular level. Recent publi-
cations [23, 24, 29] have demonstrated somatic alterations of the APC/-catenin
pathway in the majority of breast fibromatoses, similar to those seen in desmoid
tumors. These included activating -catenin gene mutations and somatic APC
gene alterations, either by mutation, 5q allelic loss or both. The occasional occur-
rence of these tumors in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis also reflects
the finding of germline mutations of the APC gene in this group of patients.
Beta-catenin, a cadherin binding protein, is encoded by a proto-oncogene,
CTNNB1, located on chromosome 3 with dual function of regulating the coordi-
nation of cellcell adhesion and gene transcriptional coactivator, as a part of the
canonical Wnt signaling pathway which promotes cellular proliferation and their
differentiation. The Wnt proteins bind to receptors on the cell surface called friz-
zled proteins, triggering a multi-step process to allow Beta-catenin entry into
the cell. Without Wnt signaling, the Beta-catenin would be degraded because of
a destruction complex, a composition of multiple proteins including APC and
glycogen synthetase kinase-3beta (GSK-3), a regulator of the Beta-catenin level,
preventing its accumulation within the cells. The APC encoded by a tumor sup-
pressor gene is located on long arm of chromosome 5 is a key component of this
complex. Any alterations of the Wnt signaling pathway or APC gene mutation will
result in an accumulation of -catenin in the cytoplasm with its eventual entry into
the nucleus to form a complex with TCF (T cell factor-1)/LEF (lymphoid enhanc-
ing factor-1) factors and thereby acting as a transcription coactivator of cellular
oncogene, including cyclin D1, c-JUN and c-myc. Additionally, somatic CTNNB1
gene mutation (Fig.15.1c) results will alter serine/threonine residues at GSK-3
phosphorylation sites. The same mutations have been identified in fibromatosis
outside of the breast. An additional 21-bp deletion spanning codons 42 through 48
has also been reported [29]. All together, these mutations will prevent the destruc-
tion complex to degrade Beta-catenin within the cytoplasm, and ultimately enter-
ing the nucleus followed by gene transcription activation, which then leads to the
stromal cell proliferation seen in mammary fibromatosis [23, 24, 29].
Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumor
Inflammatory Myofibroblastic Tumors (IMT) commonly occur in children and

young adults, usually in the abdominopelvic region, lung or retroperitoneum. Only
a few case reports of IMT in the breast have been published [30, 31]. Clinically, it
presents as a painless, well-circumscribed mass, and histologically, the lesion is
composed of fascicles of myofibroblasts with minimal cytologic atypia. A promi-
nent mixed inflammatory infiltrate dominated by plasma cells is the hallmark of
these tumors. Lymphocytes and neutrophils can also be frequent.
The cells in IMT stain positively with smooth-muscle actin and occasion-
ally with desmin and/or keratin. A characteristic feature of these tumors is their
immunoreactivity for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) protein. Approximately

50% of cases stain positively for ALK [31]. Both nuclear and cytoplasmic (pri-
marily) staining can be seen. ALK-positivity is not very specific and can be seen in
other lesions such as rhabdomyosarcomas and malignant peripheral nerve sheath
tumors [32, 33]. However, it helps to differentiate this inflammatory cell-rich neo-
plasm from mastitis.
The ALK gene (2p23) encodes a receptor tyrosine kinase that, under normal
conditions, is only present in normal tissue. Clonal alterations involving the ALK
gene have been initially described in anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL).
However, ALK gene alterations can also be seen in some soft tissue neoplasms.
Approximately 50% of IMT cases exhibit rearrangement of the ALK gene [34,
35]. Several fusion partners have been identified in IMTs, the most common
being TPM3 at 1p23. Others include TPM4 at 19p13, ATIC at 2q35, CLTC at
17q23, CARS at 11p15, RANBP2 at 2q13, PPF1BP1 at 12p11, SEC31l1 at 4q21
and RANBP2 at 2q13. The latter may be associated with poor prognosis. All the
aforementioned fusion gene rearrangements are reflected as a cytoplasmic immu-
nostaining pattern, with the exception of RANBP2 (a nuclear pore protein) which
exhibits a nuclear staining pattern. Interestingly, NMP-ALK, the most common
fusion gene seen with ALCL, has not been reported in IMTs, while TPM3-ALK,
ATIC-ALK, and CLTC-ALK were identified in both neoplasms, thus, r epresenting
rare examples of translocation-derived chimeric tyrosine kinases, driving both
mesenchymal and lymphoid neoplasms.
Lipoma
Lipomas of the breast present as painless, solitary masses arising within the sub-
cutaneous tissue of the skin overlying the breast rather than breast parenchyma
itself [14]. Microscopically, conventional lipoma is a proliferation of mature adi-
pocytes surrounded by a thin capsule. A conventional lipoma can be difficult to
distinguish from the normal breast adipose tissue, especially in a core biopsy
specimen where the capsule is not easily identifiable. Lipomas with small ves-
sels containing fibrin thrombi are characteristic of angiolipomas, which contrary
to other sites, are painless. Other variants reported in the breast include angi-
olipoma [3638], spindle cell/pleomorphic lipoma [39], angiomyolipoma [40],
hibernoma [41], adenolipoma [42], fibrolipoma [42], lipoblastoma [43], and
chondrolipoma [44].
With the exception of some variants where the morphologic evidence of a

lipomatous origin can be obscured, immunohistochemistry is usually of little, if
any, value. The cells show diffuse positivity with S-100 protein.
Multiple chromosomal abnormalities have been described in lipomas. Karyotypic

aberrations affecting 12q, 6p, and 13q have been described in over 80% of con-
ventional lipomas, while up to 87% of spindle cell/pleomorphic lipomas have
aberration of 16q. A subset of spindle cell lipomas shares the same genetic abnor-
mality with conventional lipomas, which include loss of 13q material, particularly
13q14 [45]. This leads to a diminished expression of multiple genes, including
C13orf1, DHRS12, ATP7B, ALG11 and VPS36 and C13orf1.
Multiple studies highlighted a subset of conventional lipomas with a specific
t(3; 12)(q2728; q1415) chromosomal translocation causing a fusion of high
motility group A2 (HMGA2, exons 13) gene and the lipoma preferred partner
(LPP, exons 911) gene [4651]. The high mobility group proteins are nuclear
proteins that bind DNA and function as transcription cofactors, including HMGI-C
(encoded by a gene on 12q15) and HMGI-Y (encoded by a gene on 6p21) [46, 52,
53]. Normally both genes are only expressed in embryos but not in adult tissue
[5457]. However, both genes are expressed in some tumors and transformed cell
lines [57] including lipomas (by chromosomal segment rearrangement at either
12q15 or at 6p21) and atypical lipomatous tumors (by amplification in the ring
and giant marker chromosomes at 12q15) [47, 48, 58]. Subsequent study by Kubo
etal. [59] showed a reciprocal LPP-HMGA2 fusion gene in a subset of lipomas
involving exons 7 and 8 of LPP gene and exon 4 of HMGA2 gene. While 12q15
rearrangements and t(3; 12) (q2728; q1315) seem to be the most common
genetic alterations seen in conventional lipomas, in a study by Wang etal., a case
of lipoma with t(3; 6)(q27; p21) causing fusion of HMGA1 to the LPP/TPRG1
intergenic region has been reported [60]. Another publication exhibited a genetic
link between spindle cell lipoma, cellular angiofibroma, and myofibroblastoma,
which consists of either breaks or deletions of a limited region within 13q14, in
the vicinity of retinoblastoma (RB1) gene, BRCA2 and lipoma high mobility
group proteins (HMGI-C) fusion partner genes (LHPF) or partial monosomy of
16q, as well as chromosomal rearrangements of 13q and 16q [16, 61]. Hibernomas
have been reported to frequently harbor 11q1321 rearrangements, which has
subsequently shown to cause homozygous or hemizygous gene loss of two tumor
suppressor genes MEN1 and/or AIP that present a low expression in hibernomas
but high expression of genes upregulated in brown fat including PPARA, PPARG,
PPARGC1A and UCP1 [62, 63].
Lipoblastomas have been reported to harbor 8q1113 rearrangements or to

exhibit excess copies of chromosome 8 which results in overexpression of PLAG1
[62, 64]. Pleomorphic adenoma gene 1 or PLAG1 is a proto-oncogene, which
encodes a zinc finger protein with 2 putative nuclear localization signals. It is
considered a Transcription factor whose activation results in upregulation of tar-
get genes, such as IGFII, leading to uncontrolled cell proliferation and its overex-
pression has been reported in pleomorphic adenoma of salivary gland as well as
lipoblastomas. Chondroid lipomas have also been reported to harbor t(11; 16)(q13;
p1213) resulting in C11orf95 (chromosome 11 open reading frame 95)-MKL2
(myocardin like 2) fusion oncogene [65].
Granular Cell Tumor
Granular cell tumor is a neoplasm of the Schwann cells of the peripheral nerves.
Up to 8.5% of all granular cell tumors occur in the breast [6668], more fre-
quently in females and over a broad age range. Although benign, the lesion may
have a worrisome radiologic appearance with irregular or speculated borders.
Moreover, it can cause nipple inversion and skin retraction, further mimicking
carcinoma. Grossly, the tumor has a homogenous, tan-white cut surface, and his-
tologically, it is composed of infiltrative clusters and sheets of uniform, round to
polygonal cells with indistinct cell borders and round to oval nuclei. The cyto-
plasm is characteristically filled with fine, periodic acid-Schiff (PAS)/diastase
resistant cytoplasmic granules.
The lesional cells are diffusely and strongly positive for S-100 protein and CD68
[69]. Together with pan-keratin negativity, a panel of these 3 stains is helpful in
differentiating this lesion from infiltrating carcinoma, especially lobular and apo-
crine types. There is also a strong expression of PGP9.5 and focal expression of
carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and vimentin. The ki-67 proliferation index is
typically low.
Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of GCT occurring within central

nervous system has shown a variety of genetic changes. Overall, losses (13q21,
4, 18q, 10, 1p, 22q) were more frequent than gains (+1p32-pter, +9q33-
qter, +20q, and +7) [70]. Multiple lesions have been reported to be associated
with some inherited familial syndromes such as Neurofibromatosis, Cowden syn-

drome (via germline PTEN mutation on chromosome 10), Bannayan-Ruvalcaba-
Riley syndrome (via germline PTEN mutation on chromosome 10), Leopard
syndrome (via PTPN11 mutation on chromosome 12, implicating the Ras/MAP
kinase pathway) and Noonan syndrome (via PTPN11 mutation on chromosome
12, implicating the Ras/MAP kinase pathway) [7175]. Malignant granular cell
tumors (MGCT) appear to exhibit a very complex clonal karyotype. In one case
report, which presents a case of MGCT of the ulnar nerve, 21 cells underwent
cytogenetic analysis a very complex karyotype was reported as 44 to 47, XY,
+X, del(1)(p?), del(5)(p?), add(20)(q13), +22, +mar(cp 11) [76]. In another case
report of MGCT of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve, cytogenetic analysis of
seventeen cells in metaphases, showed two clonal karyotype, one complex-44 to
47, XY,+del (1) (p?), del (5) (p?), add (20) (q13), 22, +mar (cp11) and one
normal-46, XY [77]. The modal number was near diploid (range, chromosome 44
to 47). In addition, occasional aberrations such as -5, -6, -13, -15, -17, 17q-, -18
and -21 were also detected. In another case report of MGCT, a karyotype of 46,
XX, +X,dic (5; 15) has been reported [78]. Therefore, it appears that to this day,
despite the complexity of these genetic alterations, no specific recurrent karyotype
alteration has been linked to these lesions.
Peripheral Nerve Sheath Tumor
These tumors are derived from the sheath of the peripheral nerves and include
Schwannoma and Neurofibroma. These tumors are almost always benign, how-
ever, rare cases of malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor (MPNST) have been
reported [7983]. Histologically, neurofibroma is an unencapsulated lesion, char-
acterized by a fascicular proliferation of spindle cells, with occasional mast cells
and focal myxoid changes, while Schwannoma is classically an encapsulated,
biphasic lesion with alternating hypercellular (Antoni A) and hypocellular
(AntoniB) spindle cell areas out cytologic atypia. Cytologic atypia, mitotic activ-
ity and necrosis are features of MPNST.
The lesion is positive for S-100 protein and GFAP. EMA stains the capsule sur-
rounding Schwannoma. A subset of MPNST stains positive with SOX10 and ALK,
and exhibits a loss of normal SMARCB1 nuclear staining [84]. SMARCB1(INI1)
is a member of SWI/SNF multi subunit chromatin remodeling complex which
plays an important role in regulating transcription [85].
There are reports of MPNST demonstrating trisomy 10 [86, 87]. Chromosome 10

harbors many oncogenesis including PTEN, which has been implicated in numer-
ous human malignancies. In addition, in the same study, fluorescence in situ
hybridization (FISH) analysis revealed loss of locus 9p21 (encoding for proteins
INK4A/p16 and INK4A/p14 which regulate cell cycle, ensuring underphospho-
rylation of Rb gene) in 94% of the examined cells and 22q12 (containing can-
cer related gene EWSR1) hyperploidy in 83.1% of the examined tumor cells.
Alterations of 9p and 22q have also been reported with several malignancies,
including MPNST [8688]. In addition, multiple neurofibromas have been reported
in association with neurofibromatosis type 1 by deletion or mutation of NF1 tumor
suppressor gene located on chromosome 17q, while multiple Schwannomas are
reported either in association with type 2 neurofibromatosis, by monosomy or
partial loss of NF2 tumor suppressor gene on chromosome 22 or by a germline
mutation of INI1/SMARCB1(located on chromosome 22) [89] in familial schwan-
nomatosis with high risk of malignant transformation [90]. Lastly MPNST can
result from 17q loss, causing an NF1 (somatic or germline) mutation [91].
Solitary Fibrous Tumor
Solitary fibrous tumor (SFT) rarely occurs in the breast, with only a few
case reports [92]. This lesion presents clinically as a slow-growing mass.
Histologically, it is composed of spindle cells arranged in short fascicles haphaz-
ardly arranged in a myxoid background with sometimes a prominent vascular net-
work (hemangiopericytoma-like) creating the customary patternless pattern type
of morphology.
The lesional cells are immunoreactive for CD34, BCL-2, vimentin, Beta-catenin,
STAT6 [93, 94] and GRIA2 [95]
A constant genetic alteration reported with this lesion includes recurrent break-
points in 12q13 clustering near the NAB2 and STAT6 genes resulting in NAB2-
STAT6 fusion gene, which will cause cell proliferation and activation of the
expression of EGR-responsive genes [93, 9597]. More recently gene expres-

sion profiling has highlighted a number of upregulated genes in SFT [9698].
GRIA2 has been identified as one of the most common and highly expressed
genes, encoding an AMPA-selective ionotropic glutamate receptor subunit which
controls the membrane calcium permeability and appears to be involved in cell
proliferation and motility. GRIA2 is normally involved in nervous system devel-
opment, in some neurodegenerative disorders [99101] as well as some tumors
[100, 102104]. The exact mechanism of action of GRIA2 has not been fully
elucidated. A study by Ishiuchi etal. [105] suggests that GRIA2 is involved in
PI3K-independent activation of the AKT signaling pathway. While the involve-
ment of GRIA2 in oncogenesis seems undeniable, more studies are needed to fully
understand its exact mechanism of action.
Angiosarcoma and Atypical Vascular Lesions
Clinically, angiosarcomas (AS) of the breast can be divided into two subtypes.
Primary angiosarcoma [106, 107] which arises de novo within the breast paren-
chyma. Although rare, primary AS represents the second most common mes-
enchymal malignancy after malignant phyllodes tumors, with an in incidence of
0.05% of all breast malignancies [108]. Secondary angiosarcoma develops in
the skin of the breast, chest wall, or the breast parenchyma, classically in breast
cancer patients, who underwent axillary lymph node dissection followed by radia-
tion therapy. The frequency of secondary AS has been notably increasing in the
last two decades making it the most common radiation-associated sarcoma in the
breast. This increasing number of cases reflects the increasing frequency in this
treatment modality [109, 110].
Atypical vascular lesions (AVL) are vascular proliferations that develop in the
skin of the breast in women who were treated with lumpectomy and radiation ther-
apy for invasive breast carcinoma. Some believe these lesions may be the precur-
sors to angiosarcoma, especially since a preceding or a synchronous AVL may be
encountered in patients with angiosarcoma [111119]. Clinically, AVL presents
as ill-defined brown/erythematous patches or plaques on the skin of the breast
within the radiation field, approximately 6years into treatment. Microscopically,
the lesion shows a dissecting, interconnecting vascular network lined by plump
endothelial cells with prominent nuclei, but without significant cytologic atypia
(Fig. 15.2a) [113, 118, 119]. On the other hand, AS usually presents as a bulky
mass with bruise-like changes of the overlying skin. Histologically, a well-dif-
ferentiated AS consists of anastomosing vascular channels lined by neoplastic
endothelial cells with prominent and hyperchromatic nuclei with rare mitosis and
lack of solid areas. In addition to the above findings, a poorly differentiated AS
exhibits an epithelioid cell morphology, numerous mitotic figures, areas of necro-
sis as well as areas of solid tumor growth (Fig.15.3).
Fig.15.2Atypical vascular
lesion of the breast. a H&E
stain, 100X. b MYC stain
shows negative staining,
100X. Courtesy of Dr.
Kristine Cornejo, Department
of Pathology, UMass
Memorial Medical Center
While poorly differentiated AS is easy to recognize as malignant, a well-differen-

tiated AS may be mistaken for pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH),
hemangiomas, and even with AVL. PASH is a myofibroblastic proliferation dis-
guised in a vascular microscopic appearance. It usually presents as an incidental
finding and only rarely as a mass-forming lesion. Its myofibroblastic origin can
be unmasked by showing immunoreactivity to actin, desmin, calponin, proges-
terone receptor as well as CD34, and negativity for endothelial cell markers such
as factor VIII and CD31. Hemangiomas usually present as non-palpable lesions
identified on mammography. Microscopically, hemangiomas show a prolifera-
tion of variably sized, anastomosing vascular channels that infiltrate the inter-
lobular stroma without disrupting the lobular architecture. This is an important
feature differentiating it from well-differentiated AS. Differentiating AVL from
a well-differentiated AS can be challenging particularly on core needle biopsies,
Fig.15.3Post-radiation
angiosarcoma of the
breast. aH&E stain, 400X.
bPositive nuclear staining
for MYC, 400X. c Strong and
diffuse cytoplasmic staining
(3+) for FLT4, 400X.
Courtesy of Dr. Kristine
Cornejo, Department of
Pathology, UMass Memorial
Medical Center
and in samples obtained from the edge of the lesion. Immunoreactivity to MYC
and prox-1 has been proposed as potential marker differentiating AVL (nega-
tive for MYC and focally positive for prox-1) from AS which is positive for both
(Figs.15.2b and 15.3b) [120]. Finally, cytokeratin may show focal expression in
AS, but should not be mistaken for a spindle cell carcinoma.
In a study done by Antonescu etal., in which 42 samples from 39 patients with

AS from diverse sites including breast (primary and secondary lesions) have been
examined, these lesions were reported to exhibit an upregulation of vascular spe-
cific tyrosine kinases, including TIE1, SNRK, KDR, TEK and FLT1. In addition,
10% of patients showed KDR mutations and these lesions were all of primary
breast site (primary or secondary lesion) [121]. In another study by Manner, etal.,
in which samples from 28 patients with primary AS and 33 patients with second-
ary AS were analyzed by array comparative genomic hybridization, the authors
showed recurrent genetic alterations in 22 cases, all of which presented with sec-
ondary AS. The most frequent of these alterations included high level amplifica-
tions of chromosome 8q24.21 (50%), 10p12.33 (33%) and 5q35.3 (11%) [122].
These findings indicate that primary AS and secondary AS are two genetically
distinct lesions, despite their clinical and histological resemblance. Few stud-
ies have also demonstrated MYC gene (8q24.21) amplification in approximately
55% of secondary AS [123125]. In a study comparing AS to AVL [123], MYC
amplification by FISH was identified in all AS cases, in contrast to AVL where all
samples were negative. Other studies showed co-amplification of FLT4 (encoding
VEGFR3) which was only observed in 25% of cases of secondary AS (Fig.15.4)
Fig.15.4MYC and FLT4 FISH in post-radiation angiosarcoma. a Markedly increased intensity

and number of FLT4 (red) and MYC (green) signals compared to CEP8 (magenta). b Confir-
mation of FLT4 amplification using different probes showing increased signals of FLT4 (green)
compared to CEP5 (magenta). Courtesy of Dr. Kristine Cornejo, Department of Pathology,
UMass Memorial Medical Center
[124] and strong and diffuse nuclear staining with prox-1 which was present in
secondary AS and was lacking in AVL (Fig.15.2) [125].
Liposarcoma
Liposarcomas are the most common soft tissue sarcomas; however, primary lipo-
sarcoma of the breast is an extremely rare lesion [126127]. It commonly occurs
as a heterologous component in the setting of a malignant phyllodes tumor. Rare
post-radiation liposarcoma of the breast are also reported [128]. Liposarcoma
usually presents as a slowly growing, sometimes painful mass. Grossly, it is a
well-circumscribed mass, but may have an infiltrative edge. Of all subtypes, the
well-differentiated liposarcoma/atypical lipomatous tumor is the most common
tumor of the primary mammary liposarcomas. Histologically, the hallmark feature
is the presence of lipoblasts, which are immature adipocytes with hyperchromatic,
scalloped nuclei and cytoplasmic vacuoles.
As in extramammary liposarcoma; the lesional cells stain positive with S-100 pro-
tein. Well-differentiated liposarcoma and de-differentiated liposarcomas are also
immunoreactive for MDM2/CDK4 [129, 130].
Molecular Features
Atypical lipomatous tumors as well as the well- and de-differentiated liposar-

comas have a supernumerary ring and giant marker chromosomes, containing
amplified material from the long arm of chromosome 12, an area which har-
bors many proto-oncogenes leading to overexpression of MDM2 and CDK4
as well as other genes, including HMGA2, YEASTS4, CPM, and FRS2 [129
135]. Occasionally, 1q2125 segment is co-amplified, which can cause ATF6
and DUSP12 amplification in a subset of these lesions [136]. In cases of the
aggressive de-differentiated liposarcoma, in addition to the previously men-
tioned genetic alterations, a co-amplification of 1p32, 6q23 and 6q25 sequences
can be seen, causing JUN, ASK1 and MAP3K7IP2 amplification respectively
[137, 156]. Distinct genetic alterations including t(12; 16)(q13; p11) have been
reported in over 90% of myxoid/round cell type which results in FUS-DDIT3
gene fusion, and rare cases have t(12; 22)(q13; q12) resulting in EWSR1-
DDIT3 gene fusion [138]. The spindle cell type liposarcoma, has been reported
to exhibit a monosomy of 7 alone or a rearrangement of 13q, without the usual

12q amplification. These data are supported by the fact that these lesions are also
MDM2/CDK4 negative [139141].
Rhabdomyosarcoma
As in other breast sarcomas, rhabdomyosarcoma occurs more commonly as focal

component in older women with malignant phyllodes and metaplastic carcino-
mas [142, 143]. Conversely, primary rhabdomyosarcomas of the breast are very
rare [144], and occur mainly in children and young adults. Although, embryonal
rhabdomyosarcoma is the most common soft tissue subtype, primary breast rhab-
domyosarcoma is almost often the alveolar type [144] which is histologically
characterized by thin fibrous septae lined by small round blue cells in an alveolar
growth pattern.
Alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma should be distinguished from lobular carcinoma with

an alveolar growth pattern, especially that pan-cytokeratin may show focal posi-
tivity in rhabdomyosarcoma. Immunoreactivity to skeletal cell markers such as
myogenin and myoD1 is characteristic [145147]. Neuroendocrine markers [147],
PAX5 [148] and ALK1 can also be positive.
There are no specific reports on the molecular makeup of primary breast rhab-
domyosarcoma. However, the alveolar type is associated with FOXO1 gene (a
member of the fork-head family, formerly known as FKHR) translocations. The
most common translocation is t(2; 13)(q35; q14) resulting in PAX3-FOXO1 gene
fusion. Other translocations include t(1; 13)(p36; q14), t(X; 2)(q13; q35), t(2; 2)
(q35; p23), t(2; 8)(q35; q13) and t(8; 13)(p12; q13) resulting respectively in PAX7-
FOXO1, PAX3-FOX04, PAX3-NCOA1, PAX3-NCOA2 and FOXO1-FGFR1
fusion gene formation [149157]. N-MYC amplification has been proposed as a
poor prognostic feature in alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma [158]. The embryonal type
has been linked to either a loss or a uniparental disomy of 11p15.5 with gains in
chromosomes 2, 8, 11, 12, 13, and 20, which will cause amplification of genes
such as IGF2, H19, CDKN1C and HOTS [149151]. Spindle cell/sclerosing type
rhabdomyosarcoma, a recently described subtype, presents 8q13 rearrangements,
which will result in SRF-NCOA2 or TEAD1-NCOA2 fusion gene formation [159].
Osteosarcoma
Pure osteosarcoma represents approximately 12% of all breast sarcomas [160,

161]. As with other sarcomas, it is more commonly encountered as part of meta-
plastic carcinoma or malignant phyllodes. Clinically, it presents as an enlarging
solitary mass that may be painful. Areas of calcifications may be detected on
mammogram. Histologically, the lesion has well-circumscribed margins, and is
composed of pleomorphic spindle to ovoid cells with varying degree of osteoid
formation. Most histologic variants such as fibroblastic, osteoclastic-rich, osteo-
blastic, and telangiectatic type have also been described in osteosarcoma of the
breast.
The lesion is immunoreactive for alkaline phosphatase and vimentin, with vari-
able smooth-muscle actin and desmin, S-100 protein (if chondroid differentiation
is present). The most recent addition to this panel is SATB2 (Special AT-rich
sequence-Binding protein 2) [162], a nuclear matrix protein which plays a role in
osteoblast lineage commitment.
Molecular Features
Osteosarcomas have complex genetic alterations. Early publications reported

a high propensity towards aneuploidy in these tumors [163, 164]. Boehm etal.
[165] examined the cytogenetic profile of 36 cases of osteosarcoma and found that
approximately 69% of the cases exhibited polyploidy. The most common numer-
ical abnormalities were gain in chromosome 1 and loss of chromosomes 9, 10,
13, and 17, while the most common chromosomal structural rearrangements were
1p1113, 1q1112, 1q2122, 11p1415, 14p1113, 15p1113, 17p and 19q13.
Comparative genomic hybridization studies showed both gains and losses in DNA
copy numbers [166]. Osteosarcoma can be seen in association with certain genetic
syndromes, including Bloom syndrome, Rothmund-Thompson syndrome, Werner
syndrome, Li-Fraumeni syndrome, and hereditary retinoblastoma [167]. Bloom,
Rothmund-Thompson and Werner [168] syndromes are due to genetic defects in
the RecQ helicase family. DNA-helicases cause separation of double stranded
DNA before replication [169, 170]. Another study reported amplifications of chro-
mosomes 6p21, 8q24, and 12q14 loci and loss of heterozygosity of 10q21.1 as the
most common genetic alterations noted in osteosarcomas [171]. Additional numer-
ical chromosomal abnormalities include loss of chromosomes 9, 10, 13 and 17 as
well as gain of chromosome 1 [172]. Osteosarcoma can also be caused by tumor
suppressor gene dysfunction, including TP53 and Rb genes. TP53 gene mutation
is also identified in approximately 22% of osteosarcomas [172]. In normal condi-
tions, TP53 gene inactivates G1/S-Cdk and S-Cdk complexes causing an arrest of
the cell cycle in G1 [173]. Therefore, TP53 gene mutation results in uncontrolled
persistent cell proliferation. This also explains the occasional link of osteosarcoma
and Li-Fraumeni syndrome, which is due to a germline mutation of TP53 gene
[174]. Similarly, Rb gene normally inhibits the cell cycle by binding to the tran-
scription factor E2F. The Rb gene will exercise its inhibitory effect till the CDK4/
cyclin D complex phosphorylates Rb. Mutation in the Rb gene results in a con-
tinuous cell cycle [174]. Osteosarcoma can be caused by both somatic or germline
mutation of the Rb gene [175].
Leiomyoma and Leiomyosarcoma
Leiomyomas and leiomyosarcomas represent less than 1% of mammary tumors.

Most occur superficially in the skin of the periareolar region in both men and
women. However, deeper lesions are almost exclusively seen in women [176].
Both present as slowly growing masses. Superficial lesions are palpable and
can be painful or tender, while deep lesions may be clinically nondistinctive.
Histologically, the lesions are composed of interlacing fascicles of spindle cells.
In leiomyomas, the cells have the characteristic elongated, cigar-shaped nuclei
and eosinophilic cytoplasm with minimal/absent cytologic atypia, and rare, if any,
mitosis. Leiomyosarcomas, however, are characterized by moderate/marked cyto-
logic atypia, mitosis and tumor cell necrosis [177].
The lesional cells are immunoreactive for desmin, smooth-muscle actin and as
many as 40% can stain positive with pan-keratin and epithelial membrane antigen
antibodies.
Leiomyosarcomas have been reported to exhibit a very complex and unstable kar-
yotype [178]. These include losses of chromosomes 13q and 10q where the tumor
suppressor genes Rb1 and phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) are respec-
tively located [178186]. Point mutation of PTEN has also been reported in LMS
[187189]. PTEN gene encodes for a protein and phosphatase that inhibits the
lipid kinase activity of phosphatidyl inositol 3-kinase (PI3K). Therefore, PTEN
mutations will result in dysregulation of PI3K and hyperactivation of Akt, which

will ultimately result in an increased cell proliferation as well as inhibition of
apoptosis leading to tumorogenesis. Studies have shown that high-grade sarcomas
exhibit higher DNA copy number gains, while low-grade tumors show DNA copy
number losses, suggesting that tumor suppressor gene loss may be an early event
followed by oncogene activation during malignant transformation [184]. In a study
of animal model by Hernando etal. the author reported that while the PTEN sup-
pression appears to be an important and initiating step in the development of LMS,
additional steps such as TP53 gene mutation are required for tumorogenesis [190],
and suggested that activation of Akt, can cause inactivation of TP53 via stabiliza-
tion of MDM2.
Mesenchymal lesions of the breast are very uncommon. They resemble their
extra-mammary counterparts not only in their morphologic features, but also in
their immunophenotypic and molecular phenotypes. Immunohistochemical test-
ing and molecular testing may be needed to establish the diagnosis, and avoid
misinterpretation.
Key Points
Mesenchymal lesions of the breast resemble their extramammary counterparts

histologically, immunophenotypically and in their molecular characteristics.
Pure soft tissue sarcomas of the breast are rare, and usually occur as a heter-
ologous component in the setting of a malignant phyllodes tumor or as part of
metaplastic carcinoma.
Spindle cell lipoma and myofibroblastoma share the same cytogenetic abnor-
malities affecting chromosome 13.
Epitheloid myofibroblastoma can mimic invasive lobular carcinoma, especially
given its immunoreactivity to estrogen receptor.
Nuclear beta-catenin expression is a characteristic feature of desmoid-type
fibromatosis.
Approximately 50% of IMT cases are immunoreactive for ALK.
More than 80% of conventional lipomas have aberrations affecting 12q, 6p, and
13q while spindle cell/pleomorphic lipomas are characterized by 16q aberration.
Despite their clinical and histological resemblance, primary AS and secondary
AS are considered two genetically distinct lesions.
The frequency of secondary AS has been notably increasing in the last two dec-
ades making it the most common radiation-associated sarcoma in the breast.
Primary breast rhabdomyosarcoma is almost often of the alveolar type, which
may resemble lobular carcinoma with alveolar growth pattern.
References
1. Green JS, Crozier AE, Walker RA. Case report: nodular fasciitis of the breast. Clin Radiol.
1997;52(12):9612.
2. Brown V, Carty NJ. A case of nodular fascitis of the breast and review of the literature.
Breast. 2005;14(5):3847.
3. Kayaselcuk F, Demirhan B, Kayaselcuk U, Ozerdem OR, Tuncer I. Vimentin, smooth mus-
cle actin, desmin, S-100 protein, p53, and estrogen receptor expression in elastofibroma and
nodular fasciitis. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2002;6(2):949.
4. Birdsall SH, Shipley JM, Summersgill BM, Black AJ, Jackson P, Kissin MW, Gusterson
BA. Cytogenetic findings in a case of nodular fasciitis of the breast. Cancer Genet
Cytogenet. 1995;81(2):1668.
5. Meng GZ, Zhang HY, Zhang Z, Wei B, Bu H. Myofibroblastic sarcoma vs nodular fasciitis:
a comparative study of chromosomal imbalances. Am J Clin Pathol. 2009;131(5):7019.
6. Erickson-Johnson MR, Chou MM, Evers BR, Roth CW, Seys AR, Jin L, Ye Y, Lau AW,
Wang X, Oliveira AM. Nodular fasciitis: a novel model of transient neoplasia induced by
MYH9-USP6 gene fusion. Lab Invest: J Tech Methods Pathol. 2011;91(10):142733.
7. Oliveira AM, Perez-Atayde AR, Inwards CY, Medeiros F, Derr V, Hsi BL, Gebhardt MC,
Rosenberg AE, Fletcher JA. USP6 and CDH11 oncogenes identify the neoplastic cell in pri-
mary aneurysmal bone cysts and are absent in so-called secondary aneurysmal bone cysts.
Am J Pathol. 2004;165(5):177380.
8. Oliveira AM, Perez-Atayde AR, Dal Cin P, Gebhardt MC, Chen CJ, Neff JR, Demetri CD,
Rosenberg AE, Bridge JA, Fletcher JA. Aneurysmal bone cyst variant translocations upregu-
late USP6 transcription by promoter swapping with the ZNF9, COL1A1, TRAP150, and
OMD genes. Oncogene. 2005;24(21):341926.
9. Wilson CA, Tsuchida MA, Allen GM, Barnhart EL, Applegate KT, Yam PT, Ji L, Keren
K, Danuser G, Theriot JA. Myosin II contributes to cell-scale actin network treadmilling
through network disassembly. Nature. 2010;465(7296):3737.
10. Hu A, Wang F, Sellers JR. Mutations in human nonmuscle myosin IIA found in patients
with May-Hegglin anomaly and Fechtner syndrome result in impaired enzymatic function. J
Biol Chem. 2002;277(48):465127.
11. Lamant L, Gascoyne RD, Duplantier MM, Armstrong F, Raghab A, Chhanabhai M, Rajcan-
Separovic E, Raghab J, Delsol G, Espinos E. Non-muscle myosin heavy chain (MYH9): a
new partner fused to ALK in anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Genes Chromosom Cancer.
2003;37(4):42732.
12. Heath KE, Campos-Barros A, Toren A, Rozenfeld-Granot G, Carlsson LE, Savige J,
Denison JC, Gregory MC, White JG, Barker DF, etal. Nonmuscle myosin heavy chain
IIA mutations define a spectrum of autosomal dominant macrothrombocytopenias: May-
Hegglin anomaly and Fechtner, Sebastian, Epstein, and Alport-like syndromes. Am J Hum
Genet. 2001;69(5):103345.
13. Magro G. Mammary myofibroblastoma: a tumor with a wide morphologic spectrum. Arch
Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(11):181320.
14. Tavassoli FA, Eusebi V, American Registry of Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology (U.S.). Tumors of the mammary gland. Washington, D.C.: American Registry of
Pathology in collaboration with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. 2009.
15. Magro G, Gurrera A, Bisceglia M. H-caldesmon expression in myofibroblastoma
of the breast: evidence supporting the distinction from leiomyoma. Histopathology.
2003;42(3):2338.
16. Pauwels P, Sciot R, Croiset F, Rutten H, Van den Berghe H, Dal Cin P. Myofibroblastoma of
the breast: genetic link with spindle cell lipoma. J Pathol. 2000;191(3):2825.
17. Magro G, Righi A, Casorzo L, Antonietta T, Salvatorelli L, Kacerovska D, Kazakov D,
Michal M. Mammary and vaginal myofibroblastomas are genetically related lesions:
fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis shows deletion of 13q14 region. Hum Pathol.
2012;43(11):188793.
18. Maggiani F, Debiec-Rychter M, Verbeeck G, Sciot R. Extramammary myofibroblastoma is
genetically related to spindle cell lipoma. Virchows Archiv: Int J Pathol. 2006;449(2):2447.
19. Jamshed S, Farhan MI, Marshall MB, Nahabedian MY, Liu MC. Fibromatosis of the breast
after mammary prosthesis implantation. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol H&O. 2008;6(9):68794.
20. Neuman HB, Brogi E, Ebrahim A, Brennan MF, Van Zee KJ. Desmoid tumors (fibroma-
toses) of the breast: a 25-year experience. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(1):27480.
21. Rosen PP, Ernsberger D. Mammary fibromatosis. A benign spindle-cell tumor with signifi-
cant risk for local recurrence. Cancer. 1989;63(7):13639.
22. Wargotz ES, Norris HJ, Austin RM, Enzinger FM. Fibromatosis of the breast. A clinical and
pathological study of 28 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1987;11(1):3845.
23. Abraham SC, Reynolds C, Lee JH, Montgomery EA, Baisden BL, Krasinskas AM, Wu TT.
Fibromatosis of the breast and mutations involving the APC/beta-catenin pathway. Hum
Pathol. 2002;33(1):3946.
24. Lacroix-Triki M, Geyer FC, Lambros MB, Savage K, Ellis IO, Lee AH, Reis-Filho
JS. beta-catenin/Wnt signalling pathway in fibromatosis, metaplastic carcinomas and
phyllodes tumours of the breast. Mod Pathol: Official J U S Can Acad Pathol Inc.
2010;23(11):143848.
25. Ng TL, Gown AM, Barry TS, Cheang MC, Chan AK, Turbin DA, Hsu FD, West RB,
Nielsen TO. Nuclear beta-catenin in mesenchymal tumors. Mod Pathol: Official J U S Can
Acad Pathol Inc. 2005;18(1):6874.
26. Devouassoux-Shisheboran M, Schammel MD, Man YG, Tavassoli FA. Fibromatosis of
the breast: age-correlated morphofunctional features of 33 cases. Arch Pathol Lab Med.
2000;124(2):27680.
27. Fletcher JA, Naeem R, Xiao S, Corson JM. Chromosome aberrations in desmoid tumors.
Trisomy 8 may be a predictor of recurrence. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1995;79(2):13943.
28. De Wever I, Dal Cin P, Fletcher CD, Mandahl N, Mertens F, Mitelman F, Rosai J, Rydholm
A, Sciot R, Tallini G, etal. Cytogenetic, clinical, and morphologic correlations in 78 cases
of fibromatosis: a report from the CHAMP Study Group. CHromosomes And Morphology.
Mod Pathol: Official J U S Can Acad Pathol Inc. 2000;13(10):10805.
29. Kim T, Jung EA, Song JY, Roh JH, Choi JS, Kwon JE, Kang SY, Cho EY, Shin JH, Nam SJ,
etal. Prevalence of the CTNNB1 mutation genotype in surgically resected fibromatosis of
the breast. Histopathology. 2012;60(2):34756.
30. Haj M, Weiss M, Loberant N, Cohen I. Inflammatory pseudotumor of the breast: case report
and literature review. Breast J. 2003;9(5):4235.
31. Khanafshar E, Phillipson J, Schammel DP, Minobe L, Cymerman J, Weidner N.
Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor of the breast. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2005;9(3):1239.
32. Yoshida A, Shibata T, Wakai S, Ushiku T, Tsuta K, Fukayama M, Makimoto A, Furuta K,
Tsuda H. Anaplastic lymphoma kinase status in rhabdomyosarcomas. Mod Pathol: Official J
U S Can Acad Pathol Inc. 2013;26(6):77281.
33. Cessna MH, Zhou H, Sanger WG, Perkins SL, Tripp S, Pickering D, Daines C, Coffin
CM. Expression of ALK1 and p80 in inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor and its mes-
enchymal mimics: a study of 135 cases. Mod Pathol: Official J U S Can Acad Pathol Inc.
2002;15(9):9318.
34. Gleason BC, Hornick JL. Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumours: where are we now? J Clin
Pathol. 2008;61(4):428-37.
35. Li J, Yin WH, Takeuchi K, Guan H, Huang YH, Chan JK. Inflammatory myofibroblastic
tumor with RANBP2 and ALK gene rearrangement: a report of two cases and literature
review. Diagn Pathol. 2013;8:147.
36. Kahng HC, Chin NW, Opitz LM, Pahuja M, Goldberg SL. Cellular angiolipoma of the
breast: immunohistochemical study and review of the literature. Breast J. 2002;8(1):479.
37. Kryvenko ON, Chitale DA, VanEgmond EM, Gupta NS, Schultz D, Lee MW. Angiolipoma
of the female breast: clinicomorphological correlation of 52 cases. Int J Surg Pathol.
2011;19(1):3543.
38. Yu GH, Fishman SJ, Brooks JS. Cellular angiolipoma of the breast. Mod Pathol: Official J
U S Can Acad Pathol Inc. 1993;6(4):4979.
39. Chan KW, Ghadially FN, Alagaratnam TT. Benign spindle cell tumour of breasta variant
of spindled cell lipoma or fibroma of breast? Pathology. 1984;16(3):3316.
40. Damiani S, Chiodera P, Guaragni M, Eusebi V. Mammary angiomyolipoma. Virchows
Archiv: Int J Pathol. 2002;440(5):5512.
41. Padilla-Rodriguez AL. Pure hibernoma of the breast: insights about its origins. Ann Diagn
Pathol. 2012;16(4):28891.
42. Riveros M, Cubilla A, Perotta F, Solalinde V. Hamartoma of the breast. J Surg Oncol.
1989;42(3):197200.
43. Zani A, Cozzi DA, Uccini S, Cozzi F. Unusual breast enlargement in an infant: a case of
breast lipoblastoma. Pediatr Surg Int. 2007;23(4):3613.
44. Banev SG, Filipovski VA. Chondrolipoma of the breastcase report and a review of litera-
ture. Breast. 2006;15(3):4256.
45. Bartuma H, Nord KH, Macchia G, Isaksson M, Nilsson J, Domanski HA, Mandahl N,
Mertens F. Gene expression and single nucleotide polymorphism array analyses of spindle
cell lipomas and conventional lipomas with 13q14 deletion. Genes Chromosom Cancer.
2011;50(8):61932.
46. Ashar HR, Fejzo MS, Tkachenko A, Zhou X, Fletcher JA, Weremowicz S, Morton CC,
Chada K. Disruption of the architectural factor HMGI-C: DNA-binding AT hook motifs
fused in lipomas to distinct transcriptional regulatory domains. Cell. 1995;82(1):5765.
47. Schoenmakers EF, Wanschura S, Mols R, Bullerdiek J, Van den Berghe H, Van de Ven WJ.
Recurrent rearrangements in the high mobility group protein gene, HMGI-C, in benign mes-
enchymal tumours. Nat Genet. 1995;10(4):43644.
48. Petit MM, Mols R, Schoenmakers EF, Mandahl N, Van de Ven WJ. LPP, the preferred
fusion partner gene of HMGIC in lipomas, is a novel member of the LIM protein gene fam-
ily. Genomics. 1996;36(1):11829.
49. Matsui Y, Hasegawa T, Kubo T, Goto T, Yukata K, Endo K, Bando Y, Yasui N. Intrapatellar
tendon lipoma with chondro-osseous differentiation: detection of HMGA2-LPP fusion gene
transcript. J Clin Pathol. 2006;59(4):4346.
50. Kubo T, Matsui Y, Goto T, Yukata K, Endo K, Sato R, Tsutsui T, Yasui N. MRI character-
istics of parosteal lipomas associated with the HMGA2-LPP fusion gene. Anticancer Res.
2006;26(3B):22537.
51. Ida CM, Wang X, Erickson-Johnson MR, Wenger DE, Blute ML, Nascimento AG, Oliveira
AM. Primary retroperitoneal lipoma: a soft tissue pathology heresy?: report of a case
with classic histologic, cytogenetics, and molecular genetic features. Am J Surg Pathol.
2008;32(6):9514.
52. Manfioletti G, Giancotti V, Bandiera A, Buratti E, Sautiere P, Cary P, Crane-Robinson C,
Coles B, Goodwin GH. cDNA cloning of the HMGI-C phosphoprotein, a nuclear pro-
tein associated with neoplastic and undifferentiated phenotypes. Nucleic Acids Res.
1991;19(24):67937.
53. Chau KY, Patel UA, Lee KL, Lam HY, Crane-Robinson C. The gene for the human archi-
tectural transcription factor HMGI-C consists of five exons each coding for a distinct func-
tional element. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995;23(21):42626.
54. Giancotti V, Bandiera A, Buratti E, Fusco A, Marzari R, Coles B, Goodwin GH.
Comparison of multiple forms of the high mobility group I proteins in rodent and human
cells. Identification of the human high mobility group I-C protein. Eur J Biochem/FEBS.
1991;198(1):2116.
55. Giancotti V, Bandiera A, Ciani L, Santoro D, Crane-Robinson C, Goodwin GH,

Boiocchi M, Dolcetti R, Casetta B. High-mobility-group (HMG) proteins and histone
H1 subtypes expression in normal and tumor tissues of mouse. Eur J Biochem/FEBS.
1993;213(2):82532.
56. Rogalla P, Drechsler K, Frey G, Hennig Y, Helmke B, Bonk U, Bullerdiek J. HMGI-C
expression patterns in human tissues. Implications for the genesis of frequent mesenchymal
tumors. Am J Pathol. 1996;149(3):7759.
57. Zhou X, Benson KF, Ashar HR, Chada K. Mutation responsible for the mouse pygmy phe-
notype in the developmentally regulated factor HMGI-C. Nature. 1995;376(6543):7714.
58. Mitelman F, Johansson B, Mertens F. Catalog of chromosome aberrations in cancer. 5th ed.
New York: Wiley-Liss; 1994.
59. Kubo T, Matsui Y, Naka N, Araki N, Goto T, Yukata K, Endo K, Yasui N, Myoui A,
Kawabata H, etal. Expression of HMGA2-LPP and LPP-HMGA2 fusion genes in lipoma:
identification of a novel type of LPP-HMGA2 transcript in four cases. Anticancer Res.
2009;29(6):235760.
60. Wang X, Zamolyi RQ, Zhang H, Pannain VL, Medeiros F, Erickson-Johnson M, Jenkins
RB, Oliveira AM. Fusion of HMGA1 to the LPP/TPRG1 intergenic region in a lipoma iden-
tified by mapping paraffin-embedded tissues. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2010;196(1):647.
61. Dahlen A, Debiec-Rychter M, Pedeutour F, Domanski HA, Hoglund M, Bauer HC,
Rydholm A, Sciot R, Mandahl N, Mertens F. Clustering of deletions on chromosome 13
in benign and low-malignant lipomatous tumors. Int J Cancer (Journal International du
Cancer). 2003;103(5):61623.
62. Fletcher CD, Akerman M, Dal Cin P, de Wever I, Mandahl N, Mertens F, Mitelman F, Rosai
J, Rydholm A, Sciot R, etal. Correlation between clinicopathological features and karyo-
type in lipomatous tumors. A report of 178 cases from the Chromosomes and Morphology
(CHAMP) Collaborative Study Group. Am J Pathol. 1996;148(2):62330.
63. Nord KH, Magnusson L, Isaksson M, Nilsson J, Lilljebjorn H, Domanski HA, Kindblom
LG, Mandahl N, Mertens F. Concomitant deletions of tumor suppressor genes MEN1 and
AIP are essential for the pathogenesis of the brown fat tumor hibernoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci
U S A. 2010;107(49):211227.
64. Brandal P, Bjerkehagen B, Heim S. Rearrangement of chromosomal region 8q1113 in lipo-
matous tumours: correlation with lipoblastoma morphology. J Pathol. 2006;208(3):38894.
65. Huang D, Sumegi J, Dal Cin P, Reith JD, Yasuda T, Nelson M, Muirhead D, Bridge JA.
C11orf95-MKL2 is the resulting fusion oncogene of t(11;16)(q13;p13) in chondroid lipoma.
Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2010;49(9):8108.
66. Adeniran A, Al-Ahmadie H, Mahoney MC, Robinson-Smith TM. Granular cell tumor of the
breast: a series of 17 cases and review of the literature. Breast J. 2004;10(6):52831.
67. Brown AC, Audisio RA, Regitnig P. Granular cell tumour of the breast. Surg Oncol.
2011;20(2):97105.
68. Lack EE, Worsham GF, Callihan MD, Crawford BE, Klappenbach S, Rowden G,
Chun B. Granular cell tumor: a clinicopathologic study of 110 patients. J Surg Oncol.
1980;13(4):30116.
69. Le BH, Boyer PJ, Lewis JE, Kapadia SB. Granular cell tumor: immunohistochemical
assessment of inhibin-alpha, protein gene product 9.5, S100 protein, CD68, and Ki-67 pro-
liferative index with clinical correlation. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128(7):7715.
70. Rickert CH, Paulus W. Genetic characterisation of granular cell tumours. Acta Neuropathol.
2002;103(4):30912.
71. Martin RW 3rd, Neldner KH, Boyd AS, Coates PW. Multiple cutaneous granular cell
tumors and neurofibromatosis in childhood. A case report and review of the literature. Arch
Dermatol. 1990;126(8):10516.
72. Marchese C, Montera M, Torrini M, Goldoni F, Mareni C, Forni M, Locatelli L. Granular
cell tumor in a PHTS patient with a novel germline PTEN mutation. Am J Med Genet Part
A. 2003;120A(2):2868.
73. Schrader KA, Nelson TN, De Luca A, Huntsman DG, McGillivray BC. Multiple granu-
lar cell tumors are an associated feature of LEOPARD syndrome caused by mutation in
PTPN11. Clin Genet. 2009;75(2):1859.
74. Ramaswamy PV, Storm CA, Filiano JJ, Dinulos JG. Multiple granular cell tumors in a child
with Noonan syndrome. Pediatr Dermatol. 2010;27(2):20911.
75. Sidwell RU, Rouse P, Owen RA, Green JS. Granular cell tumor of the scrotum in a child
with Noonan syndrome. Pediatr Dermatol. 2008;25(3):3413.
76. Papachristou DJ, Palekar A, Surti U, Cieply K, McGough RL, Rao UN. Malignant granular
cell tumor of the ulnar nerve with novel cytogenetic and molecular genetic findings. Cancer
Genet Cytogenet. 2009;191(1):4650.
77. Di Tommaso L, Magrini E, Consales A, Poppi M, Pasquinelli G, Dorji T, Benedetti G,
Baccarini P. Malignant granular cell tumor of the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve: report of
a case with cytogenetic analysis. Hum Pathol. 2002;33(12):123740.
78. Nasser H, Danforth RD Jr, Sunbuli M, Dimitrijevic O. Malignant granular cell tumor:
case report with a novel karyotype and review of the literature. Ann Diagn Pathol.
2010;14(4):2738.
79. Dhingra KK, Mandal S, Roy S, Khurana N. Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor of the
breast: case report. World J Surg Oncol. 2007;5:142.
80. Fangfang L, Danhua S, Songlin L, Yanfeng Z. An unusual breast malignant peripheral nerve
sheath tumour and review of the literature. J Clin Pathol. 2010;63(7):6634.
81. Medina-Franco H, Gamboa-Dominguez A, de La Medina AR. Malignant peripheral nerve
sheath tumor of the breast. Breast J. 2003;9(4):332.
82. Thanapaisal C, Koonmee S, Siritunyaporn S. Malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor of
breast in patient without Von Recklinghausens neurofibromatosis: a case report. J Med
Assoc Thailand=Chotmaihet Thangphaet. 2006;89(3):3779.
83. Wang H, Ge J, Chen L, Xie P, Chen F, Chen Y. Melanocytic malignant peripheral nerve
sheath tumor of the male breast. Breast Care. 2009;4(4):2602.
84. Carter JM, OHara C, Dundas G, Gilchrist D, Collins MS, Eaton K, Judkins AR, Biegel JA,
Folpe AL. Epithelioid malignant peripheral nerve sheath tumor arising in a schwannoma,
in a patient with neuroblastoma-like schwannomatosis and a novel germline SMARCB1
mutation. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(1):15460.
85. Hollmann TJ, Hornick JL. INI1-deficient tumors: diagnostic features and molecular genet-
ics. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(10):e4763.
86. Mertens F, Dal Cin P, De Wever I, Fletcher CD, Mandahl N, Mitelman F, Rosai J, Rydholm
A, Sciot R, Tallini G. Cytogenetic characterization of peripheral nerve sheath tumours: a
report of the CHAMP study group. J Pathol. 2000;190(1):318.
87. Cancer Genome Anatomy Project (CGAP). http://cgap.nci.nih.gov/cgap.html.
88. Rao UN, Surti U, Hoffner L, Yaw K. Cytogenetic and histologic correlation of peripheral
nerve sheath tumors of soft tissue. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1996;88(1):1725.
89. Hulsebos TJ, Plomp AS, Wolterman RA, Robanus-Maandag EC, Baas F, Wesseling P.
Germline mutation of INI1/SMARCB1 in familial schwannomatosis. Am J Hum Genet.
2007;80(4):80510.
90. Brooks DG. The neurofibromatoses: hereditary predisposition to multiple peripheral nerve
tumors. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2004;15(2):14555.
91. Lothe RA, Slettan A, Saeter G, Brogger A, Borresen AL, Nesland JM. Alterations at
chromosome 17 loci in peripheral nerve sheath tumors. J Neuropathol Exp Neurol.
1995;54(1):6573.
92. Falconieri G, Lamovec J, Mirra M, Pizzolitto S. Solitary fibrous tumor of the mammary
gland: a potential pitfall in breast pathology. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2004;8(3):1215.
93. Doyle LA, Vivero M, Fletcher CD, Mertens F, Hornick JL. Nuclear expression of STAT6
distinguishes solitary fibrous tumor from histologic mimics. Modern Pathol: Official J U S
Can Acad Pathol Inc. 2014;27(3):3905.
94. Vivero M, Doyle LA, Fletcher CD, Mertens F, Hornick JL. GRIA2 is a novel diag-
nostic marker for solitary fibrous tumour identified through gene expression profiling.
Histopathology 2014.
95. Chmielecki J, Crago AM, Rosenberg M, OConnor R, Walker SR, Ambrogio L, Auclair D,
McKenna A, Heinrich MC, Frank DA, etal. Whole-exome sequencing identifies a recurrent
NAB2-STAT6 fusion in solitary fibrous tumors. Nat Genet. 2013;45(2):1312.
96. Mohajeri A, Tayebwa J, Collin A, Nilsson J, Magnusson L, von Steyern FV, Brosjo O,
Domanski HA, Larsson O, Sciot R, etal. Comprehensive genetic analysis identifies a
pathognomonic NAB2/STAT6 fusion gene, nonrandom secondary genomic imbalances, and
a characteristic gene expression profile in solitary fibrous tumor. Genes Chromosom Cancer.
2013;52(10):87386.
97. Robinson DR, Wu YM, Kalyana-Sundaram S, Cao X, Lonigro RJ, Sung YS, Chen CL,
Zhang L, Wang R, Su F, etal. Identification of recurrent NAB2-STAT6 gene fusions in soli-
tary fibrous tumor by integrative sequencing. Nat Genet. 2013;45(2):1805.
98. Hajdu M, Singer S, Maki RG, Schwartz GK, Keohan ML, Antonescu CR. IGF2 over-
expression in solitary fibrous tumours is independent of anatomical location and is related to
loss of imprinting. J Pathol. 2010;221(3):3007.
99. Day NC, Shaw PJ, McCormack AL, Craig PJ, Smith W, Beattie R, Williams TL, Ellis
SB, Ince PG, Harpold MM, etal. Distribution of alpha 1A, alpha 1B and alpha 1E volt-
age-dependent calcium channel subunits in the human hippocampus and parahippocampal
gyrus. Neuroscience. 1996;71(4):101324.
100. Chang HJ, Yoo BC, Lim SB, Jeong SY, Kim WH, Park JG. Metabotropic glutamate recep-
tor 4 expression in colorectal carcinoma and its prognostic significance. Clin Cancer Res:
Official J Am Assoc Cancer Res. 2005;11(9):328895.
101. Tanaka H, Grooms SY, Bennett MV, Zukin RS. The AMPAR subunit GluR2: still front and
center-stage. Brain Res. 2000;886(12):190207.
102. Rzeski W, Ikonomidou C, Turski L. Glutamate antagonists limit tumor growth. Biochem
Pharmacol. 2002;64(8):1195200.
103. Hechtman JF, Xiao GQ, Unger PD, Kinoshita Y, Godbold JH, Burstein DE. Anti-glutamate
receptor 2 as a new potential diagnostic probe for prostatic adenocarcinoma: a pilot immu-
nohistochemical study. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol: AIMM/Official Publ Soc
Appl Immunohistochem. 2012;20(4):3449.
104. Tsibris JC, Maas S, Segars JH, Nicosia SV, Enkemann SA, OBrien WF, Spellacy WN. New
potential regulators of uterine leiomyomata from DNA arrays: the ionotropic glutamate
receptor GluR2. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2003;312(1):24954.
105. Ishiuchi S, Yoshida Y, Sugawara K, Aihara M, Ohtani T, Watanabe T, Saito N, Tsuzuki K,
Okado H, Miwa A, etal. Ca2+-permeable AMPA receptors regulate growth of human glio-
blastoma via Akt activation. J Neurosci: Official J Soc Neurosci. 2007;27(30):79878001.
106. Nascimento AF, Raut CP, Fletcher CD. Primary angiosarcoma of the breast: clinicopatho-
logic analysis of 49 cases, suggesting that grade is not prognostic. Am J Surg Pathol.
2008;32(12):1896904.
107. Rosen PP, Kimmel M, Ernsberger D. Mammary angiosarcoma. The prognostic significance
of tumor differentiation. Cancer. 1988;62(10):214551.
108. Adem C, Reynolds C, Ingle JN, Nascimento AG. Primary breast sarcoma: clinicopathologic
series from the Mayo Clinic and review of the literature. Br J Cancer. 2004;91(2):23741.
109. Fayette J, Martin E, Piperno-Neumann S, Le Cesne A, Robert C, Bonvalot S, Ranchere D,
Pouillart P, Coindre JM, Blay JY. Angiosarcomas, a heterogeneous group of sarcomas with
specific behavior depending on primary site: a retrospective study of 161 cases. Ann Oncol:
Official J Eur Soc Med Oncol/ESMO. 2007;18(12):20306.
110. Mery CM, George S, Bertagnolli MM, Raut CP. Secondary sarcomas after radiotherapy for
breast cancer: sustained risk and poor survival. Cancer. 2009;115(18):405563.
111. Brenn T, Fletcher CD. Postradiation vascular proliferations: an increasing problem.

112.
Brodie C, Provenzano E. Vascular proliferations of the breast. Histopathology.
2008;52(1):3044.
113. Fineberg S, Rosen PP. Cutaneous angiosarcoma and atypical vascular lesions of the skin and
breast after radiation therapy for breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol. 1994;102(6):75763.
114. Mandrell J, Mehta S, McClure S. Atypical vascular lesion of the breast. J Am Acad

Dermatol. 2010;63(2):33740.
115. Patton KT, Deyrup AT, Weiss SW. Atypical vascular lesions after surgery and radiation of
the breast: a clinicopathologic study of 32 cases analyzing histologic heterogeneity and
association with angiosarcoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2008;32(6):94350.
116. Uchin JM, Billings SD. Radiotherapy-associated atypical vascular lesions of the breast.
JCutan Pathol. 2009;36(1):878.
117. Weaver J, Billings SD. Postradiation cutaneous vascular tumors of the breast: a review.
Semin Diagn Pathol. 2009;26(3):1419.
118. Brenn T, Fletcher CD. Radiation-associated cutaneous atypical vascular lesions and angio-
sarcoma: clinicopathologic analysis of 42 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(8):98396.
119. Requena L, Kutzner H, Mentzel T, Duran R, Rodriguez-Peralto JL. Benign vascular prolif-
erations in irradiated skin. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002;26(3):32837.
120. Ginter PS, Mosquera JM, MacDonald TY, DAlfonso TM, Rubin MA, Shin SJ. Diagnostic
utility of MYC amplification and anti-MYC immunohistochemistry in atypical vascular
lesions, primary or radiation-induced mammary angiosarcomas, and primary angiosarcomas
of other sites. Hum Pathol. 2014;45(4):70916.
121. Antonescu CR, Yoshida A, Guo T, Chang NE, Zhang L, Agaram NP, Qin LX, Brennan MF,
Singer S, Maki RG. KDR activating mutations in human angiosarcomas are sensitive to spe-
cific kinase inhibitors. Cancer Res. 2009;69(18):71759.
122. Manner J, Radlwimmer B, Hohenberger P, Mossinger K, Kuffer S, Sauer C, Belharazem
D, Zettl A, Coindre JM, Hallermann C, etal. MYC high level gene amplification is a dis-
tinctive feature of angiosarcomas after irradiation or chronic lymphedema. Am J Pathol.
2010;176(1):349.
123. Fernandez AP, Sun Y, Tubbs RR, Goldblum JR, Billings SD. FISH for MYC amplification
and anti-MYC immunohistochemistry: useful diagnostic tools in the assessment of second-
ary angiosarcoma and atypical vascular proliferations. J Cutan Pathol. 2012;39(2):23442.
124. Guo T, Zhang L, Chang NE, Singer S, Maki RG, Antonescu CR. Consistent MYC and FLT4
gene amplification in radiation-induced angiosarcoma but not in other radiation-associated
atypical vascular lesions. Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2011;50(1):2533.
125. Mentzel T, Schildhaus HU, Palmedo G, Buttner R, Kutzner H. Postradiation cutaneous
angiosarcoma after treatment of breast carcinoma is characterized by MYC amplification in
contrast to atypical vascular lesions after radiotherapy and control cases: clinicopathologi-
cal, immunohistochemical and molecular analysis of 66 cases. Mod Pathol: Official J U S
Can Acad Pathol Inc. 2012;25(1):7585.
126. Blanchard DK, Reynolds CA, Grant CS, Donohue JH. Primary nonphylloides breast sarco-
mas. Am J Surg. 2003;186(4):35961.
127. Terrier P, Terrier-Lacombe MJ, Mouriesse H, Friedman S, Spielmann M, Contesso G.

Primary breast sarcoma: a review of 33 cases with immunohistochemistry and prognostic
factors. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1989;13(1):3948.
128. Arbabi L, Warhol MJ. Pleomorphic liposarcoma following radiotherapy for breast carci-
noma. Cancer. 1982;49(5):87880.
129. Binh MB, Sastre-Garau X, Guillou L, de Pinieux G, Terrier P, Lagace R, Aurias A, Hostein
I, Coindre JM. MDM2 and CDK4 immunostainings are useful adjuncts in diagnosing well-
differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcoma subtypes: a comparative analysis of 559 soft
tissue neoplasms with genetic data. Am J Surg Pathol. 2005;29(10):13407.
130. Thway K, Flora R, Shah C, Olmos D, Fisher C. Diagnostic utility of p16, CDK4, and
MDM2 as an immunohistochemical panel in distinguishing well-differentiated and dediffer-
entiated liposarcomas from other adipocytic tumors. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36(3):4629.
131. Coindre JM, Pedeutour F, Aurias A. Well-differentiated and dedifferentiated liposarcomas.

Virchows Archiv: Int J Pathol. 2010;456(2):16779.
132. Dei Tos AP, Doglioni C, Piccinin S, Sciot R, Furlanetto A, Boiocchi M, Dal Cin P, Maestro
R, Fletcher CD, Tallini G. Coordinated expression and amplification of the MDM2, CDK4,
and HMGI-C genes in atypical lipomatous tumours. J Pathol. 2000;190(5):5316.
133. Coindre JM, Hostein I, Maire G, Derre J, Guillou L, Leroux A, Ghnassia JP, Collin F,
Pedeutour F, Aurias A. Inflammatory malignant fibrous histiocytomas and dedifferentiated
liposarcomas: histological review, genomic profile, and MDM2 and CDK4 status favour a
single entity. J Pathol. 2004;203(3):82230.
134. Sirvent N, Coindre JM, Maire G, Hostein I, Keslair F, Guillou L, Ranchere-Vince D,
Terrier P, Pedeutour F. Detection of MDM2-CDK4 amplification by fluorescence in situ
hybridization in 200 paraffin-embedded tumor samples: utility in diagnosing adipocytic
lesions and comparison with immunohistochemistry and real-time PCR. Am J Surg Pathol.
2007;31(10):147689.
135. Sandberg AA. Updates on the cytogenetics and molecular genetics of bone and soft tissue
tumors: liposarcoma. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2004;155(1):124.
136. Heidenblad M, Hallor KH, Staaf J, Jonsson G, Borg A, Hoglund M, Mertens F, Mandahl
N. Genomic profiling of bone and soft tissue tumors with supernumerary ring chromo-
somes using tiling resolution bacterial artificial chromosome microarrays. Oncogene.
2006;25(53):710616.
137. Mariani O, Brennetot C, Coindre JM, Gruel N, Ganem C, Delattre O, Stern MH, Aurias A.
JUN oncogene amplification and overexpression block adipocytic differentiation in highly
aggressive sarcomas. Cancer Cell. 2007;11(4):36174.
138. Engstrom K, Willen H, Kabjorn-Gustafsson C, Andersson C, Olsson M, Goransson M,
Jarnum S, Olofsson A, Warnhammar E, Aman P. The myxoid/round cell liposarcoma fusion
oncogene FUS-DDIT3 and the normal DDIT3 induce a liposarcoma phenotype in trans-
fected human fibrosarcoma cells. Am J Pathol. 2006;168(5):164253.
139. Italiano A, Chambonniere ML, Attias R, Chibon F, Coindre JM, Pedeutour F. Monosomy 7
and absence of 12q amplification in two cases of spindle cell liposarcomas. Cancer Genet
Cytogenet. 2008;184(2):99104.
140. Mentzel T, Palmedo G, Kuhnen C. Well-differentiated spindle cell liposarcoma (atypical
spindle cell lipomatous tumor) does not belong to the spectrum of atypical lipomatous
tumor but has a close relationship to spindle cell lipoma: clinicopathologic, immunohisto-
chemical, and molecular analysis of six cases. Mod Pathol: Official J U S Can Acad Pathol
Inc. 2010;23(5):72936.
141. Mentzel T, Reisshauer S, Rutten A, Hantschke M, Soares de Almeida LM, Kutzner H.
Cutaneous clear cell myomelanocytic tumour: a new member of the growing family of
perivascular epithelioid cell tumours (PEComas). Clinicopathological and immunohisto-
chemical analysis of seven cases. Histopathology. 2005;46(5):498504.
142. Barnes L, Pietruszka M. Rhabdomyosarcoma arising within a cystosarcoma phyllodes. Case
report and review of the literature. Am J Surg Pathol. 1978;2(4):4239.
143. Foschini MP, Dina RE, Eusebi V. Sarcomatoid neoplasms of the breast: proposed defini-
tions for biphasic and monophasic sarcomatoid mammary carcinomas. Semin Diagn Pathol.
1993;10(2):12836.
144. Hays DM, Donaldson SS, Shimada H, Crist WM, Newton WA Jr, Andrassy RJ, Wiener E,
Green J, Triche T, Maurer HM. Primary and metastatic rhabdomyosarcoma in the breast:
neoplasms of adolescent females, a report from the Intergroup Rhabdomyosarcoma Study.
Med Pediatr Oncol. 1997;29(3):1819.
145. Cessna MH, Zhou H, Perkins SL, Tripp SR, Layfield L, Daines C, Coffin CM. Are myo-
genin and myoD1 expression specific for rhabdomyosarcoma? A study of 150 cases, with
emphasis on spindle cell mimics. Am J Surg Pathol. 2001;25(9):11507.
146. Morotti RA, Nicol KK, Parham DM, Teot LA, Moore J, Hayes J, Meyer W, Qualman SJ.
Childrens Oncology G: an immunohistochemical algorithm to facilitate diagnosis and
subtyping of rhabdomyosarcoma: the Childrens Oncology Group experience. Am J Surg

Pathol. 2006;30(8):9628.
147. Bahrami A, Gown AM, Baird GS, Hicks MJ, Folpe AL. Aberrant expression of epithelial
and neuroendocrine markers in alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma: a potentially serious diagnostic
pitfall. Mod Pathol: Official J U S Can Acad Pathol Inc. 2008;21(7):795806.
148. Sullivan LM, Atkins KA, LeGallo RD. PAX immunoreactivity identifies alveolar rhabdo-
myosarcoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009;33(5):77580.
149. Gallego Melcon S, de Toledo Sanchez, Codina J. Molecular biology of rhabdomyo-

sarcoma. Clin Transl Oncol: Official Publ Fed Span Oncol Soc Natl Cancer Inst Mex.
2007;9(7):4159.
150. Davicioni E, Anderson MJ, Finckenstein FG, Lynch JC, Qualman SJ, Shimada H, Schofield
DE, Buckley JD, Meyer WH, Sorensen PH, etal. Molecular classification of rhabdomyo-
sarcomagenotypic and phenotypic determinants of diagnosis: a report from the Childrens
Oncology Group. Am J Pathol. 2009;174(2):55064.
151. Parham DM, Ellison DA. Rhabdomyosarcomas in adults and children: an update. Arch
Pathol Lab Med. 2006;130(10):145465.
152.
Linardic CM. PAX3-FOXO1 fusion gene in rhabdomyosarcoma. Cancer Lett.
2008;270(1):108.
153. Skapek SX, Anderson J, Barr FG, Bridge JA, Gastier-Foster JM, Parham DM, Rudzinski
ER, Triche T, Hawkins DS. PAX-FOXO1 fusion status drives unfavorable outcome for chil-
dren with rhabdomyosarcoma: a childrens oncology group report. Pediatr Blood Cancer.
2013;60(9):14117.
154. Barr FG, Qualman SJ, Macris MH, Melnyk N, Lawlor ER, Strzelecki DM, Triche TJ,
Bridge JA, Sorensen PH. Genetic heterogeneity in the alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma subset
without typical gene fusions. Cancer Res. 2002;62(16):470410.
155. Liu J, Guzman MA, Pezanowski D, Patel D, Hauptman J, Keisling M, Hou SJ, Papenhausen
PR, Pascasio JM, Punnett HH, etal. FOXO1-FGFR1 fusion and amplification in a solid
variant of alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma. Mod Pathol: Official J U S Can Acad Pathol Inc.
2011;24(10):132735.
156. Sumegi J, Streblow R, Frayer RW, Dal Cin P, Rosenberg A, Meloni-Ehrig A, Bridge JA.
Recurrent t(2; 2) and t(2; 8) translocations in rhabdomyosarcoma without the canonical
PAX-FOXO1 fuse PAX3 to members of the nuclear receptor transcriptional coactivator fam-
ily. Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2010;49(3):22436.
157. Wachtel M, Dettling M, Koscielniak E, Stegmaier S, Treuner J, Simon-Klingenstein K,
Buhlmann P, Niggli FK, Schafer BW. Gene expression signatures identify rhabdomyosar-
coma subtypes and detect a novel t(2; 2)(q35; p23) translocation fusing PAX3 to NCOA1.
Cancer Res. 2004;64(16):553945.
158. Mitani K, Kurosawa H, Suzuki A, Hayashi Y, Hanada R, Yamamoto K, Komatsu A,

Kobayashi N, Nakagome Y, Yamada M. Amplification of N-myc in a rhabdomyosarcoma.
Jpn J Cancer Res: Gann. 1986;77(11):10625.
159. Mosquera JM, Sboner A, Zhang L, Kitabayashi N, Chen CL, Sung YS, Wexler LH,

LaQuaglia MP, Edelman M, Sreekantaiah C, etal. Recurrent NCOA2 gene rearrange-
ments in congenital/infantile spindle cell rhabdomyosarcoma. Genes Chromosom Cancer.
2013;52(6):53850.
160. Silver SA, Tavassoli FA. Primary osteogenic sarcoma of the breast: a clinicopathologic anal-
ysis of 50 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 1998;22(8):92533.
161. Jacob S, Japa D. Primary osteogenic sarcoma of the breast. Indian J Pathol Microbiol.
2010;53(4):7856.
162. Conner JR, Hornick JL. SATB2 is a novel marker of osteoblastic differentiation in bone and
soft tissue tumours. Histopathology. 2013;63(1):3649.
163. Hiddemann W, Roessner A, Wormann B, Mellin W, Klockenkemper B, Bosing T, Buchner
T, Grundmann E. Tumor heterogeneity in osteosarcoma as identified by flow cytometry.
Cancer. 1987;59(2):3248.
164. Stark A, Kreicbergs A, Nilsonne U, Silfversward C. The age of osteosarcoma patients is

increasing. An epidemiological study of osteosarcoma in Sweden 1971 to 1984. J Bone
Joint Surg Br. 1971;72(1):8993.
165. Boehm AK, Neff JR, Squire JA, Bayani J, Nelson M, Bridge JA. Cytogenetic findings
in 36 osteosarcoma specimens and a review of the literature. Pediatr Pathol Mol Med.
2000;19(5):35976.
166. Tarkkanen M, Elomaa I, Blomqvist C, Kivioja AH, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P, Bohling

T, Valle J, Knuutila S. DNA sequence copy number increase at 8q: a potential new prog-
nostic marker in high-grade osteosarcoma. Int J Cancer (Journal International du Cancer).
1999;84(2):11421.
167. Tan ML, Choong PF, Dass CR. Osteosarcoma: Conventional treatment vs. gene therapy.
Cancer Biol Ther. 2009;8(2):10617.
168. Greenspan A, Jundt G, Remagen W, Greenspan A. Differential diagnosis in orthopaedic
oncology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
169. German J, Crippa LP, Bloom D. Blooms syndrome. III. Analysis of the chromosome aber-
ration characteristic of this disorder. Chromosoma. 1974;48(4):3616.
170. Fukuchi K, Martin GM, Monnat RJ Jr. Mutator phenotype of Werner syndrome is character-
ized by extensive deletions. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989;86(15):58937.
171. Smida J, Baumhoer D, Rosemann M, Walch A, Bielack S, Poremba C, Remberger K,
Korsching E, Scheurlen W, Dierkes C, etal. Genomic alterations and allelic imbalances are
strong prognostic predictors in osteosarcoma. Clin Cancer Res: Official J Am Assoc Cancer
Res. 2010;16(16):425667.
172. Ta HT, Dass CR, Choong PF, Dunstan DE. Osteosarcoma treatment: state of the art. Cancer
Metastasis Reviews. 2009;28(12):24763.
173. Alberts B, Wilson JH, Hunt T. Molecular biology of the cell. 5th ed. New York: Garland
Science; 2008.
174. Hauben EI, Arends J, Vandenbroucke JP, van Asperen CJ, van Marck E, Hogendoorn PC.
Multiple primary malignancies in osteosarcoma patients. Incidence and predictive value of
osteosarcoma subtype for cancer syndromes related with osteosarcoma. Eur J Hum Genet:
EJHG. 2003;11(8):6118.
175. McIntyre JF, Smith-Sorensen B, Friend SH, Kassell J, Borresen AL, Yan YX, Russo

C, Sato J, Barbier N, Miser J, etal. Germline mutations of the p53 tumor suppres-
sor gene in children with osteosarcoma. J Clinical Oncol: Official J Am Soc Clin Oncol.
1994;12(5):92530.
176. Ende L, Mercado C, Axelrod D, Darvishian F, Levine P, Cangiarella J. Intraparenchymal
leiomyoma of the breast: a case report and review of the literature. Ann Clin Lab Sci.
2007;37(3):26873.
177. Rane SU, Batra C, Saikia UN. Primary leiomyosarcoma of breast in an adolescent girl: a
case report and review of the literature. Case Rep Pathol. 2012;2012:491984.
178. Yang J, Du X, Chen K, Ylipaa A, Lazar AJ, Trent J, Lev D, Pollock R, Hao X, Hunt K, etal.
Genetic aberrations in soft tissue leiomyosarcoma. Cancer Lett. 2009;275(1):18.
179. El-Rifai W, Sarlomo-Rikala M, Knuutila S, Miettinen M. DNA copy number changes

in development and progression in leiomyosarcomas of soft tissues. Am J Pathol.
1998;153(3):98590.
180. Otano-Joos M, Mechtersheimer G, Ohl S, Wilgenbus KK, Scheurlen W, Lehnert T, Willeke
F, Otto HF, Lichter P, Joos S. Detection of chromosomal imbalances in leiomyosarcoma
by comparative genomic hybridization and interphase cytogenetics. Cytogenet Cell Genet.
2000;90(12):8692.
181. Wang R, Lu YJ, Fisher C, Bridge JA, Shipley J. Characterization of chromosome aberra-
tions associated with soft-tissue leiomyosarcomas by twenty-four-color karyotyping and
comparative genomic hybridization analysis. Genes Chromosom Cancer. 2001;31(1):5464.
182. Lee J, Li S, Torbenson M, Liu QZ, Lind S, Mulvihill JJ, Bane B, Wang J. Leiomyosarcoma
of the breast: a pathologic and comparative genomic hybridization study of two cases.
Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2004;149(1):537.
183. Hu J, Rao UN, Jasani S, Khanna V, Yaw K, Surti U. Loss of DNA copy number of 10q is
associated with aggressive behavior of leiomyosarcomas: a comparative genomic hybridiza-
tion study. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2005;161(1):207.
184. Larramendy ML, Kaur S, Svarvar C, Bohling T, Knuutila S. Gene copy number profiling
of soft-tissue leiomyosarcomas by array-comparative genomic hybridization. Cancer Genet
Cytogenet. 2006;169(2):94101.
185. Giacinti C, Giordano A. RB and cell cycle progression. Oncogene. 2006;25(38):52207.
186. Meza-Zepeda LA, Kresse SH, Barragan-Polania AH, Bjerkehagen B, Ohnstad HO, Namlos
HM, Wang J, Kristiansen BE, Myklebost O. Array comparative genomic hybridization
reveals distinct DNA copy number differences between gastrointestinal stromal tumors and
leiomyosarcomas. Cancer Res. 2006;66(18):898493.
187. Amant F, de la Rey M, Dorfling CM, van der Walt L, Dreyer G, Dreyer L, Vergote I,
Lindeque BG, Van Rensburg EJ. PTEN mutations in uterine sarcomas. Gynecol Oncol.
2002;85(1):1659.
188. Saito T, Oda Y, Kawaguchi K, Takahira T, Yamamoto H, Tamiya S, Tanaka K, Matsuda S,
Sakamoto A, Iwamoto Y, etal. PTEN/MMAC1 gene mutation is a rare event in soft tissue
sarcomas without specific balanced translocations. Int J Cancer (Journal International du
Cancer). 2003;104(2):1758.
189. Kawaguchi K, Oda Y, Saito T, Takahira T, Yamamoto H, Tamiya S, Iwamoto Y, Tsuneyoshi
M. Genetic and epigenetic alterations of the PTEN gene in soft tissue sarcomas. Hum
Pathol. 2005;36(4):35763.
190. Hernando E, Charytonowicz E, Dudas ME, Menendez S, Matushansky I, Mills J, Socci ND,
Behrendt N, Ma L, Maki RG, etal. The AKT-mTOR pathway plays a critical role in the
development of leiomyosarcomas. Nat Med. 2007;13(6):74853.
Chapter 16
Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer
Metastasis
Introduction
Breast cancer development and progression follow the known seven fundamental
changes in cellular physiology, which together determine the malignant pheno-
type known as the Hallmarks of Cancer. These hallmarks are: self-sufficiency
in growth signals, insensitivity to growth inhibitory signals, limitless replicative
potential, evasion of apoptosis, defective DNA repair, sustained angiogenesis, and
the ability to invade and metastasise [1, 2]. Although malignant solid tumours,
including breast cancer, arise from clonal expansion of a single transformed cell,
the transformed mass of cells becomes enriched with some variants/clones more
able to evade host defences and is likely to be more aggressive [3].
Metastasis, the ability to invade and metastasise, is formation of tumour implants
discontinuous with the primary tumour. This occurs through colonisation of remote
or distant organs by malignant cells having the privilege to invade and metastasise.
Metastasis is the crucial unequivocal difference between a tumour being
benign, locally malignant or malignant. In stricter terms, the capacity of at least
some of a tumour cell population to detach, migrate and colonise remote tissues is
a sure distinctive feature of malignant tumours from benign and locally malig-
nant. However, not all detached invasive malignant cells succeed in completing
the stressful journey from their primary location to colonise the remote organ.
Some cancer patients may remain metastasis-free for long times, and even some
of them may never develop metastatic deposits [4, 5]. The morbidity and mortality
M.A. Aleskandarany I.O. Ellis E.A. Rakha(*)

Department of Histopathology, Division of Cancer and Stem Cells, School of Medicine,
The University of Nottingham and Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust,
Nottingham City Hospital, Nottingham, NG5 1PB, UK

in breast cancer patients are mainly attributable to development of loco-regional or

systemic spread of cancer or recurrences of both [6, 7]. Metastases are the cause of
90% of human cancer deaths [8].
It is noteworthy that breast cancer evolves from a pre-invasive lesion or carci-
noma in situ; in which cells display all cytological features of malignancy without
invasion of the basement membrane, to an overtly invasive stage. The latter is con-
sidered one step removed from invasive cancer; and with time, cells penetrate the
basement membrane, infiltrate the sub-epithelial stroma and hereby could metasta-
sise to remote organs [9, 10].
The process of metastasis is collectively known as the metastatic cascade, dur-
ing which a number of sequential steps have to be completed by cancer cells in
order to successfully establish a metastatic focus at a distant location. This process
requires the integration of complex arrays of specific molecular pathways. These,
from theoretical standpoint, could be divided into the following categories:
Prerequisites for Metastasis
For malignant cells to metastasise, they must fulfil certain tumourigenic functions
that are considered as fundamental prerequisites for metastasis. These include:
unlimited cellular proliferation, evasion of cell intrinsic and environmental con-
straints, attraction of a blood supply; angiogenesis, and gaining the capacity to
detach, migrate and move away from their original locations. Although such func-
tions are acquired early during tumour initiation and local development and are
considered amongst the hallmarks of cancer, they must remain dynamically active
throughout malignant progression. The acquisition of these functions is cumula-
tively gained through tumour-initiating mutations, genetic alterations that occur
secondarily to genomic instability and epigenetic changes. With progressive
tumour growth, tumour must selectively overcome environmental stresses includ-
ing cytotoxic immunity, diminished oxygen supply and an acidic environment
resulting from enhanced cellular metabolism. Therefore, having these features
of aggressiveness is considered prerequisites for metastasis, without which cells
would not possess the capacity to proceed into the next metastatic phases [11, 12].
Metastatic Initiation and Dissemination
Dissemination commences when aggressive tumour cells become locally invasive

and readily get access into the bloodstream through the newly formed vasculature,
which is typically pathologically leaky due to its wide fenestrations, leading to
easier entry into the circulation [13]. Moreover, such intravasation is enhanced by
an epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition programme, proposed genetic reprogram-
ming of carcinoma cells that confers superadded motility to these cells [14]. In
16 Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer Metastasis 273
other terms, malignant cells are continually shed from the parent primary tumour
mass and circulate within the blood stream. The rate of malignant cell shedding
generally increases with increased tumour size [15].
Epithelial Mesenchymal Transition
Mammary epithelial cells are functionally and phenotypically different from the
supporting mesenchymal cells. The former form highly specialised surface joined
together by specialised junctions and rest on well-organised basal lamina. In addi-
tion to basal contact between epithelial cells and basal lamina, epithelial cells have
apical-basolateral polarisation that is tightly controlled through localised distribu-
tion of adhesion molecules and cellular cytoskeleton [16, 17]. Mesenchymal cells,
on the other hand, do not exhibit such architectural organisation, contact each
other only focally and lack an underlying basal lamina, which might facilitate their
propensity to migrate [18].
The term epithelialmesenchymal transition (EMT) describes a sequence of
events during which epithelial cells lose many of their epithelial characteristics
and gradually gain those typical of mesenchymal cells [19]. EMT phenomenon
involves complex changes in cell architecture and behaviour and encompasses
a wide spectrum of inter-cellular and intra-cellular changes, which are probably
controlled by diverse extracellular signals [20]. Loss of epithelial characteristics
and gain of mesenchymal characteristics confer invasive and migratory capacity to
the malignant cells. However, it is widely conceived that EMT is proposed to be a
transient reversible process [14]. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that EMT does not
necessarily denote a lineage switch; but rather a series of complex changes mani-
festing through phenotypic and functional alterations of malignant cells [21, 22].
EMT has been described with much emphasis in tissue culture and animal
models using cancer cell lines [23, 24]. The manifestation of EMT in tissue cul-
tures prompted some authorities to describe EMT as a mere cell culture phe-
nomenon that lacks direct clinical evidence or clear molecular markers in breast
cancer [25]. For instance, under specific culture conditions, epithelial cells can
transform into fibroblast-like cells, whereby cells could not attain epithelial type
polarity; aided by the culture conditions that facilitate discohesiveness. Moreover,
cytokeratins commonly used as molecular identifiers of carcinoma cells are often
downregulated, while vimentin is upregulated; leading ultimately to difficult char-
acterisation of cultured epithelial cells undergoing EMT from the surrounding
stromal cells [2628].
Whether EMT is a prerequisite of tumour progression or not is a controversial
matter. For instance, EMT has been considered as a key role-player in cancer dis-
semination from local to remote sites [29]. On the other hand, others report that
EMT is one possible mechanism behind the process of local invasiveness and pro-
gression of cancer [24, 30]; others [31] still doubt its occurrence in real cancers. In
addition, breast cancer progression without EMT has been reported [32]. However,
Giampieri and colleagues in their recent works demonstrated the impact of transient
TGF signalling; an EMT trigger, in switching cancer cells from cohesive collec-
tive to single cell motility, which is essential for blood-borne metastasis [33].
Recent insights into molecular EMT-controlling mechanisms indicate that several
complex signalling pathways are involved in the initiation and execution of EMT in
the contexts of development and cancer progression. These molecular mechanisms
significantly overlap with those controlling cellular adhesion, motility, invasion,
survival and differentiation [20, 34]. A number of specific molecular pathways and
transcription factors have been reported as EMT triggers including TGF [35],
Twist1/2 [36], PI3K/Akt pathway [37], CTEN [38], Snail, Slug, and Zeb1 [39].
When expressed in a variety of cell types, these factors act as transcriptional repres-
sors of E-cadherin and alter the expression of a diverse number of genes denoting in
vitro EMT with subsequent promotion of cancer invasion and metastasis [38, 40].
Not only is E-cadherin downregulation considered as the sole characteristic
molecular phenotypic change of carcinoma cells reported to accompany breast
cancer metastasis through EMT programme but upregulation of N-cadherin
or cadherin switching has been reported to enhance cellular motility of mam-
mary epithelial cell lines [41]. Moreover, N-cadherin expression was reported to
be more influential than E-cadherin loss in determining the EMT phenotype and
hence progression [42]. The latter notion that E-cadherin loss alone is not suffi-
cient for breast cancer metastatic dissemination is supported by the known char-
acter of invasive lobular carcinoma which is typically characterised by loss of
E-cadherin expression [43].
Therefore, these integrative molecular changes challenge some prevailing views
that propose repression of E-cadherin or deregulation of a single molecular path-
way to be sufficient to explain the tendency of certain cancer types to disseminate
over others [38, 44].
Furthermore, the privileged occurrence of EMT in some particular breast can-
cer molecular subtypes has been reported [45]. Different breast cancer molecu-
lar subtypes express differential levels of cadherin family members; E-cadherin,
N-cadherin and P-cadherin, and upregulation of mesenchymal markers (e.g.
SMA); with N-cadherin gain having the highest influence in determining the EMT
phenotype [46].
The Tumour Microenvironment and Metastasis
The tumour microenvironment in invasive breast carcinoma normally represents

mechano-biological interface between malignant cells and the components of the
surrounding stroma [47]. There are different types and subtypes of cells contribut-
ing as pro-metastatic or anti-metastatic regulators.
Fibroblasts are spindly, non-epithelial, non-endothelial and non-inflammatory
stromal cells. Their main biological functions in normal tissues are the regulation
of epithelial cells differentiation, wound healing, secretion of variety collagens
types and they are the main producers of ECM proteases [48]. The close presence
of malignant cells and the stromal fibroblast in the same local microenvironment
will lead to epigenetic alteration of the latter, where some of the genes regulat-
ing cellular proliferation of normal fibroblasts may be affected [49]. This parac-
rine signalling loop may mutate or silence well-known tumour suppressor genes
such as P53 and PTEN within cancer associated fibroblasts (CAFs) [50]. CAFs
are obligated by their intrinsic genetics and the epigenetic effects of the adja-
cent malignant cells to secrete growth factors, chemokines, cytokine, and ECM
remodelling enzymes [48]. It also may supress the function of immune T cells
[51]. Moreover, CAFs and inflammatory cells promote the upregulation of the
transcriptional factors genes SNAIL, SLUG, and ZEB1, factors reported as EMT
triggers [39]. Probably one of the fascinating examples of synergism between
CAFs and breast cancer cells is podoplanin; a glycoprotein encoded by the PDPN
gene and expressed in lymphatic vessels, malignant cells and CAFs. It functions
as a booster of cellular motility and reducer of cellular adhesion. Overexpression
of podoplanin is significantly correlated with breast cancer aggressiveness.
Interestingly, podoplanin overexpression in the invasive front of breast carcinoma
is the back-up plan of invasion and metastasis if the pathways of EMT are inhib-
ited or hindered, through remodelling the cytoskeletal structures and forming inva-
sive protrusions: the filopodia [52]. Therefore, this phenomenon illustrates the
potent synergism between paracrine signalling from CAFs and epigenetics from
malignant cells to invade lymphatic vessels.
Different phenotypes of lymphocytes and myeloid cells are present in the
tumour microenvironment. The presence of T lymphocytes is reported to be asso-
ciated with good prognosis in the case of Cytotoxic CD8+memory T cells and
CD4+T helper 1 cells [53]. Cytotoxic CD8+memory T cells are able to eradicate
malignant cells at the invasive front of the tumour. This tumour-cell cytotoxicity is
supported by CD4+T helper 1 cell cytokines; Interleukin-2 (IL-2) and Interferon
gamma (IFN-), which play crucial roles in the differentiation of naive T cells
into memory T cells. The latter cells can fight tumour formation with cytostatic
and cytotoxic mechanisms [54]. In contrast to Cytotoxic CD8+memory T cells,
Natural Killer (NK) and Natural Killer T (NKT) cells infiltrate the tumour stroma
with no major effects on malignant cells [53].
Although infiltrating CD4+cells had good prognosis implications, not all the
CD4+cells subtypes possess same influence. For instance, T regulatory cells
(Tregs) have immune-inhibitory characteristics with subsequent protection of
malignant cells from cytotoxic CD8+T cells elimination [55]. This opposition of
the immune function could be attributed to the suppression of the cellular recogni-
tion of the malignant cells due to the expression of CD152 receptor protein (also
known as cytotoxic lymphocyte associated protein-4, CTLA4) that reverses the
activation of the immune response and transmits inhibition signals. Moreover, the
immune dysregulatory actions of transcriptional factors forkhead box P3 (FOXP3)
and others are other explanations [56, 57].
The other type of lymphocytes of the adaptive immune system is B lympho-
cytes. Generally speaking, B lymphocytes have good prognostic implications if
they infiltrate the tumour microenvironment owing to production of specific anti-

bodies against the tumour cell antigens [58]. However, the vast majority of those
immunity cells tend to localise further in the stroma or even at lymphoid struc-
tures contiguous to the microenvironment, contrasting cytotoxic CD8+T cells
that are often proximate to the malignant cells [59]. Likewise the inhibitory effect
of Tregs, regulatory B cells (Bregs) impairs the tumour specific immune response.
Furthermore, it induces a special immune evasion mechanism on behalf of the
malignant cells [60].
In contrast to the tumour infiltrating lymphocytes, tumour associated mac-
rophages (TAMs) are strongly linked with breast cancer poor prognosis. TAMs
are well-known to produce Interleukin-10 and angiogenic factors [61], and they
aggregate nearby necrotic and hypoxic areas of the tumour microenvironment
[62]. Hence, and under this hypoxic environment, growth factors that promote
blood and lymph neovascularization are upregulated and secreted by the malignant
cells. Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-A (VEGFA) is essential requirement for
hemangiogenesis, and it is a chemoattractant for macrophages [63]. The attracted
and recruited macrophages will aid the invasion and metastasis process through
a dual-direction reaction loop of paracrine signalling with the malignant epithe-
lial cells. Therefore, the intravasation of malignant cells into BV or LV and their
migration through endothelium will be facilitated [64]. Moreover, this may lead
to suppression of cytotoxic T cells and increase the propagation of pro-metastatic
phenotypes of TAMs [65]. Therefore, the use of immunomodulation drug therapy
aims to interfere with the tumour-induced immunosuppression mechanisms, and it
is more likely to be beneficial than using non-specific cytotoxic drugs [66].
Invasion of the Extracellular Matrix (ECM)
The ECM is the complex structural entity surrounding and supporting mammary
epithelial cells and is physically defined into the basement membrane and the
interstitial tissue. Three major classes of macromolecules are physically associated
to form the ECM; structural proteins, assembled into fibrous components, such
as collagens and elastins, a diverse group of adhesive specialised glycoproteins,
including fibrillin, fibronectin and laminin and a gel of proteoglycans and hyalu-
ronan [67]. Four different families of collagen are characterised, where type I, II
and III are the most abundant and form fibrils of similar structure. Type IV colla-
gen forms a two-dimensional reticulum and is a major component of the basement
membranes, and in such a case it is synthesised by epithelial and endothelial cells
[68]. The ECM not only provides physico-mechanical and structural support for
the mammary epithelium yet it encodes a large variety of specific signals which
dynamically influence breast cancer cell growth, invasion and migration [69, 70].
Following detachment from the primary tumour cell mass, the breast carcinoma
cells first adhere to the matrix components. Receptor-mediated attachment of the
malignant cells to laminins and fibronectin is critically important for invasion and
metastasis [7173]. Within the interstitial ECM, breast carcinoma cells must cre-
ate their passageway for migration through active proteolytic degradation of the
ECM components. Such enzymatic degradation is carried out by proteases at the
invading edge of the tumour [74]. Different classes of proteases have been evi-
denced as pro-metastatic proteins including the serine [75], cysteine [76], aspartic
[77] and the matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) [78]. The latter is a broad fam-
ily of zinc-dependant endopeptidases comprising 23 members in humans. To date,
at least fourteen MMPs are implicated in breast cancer development and progres-
sion [79]. MMPs are produced both by the malignant cells and the peritumoural
stromal [80]. The action of proteases is tightly regulated by antiproteases which
increase in response to elevated protease level. It is the balance between proteases
and antiproteases at the invading/cutting edge of the tumour which promotes or
halts tumour cell propagation [79, 81]. Proteolysis of ECM facilitates breast can-
cer cell invasion through their propulsion, or simply, locomotion. Migration is an
active process and is affected by multiple factors, both autocrine and tumour-cell
derived motility factors, and cleavage products of matrix components derived from
collagen and proteoglycans [82, 83]. Cells migrate through the ECM by extending
membrane protrusions; filopodia and lamellipodia, at their leading edges. Their
formation is driven by the reorganisation and polymerisation of actin filaments.
The propagation of tumour cells is a complex highly integrated process controlled
by complex signalling cascades within the cells and cell-stromal crosstalk [83, 84].
Lympho-Vascular Invasion
Lymphatic Vascular Invasion (LVI) is one of the crucial steps in the metastatic
cascade. Presence of LVI, as detected by histopathological examination in inva-
sive breast cancer, is a marker of metastatic potential, a predictive factor of metas-
tasis into the lymphatic system and is associated with poor outcome [85]. In a
previous study of 3812 invasive breast cancer we have demonstrated that LVI is
strongly associated with outcome in the entire series and in different subgroups.
LVI was an independent predictor of outcome and provided survival disad-
vantage equivalent to that provided by 1 or 2 involved lymph nodes and to that
provided by 1 size category [85]. Using a panel of endothelial markers in more
than 1000 invasive breast cancer we [86] have demonstrated that VI was present
22 and in 97% of cases it was LVI. Blood vascular invasion (BVI) was detected
in 3% of cases [86]. The current clinicopathological studies that investigated the
role of LVI in breast carcinoma focused on the capacity, the size, and the loca-
tion of the vessel involved; whether intratumoural, peritumoural, or both [85, 87].
Immunohistochemical detection of LVI and BVI improves their detection rate and
prognostic/predictive values in primary invasive breast cancer [86, 88, 89].
The multiple chemotaxis and cytotaxis interactions due to the EMT and their
consequences in the tumour microenvironment will dramatically alter the adja-
cent lymphatics [90]. The angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis are strongly
related with tumour aggressiveness. The presence of BV and LV within the solid
tumours is an eminent sign of the stimulation of embryogenesis of the endothe-
lium by the malignant cells. Complex cellular events, including proliferation,
sprouting, migration and tube formation are involved in the process of lymphangi-
ogenesis. These functions depend on vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2
(VEGFR2) and VEGFR3 signalling controlled by VEGFC or VEGFD [91]. These
signalling events are more or less the counterparts of the molecular regulation of
angiogenesis by VEGFA signalling via VEGFR2 [92].
The intratumoural vessels usually get collapsed under the increased mass of
the growing tumour [93]. On the other hand, the peritumoural vessels, and under
the influence of the VEGFC and VEGFD, are highly proliferative. The enlarged
peritumoural vessels have been detected with substantial diameter that lead to an
increase of the contacting surface area between malignant cells and LV, which
indicates higher propensity of the LVI incidence [94]. Indeed, the chemotactic and
cytotactic effects are crucial in tumour metastasis; nevertheless, the transcellular
lymphatic drainage that is caused by the elevated interstitial flow of lymphatic flu-
ids may polarise the malignant cells toward the nearest LV through the autologous
secretion of C-C Chemokine Receptor 7 (CCR7). This expression of the specific
receptor and its specific ligand portrays the physio-chemical autocrine mechanisms
possessed by some clones of the malignant cells [95]. The latter is an example
illustrating the capacity of some malignant cell to intensify the chemokinetics of
metastatic progression via directing themselves to the preferential metastasis target.
Recently, the significant association between the breast cancer molecular sub-
type and LVI and LN metastasis has been documented through the clinical trial
performed by American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) [96].
Triple negative or basal-like molecular subtype showed the least association with
LVI and axillary LN metastasis although it is strongly related with poor progno-
sis and high propensity to recur locally. Conversely, the Estrogen Receptor and
Progesterone Receptor and HER2 positive molecular subtypes showed the highest
incidence of LVI. Triple negative malignant cells are more mitotic [97], and less
likely to express claudin protein than the positive ER, PR, and HER2/neu molec-
ular subtypes. Furthermore, the triple negative molecular subtype expresses pro-
teins that are crucial to transform the malignant epithelial cell to the mesenchymal
form; hence, are potently invasive and metastatic [98]. These results are reinforced
by the recent report from the Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group reporting
reduced risk of axillary lymph node involvement at the time of diagnosis in triple
negative breast cancer compared to patients with other subtypes [99]. Therefore,
tumour invasiveness and the routes through which breast cancer disseminates to
regional lymph nodes or distant metastatic sites are different among to the known
breast cancer molecular subtypes.
Following invasion into the local stromal and intravasation, the malignant cells
must manage to survive within the luminal cavities of the LV or capillaries [100].
To survive the stresses during their journey, malignant breast cancer cells require
intrinsic functions, as for instance evading detachment-triggered cell death through
AKT signalling pathway activation via neurotrophic tyrosine kinase, receptor type
2 (NTRK2, TrkB) [101]. Moreover, cells must withstand the associated extrinsic
shear forces and platelet aggregates [102]. They also need to overcome and escape
phagocytosis by circulating macrophages. A subset of circulating luminal breast
cancer cells has been reported to express CD47 molecule that helps tumour cells
evade macrophage phagocytosis [103].
Metastatic Colonisation
The dissemination of tumour cells to a specific distant organ is influenced by cir-

culation patterns and the mechanical lodging of tumour cells in capillary beds.
Metastatic cells enter the parenchyma of the target organ by breaching the capil-
laries in which they are embedded, either by remodelling vascular networks allow-
ing transmigration across the capillary wall or as a result of disruption of capillary
integrity by the mechanical forces of expanding tumour emboli [15]. Adhesion
molecules, including different selectins (E, P, and L selectins) [104, 105] and
integrins [106], mediate the attachment of tumour cells to capillary endothelium.
Specific subtypes of integrin, especially yet not exclusively 64, v3 and 31,
have been linked to breast cancer aggressiveness, shortened patients survival
and higher tendency of breast cancer cells to colonise bones [107, 108]. Integrins
through cooperation with other factors, as for instance EGFR and HER2, increases
not only tumour initiation and proliferation but also migration both in the primary
location and in distant organ colonisation [109, 110].
Breast cancer cells are known to metastasise to all body organs; however,
the common sites for metastatic spread are bone, lung and liver and brain [111].
Metastatic colonisation of a particular organ is a non-random process depending
upon sophisticated interactions between breast cancer cells and stromal microen-
vironment at the target organ. Evidence for these interactions came from animal
models, in vivo imaging and functional genomics which led to the discovery of
molecular mediators of organ-specific tropism [112]. The chemokine receptor
CXCR4 overexpression by breast cancer cells increases the expression of v3
integrin, therefore increasing in vitro cellular adhesion and invasion 87, 88 and
experimental metastasis in vivo 117. Moreover, the extravasation and homing of
breast cancer cells into lung, bone and regional lymph nodes is facilitated by their
high expression of CXCR4 and CCR7. These target tissues have abundant expres-
sion of the specific ligands CXCL12/SDF-1 and CCL21 of CXCR4 and CCR7
[113, 114]. Upon their entry into the target organ parenchyma, metastatic tumour
cells are challenged by a distinctive microenvironment which they must withstand,
adapt and eventually overtake this new microenvironment. The recruited bone-
marrow-derived progenitor cells through providing a permissive niche for metas-
tasis prepare the soil for metastatic cell regrowth [115]. In case of bone metastasis,
breast cancer cells produce PTHrP, IL-11, IL-8, IL-6, and RANKL, factors which
stimulate osteolysis turning bone more permissive to their growth [116, 117].
Moreover, organ-specific components of the tumour microenvironments
synergistically assist active colonisation, as for instance the activation of bone-

resorbing osteoclasts by metastatic breast cancer cells during osteolytic metastasis
[118], and the release of active TGFB from bone matrix during osteolysis [119].
Following extravasation into a secondary organ, metastatic breast cancer cells
undergo one of three possible fates. They may undergo deaths by apoptosis,
remain dormant for variable periods of dormancy whether singly or as micromet-
astatic deposits, or immediately proliferate, thus manifesting as overt metastatic
recurrences [120]. The triggering event of eventual re-activation and outgrowth of
dormant metastatic cells remains unknown [121]. The length of dormancy periods
has been determined by balancing cell proliferation and apoptosis [122, 123].
Metastasis: An Inherent Early Feature of Cancer
It has long been thought that the ability of some cellular clones within the primary
tumour to metastasise to remote tissues is an attribute that is lately acquired in the
cascade of multistep carcinogenesis [124]. However, a foundation of evidence is
currently accumulating supporting an integrative model implying that metastasis is
an early acquired cancer trait. This paradigm shift in understanding of cancer dis-
semination comes from clinical observations and is reinforced by gene expression
profiling studies [8]. A common diagnostic phenomenon supporting this model is
the frequent detection of micrometastatic nodules in patients with small early
stage breast cancers. Moreover, it has been reported that pairs of human primary
breast carcinomas and their distant metastases, which developed years later are
highly similar at their transcriptome level [8]. Similarly, extensive similarities
at the transcriptome level among the distinct stages of breast cancer progression
have been reported. These stages include pre-malignant, pre-invasive/in situ, and
invasive breast cancer, suggesting that gene expression alterations conferring
the potential for invasive growth are already present in the pre-invasive stages
[125127]. These molecular similarities and the early inherent metastatic capac-
ity formed the basis of using the primary tumour to study different genetic and
proteomic derangements as a tool to unravel molecular changes underlying and
determining the metastatic phenotype, aggressive behaviour and poor prognosis.
Breast Cancer Molecular Subtype and Distant Metastasis
Luminal A tumours, luminal B and HER2+tumours are associated with higher

rates of metastasis to brain, liver, and lung. On the other hand, basal-like tumours
have more brain and lung metastases, and lower rates of liver and bone metasta-
ses. TN nonbasal tumours follow a pattern similar to basal-like tumours yet metas-
tasise more to the liver [128, 129]. Moreover, at the time of primary diagnosis,
triple negative breast cancer patients have reduced risks of axillary lymph node
involvement compared to other molecular subtypes, independently of other risk

factors [99]. These differences in metastatic patterns may indicate haematogenous
spread of triple negative breast cancer in contrast to other subtypes which prefer-
ably spread via the lymphatic routes [130, 131].
Gene Expression Signatures and Distant Metastasis
Analysis of gene expression in a genome-wide fashion introduced by DNA-

microarray technology was able to determine gene expression patterns that can
predict the clinical behaviour in breast cancer, especially the occurrence of distant
recurrence [132]. Multiple gene signatures have been determined and externally
validated including the 70-gene expression signature used in the MammaPrint
[133, 134], the 76-gene signature [135], the genomic grade index (GGI) [136] and
the 21-gene profile used in the Oncotype Dx [137, 138]. Currently, two prog-
nostic platforms based on expression signatures are commercially available: the
OncotypeDx measured on paraffin-embedded samples and approved by ASCO,
and the Mammaprint, approved by the American FDA [139]. The gene lists within
these signatures include genes involved in the cell cycle/proliferation, invasion
angiogenesis, in addition to the genes almost exclusively expressed by the stro-
mal cells surrounding the mammary epithelial cells [140142]. The latter notions
underscore the integrative model of metastasis involving cooperative roles played
by both the tumour cells and the surrounding microenvironment.
Conclusion
Metastasis is a complex multistep process involving complex molecular and

genetic changes in the malignant cells that enable them to interact with surround-
ing structures including basement membranes structure, extracellular matrix, stro-
mal cells, immune cells, endothelial cells and specialised cells at the metastatic
sites. In addition, malignant metastatic cells acquire the ability to survive and grow
within different environment including lymphatic or vascular spaces and distant
metastatic sites. VI is an important step in the metastatic process. The vast major-
ity of VI in breast cancer is LVI.
References
1. Hanahan D, Weinberg RA. The hallmarks of cancer. Cell. 2000;100(1):5770.

2. Sledge GW, Miller KD. Exploiting the hallmarks of cancer: the future conquest of breast
cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2003;39(12):166875.
3. Beckmann MW, Niederacher D, Schnrch HG, Gusterson BA, Bender HG. Multistep car-
cinogenesis of breast cancer and tumour heterogeneity. J Mol Med. 1997;75(6):42939.
4. Fidler IJ. The pathogenesis of cancer metastasis: the seed and soil hypothesis revisited. Nat
Rev Cancer. 2003;3(6):4538.
5. Weinberg RA. Mechanisms of malignant progression. Carcinogenesis. 2008;29(6):1092
6. Rabbani SA, Mazar AP. Evaluating distant metastases in breast cancer: from biology to out-
comes. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2007;26(34):663674. PubMed PMID: 17823779. Epub
2007/09/08. eng.
7. Nicolini A, Giardino R, Carpi A, Ferrari P, Anselmi L, Colosimo S, etal. Metastatic
breast cancer: an updating. Biomed Pharmacother. 2006;60(9):548556. PubMed PMID:
16950593. Epub 2006/09/05. eng.
8. Weigelt B, Peterse JL, van t Veer LJ. Breast cancer metastasis: markers and models. Nat
Rev Cancer. 2005;5(8):591602. PubMed PMID: 16056258. Epub 2005/08/02. eng.
9. Duffy MJ, McGowan PM, Gallagher WM. Cancer invasion and metastasis: changing views.
J Pathol. 2008;214(3):283293. PubMed PMID: 18095256. Epub 2007/12/21. eng.
10. Virnig BA, Tuttle TM, Shamliyan T, Kane RL. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the
breast: a systematic review of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst.
2010;102(3):1708.
11. Christofori G. New signals from the invasive front. Nature. 2006;441(7092):444450.
12. Gupta GP, Massague J. Cancer metastasis: building a framework. Cell. 2006;127(4):679
13. Shchors K, Evan G. Tumor angiogenesis: cause or consequence of cancer? Cancer Res.
14. Thiery JP. Epithelial-mesenchymal transitions in tumour progression. Nat Rev Cancer.
15. Nguyen DX, Massague J. Genetic determinants of cancer metastasis. Nat Rev Genet.
2007;8(5):34152.
16. Schmidt S, Friedl P. Interstitial cell migration: integrin-dependent and alternative adhe-
sion mechanisms. Cell Tissue Res. 2010;339(1):8392. PubMed PMID: 19921267. Epub
2009/11/19. eng.
17. Knust E. Regulation of epithelial cell shape and polarity by cell-cell adhesion (Review).
Mol Membr Biol. 2002;19(2):113120. PubMed PMID: 12126229. Epub 2002/07/20. eng.
18. Friedl P. Prespecification and plasticity: shifting mechanisms of cell migration. Curr Opin
Cell Biol. 2004;16(1):1423. PubMed PMID: 15037300. Epub 2004/03/24. eng.
19. Thiery JP, Sleeman JP. Complex networks orchestrate epithelial-mesenchymal transitions. Nat
Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2006;7(2):131142. PubMed PMID: 16493418. Epub 2006/02/24. eng.
20. Moustakas A, Heldin CH. Signaling networks guiding epithelial-mesenchymal transi-
tions during embryogenesis and cancer progression. Cancer Sci. 2007;98(10):15121520.
21. Thiery JP, Sleeman JP. Complex networks orchestrate epithelial-mesenchymal transitions.
2006 20060222 DCOM- 20060317(1471-0072 (Print)). eng.
22. Iwatsuki M, Mimori K, Yokobori T, Ishi H, Beppu T, Nakamori S, etal. Epithelial-
mesenchymal transition in cancer development and its clinical significance. Cancer Sci.
23. Cardiff R. The Pathology of EMT in Mouse Mammary Tumorigenesis. J Mammary Gland
Biol Neoplasia. 2010;15(2):22533.
24. Tomaskovic-Crook E, Thompson EW, Thiery JP. Epithelial to mesenchymal transition
and breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2009;11(6):213. PubMed PMID: 19909494. Epub
2009/11/17. eng.
25. Polyak K, Weinberg RA. Transitions between epithelial and mesenchymal states: acquisi-
tion of malignant and stem cell traits. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;9(4):265273. PubMed PMID:
19262571. Epub 2009/03/06. eng.
26. Barak V, Goike H, Panaretakis KW, Einarsson R. Clinical utility of cytokeratins as tumor mark-
ers. Clin Biochem. 2004;37(7):529540. PubMed PMID: 15234234. Epub 2004/07/06. eng.
27. Moll R, Divo M, Langbein L. The human keratins: biology and pathology. Histochem Cell
Biol. 2008;129(6):705733. PubMed PMID: 18461349. Epub 2008/05/08. eng.
28. Moll R, Franke WW, Schiller DL, Geiger B, Krepler R. The catalog of human cytokerat-
ins: Patterns of expression in normal epithelia, tumors and cultured cells. Cell.
1982;31(1):1124.
29. Wu Y, Zhou BP. New insights of epithelial-mesenchymal transition in cancer metastasis.
Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai). 2008;40(7):643650. PubMed PMID: 18604456.
Epub 2008/07/08. eng.
30. Xue C, Plieth D, Venkov C, Xu C, Neilson EG. The gatekeeper effect of epithelial-mes-
enchymal transition regulates the frequency of breast cancer metastasis. Cancer Res.
31. Tarin D. The fallacy of epithelial mesenchymal transition in neoplasia. Cancer Res.
2005;65(14):59966001.
32. Wicki A, Lehembre F, Wick N, Hantusch B, Kerjaschki D, Christofori G. Tumor invasion
in the absence of epithelial-mesenchymal transition: podoplanin-mediated remodeling of
the actin cytoskeleton. Cancer Cell. 2006;9(4):261272. PubMed PMID: 16616332. Epub
2006/04/18. eng.
33. Giampieri S, Manning C, Hooper S, Jones L, Hill CS, Sahai E. Localized and reversible
TGF[beta] signalling switches breast cancer cells from cohesive to single cell motility. Nat
Cell Biol. 2009;11(11):128796.
34. Tse JC, Kalluri R. Mechanisms of metastasis: epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and con-
tribution of tumor microenvironment. J Cell Biochem. 2007;101(4):816-29. PubMed PMID:
17243120. Epub 2007/01/24. eng.
35. Wendt MK, Smith JA, Schiemann WP. Transforming growth factor-beta-induced epithelial-
mesenchymal transition facilitates epidermal growth factor-dependent breast cancer pro-
gression. Oncogene. 2010;29(49):64856498. PubMed PMID: 20802523. Epub 2010/08/31.
eng.
36. Yang J, Mani SA, Donaher JL, Ramaswamy S, Itzykson RA, Come C, etal. Twist, a
master regulator of morphogenesis, plays an essential role in tumor metastasis. Cell.
37. Lamouille S, Derynck R. Emergence of the phosphoinositide 3-kinase-Akt-mammalian tar-
get of rapamycin axis in transforming growth factor-beta-induced epithelial-mesenchymal
transition. Cells Tissues Organs. 2011;193(12):822. PubMed PMID: 21041997. Epub
2010/11/03. eng.
38. Albasri A, Seth R, Jackson D, Benhasouna A, Crook S, Nateri AS, etal. C-terminal Tensin-
like (CTEN) is an oncogene which alters cell motility possibly through repression of
E-cadherin in colorectal cancer. J Pathol. 2009;218(1):5765.
39. Moyret-Lalle C, Ruiz E, Puisieux A. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition transcription factors
and miRNAs: Plastic surgeons of breast cancer. World J Clin Oncol. 2014;5(3):311322.
40. Peinado H, Portillo F, Cano A. Transcriptional regulation of cadherins during development
and carcinogenesis. Int J Dev Biol. 2004;48(56):365375. PubMed PMID: 15349812.
Epub 2004/09/07. eng.
41. Hazan RB, Qiao R, Keren R, Badano I, Suyama K. Cadherin switch in tumor progression.
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004;1014:155163. PubMed PMID: 15153430. Epub 2004/05/22. eng.
42. Aleskandarany M, Green A, Rakha E, Powe D, Ellis I. Epithelial mesenchymal transition in
invasive breast carcinoma: molecular pathways and relation to molecular subtypes. J Pathol.
2010;222(S1):S151.
43. Yoder BJ, Wilkinson EJ, Massoll NA. Molecular and morphologic distinctions between
infiltrating ductal and lobular carcinoma of the breast. Breast J. 2007;13(2):172179.
PubMed PMID: 17319859.
44. Mahler-Araujo B, Savage K, Parry S, Reis-Filho JS. Reduction of E-cadherin expression is
associated with non-lobular breast carcinomas of basal-like and triple negative phenotype. J
Clin Pathol. 2008;61(5):61520.
45. Sarrio D, Rodriguez-Pinilla SM, Hardisson D, Cano A, Moreno-Bueno G, Palacios J.

Epithelial-mesenchymal transition in breast cancer relates to the basal-like phenotype.
Cancer Res. 2008;68(4):989997. PubMed PMID: 18281472. Epub 2008/02/19. eng.
46. Aleskandarany MA, Negm OH, Green AR, Ahmed MA, Nolan CC, Tighe PJ, etal.
Epithelial mesenchymal transition in early invasive breast cancer: an immunohistochemi-
cal and reverse phase protein array study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;145(2):339348.
47. Balkwill FR, Capasso M, Hagemann T. The tumor microenvironment at a glance. J Cell Sci.
2012;125(Pt 23):55915596. PubMed PMID: 23420197. Epub 2013/02/20. eng.
48. Kalluri R, Zeisberg M. Fibroblasts in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2006 05//print;6(5):392401.
49. Drake LE, Macleod KF. Tumour suppressor gene function in carcinoma-associated fibro-
blasts: from tumour cells via EMT and back again? J Pathol. 2014;232(3):2838.
50. Kurose K, Gilley K, Matsumoto S, Watson PH, Zhou XP, Eng C. Frequent somatic muta-
tions in PTEN and TP53 are mutually exclusive in the stroma of breast carcinomas. Nature
Genet. 2002;32(3):355357. PubMed PMID: 12379854. Epub 2002/10/16. eng.
51. Phan-Lai V, Florczyk SJ, Kievit FM, Wang K, Gad E, Disis ML, etal. Three-dimensional
scaffolds to evaluate tumor associated fibroblast-mediated suppression of breast tumor
specific T cells. Biomacromolecules. 2013;14(5):13301337. PubMed PMID: 23517456.
52. Wicki A, Lehembre F, Wick N, Hantusch B, Kerjaschki D, Christofori G. Tumor invasion in
the absence of epithelial-mesenchymal transition: Podoplanin-mediated remodeling of the
actin cytoskeleton. Cancer cell. 2006;9(4):261272.
53. Fridman WH, Pags F, Sauts-Fridman C, Galon J. The immune contexture in human
tumours: impact on clinical outcome. Nat Rev Cancer. 2012;12(4):298306.
54. Schoenborn JR, Wilson CB. Regulation of interferon during innate and adaptive immune
responses. In: Frederick WA, editor. Advances in immunology 96: Academic Press; 2007. p.
41101.
55. Hsieh CS, Lee HM, Lio CW. Selection of regulatory T cells in the thymus. Nat Rev
Immunol. 2012;12(3):157167. PubMed PMID: 22322317. Epub 2012/02/11. eng.
56. Jaberipour M, Habibagahi M, Hosseini A, Habibabad SR, Talei A, Ghaderi A. Increased
CTLA-4 and FOXP3 transcripts in peripheral blood mononuclear cells of patients with
breast cancer. Pathol Oncol Res. 2010;16(4):547551. PubMed PMID: 20306312. Epub
2010/03/23. eng.
57. Campbell DJ, Koch MA. Treg cells: patrolling a dangerous neighborhood. 2011.
58. Mahmoud SM, Lee AH, Paish EC, Macmillan RD, Ellis IO, Green AR. The prognostic sig-
nificance of B lymphocytes in invasive carcinoma of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
59. Andre F, Dieci MV, Dubsky P, Sotiriou C, Curigliano G, Denkert C, etal. Molecular path-
ways: involvement of immune pathways in the therapeutic response and outcome in breast
cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2013;19(1):2833. PubMed PMID: 23258741. Epub 2012/12/22.
eng.
60. Olkhanud PB, Damdinsuren B, Bodogai M, Gress RE, Sen R, Wejksza K, etal. Tumor-
evoked regulatory B cells promote breast cancer metastasis by converting resting CD4+T
cells to T-regulatory cells. Cancer Res. 2011;71(10):350515.
61. Joimel U, Gest C, Soria J, Pritchard LL, Alexandre J, Laurent M, etal. Stimulation of angi-
ogenesis resulting from cooperation between macrophages and MDA-MB-231 breast can-
cer cells: proposed molecular mechanism and effect of tetrathiomolybdate. BMC Cancer.
2010;10:375. PubMed PMID: 20637124. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC2918575. Epub
2010/07/20. eng.
62. Pollard JW. Macrophages define the invasive microenvironment in breast cancer. J
Leukoc Biol. 2008;84(3):623630. PubMed PMID: 18467655. Pubmed Central PMCID:
PMC2516896. Epub 2008/05/10. eng.
63. Cursiefen C, Chen L, Borges LP, Jackson D, Cao J, Radziejewski C, etal. VEGF-A stim-
ulates lymphangiogenesis and hemangiogenesis in inflammatory neovascularization via
macrophage recruitment. J Clin Invest. 2004;113(7):10401050. PubMed PMID: 15057311.

64. Cheung KJ, Ewald AJ. Illuminating breast cancer invasion: diverse roles for cellcell inter-
actions. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2014;30(0):99111.
65. Cekic C, Day YJ, Sag D, Linden J. Myeloid expression of Adenosine A2A receptor sup-
presses T and NK cell responses in the solid tumor microenvironment. Cancer Res. 2014.
PubMed PMID: 25377469. Epub 2014/11/08. Eng.
66. Kozlowska A, Mackiewicz J, Mackiewicz A. Therapeutic gene modified cell based cancer
vaccines. Gene. 2013;525(2):200207. PubMed PMID: 23566846. Epub 2013/04/10. eng.
67. Lochter A, Bissell MJ. Involvement of extracellular matrix constituents in breast cancer.
Semin Cancer Biol. 1995;6(3):165173.
68. Fu H, Moss J, Shore I, Slade MJ, Coombes RC, Coombes RC. Ultrastructural localiza-
tion of laminin and type IV collagen in normal human breast. 2002 20020530 DCOM-
20021107(0191-3123 (Print)). eng.
69. Lu P, Weaver VM, Werb Z. The extracellular matrix: a dynamic niche in cancer progression.
J Cell Biol. 2012;196(4):395406. PubMed PMID: 22351925. Pubmed Central PMCID:
PMC3283993. Epub 2012/02/22. eng.
70. Gehler S, Ponik SM, Riching KM, Keely PJ. Bi-directional signaling: extracellular matrix
and integrin regulation of breast tumor progression. Critical reviews in eukaryotic gene
expression.2013;23(2):13957. PubMed PMID: 23582036. Epub 2013/04/16. eng.
71. Pouliot N, Kusuma N. Laminin-511: a multi-functional adhesion protein regulating cell
migration, tumor invasion and metastasis. Cell Adhes Migr. 2013;7(1):142149. PubMed
72. Gritsenko PG, Ilina O, Friedl P. Interstitial guidance of cancer invasion. J Pathol.
73. Oskarsson T. Extracellular matrix components in breast cancer progression and metastasis.
Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland). 2013;22 Suppl 2:S6672. PubMed PMID: 24074795. Epub
2013/10/01. eng.
74. Rothberg JM, Sameni M, Moin K, Sloane BF. Live-cell imaging of tumor prote-
olysis: impact of cellular and non-cellular microenvironment. Biochim et Biophys
Acta. 2012;1824(1):123132. PubMed PMID: 21854877. Pubmed Central PMCID:
PMC3232330. Epub 2011/08/23. eng.
75. Tang L, Han X. The urokinase plasminogen activator system in breast cancer invasion and
metastasis. Biomed Pharmacother. 2013;67(2):179182. PubMed PMID: 23201006. Epub
2012/12/04. eng.
76. Agrawal AK, Ekonjo GB, Teterycz E, Zyoeko D, Grzebieniak Z, Milan M, etal.
Cysteine peptidases and their inhibitors in breast and genital cancer. Folia Histochem
et Cytobiologica/Pol Acad Sci Pol Histochem Cytochemical Soc. 2010;48(3):323327.
77. Dian D, Heublein S, Wiest I, Barthell L, Friese K, Jeschke U. Significance of the tumor pro-
tease cathepsin D for the biology of breast cancer. Histol Histopathology. 2014;29(4):433
78. Lebeau A, Nerlich AG, Sauer U, Lichtinghagen R, Lohrs U. Tissue distribution of major
matrix metalloproteinases and their transcripts in human breast carcinomas. Anticancer Res.
1999;19(5B):42574264. PubMed PMID: 10628384. Epub 2000/01/11. eng.
79. Roy DM, Walsh LA. Candidate prognostic markers in breast cancer: focus on extracellu-
lar proteases and their inhibitors. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2014;6:8191. PubMed
80. Davies KJ. The complex interaction of matrix metalloproteinases in the migration of cancer
cells through breast tissue stroma. Int J Breast Cancer. 2014;2014:839094. PubMed PMID:
81. Velinov N, Poptodorov G, Gabrovski N, Gabrovski S. The role of matrixmetalloproteinases
in the tumor growth and metastasis. Khirurgiia. 2010 (1):4449. PubMed PMID: 21972705.
Epub 2010/01/01. bul.
82. Friedl P, Wolf K. Proteolytic interstitial cell migration: a five-step process. Cancer
Metastasis Rev. 2009;28(12):129135. PubMed PMID: 19153672. Epub 2009/01/21. eng.
83. Stylli SS, Kaye AH, Lock P. Invadopodia: at the cutting edge of tumour invasion. J Clin
Neurosci Official J Neurosurg Soc Australas. 2008;15(7):725737. PubMed PMID:
18468901. Epub 2008/05/13. eng.
84. Davies KJ. Methods of cell propulsion through the local stroma in breast cancer. Int J Breast
Cancer. 2014;2014:6.
85. Rakha EA, Martin S, Lee AH, Morgan D, Pharoah PD, Hodi Z, etal. The prognos-
tic significance of lymphovascular invasion in invasive breast carcinoma. Cancer.
86. Mohammed RA, Martin SG, Mahmmod AM, Macmillan RD, Green AR, Paish EC, etal.
Objective assessment of lymphatic and blood vascular invasion in lymph node-negative
breast carcinoma: findings from a large case series with long-term follow-up. J Pathol. 2010
Oct 14. PubMed PMID: 21132836.
87. Gujam FJ, Going JJ, Edwards J, Mohammed ZM, McMillan DC. The role of lymphatic
and blood vessel invasion in predicting survival and methods of detection in patients with
primary operable breast cancer. Crit Rev Oncol/Hematol. 2014;89(2):231241. PubMed
PMID: 24075309. Epub 2013/10/01. eng.
88. Mohammed RA, Ellis IO, Lee AH, Martin SG. Vascular invasion in breast cancer; an over-
view of recent prognostic developments and molecular pathophysiological mechanisms.
89. Gujam FJ, Going JJ, Mohammed ZM, Orange C, Edwards J, McMillan DC.
Immunohistochemical detection improves the prognostic value of lymphatic and blood ves-
sel invasion in primary ductal breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2014;14:676. PubMed PMID:
90. Stacker SA, Williams SP, Karnezis T, Shayan R, Fox SB, Achen MG. Lymphangiogenesis
and lymphatic vessel remodelling in cancer. Nat Rev Cancer. 2014;14(3):159172.
91. Tammela T, Alitalo K. Lymphangiogenesis: Molecular mechanisms and future promise.
Cell. 2010;140(4):460476. PubMed PMID: 20178740. Epub 2010/02/25. eng.
92. Chung AS, Ferrara N. Developmental and pathological angiogenesis. Annu Rev Cell Dev
Biol. 2011;27:563584. PubMed PMID: 21756109. Epub 2011/07/16. eng.
93. Shayan R, Inder R, Karnezis T, Caesar C, Paavonen K, Ashton MW, etal. Tumor loca-
tion and nature of lymphatic vessels are key determinants of cancer metastasis. Clin Exp
Metastasis. 2013;30(3):345356. PubMed PMID: 23124573. Epub 2012/11/06. eng.
94. Ji RC. Lymphatic endothelial cells, tumor lymphangiogenesis and metastasis: new insights
into intratumoral and peritumoral lymphatics. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2006;25(4):677694.
95. Shields JD, Fleury ME, Yong C, Tomei AA, Randolph GJ, Swartz MA. Autologous chemo-
taxis as a mechanism of tumor cell homing to lymphatics via interstitial flow and autocrine
CCR7 signaling. Cancer Cell. 2007;11(6):52638.
96. Ugras S, Stempel M, Patil S, Morrow M. Estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and
HER2 status predict lymphovascular invasion and lymph node involvement. Ann Surg
Oncol. 2014 2014/11/01;21(12):37803786. English.
97. Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin S-F, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, Dunning MJ, etal. The genomic
and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature.
2012;486(7403):346352.
98. Prat A, Parker JS, Karginova O, Fan C, Livasy C, Herschkowitz JI, etal. Phenotypic and
molecular characterization of the claudin-low intrinsic subtype of breast cancer. Breast
Cancer Res: BCR. 2010;12(5):R68. PubMed PMID: 20813035. Pubmed Central PMCID:
PMC3096954. Epub 2010/09/04. eng.
99. Holm-Rasmussen EV, Jensen MB, Balslev E, Kroman N, Tvedskov TF. Reduced risk
of axillary lymphatic spread in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
100. Wan L, Pantel K, Kang Y. Tumor metastasis: moving new biological insights into the clinic.
Nat Med. 2013;19(11):14501464. PubMed PMID: 24202397. Epub 2013/11/10. eng.
101. Douma S, van Laar T, Zevenhoven J, Meuwissen R, van Garderen E, Peeper DS.

Suppression of anoikis and induction of metastasis by the neurotrophic receptor TrkB.
Nature. 2004;430(7003):10341039.
102. Nierodzik ML, Karpatkin S. Thrombin induces tumor growth, metastasis, and angiogenesis:
Evidence for a thrombin-regulated dormant tumor phenotype. Cancer Cell. 2006;10(5):355
103. Chao MP, Weissman IL, Majeti R. The CD47-SIRPalpha pathway in cancer immune eva-
sion and potential therapeutic implications. Curr Opin Immunol. 2012;24(2):225232.
104. Hiratsuka S, Goel S, Kamoun WS, Maru Y, Fukumura D, Duda DG, etal. Endothelial focal
adhesion kinase mediates cancer cell homing to discrete regions of the lungs via E-selectin
up-regulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108(9):37253730. PubMed PMID:
105. Bendas G, Borsig L. Cancer cell adhesion and metastasis: selectins, integrins, and the inhib-
itory potential of heparins. Int J Cell Biol. 2012;2012:676731. PubMed PMID: 22505933.
106. Desgrosellier JS, Cheresh DA. Integrins in cancer: biological implications and therapeu-
tic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer. 2010;10(1):922. PubMed PMID: 20029421. Epub
2009/12/24. eng.
107. Takayama S, Ishii S, Ikeda T, Masamura S, Doi M, Kitajima M. The relationship between
bone metastasis from human breast cancer and integrin alpha(v)beta3 expression.
Anticancer Res. 2005;25(1A):7983. PubMed PMID: 15816522. Epub 2005/04/09. eng.
108. Sloan EK, Pouliot N, Stanley KL, Chia J, Moseley JM, Hards DK, etal. Tumor-specific
expression of alphavbeta3 integrin promotes spontaneous metastasis of breast cancer to
bone. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8(2):R20. PubMed PMID: 16608535. Pubmed Central
PMCID: PMC1557720. Epub 2006/04/13. eng.
109. Guo W, Pylayeva Y, Pepe A, Yoshioka T, Muller WJ, Inghirami G, etal. Beta 4 integrin
amplifies ErbB2 signaling to promote mammary tumorigenesis. Cell. 2006;126(3):489502.
110. Yoon SO, Shin S, Lipscomb EA. A novel mechanism for integrin-mediated ras activation
in breast carcinoma cells: the alpha6beta4 integrin regulates ErbB2 translation and trans-
activates epidermal growth factor receptor/ErbB2 signaling. Cancer Res. 2006;66(5):2732
111. Lee YT. Breast carcinoma: pattern of metastasis at autopsy. J Surg Oncol. 1983;23(3):175
112. Lu X, Kang Y. Organotropism of breast cancer metastasis. J Mammary Gland Biol

Neoplasia. 2007;12(23):153162. PubMed PMID: 17566854. Epub 2007/06/15. eng.
113. Muller A, Homey B, Soto H, Ge N, Catron D, Buchanan ME, etal. Involvement of

chemokine receptors in breast cancer metastasis. Nature. 2001;410(6824):5056. PubMed
PMID: 11242036. Epub 2001/03/10. eng.
114. Mukherjee D, Zhao J. The Role of chemokine receptor CXCR4 in breast cancer metastasis.
Am J Cancer Res. 2013;3(1):4657. PubMed PMID: 23359227. Pubmed Central PMCID:
PMC3555200. Epub 2013/01/30. eng.
115. Steeg PS. Tumor metastasis: mechanistic insights and clinical challenges. Nat Med.

2006;12(8):895904.
116. Kang Y, Siegel PM, Shu W, Drobnjak M, Kakonen SM, Cordon-Cardo C, etal. A multi-
genic program mediating breast cancer metastasis to bone. Cancer Cell. 2003;3(6):537549.
117. Guise TA, Mohammad KS, Clines G, Stebbins EG, Wong DH, Higgins LS, etal. Basic
Mechanisms Responsible for Osteolytic and Osteoblastic Bone Metastases. Clin Cancer
Res. 2006;12(20):6213s6s.
118. Yin JJ, Pollock CB, Kelly K. Mechanisms of cancer metastasis to the bone. Cell Res.
2005;15(1):5762.
119. Dallas SL, Rosser JL, Mundy GR, Bonewald LF. Proteolysis of latent transforming growth
factor- (TGF-)-binding Protein-1 by osteoclasts: a cellular mechanism for release of
TGF- from bone matrix. J Biol Chem. 2002;277(24):2135260.
120. Brackstone M, Townson J, Chambers A. Tumour dormancy in breast cancer: an update.
Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9(3):208. PubMed PMID. doi:10.1186/bcr1677.
121. Wikman H, Vessella R, Pantel K. Cancer micrometastasis and tumour dormancy. APMIS.
122. Holmgren L, OReilly MS, Folkman J. Dormancy of micrometastases: balanced prolifera-
tion and apoptosis in the presence of angiogenesis suppression. Nat Med. 1995;1(2):149
123.
Townson JL, Chambers AF. Dormancy of solitary metastatic cells. Cell Cycle.
124.
Bernards R, Weinberg RA. Metastasis genes: a progression puzzle. Nature.
2002;418(6900):823.
125. Weigelt B, Glas AM, Wessels LF, Witteveen AT, Peterse JL, vant Veer LJ. Gene expression
profiles of primary breast tumors maintained in distant metastases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2003;100(26):1590115905. PubMed PMID: 14665696.
126. Ma XJ, Salunga R, Tuggle JT, Gaudet J, Enright E, McQuary P, etal. Gene expression pro-
files of human breast cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100(10):59749.
127. Weigelt B, vant Veer LJ. Hard-wired genotype in metastatic breast cancer. Cell Cycle.
128. Kennecke H, Yerushalmi R, Woods R, Cheang MC, Voduc D, Speers CH, etal. Metastatic
behavior of breast cancer subtypes. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(20):32713277. PubMed PMID:
20498394. Epub 2010/05/26. eng.
Cancer Res. 2009;15(7):230210.
130. Yaman S, Gumuskaya B, Ozkan C, Aksoy S, Guler G, Altundag K. Lymphatic and cap-
illary invasion patterns in triple negative breast cancer. Am Surg. 2012;78(11):12381242.
131. Badve S, Dabbs DJ, Schnitt SJ, Baehner FL, Decker T, Eusebi V, etal. Basal-like and triple-
negative breast cancers: a critical review with an emphasis on the implications for patholo-
gists and oncologists. Mod Pathol. 2011;24(2):157167.
132. Rodenhiser DI, Andrews Jd, Vandenberg TA, Chambers AF. Gene signatures of breast
cancer progression and metastasis. Breast Cancer Res. 2011 20111115 DCOM-
20140325(1465-542X (Electronic)). eng.
133. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, vant Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AAM, Voskuil DW, etal. A

gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med.
2002;347(25):19992009. PubMed PMID: ISI:000179874500003.
134. Buyse M, Loi S, vant Veer L, Viale G, Delorenzi M, Glas AM, etal. Validation and clinical
utility of a 70-gene prognostic signature for women with node-negative breast cancer. J Natl
Cancer Inst. 2006;98(17):11831192.
135. Wang Y, Klijn JG, Zhang Y, Sieuwerts AM, Look MP, Yang F, etal. Gene-expression pro-
files to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet.
2005;365(9460):671679. PubMed PMID: 15721472.
breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. J
Natl Cancer Inst. 2006;98(4):26272.
2004;351(27):281726.
138. Sparano JA, Paik S. Development of the 21-gene assay and its application in clinical prac-
tice and clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(5):7218.
139. Ross JS, Hatzis C, Symmans WF, Pusztai L, Hortobagyi GN. Commercialized multigene
predictors of clinical outcome for breast cancer. Oncologist. 2008;13(5):477493. PubMed
PMID: 18515733. Epub 2008/06/03. eng.
140. Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S, Farmer P, Pradervand S, Haibe-Kains B, etal. Meta-
analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of
breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(4):R65.
141. Haibe-Kains B, Desmedt C, Piette F, Buyse M, Cardoso F, Vant Veer L, etal. Comparison
of prognostic gene expression signatures for breast cancer. BMC Genom. 2008;9:394.
142. Mefford D, Mefford J. Stromal genes add prognostic information to proliferation and histo-
clinical markers: a basis for the next generation of breast cancer gene signatures. PloS One.
2012;7(6):e37646. PubMed PMID: 22719844. Pubmed Central PMCID: PMC3377707.
Epub 2012/06/22. eng.
Chapter 17
The Molecular Pathology
of Chemoresistance During the Therapeutic
Response in Breast Cancer
James L. Thorne, Andrew M. Hanby and Thomas A. Hughes
Introduction
Chemo-, radio- and/or endocrine therapies are frequently used in combination

with surgery to improve patient outcome in breast cancer. Many changes can occur
in breast cancer cells in response to these therapies, the most desirable being the
induction of apoptosis or death. Unfortunately this is not always the case and other
changes may also occur which form part of a resistance phenotype. The response
(or lack thereof) to chemotherapy can be quantified histologically [1] but to date
there are no systematically reliable molecular markers that augment this analysis
post-treatment. Despite this, a number of profiling techniques are being marketed
for the likelihood of response in specific tumour subsets such as oncotype [2]. In
this review we focus on the specific mechanisms underlying the molecular pathol-
ogy of chemoresistance rather than these profiling tools.
Diverse responses to chemotherapy between patients reflect the heterogene-
ity of breast cancer as a group of multiple distinct diseases. A range of molecu-
lar responses can be observed for these therapies and this provides a considerable
J.L. Thorne
Department of Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MAPS), School of Food Science
andNutrition, Woodhouse Lane, University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS2 9JT, UK
A.M. Hanby(*)
Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology (LICAP), St. James University Hospital/
University of Leeds, Beckett Street, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS9 7TF, UK
T.A. Hughes
Leeds Institute of Biologial and Clinical Sciences (LIBACS), St. James University Hospital/
University of Leeds, Beckett Street, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS9 7TF, UK

292 J.L. Thorne et al.
clinical challenge to those endeavouring to tailor the best treatment for individ-
ual patients. The biological response and the roles of the Her2 and the hormone
nuclear receptors ER and PR have been discussed elsewhere in this book. In this
chapter we describe the molecular pathology underlying the response, or lack of it,
to conventional chemotherapeutic interventions.
In recent years the continued rise in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy
(NACT), whereby chemotherapy is given prior to rather than after surgery has
provided opportunities to more readily observe response to the regimes used.
Researchers and clinicians are able to follow the change in expression of many
genes and proteins from before (at core biopsy) and after (at surgical resection)
therapy has been administered. In traditional adjuvant chemotherapy, inferences
about what molecular pathways may or may not be altered are inherently more
speculative due to the lack of available tissue (since this has been removed by sur-
gery). Neoadjuvant therapies are therefore invaluable for researchers to understand
mechanisms of resistance.
Mechanisms of Chemoresistance
Mechanisms of chemoresistance have been intensively studied and two broad

mechanisms have been proposed. Acquired resistance is a reactive process
whereby cells become resistant after exposure to the agent has caused some
level of cellular adaptation to the new environment. Conversely, innate resist-
ance implies that existing clonal populations within the tumour already have the
required characteristics to survive chemotherapy, and that these are selected for
in a Darwinian fashion while their more sensitive counterparts are eliminated by
therapy. In actuality these two processes are unlikely to be mutually exclusive and
shared phenotypic characteristics such as increased drug efflux and detoxification,
evasion of apoptosis and enhanced DNA repair exist. Molecular studies identify-
ing the mechanisms of chemoresistance have been illuminating. It is plausible and
likely that heterogeneity between individuals results in differential contributions
to resistance from distinct clonal populations. Thus, multiple mechanisms to allow
tumour survival after chemotherapeutic insult exist, certainly between individuals
but potentially even within individual tumours. It is by definition the clonal popu-
lations best equipped to cope or with sufficient plasticity to change, are the ones
that are most likely to be the cause of disease recurrence.
A big difference in resistance to chemotherapy is observed between molecular
subtypes of breast cancer. The ER negative tumours, which constitute 2030% [3]
of all cases, are particularly resistant and these patients are more likely to die of
their disease and are at increased risk of early recurrence. A ten-year retrospec-
tive study indicated that 50% of hormone receptor negative patients recur within
5years [4], the majority of these within 2years [5] and in younger patients rapid
recurrence is even more pronounced [6].
17 The Molecular Pathology of Chemoresistance 293
The cytotoxins commonly used for the treatment of triple negative breast can-
cer (TNBC) and the advanced stages of other subtypes are anthracyclines, taxanes
and vinca alkaloids. These can all be readily exported from cells by xenobiotic
transport pumps and be detoxified. Furthermore, these classes of cytotoxics have
even been documented to alter the characteristics and behaviour of the cancer
stem-like cell (CSC) population both in primary tumour samples and in cell line
models. Cell mediated molecular changes that contribute to resistance are increas-
ingly well documented although therapies targeting them remain underdeveloped.
Detoxification
Enhanced detoxification of chemotherapy agents allows tumours to tolerate higher

and higher doses until toxicity in normal tissue is prohibitive. Excellent reviews
concerning the process of detoxification can be found (for example [7]) and only
a brief description is given here. Metabolism of drugs leads to their detoxifica-
tion; the anthracycline doxorubicin is metabolized through at least 3 distinct modi-
fication routes but approximately 50% is excreted from the body unaltered. The
proportion that is metabolized largely undergoes a two-electron reduction to doxo-
rubicinol via various members of the aldoketoreductase (AKR) family, in a cell
type dependent manner. Reflecting this, genetic variation of the AKR1C3 gene
has been linked to doxorubicin pharmacodynamics in breast cancer patients [8].
Anthracyclines may also be modified by the glutathione-S transferase protein and
thus labelled for export [9]. Many drugs may be effluxed from the cell before, dur-
ing and after their metabolism. For example, glutathione (GSH) conjugation alters
repertoire of drug transporters that are able to export several compounds includ-
ing anthracyclines. When doxorubicin is synthetically conjugated to glutathione, it
competes with MRP1/ABCC1 specific substrates for export [10]. MRP1 was first
identified in cells that had been selected for adriamycin resistance in the presence
of a PGP inhibitor [11] and is also overexpressed in cells under selection pressure
from epirubicin [12]. Although the ABCC subfamily of ATP-binding cassette pro-
teins are potent GSH-conjugate efflux pumps, the role of MRP1 as a glutathione
specific transporter remains unclear. Doxorubicin is exported by this pump both
with and without GSH conjugation [13] and whether GSH conjugation of doxo-
rubicin actually occurs in vivo also remains in doubt. Glutathione conjugation of
doxorubicin may only be possible under synthetic conditions and not in cell sys-
tems [14]. Despite enhanced efflux of doxorubicin from the MRP1 pump when it
is conjugated, there is still enhanced cell death associated with this metabolized
form of the anthracycline. This appears to be due to potent toxicity to the glu-
tathione-S-transferase pathway [15].
CYP clearance enzymes are induced in the liver by several breast cancer ther-
apy drugs including cisplatin, doxorubicin and etoposide in a p53 dependent man-
ner and is a major route of drug clearance from the body [16]. CYP3A4 is the
most abundant CYP is widely induced and inhibited by commonly administered
anticancer drugs [17] but studies investigating the induction of CYPs in breast
cancer tissue following chemotherapy are lacking. The lack of wild-type p53 in
several breast cancer subtypes suggests that CYP induction is not efficient in these
cells and may pose a mechanism through which these drugs are more cytotoxic
to tumouriogenic p53-null cells than non-transformed cells that retain wild-type
protein function. The CYPs also metabolize many other anticancer drugs including
cyclophosphamide, 5-FU, etoposide and taxanes, predominantly by CYP3A4 [18].
Paclitaxel induces its own detoxification machinery via the Nuclear Receptor,
Pregnane X Receptor (PXR) but docetaxel seems less able to achieve its own
detoxification [19]. Doxorubicin reduction by the CYP family member P450R
leads to production of the semiquinone radical of doxorubicin which is toxic under
hypoxic conditions [20] and P450R levels are predictive of response to doxoru-
bicin [21]. The response to vinca alkaloids is also predicted by P450R levels [22]
and it is not surprising therefore that they are also detoxified by CYP3A4. Cell
line models overexpressing these two proteins show significant resistance to both
vinblastine and vincistrine [22].
Perhaps underlining the importance of detoxification in chemoresistance in
breast cancer chemotherapy is a study investigating the molecular changes that
occur in a cell line model of ER positive disease [23]. Cyclical chemotherapy was
applied to the cells in culture causing multiple population crashes thus modelling
clonal selection. Molecular profiling of gene expression revealed detoxification
pathways were significantly enriched. The CYP family was activated as were mul-
tiple members of the ABC transporter family (described below) and GSTP1, the
major glutathione-S transferase factor. Significantly, an eightfold downregulation of
ESR1/ER occurred indicating a transition from an ER positive line to a hormone
refractive one. Molecular studies such as this clearly have their limitations when
attempting to translate conclusions to patients, but they suggest careful therapy
choice and dose are required. Full eradication of all tumour cells at first line of ther-
apy is important to prevent regrowth by more aggressive and resistant tumour cells.
ABC Transporters
A major molecular contribution to chemoresistance comes from ATP-binding cas-

sette proteins (ABC), a family of multi-drug resistance proteins. With 49 mem-
bers, they regulate cellular levels of many compounds including xenobiotics,
physiological metabolites and, in the context of cancer treatment, chemothera-
peutics. Expression of ABCs can be induced by chemotherapy and several groups
have shown ABC expression is linked with poor clinical outcome through medi-
ating chemoresistance [2427]. However, a consistent pattern of ABC expression
has not been associated with recurrence, a fact that may relate in part to the high
degree of functional redundancy within the superfamily. Doxorubicin for exam-
ple is exported by ABCB1, ABCC1, 2, 3, 7 and ABCG2, whilst Daunorubicin and
Epirubicin are substrates of at least 4 members of ABC-subfamily ABCC [28].
This issue of redundancy requires attention and can only be addressed through
examining the network characteristics of multiple transporters simultaneously.
Such coordinated studies examining ABC transporters have been conducted in neu-
roblastoma [29] and normal hematopoietic stem cells [30] but breast cancer and
the context of chemoresistance remain relatively unexplored. Some studies have
looked at the response of more than one ABC simultaneously to NAC and have
directly compared pre- and post-chemotherapy samples but none have utilized
bioinformatics approaches to determine the contribution of redundancy in their
systems. In a study examining three of the most relevant ABCs in breast cancer
chemoresistance, Kim etal. [25] observed induction of both PGP/ABCB1 and
MRP1/ABCC1 in a cohort of patients treated with EC. Only a non-significant trend
between induction of protein expression in resection samples and recurrence was
observed. Changes in BCRP/ABCG2 expression were also seen but were variable.
Crucially, however, expression of BCRP after exposure to epirubicin/cyclophos-
phamide correlated to disease-free survival. Another study of breast cancer patients
undergoing NAC examined the levels of multiple MDR mRNAs. Of those studied,
ABCB1, ABCC2 and ABGG1 were found to be significant prognostic markers of
disease-free survival [26]. Again, these data were not subject to network analysis
and conclusions as to redundancy within this superfamily could not be made.
The taxanes are substrates of several key ABC transporters; both paclitaxel and
docetaxel are substrates for ABCB1, ABCC1, 2 and ABCG2 (reviewed in [31]).
Taxanes induce expression of ABC transporters in breast tumour tissue and the
PXR is documented to mediate this induction [32]. Furthermore, ABCB1 poly-
morphisms are thought to correlate with disease-free survival in breast cancer
patients after taxane therapy [33]. A concern in the clinical setting is that resist-
ance to taxanes caused by induction of these factors may also lead to cross-resist-
ance to anthracyclines.
Predicting which ABC transporters are involved in chemoresistance is difficult
due to their substrate overlap but their relevance to chemoresistance remains clear.
They are also important in the context of stem-cell biology as they confer some of
the defining characteristics of these cells.
Stem Cells
Cancer Stem Cells (CSCs) are increasingly considered a viable source of tumour
regrowth after apparent eradication of the primary lesion through surgery and
radio or chemotherapy. Through asymmetrical division they self renew and give
rise to rapidly proliferating and differentiated daughter cells. The mechanism of
their formation is far from established and several hypotheses have been proposed
to explain their existence. Firstly, oncogenic transformation of normal multipo-
tent stem cells may allow the usually benign compartment to lose checkpoints and
controls for apoptosis, cell division and metabolism, and asymmetrical division
ensues giving rise to rapidly dividing tumour cells and new CSCs which retain the
oncogenic properties. Alternatively, they may be formed from normal cancer cells
that have acquired a substantial genetic and epigenetic mutational load. Such cells
re-acquire multipotent characteristics lost during asymmetric division of the origi-
nal stem cell. Recent studies have indicated that stress signals can reprogram differ-
entiated tumour cells to undergo epithelialmesenchymal transition and acquiring
traits of mesenchymal cells that confer stem-cell like qualities. CSCs have altered
metabolic and proliferative potential with enhanced glycolytic flux and lower Ki67
indices. CSCs are a major target for novel therapeutics due to the proposition that
they can survive chemotherapy and reinitiate tumours; however, they also have
multiple features that render them more chemoresistant than normal cells.
These phenotypes of CSCs make their isolation challenging; quiescence means
true expansion in vitro is impossible and their isolation by Fluorescence acti-
vated cell sorting (FACS) is capricious. At least five combinations of cell-surface
markers have been used for FACS to isolate cells with CSC hallmarks in breast
cancer alone [30, 3437]. ALDH1 for example has been used to identify breast
cancer stem cells in combination with other markers and patients with a signifi-
cant surviving population of ALDH1+ tumour cells after receiving anthracy-
cline in combination with cyclophosphamide have a poor disease-free prognosis
[38]. Mechanistically this may be explained by the observation that cyclophos-
phamide can be detoxified via aldehyde dehydrogenase isoforms ALDH1A1 and
ALDH3A1 [39] and elevated ALDH1 gene expression is associated with cyclo-
phosphamide resistance [40].
ABC transporters are also important in CSC biology as they mediate drug
resistance in multiple stem-cell types [41] and their expression correlates
with several hallmarks of CSCs, they may even confer some of these features.
ABCG2/BCRP for example appears to maintain a stem-like state [42], and is a
marker of stem cells in multiple organs [30] and could be sufficient for chemore-
sistance in CSCs [43]. Furthermore, in many tissues, including breast, ABCG2
defines a FACS plot side-population (SP) [44] which exhibits CSC hallmarks such
as enhanced self-renewal in colony forming [45] and xenograft assays [37], low
proliferation rates and asymmetric division [45, 46]. ABCG2 is regulated by AKT
in many cell types including CSCs and this is discussed in detail below.
Of concern is the mounting evidence that chemotherapy may select for cells
with CSC qualities. For example, after exposure to doxorubicin the proportion of
cancer stem cells (defined as CD44+/CD24) is increased in breast tumours [38]
but surprisingly perhaps not after exposure to epirubicin [47]. Both studies indi-
cated that tumours with a higher proportion of CD44+/CD24 cells were more
likely to relapse with distal metastasis. Molecular evidence indicates that CSCs
tolerate ROS build up from aerobic glycolysis well and actively maintain low lev-
els [48] which may allow them to escape the damage created by anthracyclines
through this mechanism.
Significantly, differentiated tumour cells lacking CSC surface markers may
de-differentiate through epithelialmesenchymal transition (EMT) and reseed
tumours [49], particularly in ER disease [50]. Novel clinical approaches
must therefore be developed to tackle all subtypes of CSC and any tumour cell
surviving chemotherapy capable of de-differentiation [51]. TGF signalling,

which enhances stem-like properties of breast tumour cells and regulates the
EMT [52], is enhanced by paclitaxel during NACT in human breast tumours
[53]. Antagonising TGF signalling prevents CSC signalling pathways in TNBC
cell lines and abrogates tumour regrowth in mouse xenografts after an initial
round of paclitaxel treatment [53]. The potential to fortify the stem cell compart-
ment through chemotherapy is clearly an issue and requires further attention by
researchers.
Apoptosis
Apoptosis or programmed cell death is the mechanism through which unnecessary

cells are disposed of by the body due to normal tissue homeostasis. Potentiated
through cell-extrinsic cues such as Fas Ligand or cell-intrinsic pathways such as
p53 activation, apoptosis is responsible for maintaining cell numbers and tissue
integrity and eradicating cells with excessive mutational loads. The Bcl and Bax/
Bad protein families compete for control of mitochondrial membrane integrity
which if compromised (from Bax/Bad) results in cytochrome c flooding of the
cytoplasm and induction of caspase dependent cell death.
Caspases are themselves regulated by, and mediate the effects of, different
chemotherapeutics. Doxorubicin induces caspase-3 activation [54] but its apop-
totic effect is also under the control of the caspase-8 inhibitory protein c-FLIP.
C-FLIP inhibition either by IFN- or experimental modulation results in exacer-
bated apoptosis in a cell line model of TNBC after exposure to the anthracycline
[55]. In the first study of apoptosis comparing pre- and post-NACT, a signifi-
cant increase in the number of apoptotic nuclei was observed in histopathologi-
cal examination [56]. Since then numerous studies have indicated the importance
of apoptosis in the tumour response to chemotherapy. For example, pathological
examination of tumour biopsies at just 48h post docetaxel/doxorubicin treatment
revealed a significant induction of apoptosis markers and down regulation of anti-
apoptotic Bcl-2. Tumours with the biggest increases in apoptotic index (AI) and
greatest loss of Bcl-2 predicted pathological complete response at surgical resec-
tion [57]. The usefulness of Bcl-2 as a marker is not straightforward however;
Tiezzi etal. [58] found that AI but not Bcl-2 is correlated with clinical response.
Bcl-2 regulation by ER and estrogen also appears significant. When adriamycin
is applied to breast cancer cells, the presence of estrogen inhibits the apoptotic
potential of the anthracycline. This is mediated by ER control of Bcl-2 expres-
sion which when experimentally elevated abrogates this apoptotic effect even in
the absence of estrogen [59]. Estradiol has been reported to only regulate Bcl-2
in ER positive but not in ER negative backgrounds [60]. Further underlining the
anti-apoptotic role of estrogen signalling in breast cancer is the observation that
Selective Estrogen Receptor Modulators (SERM) such as tamoxifen also alter
Bcl-2 and other apoptotic and proliferation markers [61].
In an intriguing level of complexity duringthe interaction between ER and p53

has been explored. Treatment of the p53 wild-type MCF7 cells with doxorubicin
results in p53 activation, caspase-3 activation and DNA fragmentation [62]. In
non-tumourigenic MCF10A cells also harbouring wild-type p53, apoptosis was
not induced after exposure to doxorubicin unless Her2 was overexpressed, thus
conferring an extra step in oncogenic transformation to the cells [63]. The obser-
vation that ER positive tumours are typically WT for p53 is in stark contrast to
ER negative tumours which generally show loss of p53 function [64]. This sig-
nificant molecular difference manifests with important pathological differences
between these two subtypes. Resistance to chemotherapy-induced apoptosis in
ER+tumours in the presence of estrogen is significant and supports the observa-
tions that pathological complete response is relatively rare in ER positive tumours
compared to ER negative ones. Instead of these tumours undergoing apoptosis it
is likely that they instead enter senescence and studies utilizing senescence mark-
ers such as beta-galactosidase would be of value to determine if this is indeed
the case. The Aromatase Inhibitor, Anastrazole was found to have a significantly
greater impact than tamoxifen on reducing the proliferative marker Ki67 in cohort
of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy patients [65]. Reduction in proliferation in both
anastrozole and tamoxifen groups was seen to correlate with clinical outcomes.
Ki67 repressed by FAC is also significantly associated with prognosis in those
patients not achieving pCR after NACT [66] further stratifying the molecular
response in terms of patient outcomes and prognostic indicators.
At the molecular level ER/p53 interactions have also been investigated. Whilst
the SERM tamoxifen, promotes p53 antagonism in a similar manner to estrogen,
fulvestrant, a full ER antagonist, completely abolishes bypass of p53-mediated
apoptosis in breast cancer cells [64] resulting in significant cell death. ER has also
been shown to bind to p53 directly at target gene loci and prevent p53-mediated
repression of the survivin (inhibitor of apoptosis) and PGP/ABCB1 genes [67].
Mutant p53 predicts disease resistance to doxorubicin chemotherapy in breast can-
cer patients [68], but this appears drug- or mutation-dependent as studies linking
p53 status with resistance to cyclophosphamide, 5-FL, methotrexate, prednisone
[69], or even tamoxifen [70] did not show any clear evidence of p53 involvement.
Not only does estrogen signalling promote cell survival but significant evidence
exists to show that ER positive breast cancer cells are fully dependent on ER sig-
nalling for survival. Anti-estrogens induce apoptosis in breast tumours as does
removal of estrogen from cell lines.
The modulation of ER gene regulatory circuits can be modified by multiple
other factors [7174]. Of particular interest is the observation that doxorubicin
and estrogen treated cells show substantial overlap in activation of transcriptional
targets [75]. Estrogen signalling prevents full activation of the gene profile that
would usually be induced by some chemotherapy agents. This altering of response
to chemotherapy by estrogen is another explanation as to why ER positive tumours
are less likely to achieve a pCR and also why combinations of anti-estrogens and
cytotoxics are highly effective.
Notch Signalling
A major corollary of chemotherapy is the activation of many signalling path-

ways, some of which can be potently oncogenic. Two of these pathways, Notch
and AKT are described here. Notch signalling is a key regulator of cell-fate
decisions during differentiation of progenitor cells in development and in self-
renewal of adult stem cells, acting mainly to promote proliferation and prevent
differentiation [76]. Notch proteins, of which there are 4 (Notch-1 to 4), are
transmembrane receptors. They bind as heterodimers to Delta or Jagged ligands
that are typically expressed on the surface of neighbouring cells. This receptor/
ligand interaction leads to cleavage of Notch by -secretase, which releases the
Notch intra-cellular domain, NotchIC, from the transmembrane portion. NotchIC
translocates to the nucleus where it induces gene transcription by de-repressing
the CSL complex (CBF-1/RBP-J, Su(H), Lag-1) which is bound within promot-
ers of target genes.
Evidence supports roles for uncontrolled Notch activity in breast carcinogene-
sis [77]. Notch over-expression or constitutive activity leads to tumour formation
in mouse models [78, 79] while elevated Notch-1 and Jagged-1 expression corre-
late with poor prognosis in clinical breast cancers [80, 81]. Therefore, Notch has
been recognized as a cancer drug target and -secretase inhibitors (GSIs) have
been developed that prevent Notch activation. These appear promising for breast
cancer therapy as they induce cell death in breast cancer cells and may specifi-
cally target breast CSCs [82]. However, GSIs are toxic in long-term monotherapy
and may be better suited to short-term or combination therapies; breast cancer
clinical trials using GSIs are now taking place [83]. Recent data point to a role
for Notch in chemotherapy resistance. Notch signalling was identified as a key
pathway significantly induced in breast tumours by Gonzalez-Angulo etal. [84].
Also, in breast cancer cell lines Notch has been shown to activate expression of
MRP1 [85]. MRP1 expression is inversely correlated to survival of breast can-
cer patients [86]. It is also of interest to note that Notch-1 has been linked with
resistance to other chemotherapy drugs including the taxanes paclitaxel [87] and
docetaxel [88]. This resistance appears to occur through strengthening the CSC
compartment by increasing the proportion of CD44+/CD24 cells. This is impor-
tant to bear in mind as oncologists will often switch from anthracyclines to taxa-
nes when inadequate tumour response is observed during the interval MRI scans.
Initial treatment with an anthracycline such as Doxorubicin or Epirubicin may
therefore induce Notch-1 signalling and generate a tenacious CSC population
that is resistant to taxane therapy. Notch-1 dampening by -secretase inhibitors
prior to the commencement of chemotherapy may therefore play several useful
roles in clinic. Such a regimen would both prevent high pre-NAC MRP1 levels
associated with poor clinical outcome and sensitize the CD44+/CD24 CSC
compartment.
AKT Signalling
AKT regulates several cellular pathways key to tumourigenic progression such

as proliferation, apoptosis and glucose metabolism through its kinase activity. In
breast cancer cell lines and tumour biopsies AKT regulation has been extensively
studied. Its activity is generally elevated in breast cancer tissue and cell lines and
this hyperactivity can be exacerbated by cell-intrinsic moieties such as Her2, PI3K
[89] or loss of PTEN [90]. Treatment with chemotherapeutic drugs such as cispl-
atin [91], daunorubicin [92], doxorubicin, trastuzumab, tamoxifen [93] and pacli-
taxel [94] all activate AKT signalling in breast cancer. Elevated AKT activity has
multiple roles in resistance but all utilize its potent ability to phosphorylate tar-
gets. Its role in preventing apoptosis is perhaps the most established. AKT targets
proapoptotic Bcl-2 family members for phosphorylation thus impairing their abil-
ity to destabilize the mitochondrial membrane and limiting cytochrome c release
[9597]. Her2 enhances MDM2 mediated proteosomal degradation of p53 via
AKT signalling, [98] thus further impairing apoptosis/senescence in ER positive
tumours that contain functional p53.
AKT regulates expression and cellular distribution of several ABC transport-
ers. For example, AKT stimulates NF-kB signalling which in turn induces expres-
sion of PGP [99]. PI3K inhibitors prevent the association of BCRP with the
plasma membrane, as does transfection of a dominant negative AKT. If exogenous
EGFR is applied in the presence of dominant negative AKT, BCRP expression is
restored [100]. Loss of AKT in knock-out mice leads to a drastic reduction in the
ABCG2/BCRP dependent SP fraction in bone marrow [101] further supporting
its regulation of BCRP. Her2 expression in luminal breast cancer patients directly
correlates to proportion of cells in the SP fraction and experimental manipulation
of AKT abolished the SP fraction in cells isolated from these patients [102]. In
other tumour types, PTEN loss results in elevated SP fraction and this can be abro-
gated through application of the PI3K inhibitor LY294002 [103].
Future Directions
Several areas of research into chemotherapy-induced mechanisms of chemoresist-

ance are incomplete and vital information could be yielded with the proper experi-
mental designs. For example, although many studies have examined the individual
ABC transporters, or even 3 at a time, they have not addressed the conundrum that
elevated expression of only one of a relevant ABC transporter may be sufficient to
confer chemoresistance. In a heterogeneous population it may be that high basal
expression of one pump may confer resistance in one individual but stabiliza-
tion of mRNA (or protein) from an alternative transporter may suffice in another.
Encompassing studies examining multiple pumps simultaneously following
exposure to chemotherapeutics would begin to address this issue. This approach

may also lead to the identification of common regulatory mechanisms that may be
targetable through novel drug design.
There is a similar gap in understanding of the regulation of drug detoxifica-
tion pathways. The increasing use of NAC however allows researchers unique
opportunities to measure a baseline level of expression of pre-NAC at core biopsy,
compare this with post-NAC in the resected tumour material and correlate these
observations to tumour response and clinical outcome. These resources should be
utilised to the fullest extent as it will also illuminate the molecular mechanisms at
play in adjuvant chemotherapy which remain almost completely unexplored at the
molecular level in human subjects.
The variation and clonality within a tumour provides a significant substrate on
which selection can act. Indeed, the process of tumour outgrowth has been likened
to Darwinian selection, where the clonal population most suited to the environ-
ment is more likely to survive and prosper. In aggressive TNBC tumours such a
selection pressure may kill the less aggressive clones and allow the strongest com-
petitors to take-over. This is of particular interest with the identification of breast
cancer stem cells. Tailoring of drugs to ER negative patients that target the stem-
like cell populations is a priority and these patients still have the poorest prognosis
and the highest relapse rates.
At a practical, molecular pathology level, despite the multiple pathways
detailed above relevant to chemoresistance, there are as yet no novel molecu-
lar markers in the pipeline that are likely to be used in routine practice to pre-
dict chemoresistance. With the rise in NACT and the facility to observe response
directly in serial biopsies, this would seem likely to change.
Key Points
Chemoresistance may be innate or acquired

Tumour chemoresistance can arise from enhanced detoxification by CYP pro-
teins and/or efflux by the ABC transporters
Evolution of tumour resistance occurs in a Darwinian type fashion
Cancer stems cells can increase in proportion after treatment with chemothera-
peutic agents
Non-CSCs may be able to undergo the epithelialmesenchymal transition, dedi-
fferentiate and reseed tumour growth, potentially as a response to chemotherapy
The large family of ABC efflux pumps share many substrates and display func-
tional redundancy
CYP3A4 is the main metabolizing enzyme of many front line chemotherapy
agents
ABCB1, ABCC1 and ABCG2 are key efflux pumps of chemotherapeutics
References
1. Alvarado-Cabrero I, Alderete-Vazquez G, Quintal-Ramirez M, Patino M, Ruiz E. Incidence

of pathologic complete response in women treated with preoperative chemotherapy for
locally advanced breast cancer: correlation of histology, hormone receptor status, Her2/Neu,
and gross pathologic findings. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2009;13(3):1517.
2. Pinder SE, Provenzano E, Earl H, Ellis IO. Laboratory handling and histology report-
ing of breast specimens from patients who have received neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
3. Garcia-Closas M, Couch FJ, Lindstrom S, etal. Genome-wide association studies identify
four ER negative-specific breast cancer risk loci. Nat Genet 2013;45(4):3928, 398e12.
4. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, Hanna WM, Kahn HK, Sawka CA, Lickley LA,
Rawlinson E, Sun P, Narod SA. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns
of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(15 Pt 1):442934.
5. Chang J, Clark GM, Allred DC, Mohsin S, Chamness G, Elledge RM. Survival of patients
with metastatic breast carcinoma: importance of prognostic markers of the primary tumor.
Cancer. 2003;97(3):54553.
6. Copson E, Eccles B, Maishman T, Gerty S, Stanton L, Cutress RI, Altman DG, Durcan L,
Simmonds P, Lawrence G, Jones L, Bliss J, Eccles D. Prospective observational study of
breast cancer treatment outcomes for UK women aged 1840 years at diagnosis: the POSH
study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(13):97888.
7. Xu C, Li CY, Kong AN. Induction of phase I, II and III drug metabolism/transport by xeno-
biotics. Arch Pharmacal Res. 2005;28(3):24968.
8. Voon PJ, Yap HL, Ma CY, Lu F, Wong AL, Sapari NS, Soong R, Soh TI, Goh BC, Lee
HS, Lee SC. Correlation of aldo-ketoreductase (AKR) 1C3 genetic variant with dox-
orubicin pharmacodynamics in Asian breast cancer patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol.
2013;75(6):1497505.
9. Serafino A, Sinibaldi-Vallebona P, Gaudiano G, Koch TH, Rasi G, Garaci E, Ravagnan G.
Cytoplasmic localization of anthracycline antitumor drugs conjugated with reduced glu-
tathione: a possible correlation with multidrug resistance mechanisms. Anticancer Res.
1998;18(2A):115966.
10. Priebe W, Krawczyk M, Kuo MT, Yamane Y, Savaraj N, Ishikawa T. Doxorubicin- and
daunorubicin-glutathione conjugates, but not unconjugated drugs, competitively inhibit
leukotriene C-4 transport mediated by MRP/GS-X pump. Biochem Bioph Res Co.
1998;247(3):85963.
11. Mirski SE, Gerlach JH, Cole SP. Multidrug resistance in a human small cell lung cancer cell
line selected in adriamycin. Cancer Res. 1987;47(10):25948.
12. Davey RA, Longhurst TJ, Davey MW, Belov L, Harvie RM, Hancox D, Wheeler H. Drug
resistance mechanisms and MRP expression in response to epirubicin treatment in a human
leukaemia cell line. Leuk Res. 1995;19(4):27582.
13. Munoz M, Henderson M, Haber M, Norris M. Role of the MRP1/ABCC1 multidrug trans-
porter protein in cancer. IUBMB Life. 2007;59(12):7527.
14. Gaudiano G, Koch TH, Lo Bello M, Nuccetelli M, Ravagnan G, Serafino A, Sinibaldi-
Vallebona P. Lack of glutathione conjugation to adriamycin in human breast cancer MCF-
7/DOX cellsinhibition of glutathione S-transferase P1-1 by glutathione conjugates from
anthracyclines. Biochem Pharmacol. 2000;60(12):191523.
15. Asakura T, Ohkawa K, Takahashi N, Takada K, Inoue T, Yokoyama S. Glutathione-
doxorubicin conjugate expresses potent cytotoxicity by suppression of glutathione
S-transferase activity: comparison between doxorubicin-sensitive and -resistant rat
hepatoma cells. Brit J Cancer. 1997;76(10):13337.
16. Goldstein I, Rivlin N, Shoshana OY, Ezra O, Madar S, Goldfinger N, Rotter V.
Chemotherapeutic agents induce the expression and activity of their clearing enzyme
CYP3A4 by activating p53. Carcinogenesis. 2013;34(1):1908.
17. Dees EC, Watkins PB. Role of cytochrome P450 phenotyping in cancer treatment. J Clin
Oncol. 2005;23(6):10535 (official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology).
18. Zhang D, Ly VT, Lago M, Tian Y, Gan J, Humphreys WG, Comezoglu SN.
CYP3A4-mediated ester cleavage as the major metabolic pathway of the oral taxane
3-tert-butyl-3-N-tert-butyloxycarbonyl-4-deacetyl-3-dephenyl-3-N-debenzoyl-4-O-
methoxycarbonyl-paclitaxel (BMS-275183). Drug Metab Dispos. 2009;37(4):7108.
19. Harmsen S, Meijerman I, Beijnen JH, Schellens JH. Nuclear receptor mediated induction of
cytochrome P450 3A4 by anticancer drugs: a key role for the pregnane X receptor. Cancer
Chemother Pharmacol. 2009;64(1):3543.
20. Riddick DS, Lee C, Ramji S, Chinje EC, Cowen RL, Williams KJ, Patterson AV, Stratford
IJ, Morrow CS, Townsend AJ, Jounaidi Y, Chen CS, Su T, Lu H, Schwartz PS, Waxman DJ.
Cancer chemotherapy and drug metabolism. Drug Metab Dispos. 2005;33(8):108396.
21. Buschini A, Poli P, Rossi C. Saccharomyces cerevisiae as an eukaryotic cell model to
assess cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of three anticancer anthraquinones. Mutagenesis.
2003;18(1):2536.
22. Yao D, Ding S, Burchell B, Wolf CR, Friedberg T. Detoxication of vinca alkaloids by
human P450 CYP3A4-mediated metabolism: implications for the development of drug
resistance. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2000;294(1):38795.
23. AbuHammad S, Zihlif M. Gene expression alterations in doxorubicin resistant MCF7 breast
cancer cell line. Genomics. 2013;101(4):21320.
24. Choi CH. ABC transporters as multidrug resistance mechanisms and the development of
chemosensitizers for their reversal. Cancer Cell Int. 2005;5:30.
25. Kim B, Fatayer H, Hanby AM, Horgan K, Perry SL, Valleley EM, Verghese ET, Williams
BJ, Thorne JL, Hughes TA. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy induces expression levels of breast
cancer resistance protein that predict disease-free survival in breast cancer. PLoS ONE.
2013;8(5):e62766.
26. Litviakov NV, Garbukov E, Slonimskaia EM, Tsyganov MM, Denisov EV, Vtorushin SV,
Khristenko K, Zavialova MV, Cherdyntseva NV. Correlation of metastasis-free survival in
patients with breast cancer and changes in the direction of expression of multidrug resist-
ance genes during neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Vopr Onkol. 2013;59(3):33440.
27. Maciejczyk A, Szelachowska J, Ekiert M, Matkowski R, Halon A, Surowiak P. Analysis of
BCRP expression in breast cancer patients. Ginekol Pol. 2012;83(9):6817.
28. Jaeger W. Classical resistance mechanisms. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;47(1):468.
29. Porro A, Haber M, Diolaiti D, etal. Direct and coordinate regulation of ATP-binding
cassette transporter genes by Myc factors generates specific transcription signatures
that significantly affect the chemoresistance phenotype of cancer cells. J Biol Chem.
2010;285(25):1953243.
30. Fatima S, Zhou S, Sorrentino BP. Abcg2 expression marks tissue-specific stem cells in mul-
tiple organs in a mouse progeny tracking model. Stem Cells. 2012;30(2):21021.
31. Oshiro C, Marsh S, McLeod H, Carrillo MW, Klein T, Altman R. Taxane pathway.
Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2009;19(12):97983.
32. Masuyama H, Suwaki N, Tateishi Y, Nakatsukasa H, Segawa T, Hiramatsu Y. The preg-
nane X receptor regulates gene expression in a ligand- and promoter-selective fashion. Mol
Endocrinol. 2005;19(5):117080.
33. Chang H, Rha SY, Jeung HC, Im CK, Ahn JB, Kwon WS, Yoo NC, Roh JK, Chung HC.
Association of the ABCB1 gene polymorphisms 2677G> T/A and 3435C> T with clini-
cal outcomes of paclitaxel monotherapy in metastatic breast cancer patients. Ann Oncol.
2009;20(2):2727 (official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology/ESMO).
34. Al-Hajj M, Wicha MS, Benito-Hernandez A, Morrison SJ, Clarke MF. Prospective identifi-
cation of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100(7):39838.
35. Croker AK, Goodale D, Chu J, Postenka C, Hedley BD, Hess DA, Allan AL. High aldehyde
dehydrogenase and expression of cancer stem cell markers selects for breast cancer cells
with enhanced malignant and metastatic ability. J Cell Mol Med. 2009;13(8B):223652.
36. Ginestier C, Hur MH, Charafe-Jauffret E, etal. ALDH1 is a marker of normal and malig-
nant human mammary stem cells and a predictor of poor clinical outcome. Cell Stem Cell.
2007;1(5):55567.
37. Patrawala L, Calhoun T, Schneider-Broussard R, Zhou J, Claypool K, Tang DG. Side popu-
lation is enriched in tumorigenic, stem-like cancer cells, whereas ABCG2+ and ABCG2
cancer cells are similarly tumorigenic. Cancer Res. 2005;65(14):620719.
38. Lee HE, Kim JH, Kim YJ, Choi SY, Kim SW, Kang E, Chung IY, Kim IA, Kim EJ, Choi Y,
Ryu HS, Park SY. An increase in cancer stem cell population after primary systemic therapy
is a poor prognostic factor in breast cancer. Brit J Cancer. 2011;104(11):17308.
39. Rivera E. Implications of anthracycline-resistant and taxane-resistant metastatic breast can-
cer and new therapeutic options. Breast J. 2010;16(3):25263.
40. Magni M, Shammah S, Schiro R, Mellado W, Dalla-Favera R, Gianni AM. Induction
of cyclophosphamide-resistance by aldehyde-dehydrogenase gene transfer. Blood.
1996;87(3):1097103.
41. Tang L, Bergevoet SM, Gilissen C, de Witte T, Jansen JH, van der Reijden BA, Raymakers
RA. Hematopoietic stem cells exhibit a specific ABC transporter gene expression profile
clearly distinct from other stem cells. BMC Pharmacol. 2010;10:12.
42. Ding XW, Wu JH, Jiang CP. ABCG2: a potential marker of stem cells and novel target in
stem cell and cancer therapy. Life Sci. 2010;86(1718):6317.
43. An Y, Ongkeko WM. ABCG2: the key to chemoresistance in cancer stem cells? Expert Opin
Drug Metab Toxicol. 2009;5(12):152942.
44. Zhou S, Schuetz JD, Bunting KD, Colapietro AM, etal. The ABC transporter
Bcrp1/ABCG2 is expressed in a wide variety of stem cells and is a molecular determinant of
the side-population phenotype. Nat Med. 2001;7(9):102834.
45. Hirschmann-Jax C, Foster AE, Wulf GG, Nuchtern JG, Jax TW, Gobel U, Goodell MA,
Brenner MK. A distinct side population of cells with high drug efflux capacity in human
tumor cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101(39):1422833.
46. Zen Y, Fujii T, Yoshikawa S, Takamura H, Tani T, Ohta T, Nakanuma Y. Histological and
culture studies with respect to ABCG2 expression support the existence of a cancer cell
hierarchy in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Am J Pathol. 2007;170(5):175062.
47. Aulmann S, Waldburger N, Penzel R, Andrulis M, Schirmacher P, Sinn HP. Reduction of
CD44(+)/CD24() breast cancer cells by conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy. Hum
Pathol. 2010;41(4):57481.
48. Kobayashi CI, Suda T. Regulation of reactive oxygen species in stem cells and cancer stem
cells. J Cell Physiol. 2012;227(2):42130.
49. Polyak K, Weinberg RA. Transitions between epithelial and mesenchymal states: acquisi-
tion of malignant and stem cell traits. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009;4:26573.
50. Chaffer CL, Marjanovic ND, Lee T, Bell G, Kleer CG, Reinhardt F, DAlessio AC, Young
RA, Weinberg RA. Poised chromatin at the ZEB1 promoter enables breast cancer cell plas-
ticity and enhances tumorigenicity. Cell. 2013;154(1):6174.
51. Smalley M, Piggott L, Clarkson R. Breast cancer stem cells: obstacles to therapy. Cancer
Lett. 2013;338(1):5762.
52. Moustakas A, Heldin CH. Signaling networks guiding epithelial-mesenchymal transitions
during embryogenesis and cancer progression. Cancer Sci. 2007;98(10):151220.
53. Bhola NE, Balko JM, Dugger TC, Kuba MG, Sanchez V, Sanders M, Stanford J, Cook RS,
Arteaga CL. TGF-beta inhibition enhances chemotherapy action against triple-negative
breast cancer. J Clin Investig. 2013;123(3):134858.
54. Wang FY, Arisawa T, Tahara T, Takahama K, Watanabe M, Hirata I, Nakano H. Aberrant
DNA methylation in ulcerative colitis without neoplasia. Hepatogastroenterology.
2008;55(81):625.
55. Rogers KM, Thomas M, Galligan L, Wilson TR, Allen WL, Sakai H, Johnston PG, Longley
DB. Cellular FLICE-inhibitory protein regulates chemotherapy-induced apoptosis in breast
cancer cells. Mol Cancer Ther. 2007;6(5):154451.
56. Ellis PA, Smith IE, McCarthy K, Detre S, Salter J, Dowsett M. Preoperative chemotherapy
induces apoptosis in early breast cancer. Lancet. 1997;349(9055):849.
57. Buchholz TA, Davis DW, McConkey DJ, Symmans WF, Valero V, Jhingran A, Tucker SL,
Pusztai L, Cristofanilli M, Esteva FJ, Hortobagyi GN, Sahin AA. Chemotherapy-induced
apoptosis and Bcl-2 levels correlate with breast cancer response to chemotherapy. Cancer J.
2003;9(1):3341.
58. Tiezzi DG, De Andrade JM, Candido dos Reis FJ, Marana HR, Ribeiro-Silva A, Tiezzi MG,
Pereira AP. Apoptosis induced by neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. Pathology.
2006;38(1):217.
59. Teixeira C, Reed JC, Pratt MA. Estrogen promotes chemotherapeutic drug resistance by a
mechanism involving Bcl-2 proto-oncogene expression in human breast cancer cells. Cancer
Res. 1995;55(17):39027.
60. Hahm HA, Davidson NE, Giguere JK, DiBernardo C, OReilly S. Breast cancer metastatic
to the choroid. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16(6):22802 (official journal of the American Society of
Clinical Oncology).
61. Miller WR, Dixon JM, Macfarlane L, Cameron D, Anderson TJ. Pathological features of
breast cancer response following neoadjuvant treatment with either letrozole or tamoxifen.
Eur J Cancer. 2003;39(4):4628.
62. Wang S, Konorev EA, Kotamraju S, Joseph J, Kalivendi S, Kalyanaraman B. Doxorubicin
induces apoptosis in normal and tumor cells via distinctly different mechanisms interme-
diacy of H(2)O(2) and p53-dependent pathways. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(24):2553543.
63. Merlo GR, Basolo F, Fiore L, Duboc L, Hynes NE. p53-dependent and p53-independent
activation of apoptosis in mammary epithelial cells reveals a survival function of EGF and
insulin. J Cell Biol. 1995;128(6):118596.
64. Bailey ST, Shin HJ, Westerling T, Liu XS, Brown M. Estrogen receptor prevents
p53-dependent apoptosis in breast cancer. P Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109(44):180605.
65. Dowsett M, Smith IE, Ebbs SR, Dixon JM, Skene A, Griffith C, Boeddinghaus I, Salter
J, Detre S, Hills M, Ashley S, Francis S, Walsh G, AHern R. Proliferation and apoptosis
as markers of benefit in neoadjuvant endocrine therapy of breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res.
2006;12(3 Pt 2):1024s30s (an official journal of the American Association for Cancer
Research).
66. Tanei T, Shimomura A, Shimazu K, Nakayama T, Kim SJ, Iwamoto T, Tamaki Y, Noguchi
S. Prognostic significance of Ki67 index after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer.
Euro J Surg Oncol J Euro Soc Surg Oncol Br Assoc Surg Oncol. 2011;37(2):15561.
67. Sayeed A, Konduri SD, Liu W, Bansal S, Li F, Das GM. Estrogen receptor alpha inhibits
p53-mediated transcriptional repression: implications for the regulation of apoptosis. Cancer
Res. 2007;67(16):774655.
68. Aas T, Borresen AL, Geisler S, Smith-Sorensen B, Johnsen H, Varhaug JE, Akslen LA,
Lonning PE. Specific P53 mutations are associated with de novo resistance to doxorubicin
in breast cancer patients. Nat Med. 1996;2(7):8114.
69. Elledge RM, Gray R, Mansour E, Yu Y, Clark GM, Ravdin P, Osborne CK, Gilchrist
K, Davidson NE, Robert N, etal. Accumulation of p53 protein as a possible predictor of
response to adjuvant combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate,
fluorouracil, and prednisone for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87(16):12546.
70. Elledge RM, Lock-Lim S, Allred DC, Hilsenbeck SG, Cordner L. p53 mutation and tamox-
ifen resistance in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 1995;1(10):12038 (an official journal of
the American Association for Cancer Research).
71. King AE, Collins F, Klonisch T, Sallenave JM, Critchley HO, Saunders PT. An additive
interaction between the NFkappaB and estrogen receptor signalling pathways in human
endometrial epithelial cells. Hum Reprod. 2010;25(2):5108.
72. Long MD, Thorne JL, Russell J, Battaglia S, Singh PK, Sucheston-Campbell LE, Campbell
MJ. Cooperative behavior of the nuclear receptor superfamily and its deregulation in pros-
tate cancer. Carcinogenesis. 2014;35(2):26271.
73. Rizzo P, Miao H, DSouza G, Osipo C, Song LL, Yun J, Zhao H, Mascarenhas J, Wyatt D,
Antico G, Hao L, Yao K, Rajan P, Hicks C, Siziopikou K, Selvaggi S, Bashir A, Bhandari
D, Marchese A, Lendahl U, Qin JZ, Tonetti DA, Albain K, Nickoloff BJ, Miele L. Cross-
talk between notch and the estrogen receptor in breast cancer suggests novel therapeutic
approaches. Cancer Res. 2008;68(13):522635.
74. Sisci D, Maris P, Cesario MG, Anselmo W, Coroniti R, Trombino GE, Romeo F, Ferraro A,
Lanzino M, Aquila S, Maggiolini M, Mauro L, Morelli C, Ando S. The estrogen receptor
alpha is the key regulator of the bifunctional role of FoxO3a transcription factor in breast
cancer motility and invasiveness. Cell Cycle. 2013;12(21):340520.
75. Troester MA, Herschkowitz JI, Oh DS, He X, Hoadley KA, Barbier CS, Perou CM. Gene
expression patterns associated with p53 status in breast cancer. BMC Cancer. 2006;6:276.
76. Cave JW. Selective repression of Notch pathway target gene transcription. Developmental
biology. 2011;360(1):12331.
77. Groth C, Fortini ME. Therapeutic approaches to modulating Notch signaling. Semin Cell
Dev Biol. 2012;23(4):46572.
78. Callahan Raafat. Notch signaling in mammary gland tumorigenesis. Journal of mammary
gland biology and neoplasia. 2001;6(1):2336.
79. Landor SKJ, Mutvei AP, Mamaeva V, Jin S, Busk M, Borra R, Gronroos TJ, Kronqvist P,
Lendahl U, Sahlgren CM. Hypo- and hyperactivated Notch signaling induce a glycolytic
switch through distinct mechanisms. PNAS USA 2011;108(46):188149.
80. Reedijk M, Odorcic S, Chang L, Zhang H, Miller N, McCready DR, Lockwood G, Egan
SE. High-level coexpression of JAG1 and NOTCH1 is observed in human breast cancer and
is associated with poor overall survival. Cancer Res. 2005;65(18):85307.
81. Reedijk M, Pinnaduwage D, Dickson BC, Mulligan AM, Zhang H, Bull SB, OMalley FP,
Egan SE, Andrulis IL. JAG1 expression is associated with a basal phenotype and recurrence
in lymph node-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;111(3):43948.
82. Dontu G, Jackson KW, McNicholas E, Kawamura MJ, Abdallah WM, Wicha MS. Role of
Notch signaling in cell-fate determination of human mammary stem/progenitor cells. Breast
Cancer Res (BCR). 2004;6(6):R60515.
83. Liu S, Wicha MS. Targeting breast cancer stem cells. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(25):400612
(official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology).
84. Gonzalez-Angulo AM, Iwamoto T, Liu S, Chen H, Do KA, Hortobagyi GN, Mills GB,
Meric-Bernstam F, Symmans WF, Pusztai L. Gene expression, molecular class changes, and
pathway analysis after NACT for breast cancer. Clinical Cancer Res. 2012;18(4):110919
(an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research).
85. Cho S, Lu M, He X, Ee PL, Bhat U, Schneider E, Miele L, Beck WT. Notch1 regulates the
expression of ABCC1/MRP1 in cultured cancer cells. PNAS USA 2011;108(51):2077883.
86. Leonessa C. ABC transporters and drug resistance in breast cancer. Endocr-Relat Cancer.
2003;10(1):4373.
87. Mao J, Song B, Shi Y, Wang B, Fan S, Yu X, Tang J, Li L. ShRNA targeting Notch1 sensi-
tizes breast cancer stem cell to paclitaxel. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2013;45(6):106473.
88. Qiu M, Peng Q, Jiang I, Carroll C, Han G, Rymer I, Lippincott J, Zachwieja J, Gajiwala
K, Kraynov E, Thibault S, Stone D, Gao Y, Sofia S, Gallo J, Li G, Yang J, Li K, Wei P.
Specific inhibition of Notch1 signaling enhances the antitumor efficacy of chemother-
apy in triple negative breast cancer through reduction of cancer stem cells. Cancer Lett.
2013;328(2):26170.
89. Campbell IG, Russell SE, Choong DYH, Montgomery KG, Ciavarella ML, Hooi CSF,
Cristiano BE, Pearson RB, Phillips WA. Mutation of the PIK3CA gene in ovarian and breast
cancer. Cancer Res. 2004;64(21):767881.
90. Jiang BH, Liu LZ. PI3K/PTEN signaling in tumorigenesis and angiogenesis. Bba-Proteins
Proteom. 2008;1784(1):1508.
91. Winograd-Katz SE, Levitzki A. Cisplatin induces PKB/Akt activation and p38(MAPK)
phosphorylation of the EGF receptor. Oncogene. 2006;25(56):738190.
92. Plo I, Bettaieb A, Payrastre B, Mansat-De Mas V, Bordier C, Rousse A, Kowalski-Chauvel

A, Laurent G, Lautier D. The phosphoinositide 3-kinase/Akt pathway is activated by dauno-
rubicin in human acute myeloid leukemia cell lines. FEBS Lett. 1999;452(3):1504.
93. Clark AS, West K, Streicher S, Dennis PA. Constitutive and inducible Akt activity promotes
resistance to chemotherapy, trastuzumab, or tamoxifen in breast cancer cells. Mol Cancer
Ther. 2002;1(9):70717.
94. Mabuchi S, Ohmichi M, Kimura A, Hisamoto K, Hayakawa J, Nishio Y, Adachi K,
Takahashi K, Arimoto-Ishida E, Nakatsuji Y, Tasaka K, Murata Y. Inhibition of phospho-
rylation of BAD and Raf-1 by Akt sensitizes human ovarian cancer cells to paclitaxel. J Biol
Chem. 2002;277(36):33490500.
95. Datta SR, Dudek H, Tao X, Masters S, Fu HA, Gotoh Y, Greenberg ME. Akt phospho-
rylation of BAD couples survival signals to the cell-intrinsic death machinery. Cell.
1997;91(2):23141.
96. delPeso L, GonzalezGarcia M, Page C, Herrera R, Nunez G. Interleukin-3-induced phos-
phorylation of BAD through the protein kinase Akt. Science 1997;278(5338):6879.
97. Gardai SJ, Hildeman DA, Frankel SK, Whitlock BB, Frasch SC, Borregaard N, Marrack P,
Bratton DL, Henson PM. Phosphorylation of Bax Ser(184) by Akt regulates its activity and
apoptosis in neutrophils. J Biol Chem. 2004;279(20):2108595.
98. Zhou BHP, Liao Y, Xia WY, Zou YY, Spohn B, Hung MC. HER-2/neu induces p53 ubiquit-
ination via Akt-mediated MDM2 phosphorylation. Nat Cell Biol. 2001;3(11):97382.
99. Garcia MG, Alaniz LD, Russo RIC, Alvarez E, Hajos SE. PI3K/Akt inhibition modulates
multidrug resistance and activates NF-kappa B in murine lymphoma cell lines. Leukemia
Res. 2009;33(2):28896.
100. Takada T, Suzuki H, Gotoh Y, Sugiyama Y. Regulation of the cell surface expression of
human BCRP/ABCG2 by the phosphorylation state of Akt in polarized cells. Drug Metab
Dispos. 2005;33(7):9059.
101. Mogi M, Yang J, Lambert JF, Colvin GA, Shiojima I, Skurk C, Summer R, Fine A,

Quesenberry PJ, Walsh K. Akt signaling regulates side population cell phenotype via Bcrp1
translocation. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(40):3906875.
102. Nakanishi T, Chumsri S, Khakpour N, Brodie AH, Leyland-Jones B, Hamburger AW, Ross
DD, Burger AM. Side-population cells in luminal-type breast cancer have tumour-initiat-
ing cell properties, and are regulated by HER2 expression and signalling. Brit J Cancer.
2010;102(5):81526.
103. Bleau AM, Hambardzumyan D, Ozawa T, Fomchenko EI, Huse JT, Brennan CW, Holland
EC. PTEN/PI3K/Akt pathway regulates the side population phenotype and ABCG2 activity
in glioma tumor stem-like cells. Cell Stem Cell. 2009;4(3):22635.
Chapter 18
The Molecular Pathology of Male Breast
Cancer
Rebecca A. Millican-Slater, Valerie Speirs, Thomas A. Hughes

and Andrew M. Hanby
Background
Male breast cancer (MBC) is relatively rare, accounting for less than 1% of all
breast cancers in 2010 in the UK [1], however there is some evidence that the inci-
dence rate may be on the rise [2]. Although a number of individual case reports
and small case series have been published, large studies into MBC are few and far
between, reflecting the scarcity of the disease. Such studies have relied on multi-
centre collaboration to obtain sizeable cohorts [36]. At time of writing there are
no clear molecular pathology readouts that are required to tailor therapy for MBC
in a way they differ significantly from female breast cancer (FBC). This piece
summarises the state of play with regards to the molecular pathology of MBC.
R.A. Millican-Slater
Department of Histopathology, Leeds University Hospitals NHS Trust,
Leeds, United Kingdom
V. Speirs A.M. Hanby(*)
St. James University Hospital, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology,
University of Leeds, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS9 7TF, United Kingdom
T.A. Hughes
Leeds Institutes of Molecular Medicine, Wellcome Trust Brenner Building,
St. James University Hospital, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

310 R.A. Millican-Slater et al.
Histology and Immunohistochemistry Studies
The histology of MBCs reveals no distinct appearances that permit identification

as a male originating tumour on histology alone. Morphological heterogeneity is
however readily observed within MBC cohorts (Fig.18.1).
Gene expression studies have confirmed that there is a great deal of heteroge-
neity amongst FBC, and there is evidence that immunohistochemistry surrogates
can be used to classify FBCs into clinically-relevant different molecular subgroups
[7]. Some studies have applied these immunohistochemistry surrogates directly to
cohorts of MBC the findings of which are displayed in Table18.1 [5, 6, 8, 9]. As is
seen when looking at similar studies in FBC, comparison across the different stud-
ies is difficult as classifications vary for each study. In general though, a luminal
A-like subtype (estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PR) positive,
human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) negative) is the most common
classification seen in MBC. With regards to immunohistochemical markers and
survival, PR negativity and p53 accumulation have been reported to be associated
with decreased survival in MBC (3), as has overexpression of the proliferation
Fig.18.1This four-panel set of photomicrograph shows the histology displayed in sections of 4 dis-
tinct male breast cancers and demonstrates morphological heterogeneity in these tumours. All 400
18 The Molecular Pathology of Male Breast Cancer 311
Table18.1Studies in which male breast cancers have been categorised into the molecular sub-
groups defined in FBC
Reference Molecular IHC classification used %
subtype
[8] Luminal A ER and/or PR positive; Her2 negative; Ki67 low 75
n=130 Luminal B ER and/or PR positive; Her2 positive and/or Ki67 high 21
Her2-driven ER and PR negative; Her2 positive 0
Basal-like ER, PR and Her2 negative; CK5/6, CK14 and/or EGFR 3
positive
Unclassifiable Negative for all 6 markers 1
[9] Luminal A ER and/or PR positive; Her2 negative 81
n=183 Luminal B ER and/or PR positive; Her2 positive 11
Her2-like ER and PR negative; Her2 positive 0
Core-basal ER, PR and Her2 negative; CK5/6 and/or EGFR positive 1
5-negative profile ER, PR and Her2 negative; CK5/6 and EGFR negative 0
Her2-positive ER and PR negative; Her2 positive 2
Triple negative ER and PR negative; Her2 negative 4
Her2-positive ER and PR negative; Her2 positive 2
Basal ER and PR negative; Her2 negative; CK5/6 positive 0
markers cyclin A and cyclin B [7]. Androgen receptor (AR) expression in luminal
A MBC has also been shown to be associated with improved overall survival com-
pared to matched FBC [6]. Using hierarchical clustering, it was also shown that
AR clustered with estrogen receptor beta (ER) in MBC while in FBC, estrogen
receptor alpha (ER) and PR clustered, which could indicate a difference in the
biology of breast cancer between the genders (Fig.18.2).
DNA Studies
Some studies have attempted to determine specific genomic abnormalities present

in MBC and relate these to prognosis and/or compare them to FBC. One of the
first of these studies used comparative genomic hybridisation (CGH) of 39 MBC
and showed gains of 1q, 8q, 16p, 17q, Xq, 20q and Xp and losses of 8p, 16q, 13q,
6q, 11q and 22q [9]. This pattern was common to genomic imbalances observed
in FBC. Another study looked at a cohort of 106 MBCs analysed by multiplex
ligation-dependent probe amplification analyses to determine relative gene copy
numbers for specific breast cancer genes [10]. A distinctive group of cancers with
a poor prognosis were identified, characterized by frequent copy number gains in
Fig.18.2Part of a male
breast cancer showing strong
nuclear staining with an
antibody to the androgen
receptor gene (AR). AR
appears to be associated
with better survival in MBC.
Hierarchical clustering
shows that AR clusters with
estrogen receptor beta (ER)
in MBC whereas in FBC,
estrogen receptor alpha
(ER) and PR cluster
6 genes. Amplification of one of these genes, CCND1, was also found to be an

independent prognostic factor. Interestingly, gains in some of these genes were not
seen in FBC cases. Another study of 56 MBC cases found that compared to FBC,
MBC was more likely to have genomic gains and less likely to have genomic
losses [11]. Hierarchical clustering revealed two distinct genomic subgroups,
termed male-simple and male-complex, one of which (male-simple) appeared
distinct from the six subgroups identified in the FBC reference cohort. Finally, a
recently published genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 823 MBC cases
identified a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) at 14q24.1 in the RAD51B
gene that was significantly associated with MBC risk as was TOX3 (16q12.1) [12].
A few studies have looked at differential DNA methylation in MBC. Numerous
genes have been found to undergo hypermethylation in cancer with many tumours
showing hypermethylation of more than one gene. Increased methylation in the pro-
moter region of a gene is most typically associated with reduced expression of that
gene. It has been shown that promoter hypermethylation does occur in MBC with
more than half of a total of 108 cases showing methylation of a number of genes
that have been reported to act as tumour suppressor genes, including MSH6, CD13,
PAX5, PAX6 and WT1 [13]. Methylation of these genes is uncommon or absent in
normal male breast tissue. In addition, accumulation of methylated genes and an
overall high methylation status correlated with a more aggressive phenotype and
poorer survival. A second study analysing the methylation status of the RASSF1A
gene, a well characterised tumour suppressor gene, in 27 cases of familial MBC and
29 cases of familial FBC showed that it was significantly more frequently methyl-
ated in MBC compared to FBC (76% vs. 28% respectively, p=0.0001) indicating
potential biological differences between the two diseases [14].
RNA Studies
Two studies have attempted to classify MBC at the transcriptional level. The first
compared gene expression profiles in 37 MBC cases with 53 FBC cases matched
for ER positivity and with similar clinicopathological features [15]. Differentially
expressed genes were identified including some genes involved in energy metab-
olism, cell migration and motility, immune response, membrane transport, apop-
tosis and translation. They concluded that male and FBCs are quite different
diseases. Interestingly, this study highlighted differences in AR pathway related
genes, supporting subsequently published work at the protein level [6]. The sec-
ond study looked solely at MBC cases and found that gene expression profiling of
these revealed two subgroups, luminal M1 and luminal M2, which were distinct
from the published FBC subgroups [16]. These differed with regards to tumour
characteristics and outcome with the luminal M1 subgroup being more aggressive
and associated with a worse prognosis. The same group applied computational
biology to detect candidate driver genes in MBC [17] identifying 30 candidate
drivers in MBC and 67 in FBC. Whilst many known drivers of breast carcinogen-
esis were identified in females, only 3 known cancer genes, MAP2K4, LHP, and
ZNF217, were found in MBC. In addition, THY1, which is involved in invasion
and related to epithelial-mesenchymal transition, was found in MBC with positiv-
ity being associated with poorer survival.
There is a small amount of literature assessing microRNAs (miRNAs) expres-
sion in MBC. miRNAs are small noncoding RNAs that alter gene expression at
the post-transcriptional level. A number of miRNAs have been shown to be de-
regulated (some up-regulated and some down-regulated) in FBC [18]. Two studies
to date have looked at miRNA expression in MBC. The first performed miRNA
profiling and demonstrated that there is differential expression of several miRNAs
between gynaecomastia and MBC with 17 miRNAs being overexpressed and 26
miRNAs being under expressed in the cancers [19]. The authors also reported dif-
ferential expression of miRNAs between MBC cases and FBC cases. The second
study analysed 319 miRNAs in MBCs and in gynaecomastia cases and found that
miR-21, miR-519d, miR-183, miR-197 and miR-493-5p were most prominently
up-regulated, and miR-145 and miR-497 were most prominently down-regulated
in the cancer cases compared to the benign tissue [20]. With the exception of one
miRNA (miR-145), there was no overlap between the results of the two studies.
Concluding Remarks
While MBC and FBC appear to be similar histologically, recent molecular pathol-
ogy studies point to differing molecular landscapes between genders. Current
breast cancer treatments do not differ between genders, however these emerging
molecular studies suggest that men diagnosed with breast cancer could ultimately
require different management and treatment strategies, especially if these molecu-

lar profiles are subsequently proven to be associated with differences in prognosis
and identified gender specific targets.
Key Points
Luminal A-like subtype (estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor

(PR) positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) negative) is
the most common classification seen in MBC
Hierarchical clustering shows that AR clustered with ER in MBC while in
FBC, ER and PR clustered, which could indicate a difference in the biology of
breast cancer between the genders
At time of writing there are no clear molecular pathology readouts that are
required to tailor therapy for MBC in a way they differs significantly from FBC
SNP at 14q24.1 in the RAD51B gene that was significantly associated with
MBC risk
RASSF1A gene is significantly more frequently methylated in MBC compared
to FBC (76% vs. 28%)
References
1. UK, C.R. Breast cancer incidence statistics. 2013. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerst

ats/types/breast/incidence/uk-breast-cancer-incidence-statistics. 1 May 2013.
2. Speirs V, Shaaban AM. The rising incidence of male breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
2009;115(2):42930.
3. Kornegoor R, etal. Immunophenotyping of male breast cancer. Histopathology.
2012;61(6):114555.
4. Nilsson C, etal. Molecular subtyping of male breast cancer using alternative definitions and
its prognostic impact. Acta Oncol. 2013;52(1):1029.
5. Ottini L, etal. Clinical and pathologic characteristics of BRCA-positive and BRCA-negative
male breast cancer patients: results from a collaborative multicenter study in Italy. Breast
6. Shaaban AM, etal. A comparative biomarker study of 514 matched cases of male and
female breast cancer reveals gender-specific biological differences. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
2012;133(3):94958.
7. Carey LA, etal. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer
Study. JAMA, J Am Med Assoc. 2006;295(21):2492502.
8. Nilsson C, etal. High proliferation is associated with inferior outcome in male breast cancer
patients. Mod Pathol An Official J US Can Acad Pathol Inc. 2013;26(1):8794.
9. Rudlowski C, etal. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis on male breast cancer. Int J
Cancer. Journal international du cancer. 2006;118(10):245560.
10. Kornegoor R, etal. Oncogene amplification in male breast cancer: analysis by multiplex liga-
tion-dependent probe amplification. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;135(1):4958.
11. Johansson I, etal. High-resolution genomic profiling of male breast cancer reveals differ-
ences hidden behind the similarities with female breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat.
2011;129(3):74760.
12. Orr N, etal. Genome-wide association study identifies a common variant in RAD51B associ-
ated with male breast cancer risk. Nat Genet. 2012;44(11):11824.
13. Kornegoor R, etal. Promoter hypermethylation in male breast cancer: analysis by multiplex
ligation-dependent probe amplification. Breast Cancer Res BCR. 2012;14(4):R101.
14. Pinto R, etal. Different methylation and microRNA expression pattern in male and female
familial breast cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2013;228(6):12649.
15. Callari M, etal. Gene expression analysis reveals a different transcriptomic landscape in
female and male breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;127(3):60110.
16. Johansson I, etal. Gene expression profiling of primary male breast cancers reveals two
unique subgroups and identifies N-acetyltransferase-1 (NAT1) as a novel prognostic bio-
marker. Breast Cancer Res BCR. 2012;14(1):R31.
17. Johansson I, Ringner M, Hedenfalk I. The landscape of candidate driver genes differs
between male and female breast cancer. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(10):e78299.
18. Zoon CK, etal. Current molecular diagnostics of breast cancer and the potential incorpora-
tion of microRNA. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2009;9(5):45567.
19. Fassan M, etal. MicroRNA expression profiling of male breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res
BCR. 2009;11(4):R58.
20. Lehmann U, etal. Identification of differentially expressed microRNAs in human male breast
cancer. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:109.
Chapter 19
Specimens for Molecular Testing
in Breast Cancer
Background
Molecular testing can be performed on different specimen types. DNA- and RNA-
based ancillary studies play an important role in identifying molecular portraits of
breast carcinoma and in influencing routine therapies. Preanalytical factors includ-
ing different fixatives, processing methods, and storage conditions coupled with
differences in chemical and physical conditions, including time to fixation, mecha-
nism of fixation, processing temperature and pH, storage time and conditions, all
have a significant impact on the quality of the nucleic acids [16].
Specimen Types
Commonly used specimen types for molecular testing include fresh, frozen, for-
malin fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE), or alcohol-fixed samples. Nucleic acid
extraction for molecular testing should be validated for each of these specimen
types. Similarly, molecular assays used for clinical purposes should be limited
to validated specimen types. For breast carcinoma, molecular analysis is usually
performed on needle core biopsies or resection specimens, but could also include
cytology samples, such as fine needle aspiration (FNA) biopsy [4, 7]. Both core
biopsies and large resection specimens are usually fixed before molecular analy-
sis is performed to allow correlation with morphology. Guidelines have been


introduced to standardize the processing of breast specimens [4, 5]. To achieve

optimal performance, breast resection specimens should ideally be sectioned
at 5-mm thickness after appropriate gross inspection and margin designation [4,
8, 9]. Preanalytical conditions may adversely impact molecular assays. The cold
ischemia time should be kept to a minimum to reduce RNA and protein degrada-
tion. The optimum formalin exposure time for breast tissue specimens varies and
is based on the specimen size, but in practice, the consensus is that at least 1hour
(h) of fixation per mm of tissue thickness is required [2, 6, 10, 11]. Strict adher-
ence to these guidelines is crucial to obtain the most accurate results for predictive
and prognostic tumor markers. Failure to adhere to these guidelines may signifi-
cantly affect the clinical management and potentially impact the outcome.
Preanalytical Factors
There are many different parameters affecting optimal tissue preservation. Not all
of them have been well studied; however, there is a wealth of evidence document-
ing some of the more important variables [6]. Here, we briefly touch on the more
important preanalytical factors for breast specimen handling:
1. Prefixation time, which includes warm ischemia and cold ischemia time or the
postmortem interval, has a great impact on the quality of the DNA and RNA
in breast specimens. Optimally, cold ischemia should be less than 1h for fluo-
rescent in situ hybridization (FISH) and should be less than 24h for polymer-
ase chain reaction (PCR). In instances when a specimen falls outside of these
parameters, the inclusion of an internal control gene to ascertain the specimen
integrity is recommended. The latest American Society of Clinical Oncology/
College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guidelines recommend the
time to fixation for breast specimens not to exceed 1h [2, 1214].
2. Fixation parameters:
The following factors have been well studied:
(a) Fixation chemistry: The mechanism of action for fixatives may be clas-
sified as cross-linkers, dehydrants, heat or acid effects, or a combination
of these. In breast, as in other tissue types,10 % neutral-buffered forma-
lin (NBF) is the most widely used universal fixative as it preserves a wide
range of tissues and tissue components [15, 16]. Unbuffered formalin fix-
ation is not recommended as this method produces poor DNA yield and
quality [17]. The amount of DNA fragmentation associated with formalin
fixation is greater than that observed with alcohol fixation [16, 18].
(b) Tissue penetration: This variable depends on the diffusibility of the fixa-
tives. The general consensus for 10 % NBF in breast specimens is 1mm
of penetration per hour [2, 6, 19, 20]. Compared to formalin, alcohol leads
to more rapid fixation, which offers better preservation of labile RNA mol-
ecules [21]. Overall the volume of fixative should be in excess of 20 times
19 Specimens for Molecular Testing in Breast Cancer 319
the volume of the tissue, however, this ratio can be difficult to achieve and
requires proper sectioning of the large resections [22].
(c) Fixation conditions: Few studies have investigated the optimal temperature
and pH necessary to preserve different nucleic acid types. However, the
general consensus for the optimal fixation of breast specimens is cold tem-
perature (optimum 4C, room temperature acceptable) and the use of non-
acidic fixatives such as 10 % NBF. Other conditions lead to more nucleic
acid degradation and reduced nucleic acid yields [6, 14, 23].
(d) Specimen size: A preferred tissue thickness enabling the appropriate for-
malin tissue penetration is 0.5cm or less [5, 6, 14].
(e) Decalcification: Decalcification methods can affect DNA, RNA, and pro-
tein integrity. Methods such as PCR amplification, probe binding, in situ
hybridization (ISH), and protein analysis can be adversely impacted.
Decalcification using ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) solution,
especially in combination with ultrasound when available, is superior to
other methods of decalcification [12, 2427].
(f) Duration of fixation: Although there is some variability in the recommenda-
tions for the fixation time of different tissue types [2830], the revised ASCO/
CAP guidelines recommend 672h of fixation for breast tissues [4, 9].
3. Postfixation parameters: Relatively, few studies address the issue of quality
control and assurance metrics for the appropriate storage of paraffin blocks [31,
32]. In particular, the storage time of FFPE blocks has been shown to adversely
affect the nucleic acid quality. Formalin fixation and residual water exposure
can have detrimental effects on nucleic acids, especially RNA [19, 21]. This
specifically applies to tissue blocks that are older than 5years for DNA studies
and older than 1year for RNA studies [4, 6, 9, 20]. Therefore, it is necessary
to consider these adverse effects when selecting the blocks for molecular stud-
ies. As for the stored sections from FFPE tissue blocks, guidelines recommend
molecular testing within 6weeks for clinical purposes [4, 9].
Fixative Types
NBF (10 %) is the preferred and most widely used fixative, and molecular assays
have been optimized for this fixative. It has been shown that formalin fixation forms
chemical cross-links between proteins, DNA, RNA, and other macromolecules
and leads to fragmentation of DNA that adversely affects molecular testing in a
length-dependent manner. Molecular analyses that require amplicons approaching
1000 base pairs (bp) are usually successful when nucleic acids are extracted from
fresh or frozen tissue samples, but are far less reliable in formalin-fixed specimens.
Consequently, most assays are designed to utilize DNA sequences shorter than
300bp to obtain satisfactory results [6]. In addition, random nucleotide base changes
introduced by formalin fixation may be detected by more sensitive assays, espe-
cially in samples with low DNA concentration, and this may lead to false-positive
results [6, 33, 34]. Any breast tissue specimen collected for molecular testing (cytol-
ogy samples, needle biopsies, resection specimens) should be immersed in a suf-
ficient volume of 10 % NBF as soon as possible (time to fixation ideally within
1h). Several studies have shown that a delay greater than 1h may lead to errone-
ous results in HER2 FISH testing [2, 10]. Resection specimens should be sectioned
through the tumor upon receipt. Cold ischemia time, type of fixative, and the time
the sample was placed in fixative must be documented. Evidence suggests that the
optimal duration of fixation for 10 %NBF is between 6 and 72h [4, 8]. Alternative
fixatives containing heavy metals such as mercury chloride (B-plus, B5, and Zenker)
or acid zinc formalin and acidic solutions (Bouin and bone decalcifier) have detri-
mental effects on nucleic acids. This is also true for unbuffered formalin, because
spontaneous oxidation of formalin, in time, produces formic acid. Heavy metals can
have inhibitory effects on enzymes, which are routinely used in molecular assays.
For instance, heavy metals inhibit DNA polymerases through competition with mag-
nesium, an essential cofactor for polymerase activity [35]. On the other hand acidic
solutions can nick the DNA backbone producing tiny fragments and cause depuri-
nation, making them unsuitable for testing [6]. If a sample gives a negative result in
the absence of internal control elements, testing should be repeated on an alternate
sample, such as different tissue block or specimen [4, 9].
Detection of ERBB2 (HER2) Gene Amplification

by In Situ Hybridization (ISH) Assay
ERBB2 (HER2) gene status may be assessed by various ISH methods including
fluorescence or bright field in situ hybridization. These are molecular cytogenetic
techniques that identify HER2 gene amplification [1, 4]. Reverse transcriptase
real-time PCR assays employed by Oncotype Dx also provide information about
HER2 gene mRNA levels, but are not routinely used to make treatment decisions
for HER2 targeted therapy. A variety of factors influence the performance of these
assays. Time to fixation will have a different effect depending on the specific
nucleic acid analysis platform [2, 12, 36]. A cold ischemia time of more than one
hour leads to reduced FISH signals [2]. RNA-based assays are even more sensi-
tive to this variable [3739]. HER2 testing can be compromised by overfixation as
well. The current ASCO/CAP guidelines recommend using10 % NBF with tissue
fixed for 672h [4]. Needle core biopsies fixed for less than 1h or resections fixed
for less than 6h should not be tested [4, 14]. Fixation with alcohol results in DNA
condensation and this may influence FISH interpretation and should be considered
when alcohol fixative is used [28]. On the other hand, DNA cross-linking, which
commonly occurs with formalin fixation, may prevent probe penetration and bind-
ing to target DNA resulting in faint signals [6, 12]. Enzymatic digestion times for
ISH can be modified to optimize the probe signal intensity. Overdigestion with
proteases may result in split or fragmented signals that can lead to misclassifica-
tion as gene copy number gain [4, 14].
Other Routine Molecular Assays
Aside from the HER2 gene FISH testing, there are several other prognostic and
predictive gene sets in breast cancer. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reac-
tion (RT-PCR) is a relatively recent approach to detect HER2 gene amplification in
breast cancer. This approach has also been utilized in well-known and widely used
FDA approved assays, such as Oncotype Dx (Genomic Health Inc, Redwood City,
California), MammaPrint (Agendia, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), and PAM50
(Nanostring Technologies Inc., Seattle, Washington) . All 3 tests can provide an
overall risk assessment of breast cancer recurrence [4043]. These assays have
benefited greatly from standardization of fixation practices, designed to ensure
consistent results for HER2 andestrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor
(PgR) and other ancillary studies [43, 44].
Oncotype DX is a multiplex, 21-gene, RT-PCR assay optimized for quantifi-
cation of RNA extracted from FFPE tumor tissue that predicts the likelihood of
disease recurrence (recurrence score- RS) in women with stages I or II, hormone
receptor-positive, lymph node-negative, invasive breast cancer [41, 45].
MammaPrint is a 70-gene expression profile that was initially developed using
oligonucleotide expression array (25,000 genes). Analysis consisted of consecu-
tively collected tumor specimens from a cohort of women with stage I or II breast
cancer who had undergone definitive surgery only without systemic therapy and
with at least 5-year clinical follow-up [46, 47]. Originally, Mammaprint assay was
limited to fresh tissue for assessment, but recently specimens fixed in10 % NBF
have been validated [48]. These assays heavily rely on careful primer design to
minimize the effects of RNA degradation [48].
Prediction Analysis of Microarray (PAM) 50 is a 50-gene breast carcinoma
subtype predictor, which was initially developed using microarray and quantitative
RT-PCR. PAM50 measures the expression levels of 50 genes in surgically resected
breast carcinoma samples. The risk of recurrence (ROR) can be determined in
both patients without previous systemic therapy, and with systemic therapy. The
PAM50 gene set is therefore used for gene expression-based subtyping of breast
carcinomas and for probability of disease recurrence [4951].
Other Molecular Assays
Other than commonly used molecular assays, there are some other methods that
have gained popularity in recent years. As mentioned in the previous section,
RT-PCR can be used to test for the HER2 gene status in breast carcinoma speci-
mens. When proper fixation protocols are followed, studies have shown a concord-
ance rate of 9294% between FISH and RT-PCR. Some studies even proposed
that RT-PCR may represent a better methodology than FISH, especially for equiv-
ocal samples by IHC [5254]. HER2 gene amplification is highly associated with
HER2 mRNA overexpression, and quantification of HER2 mRNA by RT-PCR
shows strong agreement with HER2 gene amplification by FISH [55]. Compared
with FISH, which offers semiquantitative values, RT-PCR offers quantitative val-
ues [44]. Despite these advantages, the labile nature of RNA introduces the risk
of false negative results and therefore is not widely accepted as a clinical test to
assess HER2 gene status. This method is also limited by the need for a nearly
pure invasive tumor cell population, which may require expensive and specialized
methods, such as laser capture microdissection (LCM). Microarray-based expres-
sion profiling has similar limitations. In addition, this method provides only a
semiquantitative assessment of gene expression, and sensitivity and specificity are
limited by the nature of the probes included in the platform [56, 57].
Various DNA-based methods can be used to test for gene copy status in breast
carcinoma specimens. Comparative genomic hybridization (array CGH) and single
nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array analysis have provided a wealth of data on
gene copy number aberrations in breast cancer and have helped to identify poten-
tial therapeutic targets for subgroups of breast cancer patients. However, these array
technologies do not provide any information about structural genomic aberrations.
SNP array can provide information about nucleotide base pair variations [58, 59].
These array technologies require high quality DNA and consequently FFPE tissues
may be unsuitable for these methods. Therefore, gene copy number information has
been primarily derived from fresh or frozen tissue [60]. For these reasons and the
high cost, these methods have not been adopted into routine clinical practice.
MicroRNAs
MicroRNAs are endogenous, small noncoding RNAs, which regulate gene expres-
sion by directly binding to the untranslated regions of the target messenger RNAs
and may act either as tumor suppressor or oncogene [57, 6164]. Levels of spe-
cific miRNAs differ between normal and malignant breast tissue and among
tumors of varying histological grade, molecular subtype, lymph node status, and
hormone receptor (HR) status [65, 66]. In addition, miRNAs have been linked to
breast cancer invasion, proliferation, and metastasis [6769]. Different miRNAs
have been shown to be associated with aggressiveness of breast cancer or work
as a tumor suppressor [1, 61]. The available miRNA technologies are not without
limitations, such as the susceptibility to degradation associated with all types of
RNA. Because of their smaller size, miRNAs are relatively less affected by the
damaging effects of formalin fixation and can readily be extracted from FFPE tis-
sue [70]. miRNAs have been discussed in greater detail inchapter 13.
Future Directions
Next-generation sequencing (NGS), also known as massively parallel sequencing,

has been rapidly gaining popularity in clinical testing. The Cancer Genome Atlas
(TCGA) project has revealed a spectrum of diverse genomic anomalies through
exome and whole genome sequencing [58, 71]. NGS is changing our understand-
ing of the molecular traits of tumors at the genomic, transcriptomic, and epigenetic
levels [72, 73]. The data from whole genome sequencing can provide a global
view of individual tumor biology by integrating a variety of molecular informa-
tion [73, 74]. The ability to distinguish between driver and passenger mutations is
helpful in determining which genes are important in tumor development and thera-
peutic resistance [75]. Genetic heterogeneity in breast cancers has been confirmed
and further reinforced by NGS methods [75, 76]. NGS can be used to analyze
the entire genome or to target the gene regions containing high-frequency muta-
tions. The latter targeted approach can provide high-level sequencing coverage and
allows detection of low level mutations. The value of NGS in clinical testing is
further emphasized by the capacity to sequence small specimens with scant tumor
cells, such as samples obtained by FNA. In contrast to traditional Sanger sequenc-
ing, NGS also has the advantage of multigene panel testing using as little as 10
nanograms/microliter of DNA [77, 78]. With proper design, these systems are less
prone to the adverse effects of formalin fixation and associated DNA fragmenta-
tion. The availability of customizable multigene panels has enabled the identifica-
tion of mutations that may serve as early indicators of disease and may be used
to monitor disease progression and therapeutic response [75]. Clinical predictors
based on the molecular signature and detection of the vulnerabilities of an indi-
viduals tumor to facilitate precision medicine represent promising opportunities,
such as personalized therapy, to improve cancer care [7981].
Key Points
Commonly used specimen types for molecular testing include fresh, frozen,
FFPE, or alcohol-fixed samples.
Preanalytical factors including different fixatives, processing methods, and storage
conditions coupled with differences in chemical and physical conditions, includ-
ing time to fixation, mechanism of fixation, processing temperature and pH, storage
time and conditions, all have a significant impact on the quality of the nucleic acids.
Different molecular assays can be utilized in breast pathology including in situ
hybridiziation (ISH), reverse-trascription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR),
Comparative genomic hybridization, single nucleotide polymorphism array,
microRNA assessment and next generation sequencing.
References
1. Cornejo KM, etal. Theranostic and molecular classification of breast cancer. Arch Pathol
Lab Med. 2014;138(1):4456.
2. Khoury T, etal. Delay to formalin fixation effect on breast biomarkers. Mod Pathol.
2009;22(11):145767.
3. Tong LC, etal. The effect of prolonged fixation on the immunohistochemical evaluation of
estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 expression in invasive breast cancer: a
prospective study. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011;35(4):54552.
breast cancer: American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists clini-
cal practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(31):39974013.
5. Wolff AC, etal. American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists
cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2007;131(1):1843.
6. Srinivasan M, Sedmak D, Jewell S. Effect of fixatives and tissue processing on the content
and integrity of nucleic acids. Am J Pathol. 2002;161(6):196171.
7. Zoon CK, etal. Current molecular diagnostics of breast cancer and the potential incorpora-
tion of microRNA. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2009;9(5):45567.
8. Hammond ME, etal. American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists
guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone
receptors in breast cancer. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134(6):90722.
9. Wolff AC, etal. American society of clinical oncology/college of American pathologists
10. Apple S, etal. The effect of delay in fixation, different fixatives, and duration of fixa-
tion in estrogen and progesterone receptor results in breast carcinoma. Am J Clin Pathol.
2011;135(4):5928.
11. Yaziji H, etal. Consensus recommendations on estrogen receptor testing in breast cancer by
immunohistochemistry. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2008;16(6):51320.
12. Bass BP, etal. A review of preanalytical factors affecting molecular, protein, and morpho-
logical analysis of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue: how well do you know
your FFPE specimen? Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014;138(11):152030.
13. Khoury T, Liu Q, Liu S. Delay to formalin fixation effect on HER2 test in breast cancer by
dual-color silver-enhanced in situ hybridization (dual-ISH). Appl Immunohistochem Mol
Morphol. 2014;22(9):68895.
14. Rakha EA, etal. The updated ASCO/CAP guideline recommendations for HER2 testing in
the management of invasive breast cancer: a critical review of their implications for routine
practice. Histopathology. 2014;64(5):60915.
15. Bramwell NH, Burns BF. The effects of fixative type and fixation time on the quantity and
quality of extractable DNA for hybridization studies on lymphoid tissue. Exp Hematol.
1988;16(8):7302.
16. Douglas MP, Rogers SO. DNA damage caused by common cytological fixatives. Mutat Res.
1998;401(12):7788.
17. Ross JS. Clinical implementation of KRAS testing in metastatic colorectal carcinoma: the
pathologists perspective. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2012;136(10):1298307.
18. Yagi N, etal. The role of DNase and EDTA on DNA degradation in formaldehyde fixed tis-
sues. Biotech Histochem. 1996;71(3):1239.
19. Sanchez-Navarro I, etal. Comparison of gene expression profiling by reverse transcription
quantitative PCR between fresh frozen and formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded breast cancer
tissues. Biotechniques. 2010;48(5):38997.
20. Ben-Ezra J, etal. Effect of fixation on the amplification of nucleic acids from par-
affin-embedded material by the polymerase chain reaction. J Histochem Cytochem.
1991;39(3):3514.
21. Evers DL, etal. The effect of formaldehyde fixation on RNA: optimization of formaldehyde
adduct removal. J Mol Diagn. 2011;13(3):2828.
22. Start RD, Cross SS, Smith JH. Assessment of specimen fixation in a surgical pathology ser-
vice. J Clin Pathol. 1992;45(6):5467.
23. Noguchi M, etal. Modified formalin and methanol fixation methods for molecular biological
and morphological analyses. Pathol Int. 1997;47(10):68591.
24. Alers JC, etal. Effect of bone decalcification procedures on DNA in situ hybridization and
comparative genomic hybridization. EDTA is highly preferable to a routinely used acid
decalcifier. J Histochem Cytochem. 1999;47(5):70310.
25. Reineke T, etal. Ultrasonic decalcification offers new perspectives for rapid FISH, DNA, and
RT-PCR analysis in bone marrow trephines. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006;30(7):8926.
26. Brown RS, etal. Routine acid decalcification of bone marrow samples can preserve
DNA for FISH and CGH studies in metastatic prostate cancer. J Histochem Cytochem.
2002;50(1):1135.
27. Arber JM, etal. The effect of decalcification on in situ hybridization. Mod Pathol.
1997;10(10):100914.
28. Lindeman NI, etal. Molecular testing guideline for selection of lung cancer patients for
EGFR and ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors: guideline from the college of American patholo-
gists, International association for the study of lung cancer, and association for molecular
pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2013;137(6):82860.
29. Greer CE, Lund JK, Manos MM. PCR amplification from paraffin-embedded tissues: recom-
mendations on fixatives for long-term storage and prospective studies. PCR Methods Appl.
1991;1(1):4650.
30. Ferrer I, etal. Effects of formalin fixation, paraffin embedding, and time of storage on DNA
preservation in brain tissue: a BrainNet Europe study. Brain Pathol. 2007;17(3):297303.
31. Masuda N, etal. Analysis of chemical modification of RNA from formalin-fixed samples
and optimization of molecular biology applications for such samples. Nucleic Acids Res.
1999;27(22):443643.
32. von Weizsacker F, etal. A simple and rapid method for the detection of RNA in formalin-
fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues by PCR amplification. Biochem Biophys Res Commun.
1991;174(1):17680.
33. Wong C, etal. Mutations in BRCA1 from fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue can be artifacts of
preservation. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 1998;107(1):217.
34. Gillespie JW, etal. Evaluation of non-formalin tissue fixation for molecular profiling studies.
Am J Pathol. 2002;160(2):44957.
35. Gaydosh L, DeLeon V, Golden T, Warren J, Roby R. Metal ions as forensically-relevant
inhibitors of PCR-based DNA testing. In: American academy of forensic sciences: 65th anni-
versary meeting program; 2013.
36. Greer CE, etal. PCR amplification from paraffin-embedded tissues. Effects of fixative and
fixation time. Am J Clin Pathol. 1991;95(2):11724.
37. Yildiz-Aktas IZ, Dabbs DJ, Bhargava R. The effect of cold ischemic time on the immunohis-
tochemical evaluation of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 expression in
invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2012;25(8):1098105.
38. Portier BP, etal. Delay to formalin fixation cold ischemia time: effect on ERBB2 detection
by in-situ hybridization and immunohistochemistry. Mod Pathol. 2013;26(1):19.
39. Li X, etal. The effect of prolonged cold ischemia time on estrogen receptor immunohisto-
chemistry in breast cancer. Mod Pathol. 2013;26(1):718.
40. Paik S. Development and clinical utility of a 21-gene recurrence score prognostic assay in
patients with early breast cancer treated with tamoxifen. Oncologist. 2007;12(6):6315.
41. Paik S, etal. A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative
42. Bueno-de-Mesquita JM, etal. Validation of 70-gene prognosis signature in node-negative
43. Kittaneh M, Montero AJ, Gluck S. Molecular profiling for breast cancer: a comprehensive
review. Biomark Cancer. 2013;5:6170.
44. Kaklamani V. A genetic signature can predict prognosis and response to therapy in breast
cancer: oncotype DX. Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2006;6(6):8039.
45. Paik S, etal. Gene expression and benefit of chemotherapy in women with node-negative,
estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24(23):372634.
46. vant Veer LJ, etal. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer.
Nature. 2002;415(6871):5306.
47. van de Vijver MJ, etal. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast can-
cer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347(25):19992009.
48. Sapino A, etal. MammaPrint molecular diagnostics on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded
tissue. J Mol Diagn. 2014;16(2):1907.
49. Parker JS, etal. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. J Clin
Oncol. 2009;27(8):11607.
50. Nielsen TO, etal. A comparison of PAM50 intrinsic subtyping with immunohistochemistry
and clinical prognostic factors in tamoxifen-treated estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer.
Clin Cancer Res. 2010;16(21):522232.
51. Dowsett M, etal. Comparison of PAM50 risk of recurrence score with oncotype DX and
IHC4 for predicting risk of distant recurrence after endocrine therapy. J Clin Oncol.
2013;31(22):278390.
52. Kulka J, etal. Detection of HER-2/neu gene amplification in breast carcinomas using quan-
titative real-time PCRa comparison with immunohistochemical and FISH results. Pathol
Oncol Res. 2006;12(4):197204.
53. Susini T, etal. Preoperative assessment of HER-2/neu status in breast carcinoma: the role of
quantitative real-time PCR on core-biopsy specimens. Gynecol Oncol. 2010;116(2):2349.
54. Vinatzer U, etal. Expression of HER2 and the coamplified genes GRB7 and MLN64 in
human breast cancer: quantitative real-time reverse transcription-PCR as a diagnostic alter-
native to immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization. Clin Cancer Res.
2005;11(23):834857.
55. Pusztai L, etal. Gene expression profiles obtained from fine-needle aspirations of breast
cancer reliably identify routine prognostic markers and reveal large-scale molecular dif-
ferences between estrogen-negative and estrogen-positive tumors. Clin Cancer Res.
2003;9(7):240615.
56. Geyer FC, Reis-Filho JS. Microarray-based gene expression profiling as a clinical tool for
breast cancer management: are we there yet? Int J Surg Pathol. 2009;17(4):285302.
57. Calin GA, Croce CM. MicroRNA signatures in human cancers. Nat Rev Cancer.
2006;6(11):85766.
58. Reis-Filho JS. Next-generation sequencing. Breast Cancer Res. 2009;11(Suppl 3):S12.
59. Tan DS, etal. Getting it right: designing microarray (and not microawry) comparative
genomic hybridization studies for cancer research. Lab Invest. 2007;87(8):73754.
60. Nakao K, etal. A predictive factor of the quality of microarray comparative genomic hybridi-
zation analysis for formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded archival tissue. Diagn Mol Pathol.
2013;22(3):17480.
61. Foekens JA, etal. Four miRNAs associated with aggressiveness of lymph node-
negative, estrogen receptor-positive human breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.
2008;105(35):130216.
62. Bartel DP. MicroRNAs: genomics, biogenesis, mechanism, and function. Cell.
2004;116(2):28197.
63. Caldas C, Brenton JD. Sizing up miRNAs as cancer genes. Nat Med. 2005;11(7):7124.
64. Wang L, Wang J. MicroRNA-mediated breast cancer metastasis: from primary site to distant
organs. Oncogene. 2012;31(20):2499511.
65. Blenkiron C, etal. MicroRNA expression profiling of human breast cancer identifies new
markers of tumor subtype. Genome Biol. 2007;8(10):R214.
66. Iorio MV, etal. MicroRNA gene expression deregulation in human breast cancer. Cancer
Res. 2005;65(16):706570.
67. Huang Q, etal. The microRNAs miR-373 and miR-520c promote tumour invasion and
metastasis. Nat Cell Biol. 2008;10(2):20210.
68. Ma L, Teruya-Feldstein J, Weinberg RA. Tumour invasion and metastasis initiated by micro-
RNA-10b in breast cancer. Nature. 2007;449(7163):6828.
69. Tavazoie SF, etal. Endogenous human microRNAs that suppress breast cancer metastasis.
Nature. 2008;451(7175):14752.
70. Ibberson D, etal. RNA degradation compromises the reliability of microRNA expression
profiling. BMC Biotechnol. 2009;9:102.
71. Russnes HG, etal. Insight into the heterogeneity of breast cancer through next-generation
sequencing. J Clin Invest. 2011;121(10):38108.
72. ten Bosch JR, Grody WW. Keeping up with the next generation: massively parallel sequenc-
ing in clinical diagnostics. J Mol Diagn. 2008;10(6):48492.
73. Curtis C, etal. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals
novel subgroups. Nature. 2012;486(7403):34652.
74. Voelkerding KV, Dames SA, Durtschi JD. Next-generation sequencing: from basic research
to diagnostics. Clin Chem. 2009;55(4):64158.
75. Desmedt C, etal. Next-generation sequencing in breast cancer: first take home messages.
Curr Opin Oncol. 2012;24(6):597604.
76. Radovich M. Next-generation sequencing in breast cancer: translational science and clinical
integration. Pharmacogenomics. 2012;13(6):6379.
77. Sanger F, Nicklen S, Coulson AR. DNA sequencing with chain-terminating inhibitors. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA. 1977;74(12):54637.
78. Parkinson NJ, etal. Preparation of high-quality next-generation sequencing libraries from
picogram quantities of target DNA. Genome Res. 2012;22(1):12533.
79. Bieche I, Lidereau R. Genome-based and transcriptome-based molecular classification of
breast cancer. Curr Opin Oncol. 2011;23(1):939.
80. Miller WR. Controversies in breast cancer 2009. Breast Cancer Res. 2009;11(Suppl 3):S1.
81. Cameron D. Proceedings of controversies in breast cancer held in Edinburgh UK, 78
September 2009. Breast Cancer Res, 2009. 11 Suppl 3: pp. S125.doi:10.1186/bcr2442
Index
Note: Page numbers followed by f and t indicate figures and tables respectively
A Array-CGH, 147
Acute myeloid leukemia (AML), 64, 66 Ataxia telangiectasia mutated gene (ATM),
Adenoid cystic carcinoma (ACC), 159f 2425
DCIS association with, 159 ATP-binding cassette proteins (ABC)
immunohistochemistry, 160 transporters, 294295
incidence, 159 Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), 40, 52
molecular characteristics, 160 Atypical lobular hyperplasia (ALH), 52
patterns, 159 Atypical vascular lesions (AVL)
prognosis, 167 clinical appearance, 250, 251f
Adjuvant chemotherapy, 110, 113, 145, immunohistochemistry, 251252
292, 301 molecular characteristics, 253253
Adjuvant endocrine therapy, 114115, 139 Autophagy-related proteins, 228
Adjuvant! Online tool, 188
AKT signalling, 300
Aldeflour assay, 6667 B
American Society of Clinical Oncology/ Bannayan-Ruvalcaba-Riley syndrome, 248
College of American Pathologists Basal-like breast carcinoma (BLBC), 142,
(ASCO/CAP), 124, 128 145146, 166f
Anastrazole, 298 features, 165
Androgen receptor (AR), 53, 55, 141, 162, immunohistochemistry, 166
242, 311, 312f molecular characteristics, 166167
Angiosarcomas (AS) prognosis, 168
immunohistochemistry, 251252 treatment
microscopic structure, 250 anthracycline and paclitaxel, 169
molecular characteristics, 253253 BRCA1 pathway dysfunction, 169
post-radiation, 250, 252f, 253f downstream pathways, 170
subtypes, 250 EGFR, 170
AntagomiR-21, 208 platinum-based chemotherapy
AntagomiR-10b, 208 agents, 169
Anthracycline, 169, 293, 295, 297, 299 VEGF pathway activation, 169170
Apocrine carcinoma, 159f Beta-catenin, 226
immunohistochemistry, 162 Bevacizumab, 70, 169
molecular characteristics, 162 Biomarkers
types, 161 in ductal carcinoma in situ, 87, 87t
Apoptosis, 124, 169, 221, 271, 291, 297298, EGFR. See Epidermal growth factor
300 receptor (EGFR)

Molecular Pathology Library 10, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4939-2886-6
330 Index
ER expression, 179 Chemoresistance

FEN. See Fibroepithelial neoplasms (FEN) ABC transporters, 294295
GATA3, 179 AKT signalling, 300
IGF, 226227 cancer stem cells, 295297
Bloom syndrome, 256 chemotherapy-induced mechanisms, 300
BRCA1 interacting protein C-terminal heli- detoxification in, 293294
case 1 (BRIP1), 2526 future direction, 300301
Breast Cancer 1, Early Onset (BRCA1), mechanisms of, 292293
16, 22, 168 notch signalling, 299
Breast Cancer 2, Early Onset (BRCA2), Chondroid lipomas, 247
2223, 23t Chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH),
Breast cancer index (BCI), 184 124, 128
Breast-specific gamma imaging (BSGI) Circulating tumour cells (CTCs), 185
advantages, 4 Cisplatin, 32, 169, 293, 300
indications, 34 Claudin-low carcinomas, 168
limitations, 45 Clustering analysis, 97, 206
technique, 4 Columnar cell lesions (CCLs), 52
Bright field in situ hybridization (ISH) Comparative genomic hybridization (CGH),
technique, 128129 52, 138, 322
Core needle biopsy (CNB), 219220
Cowden syndrome, 27, 29, 248
C CYP3A4, 293294
Cancer antigen 15-3 (CA 15-3), 185, 186 Cytokeratins, 22, 42, 88t, 97, 161, 225226,
Cancer antigen 27.29 (CA 27.29), 185186 252
Cancer associated fibroblasts (CAFs), 275 Cytotoxins, 293
Cancer stem cells (CSCs)
ABC transporters, 296
approaches enriching D
aldeflour assay, 6667 Danish Breast Cancer Cooperative Group, 278
hypoxia, 67 Daunorubicin, 294, 300
mammosphere assay, 6566 Desmoid-type fibromatosis, 243f
side population discrimination assay, 66 histology, 242
surface markers,67 immunohistochemistry, 242243, 243f
asymmetrical division, 295296 molecular characteristics
asymmetric and symmetric division, 64 beta-catenin, 244
breast non-random chromosomal
clinical importance, 7071 aberrations, 243
origin of, 6769 occurrence, 242
and tumor subtypes, 69 Diaphanography, 7
CD44+/CD24-/low/Lin- cells, 6465 DICER, 201
de-differentiation, 296297 Diffuse optical tomography (DOT), 7
definition, 64 Digital breast tomosynthesis, 2
in leukemia fueled, 64 Doxorubicin, 293, 294, 297, 298
phenotypes of, 296 Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 40, 52
self-renewal ability, 64 classification, 8182, 81f
stress signals, 296 diagnosis, 80
TGF signalling, 297 histological grade, 81, 81f
Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA), 185 incidence, 79
CD10, 225, 242 LOH in, 53
CD117 (c-kit), 224225 molecular features, 58
CDH1 [cadherin 1, type 1, E-cadherin (epithe- prognosis, 79, 8283
lial) located at 16q22.1], 26 tumorigenesis
CHEK2 (Checkpoint kinase 2 gene), 25 ADH, 83
Chemokine receptor, 279 flat epithelial atypia, 83
Index 331
vs. IDC, 8889 genes associated with, 16, 1718t

low and HG DCIS. See Low- and genetic mutations, 2628
high-grade DCIS genetic testing
microglandular adenosis, 85 clinical management and prevention
molecular subtyping, 8788, 88t strategies, 3132
molecular testing, 8990 guidelines, 2829, 29f
TDLUs, 83 modality of BRCA testing, 2930
UDH, 83 high-penetrance genes
BRCA1, 16, 22
BRCA2, 2223
E TP53, 24
E-cadherin, 226, 274 Lynch syndrome, 27
role in ILC moderate penetrance genes
cell-to-cell adhesion, 96 ATM gene, 2425
interaction between -catenin and, 97 BRIP1 gene, 2526
loss of expression, 97 CHEK2 gene, 25
transmembrane glycoprotein, 96 PALB2 gene, 26
Eastern Cancer Registration and Information PTEN, 27
Centre (ECRIC), 188 RAD50, 27
ECOG E5194 dataset, 89 risk factors, 15
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) STK11, 27
biomarker, 227 Female breast cancer (FBC), 309314
members of, 119 Fibroadenoma (FA)
signaling pathway, 222 benign tumor, 219
Epirubicin, 293, 294, 296, 299 incidence, 219
Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) PCR-based clonal analysis, 220
cancer stem-cells, 296 vs. phyllodes tumor, 219220, 223224
genesis of breast CSCs, 68 Fibroepithelial neoplasms (FEN)
induction and activation, 68 biomarkers
metastasis, 273274 autophagy-related proteins, 228
miR-10b downregulated in, 205 beta-catenin, 226
process of, 68 CD10, 225
related markers, 227228 CD117 (c-kit), 224225
Epstein-Barr virus infection, 158t, 165 chromosomal and methylation
Estrogen receptor (ER) changes, 229
endocrine therapy, 108 cytokeratins, 225226
forms of, 107 E-cadherin expression, 226
IHC ER assay, 109 EGFR, 227
antibody, 110 EMT related markers, 227228
evaluation and quality, 111112 IGF, 226227
false positive ER staining, 112, 112f IMP3, 229
specimen and fixation, 110 Ki67 and cell proliferation markers, 224
threshold for positivity, 110111 p53, 225
ligand-binding assays, 108109 p16/Rb, 227
measurement and characterization of, 108 redox proteins, 228
ETV6-NTRK3 gene, 164 biphasic progression, 230, 230f
Extracellular matrix (ECM), 43, 142, 276277 molecular pathways related to
EGFR signaling pathway, 222
IGF2BPs, 222223
F IGF signaling pathway, 220221
Familial breast cancer, 1516 next-generation sequencing, 223
CDH1, 26 P13K and MAPK signaling
clinical syndromes, 16, 1921t pathways, 223
etiology, 15 Wnt--catenin signaling pathway, 221
332 Index
Fine needle aspiration (FNA), 219 Hormone receptor

Flat epithelial atypia (FEA), 40, 52 activation, 107
Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), assessment and reporting. See Estrogen
124, 318 receptor (ER)
correlation between IHC and, 129 expression, predictive value of
disadvantages, 128 guideline recommendations, 114115
HER2 status assessment, 125128, 126f, hormonal therapy, 113114
127f tamoxifen, 113
vs. RT-PCR, 321322 HOXB13, 228
Forkhead box P3 (FOXP3), 275 Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (HER2), 139140
(FFPE), 124 amplification/overexpression, 120
assessment by
FISH, 125128, 126f, 127f
G IHC, 124125, 125f
Gene expression biological process, 119, 120f
assay using 50 genes (PAM50), 184 Brightfield ISH, 128129
MammaPrint, 183 -enriched subtypes, 97, 98
profiling, 138139, 140141, 142, 168 erbB-receptor family, 121
of breast tumors, 69 and HER (erb3) proteins, 119
ILC, 98 IHC and FISH, correlation between, 129
prognostic and predictive test, 178, 181 immunohistochemistry, 126f
signature, 281 mouse models, 120121
Gene signatures, 144 overexpression, 121
BCI, 184 prognostic and predictive test, 178, 180
GGI, 183 resistant to targeted therapies, 123124,
MammaPrint, 183 123f
Oncotype DX, 182 role in oncogenesis, 121
PAM50, 184 targeted therapies
76-gene signature, 281 lapatinib, 122
Genetic heterogeneity, 323 pertuzumab, 122123
Genomic grade index (GGI), 144, 183, 281 trastuzumab, 122
Granular cell tumor testing method, 124
histology, 247 Hypoxia, 67
immunohistochemistry, 247
incidence, 247
molecular characteristics, 247248 I
Gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 Immortalised cell lines, 41
(GCDFP-15), 179180 Immunohistochemistry (IHC), 138, 139, 140,
144146
correlation between FISH and, 129
H -based indices, 178, 186
Hemangiomas, 237, 251 IHC4 score, 187
Hierarchical clustering, 311, 312 Mammostrat, 186
High-grade precancerous lesions, 51 Nottingham Prognostic Index
high-grade DCIS Plus+, 187
DNA methylation, 57 HER2 status assessment, 124125, 125f
histopathological features, 54 IHC4 score, 187
molecular features, 5455 Inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor (IMT)
phenotypic features, 5557 histology, 244
High-resolution single nucleotide immunohistochemistry, 244245
polymorphism (SNP) arrays, 138 molecular characteristics, 245
Homebox D10 (HOXD10), 205 occurrence, 244
Index 333
In situ hybridization (ISH) assay, 319, 321 E-cadherin role

Insulin-like growth factor (IGF) cell-to-cell adhesion, 96
biomarker, 226227 interaction between -catenin and, 97
signalling pathway, 220221 loss of expression, 97
Insulin-like growth factor-2 (IGF2) transmembrane glycoprotein, 96
binding proteins (IGF2BPs), 222223 genomic alternations
mRNA-binding protein 3 (IMP3), 166, in CDH1 gene, 99
167, 222, 223, 229 gene mutation, 99, 100t
Invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), 53, 83, 160, hereditary genetics, 100
161, 165 HER2 gene mutation, 99
Ipslateral breast event (IBE), 89 in TP53, PIK3CA and GATA3, 99
incidence, 95
mammographic appearance, 95
J molecular characterization, 100
Jagged ligands, 299 morphological features, 95
JNK kinase pathways, 100t subtypes, 96
jun kinase, 225 targetoid growth pattern, 96
Juvenile carcinoma, 163 Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS), 52
Juxtamembrane segment, 119 Lobular neoplasia (LN), 52, 95
Loss of heterozygosity (LOH), 52
Low- and high-grade DCIS, 79
K chromosomal aberrations, 85, 86t
Ki67, 22, 58, 140, 247, 296 divergent pathways, 83, 84f
fibroepithelial tumors, 224 immunophenotype, 8587, 87t
prognostic marker, 180181 Low-grade adenosquamous carcinoma, 168
Low-grade precancerous lesions, 51
histopathological features, 52
L molecular features, 5253
Lapatinib, 122, 170, 180 phenotypic characteristics, 5354
Leiomyoma and leiomyosarcoma Luminal A, 5456, 58, 87, 88t, 9798, 141,
histology, 257 142, 145, 147, 181, 280
immunohistochemistry, 257 Luminal B, 5456, 58, 87, 88t, 97, 98, 141,
molecular characteristics, 257258 142, 145, 181, 280
occurrence, 257 Lympho vascular invasion (LVI), 277279
Lifetime attributable risk (LAR), 7 Lynch syndrome, 27
Li-Fraumeni and Li-Fraumeni-like syndrome,
24, 256, 257
Lipoma M
conventional, 245 Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 18, 31
immunohistochemistry, 246 Male breast cancer (MBC)
molecular characteristics, 246247 DNA studies
variants, 245 comparative genomic hybridisation, 311
Liposarcoma differential DNA methylation, 312
immunohistochemistry, 254 multiplex ligation-dependent probe
molecular features, 254255 amplification analyses, 311
occurrence, 254 vs. FBC, 311, 312f
soft tissue sarcomas, 254 histology, 310, 310f
subtypes, 254 immunohistochemistry, 310311, 311t
Lobular breast carcinoma (ILC) incidence, 309
chromosomal abnormalities, 9899 RNA studies, 313
classification using transcriptional Malignant granular cell tumors (MGCT), 248
profiling, 9798 Mammaprint, 89, 144, 183, 281, 321
cytological features and patterns Mammary epithelial stem cells, 6768
of tumor cell, 9596 Mammosphere assay, 6566
334 Index
Mammostrat, 186 tumor microenvironment and

Massively parallel sequencing, 139 B lymphocytes, 275276
Matrigel, 4346 CAFs and inflammatory cells, 275
Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), 277 CD4+ cells, 275
MCF10A cells, 42, 45, 298 cytotoxic CD8+ memory T cells, 275
MCF10DCIS.com cells, 42 fibroblasts, 274275
Medullary carcinoma (MC) T lymphocytes, 275
classification, 165 tumour associated macrophages, 276
diagnosis, 164165 Microarray analysis, 209f, 210
immunohistochemistry, 165 Microarray in Node negative Disease may
molecular characteristics, 165 Avoid ChemoTherapy
prognosis, 168 (MINDACT), 183
Mesenchymal lesions Microglandular adenosis (MGA), 85
angiosarcomas and AVL, 250254, MicroRNAs (miRNAs)
251253f and associated proteins, 200201
desmoid-type fibromatosis, 242244 associated with breast cancer
granular cell tumor, 247248 context-dependent miRNAs, 204205
inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor, in disease progression, 202203t, 205
244245 examples with significance, 201,
leiomyoma and leiomyosarcoma, 257258 202203t
lipoma, 245247 histologic phenotypes, 205
liposarcoma, 254255 OncomiRs, 201
myofibroblastom, 241242 signature, 205206
nodular fasciitis, 240241 tumor suppressive miRNAs, 201204,
occurrence, 237 202203t, 204f
osteosarcoma, 256257 in C. elegans, 199
peripheral nerve sheath tumor, 248249 clinical testing, 322
rhabdomyosarcoma, 255 clinical use, 206
solitary fibrous tumor, 249250 diagnosis, 206207
types, 237, 238240t prognosis, 207
Metaplastic carcinoma, 159f therapeutics, 208
immunohistochemistry, 161 treatment response, 207
microscopic features, 160 deranged expression, 197, 199, 199f
molecular characteristics, 161 expression in MBC, 313
osseous and chondroid differentiation, 161 gene encoding, 197
prognosis, 167168 gene silencing by, 199
types, 160161 mature, 198
Metastasis post-transcriptional gene silencing, 197
benign tumour and locally malignant, processing and RISC complex, 198199,
difference between, 271 198f
and breast cancer molecular subtypes, prognosis, 207
280281 signature, 205206
causes of death, 272 target of, 197
colonisation, 279280 techniques
epithelial mesenchymal transition, 273274 detection and quantitation,
extracellular matrix, 276277 208210, 209f
gene expression signature, 281 microarray analysis, 209f, 210
inherent early stages of cancer, 280 Molecular breast imaging (MBI)
initiation and dissemination, 272273 breast-specific gamma imaging
invading and, 271 advantages, 4
lympho vascular invasion, 277279 indications, 34
metastatic cascade, 272 limitations, 45
prerequisites for, 272 technique, 4
Index 335
optical imaging with FFPE/alcohol-fixed samples, 317

confocal microscopy, 89 guidelines for standard processing,
near infrared spectroscopy, 78 317318
positron emission mammography, 5 needle core/FNA biopsy, 317
advantages, 6 Myofibroblastom
limitations, 6 benign stromal spindle cell neoplasm, 241
radiation risks, 67 immunohistochemistry, 242
terahertz imaging, 911 microscopic structure, 241
Molecular classification, 137139 molecular characteristics, 242
challenges, 147 occurrence, 241
clinicopathological variables, 137
gene expression profiling
cDNA microarrays, 140 N
luminal class, 142 National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel
signatures/portraits data, 140 Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial
immunohistochemical (NSABP P-1), 31
BLBC, 145146 N-cadherin, 228, 274
expression data, 145 Near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), 78
HER2 overexpressing, 145 Needle core biopsy, 110, 111, 320
luminal subtype, 145 Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), 292
using biomarkers panels, 144145 Neurofibromatosis, 248
molecular taxonomy, 141, 142143 Neuropilin-2 (NRP2), 67
multigene signatures, 144 Neutral-buffered formalin (NBF), 318,
Nottingham Prognostic Index Plus, 146 319320
prognostic and predictive information, Next-generating sequencing (NGS), 223,
181182 322323
single biomarkers classifiers Nodular fasciitis (NF)
HER2 gene, 139140 histology, 240
oestrogen receptor, 139, 140 immunohistochemistry, 240241
progesterone receptor, 140 molecular features, 241
Molecular grade index (MGI), 184 occurrence, 240
Molecular testing Noonan syndrome, 248
comparative genomic hybridization, 322 Northern blotting technique, 210
ERBB2 (HER2) detection by ISH Notch signalling, 299
assay, 321 Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI), 137,
fixative types 177178
acidic solution, 320 Nottingham Prognostic Index Plus (NPI+),
NBF, 319, 320 146, 187
unbuffered formalin, 320
MammaPrint, 321
microRNAs, 322 O
next-generation sequencing, 322323 Oestrogen receptor (ER), 139, 140, 178180.
Oncotype DX, 321 See also Estrogen receptor (ER);
PAM, 321 Human receptor
preanalytical factors OncomiRs, 200, 201
fixation parameters, 318319 OncotypeDX, 8990, 182, 144, 281,
postfixation parameters, 319 320, 321
prefixation time, 318 Online prognostic algorithms, 187
RT-PCR Adjuvant! Online tool, 188
vs. FISH, 321322 PREDICT, mathematical online
for HER2 gene, 321 model, 188
single nucleotide polymorphism, 322 Osteosarcoma
specimen types for histology, 256
336 Index
immunohistochemistry, 256 MammaPrint, 183

molecular features Oncotype DX, 182
associated with genetic syndromes, 256 PAM50, 184
Rb gene, 257 HER2, 180
by tumor suppressor gene dysfunction, immunohistochemistry-based indices, 186
256257 IHC4 score, 187
variants, 256 Mammostrat, 186
Nottingham Prognostic Index
Plus+, 187
P Ki67 expression, 180181
p53 gene/protein, 22, 24, 53, 55, 57, 59, 71, molecular classification, 181182
87, 88, 146, 160, 163, 165, 166, 225, next-generation sequencing
298 cheaper and faster sequencing
P-cadherin, 53, 274 method, 184
Paclitaxel, 169 circulating tumour cells, 185
Pagets disease, 180 high-throughput sensitive analysis, 185
PAM50 (Prediction Analysis of Microarray NPI tool, 177178
50), 184, 321 oestrogen receptor, 178180
Partner and localizer of BRCA2 gene online prognostic algorithms, 187
(PALB2), 26 Adjuvant! Online tool, 188
Peripheral nerve sheath tumor PREDICT, mathematical online model,
benign tumor and MPNST, 248 188
histology, 248 progesterone receptor, 178180
immunohistochemistry, 248 tumour markers, 185186
molecular characteristics, 249 Prognostic gene signature, 144
Pertuzumab, 122123 Proteome profiling techniques, 138
Phyllodes tumor (PT) Pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia
classification, 219, 230 (PASH), 237, 251
vs. fibroadenoma, 219220, 223224 PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog),
incidence, 219 located at 10q23.3, 27
Platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha
(PDGFRA), 224225
Platinum based chemotherapy agents, 169 Q
Pleomorphic carcinoma, 159f, 162163 Quantitative assessment, of Ki67 nuclear
immunohistochemistry, 163 staining, 224
molecular characteristics, 163 Quantitative real-time reverse transcription-
Poly (ADP) ribose polymerase inhibitors PCR (qRT-PCR), 89, 109, 184, 321
(PARP-I), 169
Positron emission mammography (PEM), 5
advantages, 6 R
limitations, 6 RAD50 (RAD50 homolog gene, located at
radiation risks, 67 5q31), 27
Positron emission tomography (PET), 5 Radiotherapy (RT), 67, 82
p16/Rb protein, 227 Radiotracer fluoro-deoxyglucose (18-FDG), 5
PREDICT, mathematical online model, 188 RASSF1A gene, 57, 312
Prediction analysis of microarray (PAM), 321 Reactive oxygen species (ROS), 228
Progesterone receptor (PR), 107, 140, Recurrence Score (RS), 89, 144
178180 Reverse transcription polymerase chain
Prognostic and predictive test, 177178 reaction (RT-PCR), 124, 182, 210
gene expression profiling, 181 vs. FISH, 321322
gene signatures for HER2 gene, 321
BCI, 184 real-time PCR assays, 320
GGI, 183 Rhabdomyosarcoma, 245, 255
Index 337
RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC), 198 Transcriptome, 138

Rothmund-Thompson syndrome, 256 Trastuzumab, 122
T-rays, 10
Triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC), 293
S adenoid cystic carcinoma, 159160, 159f
Salinomycin, 71 apocrine carcinoma, 159f, 161162
Screening mammogram basal-like breast carcinoma, 165167, 166f
advantages, 1 heterogenous group, 157, 170
limitations, 12 incidence rate, 157
and ultrasounds images, 2 medullary carcinoma, 164165
Secretory carcinoma (SC), 164f metaplastic carcinoma, 159f, 160161
growth pattern, 163 pleomorphic carcinoma, 159f, 162163
immunohistochemistry, 163164 prognosis, 167170
molecular characteristics, 164 secretory carcinoma, 163164, 164f
Selective estrogen receptor modulators subtypes, 157158, 158t
(SERMs), 108 trastuzumb therapy, 157
Semaphorins, 67 Tumor heterogeneity, 63
Serial analysis of gene expression (SAGE), cancer stem cell model, 6364. See also
138 Cancer stem cells (CSCs)
Side population discrimination assay, 66 clonal evolution model, 63, 64
Silver in situ hybridization (SISH), 124, Tumor initiating cells (TICs), 64
128129 Tumor microenvironment
Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), 16, B lymphocytes, 275276
27, 312, 322 CAFs and inflammatory cells, 275
Solitary fibrous tumor (SFT) CD4+ cells, 275
immunohistochemistry, 249 cytotoxic CD8+ memory T cells, 275
molecular characteristics, 249250 fibroblasts, 274275
patternless pattern morphology, 249 T lymphocytes, 275
slow-growing mass, 249 tumour associated macrophages, 276
Steroids hormone receptor, 107 Tumor protein p53 (TP53), 24
STK11 (serine/threonine kinase 11, located at Tumour associated macrophages (TAMs), 276
19p13.3), 27 Tumour markers, 185186
SUM225 cells, 42 Two-dimensional (2D) cell line models
Sunitinib (Sutent), 170 and model breast cancer initiation, 4143
Surface markers, 67 types and techniques, 4041
Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results
(SEER) program, 167, 188
U
Urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA), 186
T Usual ductal hyperplasia (UDH), 80, 83
Tamoxifen, 82, 108, 113, 179
Terahertz imaging, 911 V
Terminal duct-lobular unit (TDLU), 52 Van Nuys prognostic index (VNPI), 82
The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) Network, Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF),
206, 99 67, 166
Three-dimensional (3D) models Vascular endothelial growth factor-A
fibroblasts, 45, 45f (VEGFA), 276
in vitro model, 43
in vivo-like ECM, 43
Matrigel, 4344 W
MCF10A cells, 45 Werner syndrome, 256
myoepithelial cells, 45 Wide-field fluorescence polarization image, 97
tri-culture model, 46 Wnt--catenin signaling pathway, 221
338 Index
X nodular fasciitis, 210. See also Nodular

X-chromosome abnormalities, 158t, 167 fasciitis (NF)
X-chromosome inactivation, 67, 238t rhabdomyosarcoma, 255. See also
X-linked recessive disorder, 21t Rhabdomyosarcoma
X-ray imaging, 10 secretory carcinoma, 163, 171. See also
with NIRS, 8 Secretory carcinoma (SC)
Xenograft, 64
Z
Y Zinc finger protein, 247
Young adult Zonation effect, 240
inflammatory myofibroblastic tumors, 244.
See also Inflammatory myofibroblastic
tumor (IMT)

Precision Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Precision Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Precision Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the molecular techniques discussed in the document?

What are some of the molecular techniques discussed in the document?

What types of breast cancer subtypes are mentioned?

What types of breast cancer subtypes are mentioned?

Molecular Pathology Library

Series Editor: Philip T. Cagle

Ashraf Khan Ian O. Ellis

Ian O. Ellis, MD, FRCPath Emad A. Rakha, MD, FRCPath

Andrew M. Hanby, BM, FRCPath Dina Kandil, MD

ISSN 1935-987X ISSN 1935-9888 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2015942558

Springer New York Heidelberg Dordrecht London

Printed on acid-free paper

1 Molecular Basis of Breast Cancer Imaging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 Familial Breast Cancer and Genetic Predisposition

3 Modelling the Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer Initiation. . . . 39

4 Molecular Pathology of Precancerous Lesions of the Breast . . . . . . . 51

5 Breast Cancer Stem Cells: Role in Tumor Initiation, Progression,

6 Molecular Pathology of Pre-Invasive Ductal Carcinoma . . . . . . . . . . 79

7 Molecular Pathology of Lobular Carcinoma. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

8 Molecular Pathology of Hormone Regulation in Breast Cancer:

9 Molecular Pathology of HER Family of Oncogenes in Breast

10 Molecular Classification of Breast Cancer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

11 Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: Subtypes with Clinical Implications . . . 157

12 Molecular-Based Diagnostic, Prognostic and Predictive

13 Role of MicroRNAs in Breast Cancer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

14 Molecular Pathology of Fibroepithelial Neoplasms of the Breast . . . 219

15 Molecular Features of Mesenchymal Tumors of the Breast. . . . . . . . 237

16 Molecular Pathology of Breast Cancer Metastasis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

17 The Molecular Pathology of Chemoresistance During

18 The Molecular Pathology of Male Breast Cancer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309

19 Specimens for Molecular Testing in Breast Cancer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

Mohammed A. Aleskandarany Department of Histopathology, Division of Cancer

Arthur M. Mercurio Department of Molecular, Cell and Cancer Biology, University

Gopal R. Vijayaraghavan, Srinivasan Vedantham,

Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 1

Breast-Specific Gamma Imaging (BSGI)

While mammography and ultrasound rely on anatomical changes in the breast

A standard two-view mammogram continues to be the gold standard in the

The indications for performance of a BSGI study include high-risk surveillance,

In addition to its utility as an adjunct diagnostic tool, MBI is an attractive imag-

Fig.1.2An asymptomatic postmenopausal woman with a prior negative mammogram par-

Positron Emission Mammography (PEM)

Positron emission tomography (PET) imaging is a useful diagnostic test in many

Optical Imaging with Near Infrared Spectroscopy

Transillumination of the breast using light, referred to as diaphanography, was

Optical Imaging with Confocal Microscopy

Accurate assessment of surgical margins of the excised breast specimen is very

1. DeSantis C, Ma J, Bryan L, Jemal A. Breast cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clinic.

Vighnesh Walavalkar, Ashraf Khan and Dina Kandil

Breast cancer is the most common non-dermatologic malignancy in women and it

V. Walavalkar A. Khan D. Kandil(*)

Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015 15

Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated Gene (ATM), CHEK2, BRIP1, PALB2, RAD50,

Genetics of Breast Cancer

Breast Cancer 1, Early Onset (BRCA1)

Gene(s) involved Clinical manifestations Cancer prevention strategy Cancer management

Breast Cancer 2, Early Onset (BRCA2)

10% of familial cancers; [1012] and a mutation in BRCA2 confers a 5085%

2 Familial Breast Cancer and Genetic Predisposition

5 Breast Cancer Stem Cells: Role in Tumor Initiation, Progression,

8 Molecular Pathology of Hormone Regulation in Breast Cancer:

9 Molecular Pathology of HER Family of Oncogenes in Breast

12 Molecular-Based Diagnostic, Prognostic and Predictive

17 The Molecular Pathology of Chemoresistance During