PURPOSE: Most familial breast cancers are not associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germ-line mutations. Therefore, it is of major importance to define the morphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features of this group of tumors to improve genetic testing and also gain further insight into the biological characteristics of tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We evaluated the morphological characteristics of 37 tumors arising in women without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, 20 tumors from BRCA1 mutation carriers, and 18 from BRCA2 mutation carriers, all of which were from index patients from breast cancer families. In addition, a tissue microarray was constructed with all tumoral samples to evaluate the immunohistochemical expression of a wide panel of antibodies (11 antibodies) and the amplification of HER-2 and c-MYC genes by fluorescence in situ hybridization. An age-matched group with 50 sporadic breast cancers as controls for non-BRCA1/2 was also included. RESULTS: Non-BRCA1/2 infiltrating ductal carcinomas (IDCs) showed specific differences from BRCA1 tumors. They were of lower grade (1 and 2); more frequently estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, BCL2 positive, and p53 negative; had a low proliferation rate (Ki-67 immunostaining < 5%); and did not express P-cadherin. With respect to BRCA2 IDCs and control group, non-BRCA1/2 tumors were of lower grade and had a lower proliferation rate. No cases of HER-2 amplification and/or overexpression were observed except in the control group ( approximately 20%). In contrast, c-MYC amplification was present in 18.2, 62.5, and 12.5% of BRCA1, BRCA2, and non-BRCA1/2 IDCs, respectively, and 31% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This study thus reveals distinct morphological and immunohistochemical features in non-BRCA1/2 and BRCA1 tumors, whereas BRCA2 tumors present characteristics intermediate between the two phenotypes. In addition, the study also demonstrates the usefulness of tissue microarray technology in the evaluation of the immunophenotypic features of hereditary breast cancer.
PURPOSE: Most familial breast cancers are not associated with BRCA1 or BRCA2 germ-line mutations. Therefore, it is of major importance to define the morphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features of this group of tumors to improve genetic testing and also gain further insight into the biological characteristics of tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We evaluated the morphological characteristics of 37 tumors arising in women without BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, 20 tumors from BRCA1 mutation carriers, and 18 from BRCA2 mutation carriers, all of which were from index patients from breast cancer families. In addition, a tissue microarray was constructed with all tumoral samples to evaluate the immunohistochemical expression of a wide panel of antibodies (11 antibodies) and the amplification of HER-2 and c-MYC genes by fluorescence in situ hybridization. An age-matched group with 50 sporadic breast cancers as controls for non-BRCA1/2 was also included. RESULTS: Non-BRCA1/2 infiltrating ductal carcinomas (IDCs) showed specific differences from BRCA1 tumors. They were of lower grade (1 and 2); more frequently estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, BCL2 positive, and p53 negative; had a low proliferation rate (Ki-67 immunostaining < 5%); and did not express P-cadherin. With respect to BRCA2 IDCs and control group, non-BRCA1/2tumors were of lower grade and had a lower proliferation rate. No cases of HER-2 amplification and/or overexpression were observed except in the control group ( approximately 20%). In contrast, c-MYC amplification was present in 18.2, 62.5, and 12.5% of BRCA1, BRCA2, and non-BRCA1/2 IDCs, respectively, and 31% in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: This study thus reveals distinct morphological and immunohistochemical features in non-BRCA1/2 and BRCA1 tumors, whereas BRCA2tumors present characteristics intermediate between the two phenotypes. In addition, the study also demonstrates the usefulness of tissue microarray technology in the evaluation of the immunophenotypic features of hereditary breast cancer.
Authors: Franca Podo; Lutgarde M C Buydens; Hadassa Degani; Riet Hilhorst; Edda Klipp; Ingrid S Gribbestad; Sabine Van Huffel; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Jan Luts; Daniel Monleon; Geert J Postma; Nicole Schneiderhan-Marra; Filippo Santoro; Hans Wouters; Hege G Russnes; Therese Sørlie; Elda Tagliabue; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale Journal: Mol Oncol Date: 2010-04-24 Impact factor: 6.603
Authors: André Filipe Vieira; Maria Rita Dionísio; Madalena Gomes; Jorge F Cameselle-Teijeiro; Manuela Lacerda; Isabel Amendoeira; Fernando Schmitt; Joana Paredes Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2017-01-13 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Banu Arun; Kristen J Vogel; Adriana Lopez; Mike Hernandez; Deann Atchley; Kristine R Broglio; Christopher I Amos; Funda Meric-Bernstam; Henry Kuerer; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Constance T Albarracin Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2009-01-27
Authors: Lorenzo Melchor; Laura Paula Saucedo-Cuevas; Iván Muñoz-Repeto; Socorro María Rodríguez-Pinilla; Emiliano Honrado; Alfredo Campoverde; Jose Palacios; Katherine L Nathanson; María José García; Javier Benítez Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2009-12-08 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Nasim Mavaddat; Timothy R Rebbeck; Sunil R Lakhani; Douglas F Easton; Antonis C Antoniou Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-05-18 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Luisel J Ricks-Santi; Jing Nie; Catalin Marian; Heather M Ochs-Balcom; Maurizio Trevisan; Stephen B Edge; Yasmine Kanaan; Jo L Freudenheim; Peter G Shields Journal: Genet Epidemiol Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 2.135