PURPOSE: The tumor suppressor adhesion molecule E-cadherin is believed to have an anti-invasive role in breast cancer. Lymph node involvement is the best prognostic marker known, yet there is variability in outcome among node-positive patients. We investigated the relationship between E-cadherin expression in primary invasive ductal tumors and corresponding nodal metastases, and determined the prognostic value of E-cadherin expression in node-positive breast cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Membrane E-cadherin expression was studied by immunohistochemical staining of tissue microarrays with fluorescent-labeled antibodies. An objective method of automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) was used. AQUA uses cytokeratin to define pixels as breast cancer (tumor mask) within the array spot, and measures E-cadherin expression using a Cy5-conjugated antibody within the mask. RESULTS: We employed a tissue microarray containing 207 primary and matched nodal metastases suitable for AQUA analysis. There was no significant difference in mean staining intensity between the primary and nodal specimens (P = 0.8). A scattergram was generated which identified a subset of patients (25%) with high E-cadherin expression in nodal metastases, and this top quartile had improved survival (P = 0.028). On univariate analysis, increased E-cadherin expression in nodal metastases was strongly associated with improved survival (P = 0.007), whereas expression in primary tumors was not (P = 0.13). On multivariate analysis, nodal E-cadherin expression retained its independent association with survival, as did tumor size and HER2/neu status. CONCLUSIONS: Strong E-cadherin expression in lymph node metastases was highly predictive of improved survival. This suggests that expression of adhesion molecules at metastatic sites portends less aggressive tumor behavior.
PURPOSE: The tumor suppressor adhesion molecule E-cadherin is believed to have an anti-invasive role in breast cancer. Lymph node involvement is the best prognostic marker known, yet there is variability in outcome among node-positive patients. We investigated the relationship between E-cadherin expression in primary invasive ductal tumors and corresponding nodal metastases, and determined the prognostic value of E-cadherin expression in node-positive breast cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Membrane E-cadherin expression was studied by immunohistochemical staining of tissue microarrays with fluorescent-labeled antibodies. An objective method of automated quantitative analysis (AQUA) was used. AQUA uses cytokeratin to define pixels as breast cancer (tumor mask) within the array spot, and measures E-cadherin expression using a Cy5-conjugated antibody within the mask. RESULTS: We employed a tissue microarray containing 207 primary and matched nodal metastases suitable for AQUA analysis. There was no significant difference in mean staining intensity between the primary and nodal specimens (P = 0.8). A scattergram was generated which identified a subset of patients (25%) with high E-cadherin expression in nodal metastases, and this top quartile had improved survival (P = 0.028). On univariate analysis, increased E-cadherin expression in nodal metastases was strongly associated with improved survival (P = 0.007), whereas expression in primary tumors was not (P = 0.13). On multivariate analysis, nodal E-cadherin expression retained its independent association with survival, as did tumor size and HER2/neu status. CONCLUSIONS: Strong E-cadherin expression in lymph node metastases was highly predictive of improved survival. This suggests that expression of adhesion molecules at metastatic sites portends less aggressive tumor behavior.
Authors: Lynne Dobson; Catherine Conway; Alan Hanley; Alex Johnson; Sean Costello; Anthony O'Grady; Yvonne Connolly; Hilary Magee; Daniel O'Shea; Michael Jeffers; Elaine Kay Journal: Histopathology Date: 2010-06-24 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Nana Nikolaishvilli-Feinberg; Stephanie M Cohen; Bentley Midkiff; Yingchun Zhou; Mark Olorvida; Joseph G Ibrahim; Bernard Omolo; Janiel M Shields; Nancy E Thomas; Pamela A Groben; William K Kaufmann; C Ryan Miller Journal: J Histochem Cytochem Date: 2013-12-05 Impact factor: 2.479
Authors: P Querzoli; D Coradini; M Pedriali; P Boracchi; F Ambrogi; E Raimondi; R La Sorda; R Lattanzio; R Rinaldi; M Lunardi; C Frasson; F Modesti; S Ferretti; M Piantelli; S Iacobelli; E Biganzoli; I Nenci; S Alberti Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2010-11-09 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: V Tirino; R Camerlingo; K Bifulco; E Irollo; R Montella; F Paino; G Sessa; M V Carriero; N Normanno; G Rocco; G Pirozzi Journal: Cell Death Dis Date: 2013-05-02 Impact factor: 8.469