PURPOSE: This study aims to determine the effect of loss of breast cancer metastasis suppressor 1 (BRMS1) protein expression on disease-free survival in breast cancer patients stratified by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or HER2 status, and to determine whether loss of BRMS1 protein expression correlated with genomic copy number changes. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A tissue microarray immunohistochemical analysis was done on tumors of 238 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who underwent surgery at the Cleveland Clinic between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 1996, and a comparison was made with 5-year clinical follow-up data. Genomic copy number changes were determined by array-based comparative genomic hybridization in 47 breast cancer cases from this population and compared with BRMS1 staining. RESULTS: BRMS1 protein expression was lost in nearly 25% of cases. Patients with tumors that were PR negative (P=0.006) or HER2 positive (P=0.039) and <50 years old at diagnosis (P=0.02) were more likely to be BRMS1 negative. No overall correlation between BRMS1 staining and disease-free survival was observed. A significant correlation, however, was seen between loss of BRMS1 protein expression and reduced disease-free survival when stratified by either loss of ER (P=0.008) or PR (P=0.029) or HER2 overexpression (P=0.026). Overall, there was poor correlation between BRMS1 protein staining and copy number status. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a mechanistic relationship between BRMS1 expression, hormone receptor status, and HER2 growth factor. BRMS1 staining could potentially be used in patient stratification in conjunction with other prognostic markers. Further, mechanisms other than genomic deletion account for loss of BRMS1 gene expression in breast tumors.
PURPOSE: This study aims to determine the effect of loss of breast cancer metastasis suppressor 1 (BRMS1) protein expression on disease-free survival in breast cancerpatients stratified by estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), or HER2 status, and to determine whether loss of BRMS1 protein expression correlated with genomic copy number changes. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A tissue microarray immunohistochemical analysis was done on tumors of 238 newly diagnosed breast cancerpatients who underwent surgery at the Cleveland Clinic between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 1996, and a comparison was made with 5-year clinical follow-up data. Genomic copy number changes were determined by array-based comparative genomic hybridization in 47 breast cancer cases from this population and compared with BRMS1 staining. RESULTS:BRMS1 protein expression was lost in nearly 25% of cases. Patients with tumors that were PR negative (P=0.006) or HER2 positive (P=0.039) and <50 years old at diagnosis (P=0.02) were more likely to be BRMS1 negative. No overall correlation between BRMS1 staining and disease-free survival was observed. A significant correlation, however, was seen between loss of BRMS1 protein expression and reduced disease-free survival when stratified by either loss of ER (P=0.008) or PR (P=0.029) or HER2 overexpression (P=0.026). Overall, there was poor correlation between BRMS1 protein staining and copy number status. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest a mechanistic relationship between BRMS1 expression, hormone receptor status, and HER2 growth factor. BRMS1 staining could potentially be used in patient stratification in conjunction with other prognostic markers. Further, mechanisms other than genomic deletion account for loss of BRMS1 gene expression in breast tumors.
Authors: C Carlomagno; F Perrone; C Gallo; M De Laurentiis; R Lauria; A Morabito; G Pettinato; L Panico; A D'Antonio; A R Bianco; S De Placido Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1996-10 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M J Ellis; A Coop; B Singh; L Mauriac; A Llombert-Cussac; F Jänicke; W R Miller; D B Evans; M Dugan; C Brady; E Quebe-Fehling; M Borgs Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Valerie-Jeanne Bardou; Grazia Arpino; Richard M Elledge; C Kent Osborne; Gary M Clark Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-05-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: William J Meehan; Rajeev S Samant; James E Hopper; Michael J Carrozza; Lalita A Shevde; Jerry L Workman; Kristin A Eckert; Michael F Verderame; Danny R Welch Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2003-10-26 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Yekaterina B Khotskaya; Benjamin H Beck; Douglas R Hurst; Zhenbo Han; Weiya Xia; Mien-Chie Hung; Danny R Welch Journal: Mol Carcinog Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 4.784
Authors: Alexandra C Silveira; Douglas R Hurst; Kedar S Vaidya; Donald E Ayer; Danny R Welch Journal: Cancer Lett Date: 2008-12-13 Impact factor: 8.679
Authors: Kedar S Vaidya; Sitaram Harihar; Pushkar A Phadke; Lewis J Stafford; Douglas R Hurst; David G Hicks; Graham Casey; Daryll B DeWald; Danny R Welch Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2008-07-29 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Brandon J Metge; Andra R Frost; Judy A King; Donna Lynn Dyess; Danny R Welch; Rajeev S Samant; Lalita A Shevde Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2008-06-20 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Natalya Frolova; Mick D Edmonds; Thomas M Bodenstine; Robert Seitz; Martin R Johnson; Rui Feng; Danny R Welch; Andra R Frost Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2009-07-16
Authors: Andrzej B Popławski; Michał Jankowski; Stephen W Erickson; Teresita Díaz de Ståhl; E Christopher Partridge; Chiquito Crasto; Jingyu Guo; John Gibson; Uwe Menzel; Carl Eg Bruder; Aneta Kaczmarczyk; Magdalena Benetkiewicz; Robin Andersson; Johanna Sandgren; Barbara Zegarska; Dariusz Bała; Ewa Srutek; David B Allison; Arkadiusz Piotrowski; Wojciech Zegarski; Jan P Dumanski Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Kristina Subik; Jin-Feng Lee; Laurie Baxter; Tamera Strzepek; Dawn Costello; Patti Crowley; Lianping Xing; Mien-Chie Hung; Thomas Bonfiglio; David G Hicks; Ping Tang Journal: Breast Cancer (Auckl) Date: 2010-05-20