BACKGROUND: Patient prognosis and response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer correlate with protein expression of both estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR), with poorer outcome in patients with ER+/PR- compared to ER+/PR+ tumors. METHODS: To better understand the underlying biology of ER+/PR- tumors, we examined RNA expression (n > 1000 tumors) and DNA copy number profiles from five previously published studies of human breast cancers with clinically assigned hormone receptor status (ER+/PR+, ER+/PR-, and ER-/PR-). RESULTS: We identified an expression "signature" of genes with either elevated or diminished RNA levels specifically in ER+/PR+ compared to ER-/PR- and ER+/PR- tumors. We similarly identified a gene signature specific to ER-/PR- tumors. ER+/PR- tumors, on the other hand, were a mixture of three different subtypes: tumors manifesting the ER+/PR+ signature, tumors manifesting the ER-/PR- signature, and tumors not associating with ER+/PR+ or ER-/PR- tumors (which we considered "true" ER+/PR-). In analyses of both tamoxifen-treated and untreated patients, ER+/PR- breast cancers defined by RNA profiling were associated with poor patient outcome, worse than those with pure ER+/PR+ patterns; these differences were not observed when using clinical assays to assign ER and PR status. ER+/PR- tumors also showed twice as many DNA copy number gains or losses compared to ER+/PR+ and ER-PR- tumors. Targets of transcriptional up-regulation by specific oncogenic pathways, including PI3 K/Akt/mTOR, were enriched in both ER+/PR- and ER-/PR- compared to ER+/PR+ tumors. CONCLUSION: ER+/PR- tumors as defined by RNA profiling represent a distinct subset of breast cancer with aggressive features and poor outcome, despite being clinically ER+. Multigene assays derived from our gene signatures could conceivably provide an improved clinical assay for inferring PR status for prognostic and therapeutic purposes.
BACKGROUND:Patient prognosis and response to endocrine therapy in breast cancer correlate with protein expression of both estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR), with poorer outcome in patients with ER+/PR- compared to ER+/PR+ tumors. METHODS: To better understand the underlying biology of ER+/PR- tumors, we examined RNA expression (n > 1000 tumors) and DNA copy number profiles from five previously published studies of humanbreast cancers with clinically assigned hormone receptor status (ER+/PR+, ER+/PR-, and ER-/PR-). RESULTS: We identified an expression "signature" of genes with either elevated or diminished RNA levels specifically in ER+/PR+ compared to ER-/PR- and ER+/PR- tumors. We similarly identified a gene signature specific to ER-/PR- tumors. ER+/PR- tumors, on the other hand, were a mixture of three different subtypes: tumors manifesting the ER+/PR+ signature, tumors manifesting the ER-/PR- signature, and tumors not associating with ER+/PR+ or ER-/PR- tumors (which we considered "true" ER+/PR-). In analyses of both tamoxifen-treated and untreated patients, ER+/PR- breast cancers defined by RNA profiling were associated with poor patient outcome, worse than those with pure ER+/PR+ patterns; these differences were not observed when using clinical assays to assign ER and PR status. ER+/PR- tumors also showed twice as many DNA copy number gains or losses compared to ER+/PR+ and ER-PR- tumors. Targets of transcriptional up-regulation by specific oncogenic pathways, including PI3 K/Akt/mTOR, were enriched in both ER+/PR- and ER-/PR- compared to ER+/PR+ tumors. CONCLUSION:ER+/PR- tumors as defined by RNA profiling represent a distinct subset of breast cancer with aggressive features and poor outcome, despite being clinically ER+. Multigene assays derived from our gene signatures could conceivably provide an improved clinical assay for inferring PR status for prognostic and therapeutic purposes.
Authors: Soonmyung Paik; Steven Shak; Gong Tang; Chungyeul Kim; Joffre Baker; Maureen Cronin; Frederick L Baehner; Michael G Walker; Drew Watson; Taesung Park; William Hiller; Edwin R Fisher; D Lawrence Wickerham; John Bryant; Norman Wolmark Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-12-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend Journal: Nature Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: T Sørlie; C M Perou; R Tibshirani; T Aas; S Geisler; H Johnsen; T Hastie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; T Thorsen; H Quist; J C Matese; P O Brown; D Botstein; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2001-09-11 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: M Dowsett; C Harper-Wynne; I Boeddinghaus; J Salter; M Hills; M Dixon; S Ebbs; G Gui; N Sacks; I Smith Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2001-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Kathleen Van Asten; Laurence Slembrouck; Siel Olbrecht; Lynn Jongen; Olivier Brouckaert; Hans Wildiers; Giuseppe Floris; Erik Van Limbergen; Caroline Weltens; Ann Smeets; Robert Paridaens; Anita Giobbie-Hurder; Meredith M Regan; Giuseppe Viale; Beat Thürlimann; Ignace Vergote; Evangelia Christodoulou; Ben Van Calster; Patrick Neven Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-08-31
Authors: Chad J Creighton; Xiaoyong Fu; Bryan T Hennessy; Angelo J Casa; Yiqun Zhang; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo; Ana Lluch; Joe W Gray; Powell H Brown; Susan G Hilsenbeck; C Kent Osborne; Gordon B Mills; Adrian V Lee; Rachel Schiff Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: G Grelier; N Voirin; A-S Ay; D G Cox; S Chabaud; I Treilleux; S Léon-Goddard; R Rimokh; I Mikaelian; C Venoux; A Puisieux; C Lasset; C Moyret-Lalle Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2009-08-18 Impact factor: 7.640