PURPOSE: Multiphoton-based intravital imaging has shown that invasive carcinoma cells in mouse and rat mammary tumors intravasate when associated with perivascular macrophages, identifying a potential tumor microenvironment of metastasis (TMEM). We define TMEM as the tripartite arrangement of an invasive carcinoma cell, a macrophage, and an endothelial cell. The aim of this study was to determine if TMEM density in human breast carcinoma samples predicts the development of systemic, hematogenous metastases. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A case-control study of 30 patients who developed metastatic breast cancer and 30 patients without metastatic disease was done. Cases were matched to controls based on currently used prognostic criteria. Paraffin-embedded primary breast cancer samples were stained using a triple immunohistochemical method allowing simultaneous identification of carcinoma cells, macrophages, and endothelial cells. Two pathologists, blinded to outcome, evaluated the number of TMEM per 20 high-power fields. RESULTS: No association was seen between TMEM density and tumor size or grade, lymph node metastasis, lymphovascular invasion, or hormone receptor status. TMEM density was greater in the group of patients who developed systemic metastases compared with the patients with only localized breast cancer (median, 105 versus 50, respectively; P = 0.00006). For every 10-unit increase in TMEM density, the odds ratio for systemic metastasis was 1.9 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.4). CONCLUSIONS: TMEM density predicted the development of systemic, hematogenous metastases. The ability of TMEM to predict distant metastasis was independent of lymph node status and other currently used prognosticators. Quantitation of TMEM may be a useful new prognostic marker for breast cancer patients.
PURPOSE: Multiphoton-based intravital imaging has shown that invasive carcinoma cells in mouse and rat mammary tumors intravasate when associated with perivascular macrophages, identifying a potential tumor microenvironment of metastasis (TMEM). We define TMEM as the tripartite arrangement of an invasive carcinoma cell, a macrophage, and an endothelial cell. The aim of this study was to determine if TMEM density in humanbreast carcinoma samples predicts the development of systemic, hematogenous metastases. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A case-control study of 30 patients who developed metastatic breast cancer and 30 patients without metastatic disease was done. Cases were matched to controls based on currently used prognostic criteria. Paraffin-embedded primary breast cancer samples were stained using a triple immunohistochemical method allowing simultaneous identification of carcinoma cells, macrophages, and endothelial cells. Two pathologists, blinded to outcome, evaluated the number of TMEM per 20 high-power fields. RESULTS: No association was seen between TMEM density and tumor size or grade, lymph node metastasis, lymphovascular invasion, or hormone receptor status. TMEM density was greater in the group of patients who developed systemic metastases compared with the patients with only localized breast cancer (median, 105 versus 50, respectively; P = 0.00006). For every 10-unit increase in TMEM density, the odds ratio for systemic metastasis was 1.9 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-3.4). CONCLUSIONS:TMEM density predicted the development of systemic, hematogenous metastases. The ability of TMEM to predict distant metastasis was independent of lymph node status and other currently used prognosticators. Quantitation of TMEM may be a useful new prognostic marker for breast cancerpatients.
Authors: Matthias Krause; Erik W Dent; James E Bear; Joseph J Loureiro; Frank B Gertler Journal: Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol Date: 2003 Impact factor: 13.827
Authors: Weigang Wang; Sumanta Goswami; Kyle Lapidus; Amber L Wells; Jeffrey B Wyckoff; Erik Sahai; Robert H Singer; Jeffrey E Segall; John S Condeelis Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-12-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: B Falini; L Flenghi; S Pileri; M Gambacorta; B Bigerna; H Durkop; F Eitelbach; J Thiele; R Pacini; A Cavaliere Journal: Am J Pathol Date: 1993-05 Impact factor: 4.307
Authors: Jeffrey Wyckoff; Weigang Wang; Elaine Y Lin; Yarong Wang; Fiona Pixley; E Richard Stanley; Thomas Graf; Jeffrey W Pollard; Jeffrey Segall; John Condeelis Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2004-10-01 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Cecile Lebrand; Erik W Dent; Geraldine A Strasser; Lorene M Lanier; Matthias Krause; Tatyana M Svitkina; Gary G Borisy; Frank B Gertler Journal: Neuron Date: 2004-04-08 Impact factor: 17.173
Authors: David B Thompson; Larry E Siref; Michael P Feloney; Ralph J Hauke; Devendra K Agrawal Journal: Expert Rev Clin Immunol Date: 2014-11-13 Impact factor: 4.473
Authors: Gulsun Erdag; Jochen T Schaefer; Mark E Smolkin; Donna H Deacon; Sofia M Shea; Lynn T Dengel; James W Patterson; Craig L Slingluff Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2012-01-19 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Madeleine J Oudin; Shannon K Hughes; Nazanin Rohani; Mira N Moufarrej; Joan G Jones; John S Condeelis; Douglas A Lauffenburger; Frank B Gertler Journal: Clin Exp Metastasis Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 5.150
Authors: Carlos Carmona-Fontaine; Vanni Bucci; Leila Akkari; Maxime Deforet; Johanna A Joyce; Joao B Xavier Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2013-11-11 Impact factor: 11.205