Silvana Di Palma1, Roderick H W Simpson, Caterina Marchiò, Alena Skálová, Marco Ungari, Ann Sandison, Stephen Whitaker, Suzanne Parry, Jorge S Reis-Filho. 1. Department of Histopathology, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, SurreyDivision of Clinical Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, SurreyDepartment of Histopathology, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, DevonThe Breakthrough Breast Cancer Research Centre - Institute of Cancer Research, London, UKDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague, Plzeň, Czech RepublicDepartment of Pathology, Spedali Civili Brescia, Brescia, ItalyDepartment of Histopathology, Imperial College Healthcare Trust, Charing Cross Hospital, LondonDepartment of Oncology, St Lukes Cancer Centre, Royal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to devise a molecular classification for salivary duct carcinomas (SDCs) based on the similarities between SDCs and breast carcinomas and on characteristics of the microarray-based gene expression profiling-defined molecular subtypes of breast cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-two pure salivary duct carcinomas, 35 of which contained an in-situ component as defined by histological review and/or immunohistochemical analysis, were stained with antibodies for oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), androgen receptor (AR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and cytokeratin (CK) 5/6. Based on these markers, tumours were classified into HER2, luminal androgen receptor-positive, basal-like, luminal and indeterminate phenotype. Analysis revealed that 16.7%, 69%, 4.8%, 9.5% and 0% were of HER2, luminal androgen receptor-positive, basal-like, indeterminate and luminal phenotype, respectively. The in-situ and invasive components displayed the same molecular subtype in all but one case. CONCLUSION: Salivary duct carcinomas can be classified into molecular subgroups approximately equivalent to those in the breast. We also report on the existence of a subgroup of bona fide pure salivary duct carcinomas that have a 'basal-like' phenotype. Understanding the phenotypic complexity of SDCs may help to expedite the identification of novel therapeutic targets for these aggressive tumours.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to devise a molecular classification for salivary duct carcinomas (SDCs) based on the similarities between SDCs and breast carcinomas and on characteristics of the microarray-based gene expression profiling-defined molecular subtypes of breast cancer. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-two pure salivary duct carcinomas, 35 of which contained an in-situ component as defined by histological review and/or immunohistochemical analysis, were stained with antibodies for oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), androgen receptor (AR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and cytokeratin (CK) 5/6. Based on these markers, tumours were classified into HER2, luminal androgen receptor-positive, basal-like, luminal and indeterminate phenotype. Analysis revealed that 16.7%, 69%, 4.8%, 9.5% and 0% were of HER2, luminal androgen receptor-positive, basal-like, indeterminate and luminal phenotype, respectively. The in-situ and invasive components displayed the same molecular subtype in all but one case. CONCLUSION:Salivary duct carcinomas can be classified into molecular subgroups approximately equivalent to those in the breast. We also report on the existence of a subgroup of bona fide pure salivary duct carcinomas that have a 'basal-like' phenotype. Understanding the phenotypic complexity of SDCs may help to expedite the identification of novel therapeutic targets for these aggressive tumours.
Authors: Martin G Dalin; Alexis Desrichard; Nora Katabi; Vladimir Makarov; Logan A Walsh; Ken-Wing Lee; Qingguo Wang; Joshua Armenia; Lyndsay West; Snjezana Dogan; Lu Wang; Deepa Ramaswami; Alan L Ho; Ian Ganly; David B Solit; Michael F Berger; Nikolaus D Schultz; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Timothy A Chan; Luc G T Morris Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Masato Nakaguro; Yuichiro Tada; William C Faquin; Peter M Sadow; Lori J Wirth; Toshitaka Nagao Journal: Cancer Cytopathol Date: 2020-05-18 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ruta Gupta; Mark J Cowley; Simon A Mueller; Marie-Emilie A Gauthier; James Blackburn; John P Grady; Spiridoula Kraitsek; Elektra Hajdu; Matthias S Dettmer; Jane E Dahlstrom; C Soon Lee; Peter P Luk; Bing Yu; Roland Giger; Sarah Kummerfeld; Jonathan R Clark Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Maximilian Linxweiler; Fengshen Kuo; Nora Katabi; Mark Lee; Zaineb Nadeem; Martin G Dalin; Vladimir Makarov; Diego Chowell; Snjezana Dogan; Ian Ganly; A Ari Hakimi; Richard J Wong; Nadeem Riaz; Alan L Ho; Timothy A Chan; Luc G T Morris Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 12.531