Yoon Jin Cha1, Woo-Hee Jung, Ja Seung Koo. 1. Department of Pathology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To elucidate the clinicopathologic features and their implications on the immunohistochemistry in cases of molecular apocrine breast cancer (MABC). METHODS: Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for estrogen receptor (ER), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2), cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), androgen receptor (AR), gamma-glutamyltrasferase 1 (GGT1) and Ki-67 was performed on tissue microarray breast cancer samples from 204 patients. Phenotypes of breast cancer were divided based on the IHC status of ER, AR and GGT1 into the following: luminal type, ER positive and AR and/or GGT1 positive; basal type, ER, AR, and GGT1 negative; non-basal type, ER positive and AR and GGT1 negative; and MABC type, ER negative and AR and/or GGT1 positive. RESULTS: In our series of patients (n=204), there were 26 cases of MABC. Besides, there were 18, 60, and 100 cases of luminal type, basal type and non-basal type, respectively. The MABC demonstrated apocrine histology and a higher prevalence of HER-2 positivity than other phenotypes. With the basal type, the MABC manifested a more frequent expression of CK5/6 and EGFR and a higher Ki-67 index than other phenotypes (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in patient prognosis between the phenotypes of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: MABC are distinguishable from other phenotypes based on the apocrine histology and a higher expression rate of HER-2.
BACKGROUND: To elucidate the clinicopathologic features and their implications on the immunohistochemistry in cases of molecular apocrine breast cancer (MABC). METHODS: Immunohistochemical (IHC) staining for estrogen receptor (ER), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2), cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), androgen receptor (AR), gamma-glutamyltrasferase 1 (GGT1) and Ki-67 was performed on tissue microarray breast cancer samples from 204 patients. Phenotypes of breast cancer were divided based on the IHC status of ER, AR and GGT1 into the following: luminal type, ER positive and AR and/or GGT1 positive; basal type, ER, AR, and GGT1 negative; non-basal type, ER positive and AR and GGT1 negative; and MABC type, ER negative and AR and/or GGT1 positive. RESULTS: In our series of patients (n=204), there were 26 cases of MABC. Besides, there were 18, 60, and 100 cases of luminal type, basal type and non-basal type, respectively. The MABC demonstrated apocrine histology and a higher prevalence of HER-2 positivity than other phenotypes. With the basal type, the MABC manifested a more frequent expression of CK5/6 and EGFR and a higher Ki-67 index than other phenotypes (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in patient prognosis between the phenotypes of breast cancer. CONCLUSIONS: MABC are distinguishable from other phenotypes based on the apocrine histology and a higher expression rate of HER-2.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Immunohistochemistry; Molecular apocrine
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: 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: Antonio C Wolff; M Elizabeth H Hammond; Jared N Schwartz; Karen L Hagerty; D Craig Allred; Richard J Cote; Mitchell Dowsett; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Wedad M Hanna; Amy Langer; Lisa M McShane; Soonmyung Paik; Mark D Pegram; Edith A Perez; Michael F Press; Anthony Rhodes; Catharine Sturgeon; Sheila E Taube; Raymond Tubbs; Gail H Vance; Marc van de Vijver; Thomas M Wheeler; Daniel F Hayes Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-12-11 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Guillaume Banneau; Mickaël Guedj; Gaëtan MacGrogan; Isabelle de Mascarel; Valerie Velasco; Renaud Schiappa; Valerie Bonadona; Albert David; Catherine Dugast; Brigitte Gilbert-Dussardier; Olivier Ingster; Pierre Vabres; Frederic Caux; Aurelien de Reynies; Richard Iggo; Nicolas Sevenet; Françoise Bonnet; Michel Longy Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2010-08-16 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Ingo K Mellinghoff; Igor Vivanco; Andrew Kwon; Chris Tran; John Wongvipat; Charles L Sawyers Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: M Elizabeth H Hammond; Daniel F Hayes; Mitch Dowsett; D Craig Allred; Karen L Hagerty; Sunil Badve; Patrick L Fitzgibbons; Glenn Francis; Neil S Goldstein; Malcolm Hayes; David G Hicks; Susan Lester; Richard Love; Pamela B Mangu; Lisa McShane; Keith Miller; C Kent Osborne; Soonmyung Paik; Jane Perlmutter; Anthony Rhodes; Hironobu Sasano; Jared N Schwartz; Fred C G Sweep; Sheila Taube; Emina Emilia Torlakovic; Paul Valenstein; Giuseppe Viale; Daniel Visscher; Thomas Wheeler; R Bruce Williams; James L Wittliff; Antonio C Wolff Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-19 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Therese Sorlie; Robert Tibshirani; Joel Parker; Trevor Hastie; J S Marron; Andrew Nobel; Shibing Deng; Hilde Johnsen; Robert Pesich; Stephanie Geisler; Janos Demeter; Charles M Perou; Per E Lønning; Patrick O Brown; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; David Botstein Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 12.779