Literature DB >> 23151501

FGFR1 amplification and the progression of non-invasive to invasive breast cancer.

Alejandro A Gru, D Craig Allred.   

Abstract

The incidence of invasive breast cancer (IBC) can be dramatically reduced by improving our abilities to detect and treat ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Progress will be based on a detailed understanding of molecular mechanisms responsible for tumor progression. An interesting study by Jang and colleagues evaluated and compared the frequency of amplification of four oncogenes (HER2, c-MYC, CCND1 and FGFR1) in large cohorts of pure DCIS, in the DCIS component of IBC, and in corresponding IBC. Of particular interest, they found a twofold increase in FGFR1 amplification in IBC versus pure DCIS, and significantly reduced disease-free survival in amplified versus unamplified IBC - leading the authors to conclude that FGFR1 plays an important role in the development and progression of IBC. These observations indeed provide hints that FGFR1 is important in this setting, although the issue is very complex and far from resolved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23151501      PMCID: PMC4053127          DOI: 10.1186/bcr3340

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res        ISSN: 1465-5411            Impact factor:   6.466


Invasive breast cancer (IBC) evolves through a series of increasingly abnormal premalignant stages, over decades in most cases [1,2]. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a late stage in this evolution and the immediate precursor for most IBC. Currently, about 60,000 new cases of DCIS are diagnosed in the USA each year [3]. If undetected, at least one-third of cases will progress to IBC [4]. About 200,000 cases of IBC are also diagnosed [3], and nearly all evolve from DCIS that was not detected. The incidence of IBC can be dramatically reduced by improving our abilities to detect and successfully treat DCIS, which will be based on a detailed understanding of molecular mechanisms responsible for tumor progression. Although there is much to learn, recent studies have begun to shed light on this important issue [5,6]. Among these is an interesting study by Jang and colleagues described in a recent issue of Breast Cancer Research, which evaluated and compared the frequency of amplification of four oncogenes ( HER2, c-MYC, CCND1, and FGFR1) in large cohorts of pure DCIS (n = 175), in the DCIS component of IBC (n = 203), and in the corresponding IBC (n = 427) [1]. Amplification was carefully assessed by fluorescence in situ hybridization on tissue microarrays containing triplicate 2 mm cores/sample, which is far more tissue than used in most tissue microarray studies. Overall, they found reasonable rates of amplification for each oncogene in IBC consistent with many previous studies [7]. Far fewer studies of DCIS are available for comparison. The main focus of the study was to compare amplification between pure DCIS and IBC, hypothesizing that differences may help identify genes that are important in the transition from in situ to invasive disease. In this regard, the most notable findings included significantly higher rates of HER2 amplification in pure DCIS versus IBC (31% vs. 20%; P = 0.004), which has been shown before [8], and significantly lower rates of FGFR1 in pure DCIS versus IBC (6% vs. 13%; P = 0.02), which is novel. These differences were more pronounced in lesions of high histological grade (HER2 60% vs. 34%; FGFR1 7% vs. 16%). Amplification frequencies in intrinsic molecular subtypes of IBC were also generally consistent with previous studies [7]. Jang and colleagues also looked at the relationship between amplification and clinical outcome. In these studies, amplification of FGFR1 was associated with significantly reduced disease-free survival in patients with IBC (about 10% at 8 years), particularly in hormone-receptor-positive patients, although HER2, c-MYC, and CCND1 were not prognostic in this cohort. The twofold elevation of FGFR1 amplification in IBC versus pure DCIS, and the poor prognosis in IBC, led the authors to conclude that activation plays an important role in the progression of breast cancer, including, in particular, the in situ to invasive transition. This is a reasonable conclusion in the sense that it is also consistent with previous studies showing that FGFR1 activation is oncogenic for breast cancer in transgenic mice [9], and is associated with increased invasion of breast cancer cell lines in vitro [10] and poor prognosis in IBC [7,11,12], especially in receptor-positive disease [11,12]. Although our understanding of FGFR1 at the molecular level is incomplete, important aspects are known about its function and the consequences of gene amplification [13]. For example, the gene encodes a tyrosine kinase receptor that is part of a large family of fibroblast growth factors and receptors. In a normal setting, activation of FGFR1 can lead to transactivation of mitogen-activated protein kinase and AKT, which collectively are essential for breast development, including the growth and differentiation of luminal epithelial cells. However, increased FGFR1 activity, such as occurs through gene amplification, can result in increased luminal cell proliferation and, in transgenic mouse models, this hyperplasia may eventually evolve into in situ and invasive mammary carcinomas. In humans, the chromosomal region where FGFR1 resides, 8p11.2, is amplified in significant proportions of many types of cancers, including kidney cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, and leukemias. The region is also amplified in 10 to 20% of IBC [13]. However, the 8p11.2 amplicon is large and complex, and FGFR1 is only one of several candidate oncogenes within the region [14] - others include LSM1, PPAPDC1B, WHSC1L1, and BAG4, which are also important in breast development and cell cycle regulation, among other relevant functions. To complicate matters more, only about 50% of FGFR1-amplified tumors appear to overexpress the transcript [15]. The study by Jang and colleagues provides additional evidence of an important role for FGFR1 amplification in the progression of IBC [1]. The study also provides tantalizing hints that FGFR1 may be important in the in situ to invasive transition, which is a critical step in the progression of a nonlethal to potentially lethal disease - and this aspect of the study is entirely novel. Having said this, we need to be cautious about drawing conclusions regarding gene function and malfunction based on correlative studies of this nature alone. For example, the main evidence that FGFR1 is important in this study is elevated amplification in IBC versus DCIS. By analogous reasoning, the elevated amplification of HER2 observed in DCIS versus IBC could be taken as evidence for suppression of tumor progression, which we know is wrong. Determining the molecular function, oncogenic potential, and clinical significance of FGFR1 at any stage of breast cancer evolution will require many additional comprehensive laboratory and clinical studies. These studies are particularly worthwhile in the sense that we have effective drugs to inhibit FGFR1 activity [13]. Jain and Turner have summarized recent interesting data in terms of the functional biology of the fibroblast growth factor receptors and development of inhibitors of these molecules, with emphasis on challenges to successfully target this pathway in breast cancer [16]. These could lead to new strategies for preventing the progression of DCIS to IBC, or restoring responsiveness of receptor-positive IBC to endocrine therapy if activation is confirmed to induce resistance [11,12] - perhaps FGFR1 will be the next HER2.

Abbreviations

DCIS: ductal carcinoma in situ; FGFR1: fibroblast growth factor receptor 1; HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; IBC: invasive breast cancer.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
  13 in total

1.  The role of HER2/neu overexpression/amplification in the progression of ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive carcinoma of the breast.

Authors:  E K Latta; S Tjan; R K Parkes; F P O'Malley
Journal:  Mod Pathol       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 7.842

2.  Comprehensive profiling of 8p11-12 amplification in breast cancer.

Authors:  Véronique Gelsi-Boyer; Béatrice Orsetti; Nathalie Cervera; Pascal Finetti; Fabrice Sircoulomb; Carole Rougé; Laurence Lasorsa; Anne Letessier; Christophe Ginestier; Florence Monville; Séverine Esteyriès; José Adélaïde; Benjamin Esterni; Catherine Henry; Stephen P Ethier; Frédéric Bibeau; Marie-Joëlle Mozziconacci; Emmanuelle Charafe-Jauffret; Jocelyne Jacquemier; François Bertucci; Daniel Birnbaum; Charles Theillet; Max Chaffanet
Journal:  Mol Cancer Res       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.852

Review 3.  Fibroblast growth factors in development and cancer: insights from the mammary and prostate glands.

Authors:  Kathryn L Schwertfeger
Journal:  Curr Drug Targets       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.465

Review 4.  Breast cancer: origins and evolution.

Authors:  Kornelia Polyak
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 14.808

5.  National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference statement: Diagnosis and Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ September 22-24, 2009.

Authors:  Carmen J Allegra; Denise R Aberle; Pamela Ganschow; Stephen M Hahn; Clara N Lee; Sandra Millon-Underwood; Malcolm C Pike; Susan D Reed; Audrey F Saftlas; Susan A Scarvalone; Arnold M Schwartz; Carol Slomski; Greg Yothers; Robin Zon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Frequency, prognostic impact, and subtype association of 8p12, 8q24, 11q13, 12p13, 17q12, and 20q13 amplifications in breast cancers.

Authors:  Anne Letessier; Fabrice Sircoulomb; Christophe Ginestier; Nathalie Cervera; Florence Monville; Véronique Gelsi-Boyer; Benjamin Esterni; Jeannine Geneix; Pascal Finetti; Christophe Zemmour; Patrice Viens; Emmanuelle Charafe-Jauffret; Jocelyne Jacquemier; Daniel Birnbaum; Max Chaffanet
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2006-10-13       Impact factor: 4.430

7.  Pleiotropic effects of FGFR1 on cell proliferation, survival, and migration in a 3D mammary epithelial cell model.

Authors:  Wa Xian; Kathryn L Schwertfeger; Tracy Vargo-Gogola; Jeffrey M Rosen
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  2005-11-21       Impact factor: 10.539

8.  Inducible dimerization of FGFR1: development of a mouse model to analyze progressive transformation of the mammary gland.

Authors:  Bryan E Welm; Kevin W Freeman; Mercy Chen; Alejandro Contreras; David M Spencer; Jeffrey M Rosen
Journal:  J Cell Biol       Date:  2002-05-13       Impact factor: 10.539

9.  FGFR1 is amplified during the progression of in situ to invasive breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Min Jang; Eun Kim; Yoomi Choi; Hee Lee; Yu Kim; Jee Kim; Eunyoung Kang; Sung-Won Kim; In Kim; So Park
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 6.466

10.  FGFR1 amplification in breast carcinomas: a chromogenic in situ hybridisation analysis.

Authors:  Somaia Elbauomy Elsheikh; Andrew R Green; Maryou B K Lambros; Nicholas C Turner; Matthew J Grainge; Des Powe; Ian O Ellis; Jorge S Reis-Filho
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 6.466

View more
  9 in total

1.  FGFR-1 amplification in metastatic lymph-nodal and haematogenous lobular breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Eleonora Brunello; Matteo Brunelli; Giuseppe Bogina; Anna Caliò; Erminia Manfrin; Alessia Nottegar; Marco Vergine; Annamaria Molino; Emilio Bria; Francesco Massari; Giampaolo Tortora; Sara Cingarlini; Serena Pedron; Marco Chilosi; Giuseppe Zamboni; Keith Miller; Guido Martignoni; Franco Bonetti
Journal:  J Exp Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2012-12-27

2.  Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 amplification in non-small cell lung cancer by quantitative real-time PCR.

Authors:  Shirish M Gadgeel; Wei Chen; Michele L Cote; Aliccia Bollig-Fischer; Susan Land; Ann G Schwartz; Gerold Bepler
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-11-08       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 3.  Recent developments in receptor tyrosine kinases targeted anticancer therapy.

Authors:  Samir H Raval; Ratn D Singh; Dilip V Joshi; Hitesh B Patel; Shailesh K Mody
Journal:  Vet World       Date:  2016-01-29

4.  Epithelial-mesenchymal transition confers resistance to selective FGFR inhibitors in SNU-16 gastric cancer cells.

Authors:  Paulina Grygielewicz; Barbara Dymek; Anna Bujak; Pawel Gunerka; Aleksandra Stanczak; Monika Lamparska-Przybysz; Maciej Wieczorek; Karolina Dzwonek; Daria Zdzalik
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2014-11-19       Impact factor: 7.370

5.  FGFR1β is a driver isoform of FGFR1 alternative splicing in breast cancer cells.

Authors:  Ming Zhao; Ming-Lei Zhuo; Xiaofeng Zheng; Xiaoping Su; Funda Meric-Bernstam
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2019-01-01

6.  Upregulation of EGFR signaling is correlated with tumor stroma remodeling and tumor recurrence in FGFR1-driven breast cancer.

Authors:  Xue B Holdman; Thomas Welte; Kimal Rajapakshe; Adam Pond; Cristian Coarfa; Qianxing Mo; Shixia Huang; Susan G Hilsenbeck; Dean P Edwards; Xiang Zhang; Jeffrey M Rosen
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 promotes MG63 cell proliferation and is associated with increased expression of cyclin-dependent kinase 1 in osteosarcoma.

Authors:  Wei Zhou; Yue Zhu; Song Chen; Ruijun Xu; Kunzheng Wang
Journal:  Mol Med Rep       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 2.952

8.  FGFR1 is an adverse outcome indicator for luminal A breast cancers.

Authors:  Yu-Jie Shi; Julia Y S Tsang; Yun-Bi Ni; Siu-Ki Chan; Kui-Fat Chan; Gary M Tse
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2016-01-26

9.  Screening for candidate genes related to breast cancer with cDNA microarray analysis.

Authors:  Yu-Juan Xiang; Qin-Ye Fu; Zhong-Bing Ma; De-Zong Gao; Qiang Zhang; Yu-Yang Li; Liang Li; Lu Liu; Chun-Miao Ye; Zhi-Gang Yu; Ming-Ming Guo
Journal:  Chronic Dis Transl Med       Date:  2015-03-05
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.