Literature DB >> 23846681

In situ breast cancer and microchimerism.

Jinny K Eun1, Katherine A Guthrie, Gary Zirpoli, V K Gadi.   

Abstract

Microchimeric cells of fetal origin persistent in the maternal circulation post-partum are associated with protection against invasive breast cancer. Here using quantitative genomic methods, we evaluated for the presence of male fetal microchimerism in buffy coat cells from women with a prior history of breast carcinomas in situ (CIS) and in healthy controls. Fetal microchimerism was detected in 75 of 88 controls (85%) and in 57 of 89 CIS patients (64%). The odds ratio for protection against non-invasive breast disease was 0.26 (95% confidence interval 0.12-0.56; p < 0.001 adjusted for age and body mass index). Similar to women with invasive breast cancer, women with CIS who are naturally at high risk for future invasive disease were deficient for fetal microchimerism. In addition to autologous anti-tumor immune responses, the maintenance of haploidentical microchimerism may impart an allogeneic edge in immunosurveillance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23846681      PMCID: PMC3709160          DOI: 10.1038/srep02192

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Rep        ISSN: 2045-2322            Impact factor:   4.379


Breast carcinomas in situ (CIS) are non-obligate precursors for invasive disease. Though no true prospective natural history studies of CIS are at this time ethically feasible, a woman diagnosed with non-invasive breast carcinoma optimally managed with breast conserving surgery only is estimated to retain an 8–10 year risk of recurrent disease ranging from 26–31% in her remaining breast tissue1. Understudied compared to invasive breast cancers, the etiologic factors lending to development of in situ cancers can inform greatly about more aggressive forms of disease. Similar to invasive breast cancer, available evidence supports a protection against developing in situ breast cancer when women are parous2. In addition to autologous immune responses against neoantigens and direct hormonal changes to breast tissues originating during pregnancy that are known to afford an advantage against cancer3, we have been evaluating a new dimension to this protection, fetal microchimerism. Fetal microchimerism describes the small numbers of haploidentical cells that transit during pregnancy and persist in a woman's circulation and tissues long-term. In prior studies published by our group, fetal microchimerism was both associated with freedom from breast cancer when present in the circulatory system45 and in breast tissue6. Moreover, when women are deficient in fetal microchimerism, they are at a higher risk for developing a future breast cancer7. Because pre-malignant or pre-invasive disease can be present years prior to developing an invasive cancer, we sought to determine if women with pure in situ breast cancers were deficient for fetal microchimerism. Specifically, if our hypothesis is correct, it suggests that there is likely a fundamental failure of acquiring or maintaining chimeric cells from the fetus in women with breast disease or cancer as opposed to a loss of it during progression towards overt disease.

Results

Peripheral blood cell buffy coat DNA from 100 women with a history of CIS and 100 healthy control women (also referred to as probands) were obtained from the Roswell Park Cancer Center Data Bank and BioRepository8. Probands included in our study were recruited to the biorepository over a 6-year span from 2004–2010 and donated their blood specimens a median of 34 days after diagnosis. Controls were matched to case probands on the basis of gender, age (in 5-year blocks), parity (yes vs. no), and race. Quantitative PCR was performed over a 7 month span from June 2011 to Jan 2012. Nine case and 12 control specimens were excluded from analysis because DNA quality (n = 9) or quantity (n = 12) was insufficient for PCR. We utilized a real-time quantitative PCR assay to detect a y-chromosome sequence of DYS14 to identify male DNA in probands' buffy coat DNA. Following case status-blinded analysis of quantitative PCR results, data from 91 CIS and 88 control subjects were available for analysis. Two CIS probands were excluded from final analysis because male DNA quantities in these two women amplified substantially beyond the highest point on the calibration curve (500 DYS14 containing genome equivalents). Though precise estimates could not be ascertained, these patients' peripheral blood cells were composed of 27% and 80% male cells. We speculate hematopoietic macrochimerism originating for these two women while they were themselves in utero from a vanished twin. The remaining 89 CIS probands were included in the final analysis. The two cohorts were similar with respect to all factors shown in Table 1. The total number of cell equivalents tested for detection of male microchimerism was higher in the CIS cases than in the controls, although this difference was not statistically significant (mean 9.1 × 104 (95% confidence interval (CI), 8.5–9.6 × 104) in cases and 8.4 × 104 (95% CI, 7.9–8.9 × 104) in controls; p = 0.05).
Table 1

Subject characteristics by disease status

 Cases (N = 89)Controls (N = 88)
 N (%)N (%)
Age (years)  
29–4416 (18)16 (18)
45–5434 (38)28 (32)
55–6426 (29)30 (34)
≥6513 (15)14 (16)
Education  
Below or at high school25 (28)18 (20)
Some college31 (35)34 (39)
College graduate14 (16)18 (20)
Advanced degree19 (21)18 (20)
Body mass index (kg/m2)  
<2535 (40)26 (30)
25–2933 (38)31 (36)
≥3019 (22)30 (34)
Unknown21
Smoking status  
Never48 (55)47 (53)
Current14 (16)10 (11)
Former25 (29)31 (35)
Unknown20
Moderate exercise  
No52 (60)49 (56)
Low16 (18)21 (24)
High19 (22)18 (20)
Unknown20
Family history of BRCA  
No71 (80)70 (80)
Yes18 (20)18 (20)
Age at menarche (years)  
≤1113 (15)16 (18)
1227 (32)25 (29)
1327 (32)28 (32)
≥1418 (21)18 (21)
Unknown41
Number of births  
023 (26)23 (26)
111 (12)11 (12)
222 (25)20 (23)
318 (20)19 (22)
4 or more15 (17)15 (17)
Age at first birth (years)  
19 or younger9 (14)12 (19)
20–2419 (29)27 (42)
25–2925 (38)15 (23)
30 or older13 (20)10 (16)
Unknown01
No children2323
Number of children breastfed  
No children23 (26)23 (26)
029 (33)21 (24)
114 (16)14 (16)
212 (13)15 (17)
3 or more11 (12)14 (16)
Unknown01
Menopausal status  
Premenopausal43 (48)37 (42)
Postmenopausal46 (52)51 (58)
Menopausal hormone use  
No66 (74)64 (73)
Yes23 (26)23 (26)
Unknown01
Overall, male microchimerism was detected in 132 women, including 75 of 88 controls (85%) and 57 of 89 CIS patients (64%). Table 2 shows the prevalence of male microchimerism and the association of male microchimerism and risk of CIS. Compared to women who were microchimerism-negative, women harboring microchimerism were less likely to have had CIS (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12–0.56; p < 0.001) in a model adjusted for age and BMI. In subset analysis by number of children, the association of microchimerism and risk of CIS was stronger in women with two or more children than in nulliparous or uniparous women (Table 2). A test for interaction across subgroups according to number of children (0, 1, 2, 3 or more children) showed a decreasing trend in the odds ratios (p = 0.07). Table 3 shows subset analysis by age at first birth among women with at least one child, where the association of microchimerism and risk of CIS was significantly stronger in women who first gave birth before age 30 years compared to those over 30 (p = 0.04 for interaction).
Table 2

Odds ratios (OR) of CIS by microchimerism prevalence, for all subjects and by number of children

  Proportions by  
  Disease Status (%)  
ParityPresence of microchimerismCasesControlsOR (95% CI)p-value
All subjectsNo32 (36)13 (15)1.0 
 Yes57 (64)75 (85)0.26 (0.12–0.56)<0.001*
No childrenNo6 (26)5 (22)1.0 
 Yes17 (74)18 (78)0.79 (0.20–3.06) 
1 childNo3 (27)3 (27)  
 Yes8 (73)8 (73)1.00 (0.10–9.94) 
2 childrenNo10 (45)1 (5)  
 Yes12 (55)19 (95)0.06 (0.01–0.58) 
≥3 childrenNo13 (39)4 (12)  
 Yes20 (61)30 (88)0.21 (0.04–0.81)0.07*

*for all subjects, adjusted for age and BMI; in subset analysis, unadjusted test for trend.

Table 3

Unadjusted OR of CIS by microchimerism prevalence, according to age at first birth in parous women

  Proportions by Disease Status (%) 
Age at 1st birthPresence of microchimerismCasesControlsOR (95% CI)
<30 yearsNo21 (40)4 (7)1.0
 Yes32 (60)50 (93)0.12 (0.04–0.39)
≥30 yearsNo5 (38)4 (40)1.0
 Yes8 (62)6 (60)1.07 (0.20–5.77)
Median concentrations were 0.29 versus 0.07 male chimeric cells per 105 host cells in control and case subjects, respectively (Figure 1) and differed substantially at all percentile ranks. Logistic regression models used to model the primary outcome of CIS with presence of fetal microchimerism may substantially underestimate the impact of any association because it does not account for quantitative differences between groups. We therefore applied Poisson modeling (because of the rightward skew of the data) to better capture quantitative differences between groups. Using this approach, the rate of microchimerism detection was significantly lower in women with history of CIS than in the healthy women (p < 0.001) in a model adjusted for age, education level and moderate exercise (Table 4). Moreover, the association of microchimerism and risk of CIS more evidently varied by number of children compared to ORs shown in Table 1; a test for interaction showed that there was a statistically significant increasing trend in the rate ratios (p = 0.02).
Figure 1

Microchimerism concentrations by CIS/Control status.

Quantities (fetal genome equivalents (gEq)/105 proband cells) on X-axis are base-10 log transformed with zeros (n = 45) and small concentrations (n = 2) excluded to better demonstrate differences at various percentile ranks.

Table 4

Rate ratios (RR) of CIS by microchimerism detection, for all subjects and by number of children

ParityRate Ratio (95% CI)p-value
All subjects0.47 (0.31–0.71)<0.001*
No children0.28 (0.12–0.64) 
1 child0.47 (0.20–1.11) 
2 children0.22 (0.10–0.49) 
≥3 children0.97 (0.53–1.76)0.02

*for all subjects, adjusted for age, education level (college or more vs. less than college) and moderate exercise; in subset analysis, unadjusted test for trend.

The prevalence of microchimerism and its association with characteristics of the CIS cases is shown in Table 5. There was no indication of variation in microchimerism prevalence according to these characteristics. Progesterone receptor results are not shown because they were identical to those for estrogen receptor.
Table 5

Among CIS cases, unadjusted OR of microchimerism prevalence according to disease characteristics

 No microchimerism (N = 32)Microchimerism (N = 57) 
 N (%)N (%)OR (95% CI)
Laterality   
Left origin of primary19 (59)31 (54)1.0
Right origin of primary13 (41)26 (46)1.23 (0.51–2.95)
Estrogen receptor   
Positive12 (75)26 (72)1.0
Negative4 (25)10 (28)0.87 (0.23–3.33)
Test not done1420*
Unknown21*
Grade   
Well differentiated2 (18)3 (27)1.0
Moderately differentiated3 (27)4 (36)0.89 (0.09–9.16)
Poorly differentiated6 (55)4 (36)0.44 (0.05–3.98)
Unknown2146*
Histologic Subtype   
Ductal Carcinoma In Situ22 (69)43 (75)1.0
Lobular Carcinoma In Situ3 (9)6 (10)0.97 (0.17–5.04)
Other^7 (22)8 (14)1.71 (0.48–6.12)

*Patients with unknown values are excluded from analysis.^includes in situ subtypes of comedo, papillary, intracystic, and cribiform.

Discussion

We report that women with in situ breast cancer are deficient in carriage of male microchimerism of presumed pregnancy origin at rates comparable to those observed in women with invasive breast cancer. Combined with our prior prospective study of microchimerism in healthy women who later develop invasive breast cancer7, the current study also serves as evidence that the absence of microchimerism is not a result of having developed breast cancer but more likely a predisposing condition towards it. The data collectively indicate a primary failure of microchimerism acquisition during pregnancy or alternatively a loss well prior to developing non-invasive or invasive disease. The ideal study design to verify the temporality of the microchimerism loss with respect to cancer development would be a longitudinal serial study beginning with pregnancy completion; unfortunately, to the best of our knowledge a mature resource of this kind does not yet exist. In considering fetal microchimerism as a biomarker, this report is now the 6th study available demonstrating this consistent observation, all of roughly similar magnitude45679. Though contamination of specimens with male DNA cannot be absolutely excluded, strengths of the study are that laboratory hygiene practices, a single female operator, and blinding insure non-differential uncontrolled effects among the groups and further bolsters confidence in the findings. Moreover, the presence of potential contamination would bias against our study because it would likely dilute differences between groups. It is noteworthy that the rate of microchimerism detection in controls was higher than observed in prior invasive cancer association studies. We attribute the higher detection rate in our prospective study9 and the current report to the use of more modern PCR rigs with known higher sensitivity and improved performance characteristics. Another consideration is that gravidity was not recorded for participants in the registry. Thus, we are not sure of the impact, if any, of miscarriages and abortions on the microchimerism prevalence in the cohort. The present study was powered to primarily identify an association of microchimerism with CIS versus matched controls based on assumptions derived from prior studies already published for invasive disease. However, there was insufficient power to draw firm conclusions regarding CIS specific characteristics such as laterality or tumor subtype, but generally no striking differences emerged in these analyses. Unfortunately, to the authors' knowledge no other bio-repositories with appropriate specimens for microchimerism testing in CIS are available other than the Roswell Park resource used here, which we nearly exhausted for unique case specimens. The mechanism by which microchimerism might protect against breast malignancy remains undefined but a leading hypothesis is that such cells are involved in allogeneic immune surveillance. In a sense, haploidentical fetal cells crossing over during pregnancy might serve as a natural version of microtransplant. As support that microchimeric populations of cells can be immunologically active participants in graft-versus-tumor effects absent of any concomitant graft-versus-host disease, Guo, et al recently reported that haploidentical related donor hematopoietic cell microtransplantation without an adequate conditioning regimen or immunoprophylaxis was an effective form of consolidative therapy for acute myelogenous leukemia with clear demonstration of graft-versus-tumor and host-versus graft effects10. Moving forward and with additional studies, we pose the question whether primed or unaltered haploidentical cell infusions, possibly using child-origin cells could be considered as form of immunotherapy for women at high risk of breast cancer recurrence following otherwise definitive therapy for in situ or invasive disease.

Methods

Ethical considerations

Research subjects originally signed consent forms approved by the Roswell Park Institutional Review Board at the time of enrolment into the Data Bank and BioRepository8. Because only non-identifiable specimens were provided to investigators, the current research is considered non-human subjects research.

Fetal microchimerism testing

Each genomic DNA specimen was estimated for total DNA content and purity by spectrophotometry. Presence and quantity of fetal microchimerism was determined by targeting the y-chromosome sequence DYS14 by PCR11. Briefly and with attention to modifications of the original technique, aliquots of genomic DNA (2–3.5 × 104), were tested using TaqMan chemistry performed on an ABI PRISM 7900 PCR rig for beta-globin (2 aliquots) to determine total proband genomes and for DYS14 (6 aliquots) to determine total microchimeric genomes present. Amplifications for total and microchimeric genomic DNA were plotted against calibration curves for both the beta-globin and DYS14 assays to determine quantities and final results were expressed as a ratio of microchimeric cells per 1.0 × 105 maternal genomic equivalents. All genomics workflow was performed by a single female operator (JKE) blinded to case-control status of specimens to prevent laboratory contamination of male DNA sequences and bias, respectively.

Statistical analysis

Differences in subject characteristics between CIS cases and controls were assessed via t-test for continuous variables and Chi-squared test for categorical factors. Pre-study power calculations for the primary analysis of presence of microchimerism informed that 100 case and control specimens each provided 83% power to detect a 0.2 prevalence difference from the assumed-true rate of 0.5 in controls, based on a chi-squared test with 2-sided type I error level of 5%. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the association between the primary outcome of disease status and the presence of fetal microchimerism. Subset analyses were performed according to number of children and age at first birth; exact logistic regression was used for analysis in small samples. Fetal microchimerism concentrations were also analyzed by disease status. By definition, microchimeric cells occur at low concentrations; therefore the data distribution is skewed to the right and approximates a Poisson distribution. For this reason, we analyzed the concentrations as the outcome in log-linear regression models, estimating a rate of microchimerism detection as the number of genome equivalents of fetal DNA as a proportion of the number of maternal cells tested. Negative-binomial models were fit to account for the higher level of variability in the data than expected in a Poisson model; interpretation of the resulting estimates is identical to those of a Poisson model. Factors examined as potential confounders or effect modifiers included age, body mass index (BMI), education, moderate exercise (none, low, and high, defined as at least 30 minutes per session on 3 or more days/week), 1st degree family history of breast cancer, age at menarche, age at first birth, number of births, history of breastfeeding, menopausal status, and menopausal female hormone use. Covariates were selected a priori based on having an established or suspected causal association with breast cancer incidence. We also considered the number of cell equivalents tested for detection of fetal microchimerism as a potential confounder. A factor was defined as a confounder if there was a discrepancy of 10% or more in the estimated coefficient of interest between the multivariable model including the factor and the model without it. Additional analyses were conducted to examine whether CIS-specific features were associated with fetal microchimerism prevalence among the cases. Presence of fetal microchimerism was treated as a binary outcome in logistic regression models, with various disease characteristics as the predictors. P-values from regression models were derived from the Wald test or an exact binomial test for small sample sizes in prevalence analysis. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons. Analyses were performed on SAS software version 9 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC).

Author Contributions

J.K.E., K.A.G., G.Z. and V.K.G. participated in the design of the experiments, analysis of results, and writing of the manuscript. J.K.E. performed all bench experiments.
  11 in total

1.  Fetal microchimerism in women with breast cancer.

Authors:  Vijayakrishna K Gadi; J Lee Nelson
Journal:  Cancer Res       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 12.701

2.  Fetal microchimerism in breast from women with and without breast cancer.

Authors:  Vijayakrishna K Gadi
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2009-09-19       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Opposite effects of microchimerism on breast and colon cancer.

Authors:  Mads Kamper-Jørgensen; Robert J Biggar; Anne Tjønneland; Henrik Hjalgrim; Niels Kroman; Klaus Rostgaard; Casey L Stamper; Anja Olsen; Anne-Marie N Andersen; Vijayakrishna K Gadi
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 9.162

4.  Establishing a cancer center data bank and biorepository for multidisciplinary research.

Authors:  Christine B Ambrosone; Mary K Nesline; Warren Davis
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.254

5.  Long-term outcomes of invasive ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after lumpectomy in NSABP B-17 and B-24 randomized clinical trials for DCIS.

Authors:  Irene L Wapnir; James J Dignam; Bernard Fisher; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Stewart J Anderson; Thomas B Julian; Stephanie R Land; Richard G Margolese; Sandra M Swain; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-03-11       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 6.  Prevention of cancers of the breast, endometrium and ovary.

Authors:  Malcolm C Pike; Celeste Leigh Pearce; Anna H Wu
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2004-08-23       Impact factor: 9.867

7.  HLA-mismatched stem-cell microtransplantation as postremission therapy for acute myeloid leukemia: long-term follow-up.

Authors:  Mei Guo; Kai-Xun Hu; Guang-Xian Liu; Chang-Lin Yu; Jian-Hui Qiao; Qi-Yun Sun; Jun-Xiao Qiao; Zheng Dong; Wan-Jun Sun; Xue-Dong Sun; Hong-Li Zuo; Qiu-Hong Man; Zhi-Qing Liu; Tie-Qiang Liu; Hong-Xia Zhao; Ya-Jing Huang; Li Wei; Bing Liu; Juan Wang; Xu-Liang Shen; Hui-Sheng Ai
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-10-08       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Male microchimerism in healthy women and women with scleroderma: cells or circulating DNA? A quantitative answer.

Authors:  Nathalie C Lambert; Y M Dennis Lo; Timothy D Erickson; Tracy S Tylee; Katherine A Guthrie; Daniel E Furst; J Lee Nelson
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2002-10-15       Impact factor: 22.113

9.  Fetal-maternal microchimerism in normal parous females and parous female cancer patients.

Authors:  Gary L Gilmore; Bushra Haq; Richard K Shadduck; Sri Lakshmi Jasthy; John Lister
Journal:  Exp Hematol       Date:  2008-05-27       Impact factor: 3.084

10.  Case-control study of fetal microchimerism and breast cancer.

Authors:  Vijayakrishna K Gadi; Kathleen E Malone; Katherine A Guthrie; Peggy L Porter; J Lee Nelson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Enhancing the accuracy of next-generation sequencing for detecting rare and subclonal mutations.

Authors:  Jesse J Salk; Michael W Schmitt; Lawrence A Loeb
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2018-03-26       Impact factor: 53.242

Review 2.  Fetal Microchimerism in Cancer Protection and Promotion: Current Understanding in Dogs and the Implications for Human Health.

Authors:  Jeffrey N Bryan
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-02-19       Impact factor: 4.009

Review 3.  Novel insights into the link between fetal cell microchimerism and maternal cancers.

Authors:  Valentina Cirello; Laura Fugazzola
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 4.553

4.  Positive effect of fetal cell microchimerism on tumor presentation and outcome in papillary thyroid cancer.

Authors:  Valentina Cirello; Laura Fugazzola
Journal:  Chimerism       Date:  2014

Review 5.  Fetal microchimerism and maternal health: a review and evolutionary analysis of cooperation and conflict beyond the womb.

Authors:  Amy M Boddy; Angelo Fortunato; Melissa Wilson Sayres; Athena Aktipis
Journal:  Bioessays       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 4.345

6.  Genomic signature of parity in the breast of premenopausal women.

Authors:  Julia Santucci-Pereira; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte; Yelena Afanasyeva; Hua Zhong; Michael Slifker; Suraj Peri; Eric A Ross; Ricardo López de Cicco; Yubo Zhai; Theresa Nguyen; Fathima Sheriff; Irma H Russo; Yanrong Su; Alan A Arslan; Pal Bordas; Per Lenner; Janet Åhman; Anna Stina Landström Eriksson; Robert Johansson; Göran Hallmans; Paolo Toniolo; Jose Russo
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2019-03-28       Impact factor: 6.466

7.  Heterogeneous Distribution of Fetal Microchimerism in Local Breast Cancer Environment.

Authors:  Dragos Nemescu; Ramona Gabriela Ursu; Elena Roxana Nemescu; Lucian Negura
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.