J H Norum1, K Andersen, T Sørlie. 1. Department of Genetics, Institute of Cancer Research, Oslo, Norway; Cancer Stem Cell Innovation Centre, Oslo University Hospital, Norwegian Radium Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Wide variability in breast cancer, between patients and within each individual neoplasm, adds confounding complexity to the treatment of the disease. In clinical practice, hormone receptor status has been used to classify breast tumours and to guide treatment. Modern classification systems should take the wide tumour heterogeneity into account to improve patient outcome. METHODS: This article reviews the identification of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer, their prognostic and therapeutic implications, and the impact of tumour heterogeneity on cancer progression and treatment. The possibility of functionally addressing tumour-specific characteristics in in vivo models to inform decisions for precision therapies is also discussed. RESULTS: Despite the robust breast tumour classification system provided by gene expression profiling, heterogeneity is also evident within these molecular portraits. A complicating factor in breast cancer classification is the process of selective clonality within developing neoplasms. Phenotypically and functionally distinct clones representing the intratumour heterogeneity might confuse molecular classification. Molecular portraits of the heterogeneous primary tumour might not necessarily reflect the subclone of cancer cells that causes the disease to relapse. Studies of reciprocal relationships between cancer cell subpopulations within developing tumours are therefore needed, and are possible only in genetically engineered mouse models or patient-derived xenograft models, in which the treatment-induced selection pressure on individual cell clones can be mimicked. CONCLUSION: In the future, more refined classifications, based on integration of information at several molecular levels, are required to improve treatment guidelines. Large-scale translational research efforts paved the way for identification of the intrinsic subtypes, and are still fundamental for ensuring future progress in cancer care.
BACKGROUND: Wide variability in breast cancer, between patients and within each individual neoplasm, adds confounding complexity to the treatment of the disease. In clinical practice, hormone receptor status has been used to classify breast tumours and to guide treatment. Modern classification systems should take the wide tumour heterogeneity into account to improve patient outcome. METHODS: This article reviews the identification of the intrinsic molecular subtypes of breast cancer, their prognostic and therapeutic implications, and the impact of tumour heterogeneity on cancer progression and treatment. The possibility of functionally addressing tumour-specific characteristics in in vivo models to inform decisions for precision therapies is also discussed. RESULTS: Despite the robust breast tumour classification system provided by gene expression profiling, heterogeneity is also evident within these molecular portraits. A complicating factor in breast cancer classification is the process of selective clonality within developing neoplasms. Phenotypically and functionally distinct clones representing the intratumour heterogeneity might confuse molecular classification. Molecular portraits of the heterogeneous primary tumour might not necessarily reflect the subclone of cancer cells that causes the disease to relapse. Studies of reciprocal relationships between cancer cell subpopulations within developing tumours are therefore needed, and are possible only in genetically engineered mouse models or patient-derived xenograft models, in which the treatment-induced selection pressure on individual cell clones can be mimicked. CONCLUSION: In the future, more refined classifications, based on integration of information at several molecular levels, are required to improve treatment guidelines. Large-scale translational research efforts paved the way for identification of the intrinsic subtypes, and are still fundamental for ensuring future progress in cancer care.
Authors: Ellinor Andersson; Yvonne Arvidsson; Christina Swärd; Tobias Hofving; Bo Wängberg; Erik Kristiansson; Ola Nilsson Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-03-11 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Elizabeth Thompson; Janis M Taube; Hillary Elwood; Rajni Sharma; Alan Meeker; Hind Nassar Warzecha; Pedram Argani; Ashley Cimino-Mathews; Leisha A Emens Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Qi Guo; Marjanka K Schmidt; Peter Kraft; Sander Canisius; Constance Chen; Sofia Khan; Jonathan Tyrer; Manjeet K Bolla; Qin Wang; Joe Dennis; Kyriaki Michailidou; Michael Lush; Siddhartha Kar; Jonathan Beesley; Alison M Dunning; Mitul Shah; Kamila Czene; Hatef Darabi; Mikael Eriksson; Diether Lambrechts; Caroline Weltens; Karin Leunen; Stig E Bojesen; Børge G Nordestgaard; Sune F Nielsen; Henrik Flyger; Jenny Chang-Claude; Anja Rudolph; Petra Seibold; Dieter Flesch-Janys; Carl Blomqvist; Kristiina Aittomäki; Rainer Fagerholm; Taru A Muranen; Fergus J Couch; Janet E Olson; Celine Vachon; Irene L Andrulis; Julia A Knight; Gord Glendon; Anna Marie Mulligan; Annegien Broeks; Frans B Hogervorst; Christopher A Haiman; Brian E Henderson; Fredrick Schumacher; Loic Le Marchand; John L Hopper; Helen Tsimiklis; Carmel Apicella; Melissa C Southey; Angela Cox; Simon S Cross; Malcolm W R Reed; Graham G Giles; Roger L Milne; Catriona McLean; Robert Winqvist; Katri Pylkäs; Arja Jukkola-Vuorinen; Mervi Grip; Maartje J Hooning; Antoinette Hollestelle; John W M Martens; Ans M W van den Ouweland; Federik Marme; Andreas Schneeweiss; Rongxi Yang; Barbara Burwinkel; Jonine Figueroa; Stephen J Chanock; Jolanta Lissowska; Elinor J Sawyer; Ian Tomlinson; Michael J Kerin; Nicola Miller; Hermann Brenner; Aida Karina Dieffenbach; Volker Arndt; Bernd Holleczek; Arto Mannermaa; Vesa Kataja; Veli-Matti Kosma; Jaana M Hartikainen; Jingmei Li; Judith S Brand; Keith Humphreys; Peter Devilee; Rob A E M Tollenaar; Caroline Seynaeve; Paolo Radice; Paolo Peterlongo; Bernardo Bonanni; Paolo Mariani; Peter A Fasching; Matthias W Beckmann; Alexander Hein; Arif B Ekici; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Rosemary Balleine; Kelly-Anne Phillips; Javier Benitez; M Pilar Zamora; Jose Ignacio Arias Perez; Primitiva Menéndez; Anna Jakubowska; Jan Lubinski; Katarzyna Jaworska-Bieniek; Katarzyna Durda; Ute Hamann; Maria Kabisch; Hans Ulrich Ulmer; Thomas Rüdiger; Sara Margolin; Vessela Kristensen; Silje Nord; D Gareth Evans; Jean E Abraham; Helena M Earl; Louise Hiller; Janet A Dunn; Sarah Bowden; Christine Berg; Daniele Campa; W Ryan Diver; Susan M Gapstur; Mia M Gaudet; Susan E Hankinson; Robert N Hoover; Anika Hüsing; Rudolf Kaaks; Mitchell J Machiela; Walter Willett; Myrto Barrdahl; Federico Canzian; Suet-Feung Chin; Carlos Caldas; David J Hunter; Sara Lindstrom; Montserrat García-Closas; Per Hall; Douglas F Easton; Diana M Eccles; Nazneen Rahman; Heli Nevanlinna; Paul D P Pharoah Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Indira V Chivukula; Daniel Ramsköld; Helena Storvall; Charlotte Anderberg; Shaobo Jin; Veronika Mamaeva; Cecilia Sahlgren; Kristian Pietras; Rickard Sandberg; Urban Lendahl Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 6.466