Literature DB >> 25702787

Epidermal growth factor receptor and AKT1 gene copy numbers by multi-gene fluorescence in situ hybridization impact on prognosis in breast cancer.

Jiao Li1, Wei Su1, Sheng Zhang1, Yunhui Hu1, Jingjing Liu1, Xiaobei Zhang1, Jingchao Bai1, Weiping Yuan2, Linping Hu2, Tao Cheng2, Anders Zetterberg3, Zhenmin Lei4, Jin Zhang1.   

Abstract

The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)/PI3K/AKT signaling pathway aberrations play significant roles in breast cancer occurrence and development. However, the status of EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers remains unclear. In this study, we showed that the rates of EGFR and AKT1 gene copy number alterations were associated with the prognosis of breast cancer. Among 205 patients, high EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers were observed in 34.6% and 27.8% of cases by multi-gene fluorescence in situ hybridization, respectively. Co-heightened EGFR/AKT1 gene copy numbers were identified in 11.7% cases. No changes were found in 49.3% of patients. Although changes in EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers had no correlation with patients' age, tumor stage, histological grade and the expression status of other molecular makers, high EGFR (P = 0.0002) but not AKT1 (P = 0.1177) gene copy numbers correlated with poor 5-year overall survival. The patients with co-heightened EGFR/AKT1 gene copy numbers displayed a poorer prognosis than those with tumors with only high EGFR gene copy numbers (P = 0.0383). Both Univariate (U) and COX multivariate (C) analyses revealed that high EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers (P = 0.000 [U], P = 0.0001 [C]), similar to histological grade (P = 0.001 [U], P = 0.012 [C]) and lymph node metastasis (P = 0.046 [U], P = 0.158 [C]), were independent prognostic indicators of 5-year overall survival. These results indicate that high EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers were relatively frequent in breast cancer. Co-heightened EGFR/AKT1 gene copy numbers had a worse outcome than those with only high EGFR gene copy numbers, suggesting that evaluation of these two genes together may be useful for selecting patients for anti-EGFR-targeted therapy or anti-EGFR/AKT1-targeted therapy and for predicting outcomes.
© 2015 The Authors. Cancer Science published by Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd on behalf of Japanese Cancer Association.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AKT1; breast cancer; epidermal growth factor receptor; gene copy number; survival analysis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25702787      PMCID: PMC4452167          DOI: 10.1111/cas.12637

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Sci        ISSN: 1347-9032            Impact factor:   6.716


Much progress has been made to determine gene copy number alterations and to assess their biological consequences. It is known that gene copy number alterations are frequently observed in solid tumors. Changes in the gene copy numbers can have a remarkable impact on tumor development through gene copy number-induced alterations of gene expression. Over the past 20 years, study of the molecular characteristics and genomic structure of breast cancer has attracted a great deal of interest.1–4 Increasing evidence indicates that a number of gene copy number aberrations correlate with poor survival in breast cancer patients. Thus, determination of specific gene copy number changes and identification of specific aneuploidy status are considerably significant for the diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer. The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene, which is located at chromosome 7p12, was the first tyrosine kinase transmembrane receptor to be directly linked with human cancers.5 The EGFR signaling plays important roles in the regulation of multiple cellular processes, including cell proliferation, apoptosis, angiogenesis and metastasis.6 The effects on cell proliferation and survival are known to be mediated by phosphatidylinositol-4, 5-bisphosphate 3-kinase (PI3K)/protein kinase B (AKT) pathways.7,8 Studies have demonstrated that overexpression of EGFR is frequent in triple-negative breast cancer and is associated with a poor prognosis.9,10 However, the EGFR gene amplification is rare and cannot account for the EGFR overexpression that is commonly found in breast cancer.11,12 Recent studies indicate that an increase in EGFR gene copy number caused by aneuploidy is common in metastatic breast cancer, suggesting that heightened EGFR gene copy numbers may attribute to its overexpression in breast cancer.13 Currently, EGFR has been selected as a molecular therapeutic target for several cancers, such as colorectal cancer, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC). Patients with EGFR gene mutations or increased gene copy numbers are more sensitive to anti-EGFR therapies, including tyrosine kinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies.14,15 With the development of various types of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors, EGFR is becoming a potential target for the treatment of breast carcinomas.16 The capability of selecting drug-sensitive breast cancer types, such as in patients with increased EGFR gene copy numbers, would be essential for achieving effective personalized cancer therapy. AKT1 (commonly called AKT) is an important downstream effector that mediates EGFR/PI3K signals to modulate diverse cellular events. Activation of the AKT1 signaling pathway is a significant contributor to the pathogenesis of cancer.17 Upregulation of AKT1 has been found in a number of cancers, including gastric, prostatic, ovarian and breast carcinomas, and this upregulation is often associated with poor prognosis.18–20 AKT1 gene amplification is one of the underlying mechanisms that cause AKT1 overexpression in sporadic cases of lung, gastric, breast and prostate carcinomas. However, AKT1 gene amplification only accounts for 1% of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast carcinomas.21 Whether or not gene copy number alterations induce AKT1 overexpression in breast cancer is currently unknown. Due to a low resolution of common methods, such as comparative genomic hybridization, the ability to precisely determine multiple gene copy numbers is limited. The latest molecular techniques, such as multi-gene FISH (M-FISH), have made a high-resolution analysis of DNA copy numbers possible. The M-FISH technique can simultaneously identify the changes in DNA copy numbers of multiple genes in a single cell, which provides a new and effective platform for genetic studies of breast cancer.22 The primary goals of the present study were to evaluate the rates of EGFR and AKT1gene copy number alterations by M-FISH and their association with the well-established prognostic parameters in breast cancer.

Materials and Methods

Clinical samples

A total of 223 randomly selected surgical pathology mammary specimens were collected from female patients with pathologically diagnosed primary breast invasive carcinoma who were admitted to Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital (Tianjin, China) during August 2007 to August 2008. Eight cases were excluded because they had biopsies performed in other hosptials or received new adjuvant chemotherapy. Ten cases failed to follow up (the deaths unrelated to breast cancer within 5 years were regarded as failed to follow up). As such, there were 205 cases in this study. All specimens were fixed with 10% formaldehyde, dehydrated, and then embedded in paraffin. Paraffin sections were sliced at 4-μm thickness. All patients were followed up by telephone calls, letter interviews or clinic visitations every quarter during the first 2 years of the study and semi-annually thereafter. Breast cancer death was regarded as the follow-up end, and the cut-off time was 5 years from the first diagnosis. The overall survival (OS) rate was defined as from the first operation to death caused by breast cancer or 5 years until the end of follow up. The pathological characteristics as listed in Table1 of these breast cancer patients enrolled in this study were obtained from Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital. This study involving human subjects was approved by an institutional review board of Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital.
Table 1

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and AKT1 gene copy number alterations detected by M-FISH

GeneLow gene copy number (%)High gene copy number (%)
DisomyLow trisomyHigh trisomyLow polysomyHigh polysomyGene amplification
EGFR78 (38.0)7 (3.4)5 (2.4)44 (21.5)65 (31.7)6 (2.9)
AKT186 (41.9)5 (2.4)11 (5.4)46 (22.4)53 (25.9)4 (1.9)
Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and AKT1 gene copy number alterations detected by M-FISH

Preparation of probes

The UCSC (University of California, Santa Cruz) genome browser database (http://genome.ucsc.edu/) was used to design probes for all genes. All probes are bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) plasmid DNA. Two to three different but continuous binding sites were chosen for every gene to boost the hybridization signal and enhance resolution. BAC clones RP11-339F13 and RP11-815K24, and CTD-3022N7, RP11-150I16 and RP11-817G24, which encompass EGFR (7p11.2) and AKT1 (14q32.33) genes, respectively, were used. The reference probes that were adjacent to the centromeres included RP11-203M5 (14q11.2) for AKT1, and RP11-251I15 and RP11-97P11 (7p11.1-11.2) for EGFR. A plasmid purification kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany) was used to extract these BAC plasmid DNA according to the instructions suggested by the manufacturer. The plasmid DNA were digested with EcoRI (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA). The purified DNA fragments to be used as probes were labeled by nick translation with the following four different color fluorophores: PromoFluor-590-aadUTP (red) for EGFR probes, PromoFluor-415-aadUTP (light blue) for AKT1 probes, PromoFluor-555-aadUTP (orange) for chromosome 14 centromere probe (PromoKine, Heidelberg, Germany) and Green dUTP (green) for chromosome 7 centromere probe (Abbott Molecular, Abbott Park, IL, USA). The specificity and sensitivity of these probes were verified using human dermal fibroblast (HDF) cell line prior to hybridization with breast cancer samples.

FISH

The dewaxed sections were heated at 65°C for 1 h, treated with dimethyl benzene three times for 15 min each and then washed with 100% ethanol twice. Subsequently, the sections were rehydrated in a decreasing ethanol gradient and distilled H2O, incubated in 0.2 M HCl at room temperature (RT) for 10 min, washed with PBS for 5 min and incubated in 0.01 M citrate buffer at 80°C for 1 h, followed by a rinse with 2× salinesodium citrate buffer (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) and distilled H2O. The processed sections were treated with 300 μL pre-warmed pepsin solution (0.25 mg/mL pepsin and 0.01 M HCl) at 37°C for 10 min, washed with 2× saline-sodium citrate buffer (SSC) twice for 5 min each, fixed with 0.4% methanol for 10 min followed by a wash with PBS and dehydrated through an increasing ethanol gradient. The sections were then air-dried at RT. Each prepared section was incubated with 10 μL of the probes, covered with a cover slip and placed in the StatSpin Thermo Brite hybridization system (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, USA) under the following conditions: denatured at 90°C for 10 min and hybridized at 47°C for 48 h. After hybridization, the samples were washed with saline sodium phosphate-EDTA (Invitrogen, Grand Island, NY, USA) for 5 min at 47°C and again at 55°C for 10 min. The dehydrated and air-dried sections were counterstained with DAPI, and coverslips were mounted with an aqueous mounting medium and stored in a dark box at 4°C.

Image acquisition and analysis

The hybridized sections were examined and imaged under a Zeiss Axioplan2 laser-scanning confocal microscope (Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany). The microscope was equipped with a high-resolution charge-coupled device camera and a computer loaded with Axio Vision software for image analysis. Fields were chosen within the DAPI stained nuclear outline (dark blue), and the position was recorded for image acquisition. Images of DAPI, Green, Cy3v1, Texas Red and Zeiss PF415 were taken with a ×630 objective lens. Each field was documented for 30 slices and then merged using the background extension. At least 100 non-overlapping tumor cells were scored per sample, and the signals of EGFR (Red), AKT1 (light Blue), chromosome 14 centromere (Orange) and chromosome 7 centromere (Green) were recorded, respectively. The following criteria were used to assess the alterations of EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers, as described previously:23,24 disomy (≤2 copies in >90% of cells); low trisomy (≤2 copies in ≥40% of cells, three copies in 10–40% of cells and ≥4 copies in <10% of cells); high trisomy (≤2 copies in ≥40% of cells, three copies in ≥40% of cells and ≥4 copies in <10% of cells); low polysomy (≥4copies in 10–40% of cells); high polysomy (≥4 copies in ≥40% of cells) and gene amplification (presence of tight gene clusters and a ratio of the gene copies to chromosome 7 centromere [EGFR] or chromosome 14 centromere [AKT1] was ≥2, or ≥15 copies of the gene per cell in ≥10% of cells). The results were classified into two major groups, high and low for analyses of their associations with clinicopathological characteristics of these breast cancer patients. A high EGFR or high AKT1 gene copy number group includes high polysomy and gene amplification, and a low EGFR or low AKT1 gene copy number group consists of disomy, low trisomy, high trisomy and low polysomy.

Statistical analyses

IBM SPSS Statistics Version 21 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA) and Graphpad 5.0 (Graphpad Software, San Diego, CA, USA) were used to analyze the data. Pearson's χ2-test with cross tables or Fisher's exact test was applied for evaluation of comparisons between high EGFR or AKT1 copy number and clinicopathological features. Kaplan–Meier life tables with log-rank testing were plotted to assess OS at the optimal cut point and prognostic multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox regression model. A P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Clinicopathological analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor and AKT1 gene copy numbers in breast carcinomas

As shown in Figure1, discrete and robust FISH signals were detected using the probes prepared from BAC clones RP11-339F13 and RP11-815K24 (EGFR), CTD-3022N7, RP11-150I16 and RP11-817G24 (AKT1), RP11-203M5 (chromosome 14 centromere) and RP11-251I15 and RP11-97P11 (chromosome 7 centromere) in dividing nuclei of HDF cells. Hence, these four different color fluorophore-labeled probes were chosen for M-FISH in breast cancer tissue sections.
Fig 1

Verification of the specificity and sensitivity of these FISH probes in human dermal fibroblast (HDF) at division phase. (a) DAPI stained HDF nucleus; (b) chromosome 14 centromere hybridized by RP11-203M5 (orange color); (c) chromosome 7 centromere hybridized by RP11-251I15 and RP11-97P11 (green color); (d) the epidermal growth factor receptor gene hybridized by RP11-339F13 and RP11-815K24 (red color); (e) the AKT1 gene hybridized by CTD-3022N7, RP11-150I16 and RP11-817G24 (light blue color); and (f) composed picture of a, b, c, d and e.

Verification of the specificity and sensitivity of these FISH probes in human dermal fibroblast (HDF) at division phase. (a) DAPI stained HDF nucleus; (b) chromosome 14 centromere hybridized by RP11-203M5 (orange color); (c) chromosome 7 centromere hybridized by RP11-251I15 and RP11-97P11 (green color); (d) the epidermal growth factor receptor gene hybridized by RP11-339F13 and RP11-815K24 (red color); (e) the AKT1 gene hybridized by CTD-3022N7, RP11-150I16 and RP11-817G24 (light blue color); and (f) composed picture of a, b, c, d and e. Epidermal growth factor receptor, AKT1, chromosome 7 centromere and chromosome 14 centromere DNA copies were clearly and specifically detected by the corresponding probes in the nuclei of breast cancer cells using M-FISH (Fig.2). The six karyotypes and numbers of patients in each type of EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers are summarized in Table1. Among 205 female patients with breast cancer analyzed, high EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers were observed in 71 (34.6%) and 57 (27.8%) cases, respectively. Twenty-four (11.7%) cases were identified with co-heightened EGFR/AKT1 gene copy numbers. No changes in either gene were found in 101 (49.3%) patients. Clinicopathological analysis showed that the EGFR and AKT1 copy numbers were not significantly associated with the age at diagnosis, pathological T (pT) stage, lymph node metastasis, histologic grade, estrogen receptor and progesterone receptor (PR) status, HER2 status, Ki-67 proliferation index, p53 overexpression and the subtypes (Table2).
Fig 2

Alterations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and AKT1 gene copy numbers in breast cancer cells detected by M-FISH. The images show that the four-color probes detect EGFR gene (red), chromosome 7 centromere (green), AKT1 gene (light blue) and chromosome14 centromere (orange) in the nuclei (dark blue) of breast cancer cells. Representative FISH pictures (a–d) for different types of alternations are shown: (a) low EGFR/low AKT1 gene copy numbers; (b) high EGFR/low AKT1 gene copy numbers; (c) low EGFR/high AKT1 gene copy numbers; and (d) high EGFR/high AKT1 gene copy numbers.

Table 2

Summary of the relationship between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and AKT1 gene copy number alterations and the patients' clinical-pathological characteristics

Clinical-pathological characteristicsCopy number
Low EGFR/Low AKT1 (%)High EGFR/Low AKT1 (%)Low EGFR/High AKT1 (%)High EGFR/High AKT1 (%) P
Age (years)
  <6045 (48.4)25 (26.9)17 (18.3)6 (6.5)0.127
  ≥6056 (50.0)22 (19.6)16 (14.3)18 (16.1)
pT stage
  pT1, pT293 (51.7)40 (22.2)26 (14.4)21 (11.7)0.208
  pT3, pT48 (32.0)7 (28.0)7 (28.0)3 (12.0)
Lymph node metastasis
  Positive27 (39.7)19 (27.9)15 (22.1)7 (10.3)0.143
  Negative74 (54.0)28 (20.4)18 (13.1)17 (12.4)
Histologic grade
  II74 (53.2)28 (20.1)21 (15.1)16 (11.5)0.374
  III27 (40.9)19 (28.8)12 (18.2)8 (12.1)
ER
  Positive72 (48.3)37 (24.8)25 (16.8)15 (10.1)0.499
  Negative29 (51.8)10 (17.9)8 (14.3)9 (16.1)
PR
  Positive66 (48.9)33 (24.4)19 (14.1)17 (12.6)0.642
  Negative35 (50.0)14 (20.0)14 (20.0)7 (10.0)
HER2 status
  Positive24 (40.0)12 (20.0)13 (21.7)11 (18.3)0.085
  Negative77 (53.1)35 (24.1)20 (13.8)13 (9.0)
Ki-67 proliferation index
  <14%68 (56.7)23 (19.2)18 (15.0)11 (9.2)0.078
  ≥14%33 (38.8)24 (28.2)15 (17.6)13 (15.3)
P53 overexpression
  Positive70 (47.0)31 (20.8)3 (5.4)6 (10.7)0.065
  Negative31 (55.4)16 (28.6)33 (20.1)18 (12.1)
Subtypes
  Luminal A61 (52.6)30 (25.9)15 (12.9)10 (8.6)0.112
  Luminal B23 (42.6)11 (20.4)12 (22.2)8 (14.8)
  HER21 (16.7)1 (16.7)1 (16.7)3 (50.0)
  Triple-negative16 (55.2)5 (17.2)5 (17.2)3 (10.3)

ER,estrogen receptor; PR,progesterone receptor; pT,pathological T.

Summary of the relationship between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and AKT1 gene copy number alterations and the patients' clinical-pathological characteristics ER,estrogen receptor; PR,progesterone receptor; pT,pathological T. Alterations of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and AKT1 gene copy numbers in breast cancer cells detected by M-FISH. The images show that the four-color probes detect EGFR gene (red), chromosome 7 centromere (green), AKT1 gene (light blue) and chromosome14 centromere (orange) in the nuclei (dark blue) of breast cancer cells. Representative FISH pictures (a–d) for different types of alternations are shown: (a) low EGFR/low AKT1 gene copy numbers; (b) high EGFR/low AKT1 gene copy numbers; (c) low EGFR/high AKT1 gene copy numbers; and (d) high EGFR/high AKT1 gene copy numbers.

Relationship between epidermal growth factor receptor and AKT1 gene copy numbers and the prognosis of breast cancers

Univariate survival analysis revealed that co-existing high gene copy numbers of EGFR and AKT1 (P < 0.0001), lymph node metastasis (P = 0.046) and histologic grade (P = 0.001) were prognostic factors that affected patients' 5-year OS. Although high EGFR (P = 0.0002) but not high AKT1 (P = 0.1177) gene copy numbers significantly affected patients' 5-year OS, co-heightened EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers displayed a worse prognosis than tumors with high EGFR gene copy number alone (P = 0.0383) (Fig.3). COX multivariate analysis of EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers (P = 0.0001) and histologic grade (III versus II; hazard ratio, 1.918; 95% confidence interval, 1.154–3.189; P = 0.012) showed that high EGFR/high AKT1 gene copy numbers and high histologic grade were significantly associated with a poor prognosis for breast cancers and remained as independent prognostic indicators of poor 5-year OS for the patients (Table3).
Fig 3

Kaplan–Meier analyses of the association of patient overall survival rate (OS) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and AKT1gene copy numbers in breast cancers. (a) Cases with high EGFR gene copy number show significantly poorer 5-year OS compared to subjects with low EGFR copy number (P = 0.0002). (b) Alterations of AKT1 gene copy number do not significantly affect patient 5-year OS (P = 0.1177). (c) Breast cancers with co-heightened EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers exhibit a worse prognosis than those with only heightened EGFR gene copy number (P = 0.0383). (d) Breast cancers with co-heightened EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers display a worse prognosis than those with low copy numbers of both EGFR and AKT1genes (P < 0.0001).

Table 3

Univariate and multivariate analyses for overall survival

VariablesUnivariate analysis P-valueMultivariate analysis
P-valueHR95% CI
EGFR and AKT1 copy number0.00000.0001
 High/high versus low/low0.00000.00014.3192.101–8.880
 High/low versus low/low0.00020.00102.8081.495–5.274
 Low/high versus low/low0.11770.51501.3210.572–3.050
 High/low versus high/high0.03830.21200.6500.331–1.278
pT stage (T3,T4 versus T1,T2)0.451
Histologic grade (III versus II)0.0010.0121.9181.154–3.189
Lymph node metastasis (pos versus neg)0.0460.1581.4420.867–2.397
ER status (pos versus neg)0.090
PR status (pos versus neg)0.408
Her-2 status (pos versus neg)0.145
Ki-67 index (≥14% versus < 14%)0.291
P53 overexpression (pos versus neg)0.804
Subtypes0.167

CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; neg, negative; pos, positive; ER,estrogen receptor; PR,progesterone receptor; pT,pathological T.

Univariate and multivariate analyses for overall survival CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; neg, negative; pos, positive; ER,estrogen receptor; PR,progesterone receptor; pT,pathological T. Kaplan–Meier analyses of the association of patient overall survival rate (OS) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and AKT1gene copy numbers in breast cancers. (a) Cases with high EGFR gene copy number show significantly poorer 5-year OS compared to subjects with low EGFR copy number (P = 0.0002). (b) Alterations of AKT1 gene copy number do not significantly affect patient 5-year OS (P = 0.1177). (c) Breast cancers with co-heightened EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers exhibit a worse prognosis than those with only heightened EGFR gene copy number (P = 0.0383). (d) Breast cancers with co-heightened EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers display a worse prognosis than those with low copy numbers of both EGFR and AKT1genes (P < 0.0001).

Discussion

Breast cancer has become the world's highest incidence of female cancer.25 Breast cancer is a complex, multi-step process and is associated with multiple genes. A better understanding of these genetic alterations can provide a more accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment options for patients. Dysregulation of the EGFR/PI3K/AKT1 signaling pathway promotes tumor angiogenesis, progress, invasion and metastasis. Growing evidence indicates that gene copy number alterations are closely related to inappropriate activation of the EGFR/PI3K/AKT1 cascade in various tumors. EGFR gene amplification and high EGFR expression have been recognized as biological predictors of poor prognosis for breast carcinoma, HNSCC and NSCLC.26–28 However, the significance of EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers in breast cancer has not been well characterized. In two cohort studies, Gilbert et al. and Reis-Filho et al.13,29 report that high EGFR gene copy numbers in metastatic breast carcinomas were 26% and 28%, respectively. The current study evaluated the frequency of EGFR and AKT1 gene copy number alterations in 205 female patients with breast cancer and their clinical implications for prognosis. Our data showed that an increase in EGFR gene copy numbers in breast cancer is frequent (34.6%), but the frequency of gene amplification is uncommon (2.9%), which is consistent with the findings reported by Lv et al.30 Our findings also demonstrated that patients with high EGFR gene copy numbers were associated with reduced OS compared to those patients whose tumors showed low EGFR and AKT1 gene copy number (P = 0.0002). AKT1 is a serine/threonine kinase. It can be activated by EGFR/PI3K signaling cascade through site-specific phosphorylation. Activated AKT1 plays important roles in regulation of several cellular functions. It has been well established that aberrant overactivation of AKT1 signaling promotes tumor growth.31 In a previous study, researchers found that 6% of lung carcinomas exhibited AKT1gene amplification and 7% exhibited high-level polysomy of chromosome 14.32 Other studies have shown AKT1 amplification in 20% of gastric cancers.33 The impact of changes in AKT1 gene copy number on OS of these cancers is not yet fully elucidated. Our current data revealed that high AKT1 gene copy numbers in breast cancer are relatively common (27.8%), but the frequency of AKT1 gene amplification is very low (1.9%). However, univariate analyses did not find significant association of high AKT1 gene copy number and reduced OS compared to those patients with any status of EGFR gene copy numbers (P = 0.1177). Interestingly, the present study did find that patients with co-heightened EGFR/AKT1 gene copy numbers had a poorer prognosis than those only showing a high EGFR copy number (P = 0.0383). Spears et al.34 recently reported that excessive AKT1 activation in breast cancer was associated with decreased OS compared to other patients. Because AKT1 can be activated by the EGFR signaling to enhance cancer cell survival, it is possible that the AKT1 activity may be further exaggerated due to the augment of both EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers and result in a worse 5-year OS than patients with an increase in EGFR gene copy numbers alone. These findings suggest that analysis of the alterations of both EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers together may provide better molecular classifications of breast cancers and facilitate the decision-making for individual therapeutic plans. A number of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors such as gefitinib, erlotinib and other targeted drugs have been produced during the past decades. Several selective AKT1 inhibitors are also under investigation.35,36 Determining the best way to select patients who are sensitive to these targeted drugs in order to improve the prognosis of patients has become a research focus. Previous studies have found that EGFR protein expression measured by immunohistochemistry does not correlate with EGFR gene copy number status determined by FISH assay in metaplastic breast carcinomas.13 A number of clinical studies demonstrate that the gene copy number status rather than the protein expression of EGFR is a critical parameter for selection of cancer patients to receive anti-EGFR therapy. Promising results obtained from studies in solid tumors, both squamous and non-squamous, reveal that whether an increase in the EGFR gene copy numbers is present or not may forecast the outcome of anti-EGFR therapies.37,38 Cappuzzo et al.39 report a decrease in mortality of NSCLC patients with high EGFR gene copy numbers who received gefitinib treatment. A recent study reported that an increase in EGFR gene copy numbers is likely to be a suitable marker for identification of a subset of breast cancer patients who are particularly responsive to the dual tyrosine kinase inhibitor lapatinib.40 In the present study, the breast cancer patients with high EGFR gene copy numbers had a poor prognosis. It stands to reason that the 5-year OS can be improved if these patients are placed under anti-EGFR therapy. More importantly, our study further demonstrated that there was an even worse prognosis if both high EGFR and high AKT1 gene copy numbers are present, which is tempting us to speculate that a combination of anti-EGFR and anti-AKT1 treatment of these breast cancer patients may meliorate the 5-year OS. In line with this speculation, an additive suppression of cell growth with combined administration of EGFR and AKT1 inhibitors compared to individual treatments has been observed in breast cancer MCF-7 cells that are forced to overexpress both EGFR and AKT1 (our unpublished data). The present study suggests that the use of M-FISH to simultaneously detect both EGFR and AKT1 gene copy numbers is an effective approach to identify patients who may benefit from anti-EGFR or both anti-EGFR and anti-AKT1 therapy. We are currently carrying out laboratory and clinical studies to validate this conjecture. PI3KCA mutations are common in breast cancer and these mutations might confer the sensitivity to inhibitors as anti-EGFR or anti-AKT1, although the relationship of PI3KCA mutations and prognosis of breast cancer patients has not been unequivocally reported.41–45 Due to the very small number of breast cancer patients with co-heightened EGFR/AKT1 gene copy numbers found in the current study, whether there is a significant co-existence of PI3KCA mutations and EGFR/AKT gene number alterations in breast cancer patients is not analyzed. This is warranted to be investigated in the future.
  45 in total

Review 1.  The descriptive epidemiology of female breast cancer: an international comparison of screening, incidence, survival and mortality.

Authors:  Danny R Youlden; Susanna M Cramb; Nathan A M Dunn; Jennifer M Muller; Christopher M Pyke; Peter D Baade
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol       Date:  2012-03-27       Impact factor: 2.984

2.  Intratumoral expression level of epidermal growth factor receptor and cytokeratin 5/6 is significantly associated with nodal and distant metastases in patients with basal-like triple-negative breast carcinoma.

Authors:  Lisa M Sutton; Jeong S Han; Kyle H Molberg; Venetia R Sarode; Dengfeng Cao; Dinesh Rakheja; Joseph Sailors; Yan Peng
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.493

Review 3.  Targeting PI3K signalling in cancer: opportunities, challenges and limitations.

Authors:  Jeffrey A Engelman
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 60.716

Review 4.  PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway as a therapeutic target for ovarian cancer.

Authors:  HaiXia Li; JianFang Zeng; Keng Shen
Journal:  Arch Gynecol Obstet       Date:  2014-08-03       Impact factor: 2.344

Review 5.  Drug discovery approaches targeting the PI3K/Akt pathway in cancer.

Authors:  C Garcia-Echeverria; W R Sellers
Journal:  Oncogene       Date:  2008-09-18       Impact factor: 9.867

6.  Molecular alterations in AKT1, AKT2 and AKT3 detected in breast and prostatic cancer by FISH.

Authors:  Tove Kirkegaard; Caroline J Witton; Joanne Edwards; Kirsten Vang Nielsen; Linda Boye Jensen; Fiona M Campbell; Timothy G Cooke; John M S Bartlett
Journal:  Histopathology       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 5.087

7.  Molecular predictors of outcome with gefitinib and docetaxel in previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer: data from the randomized phase III INTEREST trial.

Authors:  Jean-Yves Douillard; Frances A Shepherd; Vera Hirsh; Tony Mok; Mark A Socinski; Radj Gervais; Mei-Lin Liao; Helge Bischoff; Martin Reck; Mark V Sellers; Claire L Watkins; Georgina Speake; Alison A Armour; Edward S Kim
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-12-28       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  The landscape of cancer genes and mutational processes in breast cancer.

Authors:  Philip J Stephens; Patrick S Tarpey; Helen Davies; Peter Van Loo; Chris Greenman; David C Wedge; Serena Nik-Zainal; Sancha Martin; Ignacio Varela; Graham R Bignell; Lucy R Yates; Elli Papaemmanuil; David Beare; Adam Butler; Angela Cheverton; John Gamble; Jonathan Hinton; Mingming Jia; Alagu Jayakumar; David Jones; Calli Latimer; King Wai Lau; Stuart McLaren; David J McBride; Andrew Menzies; Laura Mudie; Keiran Raine; Roland Rad; Michael Spencer Chapman; Jon Teague; Douglas Easton; Anita Langerød; Ming Ta Michael Lee; Chen-Yang Shen; Benita Tan Kiat Tee; Bernice Wong Huimin; Annegien Broeks; Ana Cristina Vargas; Gulisa Turashvili; John Martens; Aquila Fatima; Penelope Miron; Suet-Feung Chin; Gilles Thomas; Sandrine Boyault; Odette Mariani; Sunil R Lakhani; Marc van de Vijver; Laura van 't Veer; John Foekens; Christine Desmedt; Christos Sotiriou; Andrew Tutt; Carlos Caldas; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Samuel A J R Aparicio; Anne Vincent Salomon; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Andrea L Richardson; Peter J Campbell; P Andrew Futreal; Michael R Stratton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-05-16       Impact factor: 49.962

9.  Whole-genome analysis informs breast cancer response to aromatase inhibition.

Authors:  Matthew J Ellis; Li Ding; Dong Shen; Jingqin Luo; Vera J Suman; John W Wallis; Brian A Van Tine; Jeremy Hoog; Reece J Goiffon; Theodore C Goldstein; Sam Ng; Li Lin; Robert Crowder; Jacqueline Snider; Karla Ballman; Jason Weber; Ken Chen; Daniel C Koboldt; Cyriac Kandoth; William S Schierding; Joshua F McMichael; Christopher A Miller; Charles Lu; Christopher C Harris; Michael D McLellan; Michael C Wendl; Katherine DeSchryver; D Craig Allred; Laura Esserman; Gary Unzeitig; Julie Margenthaler; G V Babiera; P Kelly Marcom; J M Guenther; Marilyn Leitch; Kelly Hunt; John Olson; Yu Tao; Christopher A Maher; Lucinda L Fulton; Robert S Fulton; Michelle Harrison; Ben Oberkfell; Feiyu Du; Ryan Demeter; Tammi L Vickery; Adnan Elhammali; Helen Piwnica-Worms; Sandra McDonald; Mark Watson; David J Dooling; David Ota; Li-Wei Chang; Ron Bose; Timothy J Ley; David Piwnica-Worms; Joshua M Stuart; Richard K Wilson; Elaine R Mardis
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-06-10       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Epidermal growth factor receptor in breast carcinoma: association between gene copy number and mutations.

Authors:  Ning Lv; Xiaoming Xie; Qidong Ge; Suxia Lin; Xi Wang; Yanan Kong; Hongliu Shi; Xinhua Xie; Weidong Wei
Journal:  Diagn Pathol       Date:  2011-12-02       Impact factor: 2.644

View more
  8 in total

1.  Interaction between CXCR4 and EGFR and downstream PI3K/AKT pathway in lung adenocarcinoma A549 cells and transplanted tumor in nude mice.

Authors:  Juan Wu; Ying Liu; Yaling Ma; Rui Wang; Xiaokun Ji; Yan Zhang; Yun Du
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2020-02-01

2.  Changing molecular profile of brain metastases compared with matched breast primary cancers and impact on clinical outcomes.

Authors:  A H Thomson; J McGrane; J Mathew; J Palmer; D A Hilton; G Purvis; R Jenkins
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-02-23       Impact factor: 7.640

3.  10-Gingerol as an inducer of apoptosis through HTR1A in cumulus cells: In-vitro and in-silico studies.

Authors:  Kiptiyah Kiptiyah; Widodo Widodo; Gatot Ciptadi; Aulanni'am Aulanni'am; Mohammad A Widodo; Sutiman B Sumitro
Journal:  J Taibah Univ Med Sci       Date:  2017-06-23

4.  The Correlation of Mutations and Expressions of Genes within the PI3K/Akt/mTOR Pathway in Breast Cancer-A Preliminary Study.

Authors:  Przemysław Kołodziej; Marcin Nicoś; Paweł A Krawczyk; Jacek Bogucki; Agnieszka Karczmarczyk; Daniel Zalewski; Tomasz Kubrak; Elżbieta Kołodziej; Anna Makuch-Kocka; Barbara Madej-Czerwonka; Bartosz J Płachno; Janusz Kocki; Anna Bogucka-Kocka
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 5.923

5.  The FENDRR/FOXC2 Axis Contributes to Multidrug Resistance in Gastric Cancer and Correlates With Poor Prognosis.

Authors:  Hao Liu; Zhe Zhang; Yanan Han; Ahui Fan; Haiming Liu; Xiangyuan Zhang; Yanhong Liu; Rugang Zhang; Wanning Liu; Yuanyuan Lu; Daiming Fan; Xiaodi Zhao; Yongzhan Nie
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 6.244

6.  Automated 3D scoring of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) using a confocal whole slide imaging scanner.

Authors:  Ziv Frankenstein; Naohiro Uraoka; Umut Aypar; Ruth Aryeequaye; Mamta Rao; Meera Hameed; Yanming Zhang; Yukako Yagi
Journal:  Appl Microsc       Date:  2021-04-09

7.  Clonal phylogeny and evolution of critical cytogenetic aberrations in multiple myeloma at single-cell level by QM-FISH.

Authors:  Yuting Yan; Xiaoqi Qin; Jiahui Liu; Huishou Fan; Wenqiang Yan; Lanting Liu; Chenxing Du; Zhen Yu; Yan Xu; Mu Hao; Shuhui Deng; Weiwei Sui; Rui Lyu; Wei Liu; Qi Wang; Dehui Zou; Linping Hu; Jianxiang Wang; Yu-Tzu Tai; Kenneth C Anderson; Lei Zhang; Tao Cheng; Anders Zetterberg; Nikhil C Munshi; Lugui Qiu; Gang An
Journal:  Blood Adv       Date:  2022-01-25

8.  miR-302a Inhibits Metastasis and Cetuximab Resistance in Colorectal Cancer by Targeting NFIB and CD44.

Authors:  Lina Sun; Ying Fang; Xin Wang; Yanan Han; Feng Du; Cunxi Li; Huaying Hu; Hao Liu; Qi Liu; Jing Wang; Junrong Liang; Ping Chen; Hongbin Yang; Yongzhan Nie; Kaichun Wu; Daiming Fan; Robert J Coffey; Yuanyuan Lu; Xiaodi Zhao; Xin Wang
Journal:  Theranostics       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 11.556

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.