| Literature DB >> 25991917 |
Emila Kurbasic1, Martin Sjöström2, Morten Krogh3, Elin Folkesson2, Dorthe Grabau4, Karin Hansson1, Lisa Rydén5, Sofia Waldemarson1, Peter James1, Emma Niméus6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is a very heterogeneous disease and some patients are cured by the surgical removal of the primary tumour whilst other patients suffer from metastasis and spreading of the disease, despite adjuvant therapy. A number of prognostic and treatment predictive factors have been identified such as tumour size, oestrogen (ER) and progesterone (PgR) receptor status, human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2) status, histological grade, Ki67 and age. Lymph node involvement is also assessed during surgery to determine if the tumour has spread which requires dissection of the axilla and adjuvant treatment. The prognostic and treatment predictive factors assessing the nature of the tumour are all routinely based on the status of the primary tumour.Entities:
Keywords: Biomarkers; Breast cancer; Distant metastases; Glycopeptide capture; Lymph node metastases; Mass spectrometry; Membrane proteins; Secreted proteins
Year: 2015 PMID: 25991917 PMCID: PMC4436114 DOI: 10.1186/s12014-015-9084-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Proteomics ISSN: 1542-6416 Impact factor: 3.988
Patient characteristics
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 14 | 9 |
| with 2 samples | 14 | 7 |
| with 3 samples | 0 | 2 |
| Age, mean, range (years) | 54, 25-79 | 53, 36-68 |
| Site of metastasis | ||
| Axilla | 14 | |
| Abdomen | 3 | |
| Lung | 2 | |
| Skeleton | 2 | |
| Skin | 2 | |
| Ipsilateral breast | 1 | |
| Contralateral axilla | 1 | |
| Tumour sizea, mean range (mm) | 35, 10-110 | 19, 13-28 |
| Missing | 0 | 2 |
| ERa | ||
| Positive | 8 | 6 |
| Negative | 6 | 3 |
| ERb | ||
| Positive | 7 | 4 |
| Negative | 5 | 4c |
| Missing | 2 | 3 |
| Adjuvant treatmentd | ||
| Radiotherapy | 78% | 22% |
| Endocrine therapy | 64% | 22% |
| Chemotherapy | 43% | 11% |
| Neoadjuvant treatmente | ||
| Chemotherapy | 14% | 0% |
aOf the primary tumour.
bOf the metastasis.
cOne patient had an ER+ primary tumour and an ER- distant metastasis.
dAfter primary surgery.
eBefore primary surgery.
Figure 1(a) A representation of cancer spread from primary tumour to synchronous lymph node metastases or asynchronous distant metastases. This figure shows a schematic representation of the spread of cancer from the primary tumour to the lymph nodes and distant sites for the samples in this study, which are lung, ipsilateral and contralateral axillary lymph nodes, bone and skin and in the greater oment. (b) Experimental design overview.
Figure 2A paired analysis approach using tumours from the same patient was used. (a) An example of the paired analysis showing the protein levels. Log2 abundance of P16284, platelet endothelial cell adhesion molecule, for primary tumour (blue dots) and distant metastasis (red dots). (b). A box plot representation of the correlation distance between paired tumours; primary-lymph node metastasis and primary-distant metastasis.
Figure 3Protein expression changes between the primary tumour and lymph node metastases and distant metastases.
Figure 4Principal component analysis shows the degree of relationship between the primary tumour and the corresponding paired metastasis. (a). Principal Component Analysis of primary and lymph node metastasis pairs. A circle indicates a primary tumour and a triangle the lymph node metastasis. (b). Principal Component Analysis of primary and distant metastasis pairs. A circle indicates a primary tumour and a triangle the distant metastasis.
Figure 5Principal Component Analysis of primary, lymph node and distant metastasis within two patients with triple samples. Red indicates patient 1 with one distant metastasis in the lung and one local recurrence and blue patient 5 with two skin metastases.
Immunohistochemical staining intensities
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Primary tumour | 126 | 121 | 121 | 122 | 117 |
| 0 | 1 | 6 | 96 | 144 | 89 |
| 1 | 10 | 29 | 23 | 5 | 23 |
| 2 | 34 | 56 | 2 | 2 | 4 |
| 3 | 49 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 4 | 32 | 8 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Synchronous lymph node metastasis | 126 | 121 | 121 | 122 | 117 |
| 0 | 3 | 8 | 85 | 116 | 91 |
| 1 | 21 | 54 | 33 | 2 | 24 |
| 2 | 55 | 49 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| 3 | 33 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| 4 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asynchronous metastasis | 32 | 35 | |||
| 0 | 17 | 31 | |||
| 1 | 9 | 2 | |||
| 2 | 3 | 2 | |||
| 3 | 2 | 0 | |||
| 4 | 1 | 0 |
Figure 6This show representative images of intensity grading levels. Tissue cores are 1.0 mm and the images were taken with 40× magnification. a) Staining of ATPase Inhibitory Factor 1 levels 0–4 b) IHC staining of tubulin β-chain intensity levels 0–4.
Figure 7This shows the change in immunohistochemistry intensity between primary tumours and lymph node metastasis. Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired samples were performed to assess statistical significance. Red line represents the mean. a) The expression of ATPase inhibitory factor 1 significantly decrease (p = 2.8e−09). b) The expression of tubulin β-chain significantly decreases (p = 3.5e−05).