| Literature DB >> 26040322 |
Cecilia W Huo1, Grace Chew2, Prue Hill3, Dexing Huang4, Wendy Ingman5,6, Leigh Hodson7,8, Kristy A Brown9, Astrid Magenau10,11,12, Amr H Allam13,14,15, Ewan McGhee16, Paul Timpson17,18,19, Michael A Henderson20,21, Erik W Thompson22,23,24, Kara Britt25,26,27.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Mammographic density (MD), after adjustment for a women's age and body mass index, is a strong and independent risk factor for breast cancer (BC). Although the BC risk attributable to increased MD is significant in healthy women, the biological basis of high mammographic density (HMD) causation and how it raises BC risk remain elusive. We assessed the histological and immunohistochemical differences between matched HMD and low mammographic density (LMD) breast tissues from healthy women to define which cell features may mediate the increased MD and MD-associated BC risk.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26040322 PMCID: PMC4485361 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-015-0592-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res ISSN: 1465-5411 Impact factor: 6.466
Demographic characteristics of study participants
| Selected characteristics | Number or mean | |
|---|---|---|
| Age at surgery | Mean 43 yr (range 31–59 yr) | |
| BI-RADS category | ||
| 4 | 11 | |
| 3 | 16 | |
| 2 | 10 | |
| 1 | 4 | |
| Risk factors | ||
|
| 9 | |
|
| 15 | |
|
| 13 | |
| Past history of BC or DCIS | 24 | |
| Menopausal status | ||
| Premenopausal | 28 | |
| Perimenopausal | 5 | |
| Postmenopausal | 8 | |
| Parity | ||
| Parous | 37 | |
| Nulliparous | 4 | |
BI-RADS score 1: predominantly fat, 2: scattered fibroglandular densities, 3: heterogeneously dense, 4: extremely dense.
Abbreviations: BC breast cancer, BI-RADS Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System, DCIS ductal carcinoma in situ, IDC invasive ductal carcinoma.
Fig. 1Haematoxylin and eosin–stained high mammographic density (HMD) and low mammographic density (LMD) tissue sections. (a) Representative photomicrograph of tissue specimen resected from an HMD region. (b) Representative photomicrograph of tissue specimen resected from an LMD region of the same healthy breast shown in (A). (c) Selected area from HMD tissue shown in (A) at ×10 original magnification. (d) Selected area from HMD tissue shown in (B) at ×10 original magnification. (e) Scatterplots of percentages of stroma, epithelium and fat of HMD and LMD within-individual tissue (N = 41 women)
Fig. 2Masson’s trichrome blue staining of high mammographic density (HMD) and low mammographic density (LMD) tissue samples. Photomicrographs show representative staining patterns of HMD tissue (a) and LMD tissue (b) of the 15 women assessed. (c) Scatterplot shows the percentages of blue-stained collagen of HMD and LMD tissue
Fig. 3Second harmonic generation (SHG) analysis of collagen. (a) Collagen was imaged using an SHG technique. White squares indicate analysed regions. Scale bar indicates 100 μm. (b) Grey-level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM) analysis shows the correlation of the intensity of the SHG signal across the analysed region. Samples with a slower decay have a denser collagen structure than samples with a faster decay. For each sample, three regions were imaged. Within each region, three areas were selected for analysis (total N = 9). Mean parameter values are shown as symbols. Dashed lines represent the nonlinear biexponential fit to each data set. Error bars indicate SEM. (c) The mean decay parameter (slope) in a biexponential fit model of correlation decay curve was calculated and plotted for each sample. (d) The ratio of the mean decay of high mammographic density (HMD) to low mammographic density (LMD) was calculated to determine whether HMD samples contained a higher collagen organisation than LMD samples. A ratio above 1 indicates that HMD samples had a higher collagen organisation than LMD samples. Seventy-five percent of HMD samples showed a higher mean decay than LMD samples. Horizontal bar indicates the mean
Fig. 4Oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and Ki-67 staining of high mammographic density (HMD) and low mammographic density (LMD) tissue samples. Representative photomicrographs show ER, PR and Ki-67 brown nuclear staining in selected HMD and LMD regions of the 15 women. The percentages of positive nuclear staining in glandular areas per whole tissue section were point-counted using JMicroVision, and the results were analysed using paired t tests
Fig. 5Aromatase analysis in high mammographic density (HMD) and low mammographic density (LMD) tissue samples. Cytoplasmic aromatase immunoreactivity appeared punctate in both epithelial and stromal components of paired HMD and LMD specimens (n = 15 women) (a-d). Percentages of positive aromatase expression were calculated by manually counting the positively stained cells (brown cytoplasm) and total number of cells in glandular areas and stroma, respectively (e). Black arrows: positive epithelial cell staining; blue arrows: negative epithelial staining; black arrowheads: positive stromal cell staining; blue arrowheads: negative stromal cell staining
Fig. 6Macrophage staining. Macrophage abundance in low mammographic density (LMD) (a, c) and high mammographic density (HMD) (b, d) paired samples (n = 15) stained with pan-macrophage marker CD68 (A, B) and the C-type lectin receptor macrophage mannose receptor 1 (c, d). Epithelial cell–associated (arrows) and stromal cell–associated (arrowheads) macrophages were quantified per square millimetre of tissue in three randomly selected glandular and stromal areas within each tissue sample, and abundance was compared between LMD and HMD paired samples using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test for epithelium and the paired t test for stroma (data passed the D’Agostino-Pearson omnibus normality test) (*P < 0.05). Percentage changes in abundance of epithelial and stromal cell–associated CD68 (e) and CD206 (f) in HMD tissue compared with the LMD paired sample are shown
Fig. 7Cytokeratin (CK)-19, CK-14 and vimentin triple immunofluorescence staining. High mammographic density (HMD) (a) and low mammographic density (LMD) (b) tissue samples were stained with 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (a 1 and b 1), CK-14 (a 2 and b 2) CK-19 (a 3 and b 3) and vimentin (a 4 and b 4) and assessed as composite images (a 5 and b 5). Arrows indicate cells inside the epithelial layer that stained negative for CK-19 or CK-14, but positive for vimentin. (c) Using the point-counting method, the percentages of CK-14 basal epithelial cells and CK-19 luminal epithelial cells were determined, as were the number of vimentin-expressing CK− cells per whole glandular area of the tissue sections. The results for HMD and LMD paired samples were analysed using the nonparametric Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. VPCKN vimentin-positive, cytokeratin-negative. Scale bar = 10 μm
Fig. 8The vimentin+ cells in the epithelial layer are immune cells (CD45+). Immunofluorescence staining of high mammographic density (HMD) samples with 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (a), vimentin (b) and pan-CD45 immune cell marker (c) are shown as well as the overlay of all stain (d). (e-g) High-power images of the selected region in (D)