| Literature DB >> 26177092 |
Noran Aboalela1, Debra Lyon2, R K Elswick3, Debra Lynch Kelly3, Jenni Brumelle4, Harry D Bear5, Colleen Jackson-Cook6.
Abstract
While advances in therapeutic approaches have resulted in improved survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer, subsets of these survivors develop persistent psychoneurological symptoms (fatigue, depression/anxiety, cognitive dysfunction) that compromise their quality of life. The biological basis for these persistent symptoms is unclear, but could reflect the acquisition of soma-wide chromosomal instability following the multiple biological/psychological exposures associated with the diagnosis/treatment of breast cancer. An essential first step toward testing this hypothesis is to determine if these cancer-related exposures are indeed associated with somatic chromosomal instability frequencies. Towards this end, we longitudinally studied 71 women (ages 23-71) with early-stage breast cancer and quantified their somatic chromosomal instability levels using a cytokinesis-blocked micronuclear/cytome assay at 4 timepoints: before chemotherapy (baseline); four weeks after chemotherapy initiation; six months after chemotherapy (at which time some women received radiotherapy); and one year following chemotherapy initiation. Overall, a significant change in instability frequencies was observed over time, with this change differing based on whether the women received radiotherapy (p=0.0052). Also, significantly higher instability values were observed one year after treatment initiation compared to baseline for the women who received: sequential taxotere/doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (p<0.001) or taxotere/cyclophosphamide (p=0.014). Significant predictive associations for acquired micronuclear/cytome abnormality frequencies were also observed for race (p=0.0052), tumor type [luminal B tumors] (p=0.0053), and perceived stress levels (p=0.0129). The impact of perceived stress on micronuclear/cytome frequencies was detected across all visits, with the highest levels of stress being reported at baseline (p =0.0024). These findings suggest that the cancer-related exposome has an impact on both healthy somatic cells and tumor cells, and may lead to persistent chromosomal instability. In addition, stress was a significant predictor of chromosomal instability; thus, interventions that aim to reduce stress may reduce acquired soma-wide chromosomal instability for cancer survivors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26177092 PMCID: PMC4503400 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133380
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Examples of giemsa stained binucleates with MN.
Mitotic cells were blocked at cytokinesis (but did complete karyokinesis) to result in binucleates. In the figure to the left (A) a single micronucleus is present. In the right figure (B) 2 micronuclei have been excluded from the parental cell.
Demographic, health and lifestyle findings in study participants receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer.
| Demographic Variables | African American N = 22 | Caucasian N = 49 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TAC | TC | TCH | AA Total | TAC | TC | TCH | C. Total | Study Total | |
| 10 (45%) | 6 (27%) | 6 (27%) | 22 (31%) | 29 (59%) | 15 (31%) | 5 (10%) | 49 (69%) | 71 (100%) | |
|
| |||||||||
| Less than $30,000 | 5 (23%) | 4 (18%) | 3 (14%) | 12 (55%) | 6 (12%) | 1 (2%) | 0 | 7 (14%) | 19 (27%) |
| $30,000-$59,999 | 3 (14%) | 2 (9%) | 3 (14%) | 8 (36%) | 6 (12%) | 1 (2%) | 0 | 7 (14%) | 15 (21%) |
| $60,000-$89,999 | 1 (5%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (5%) | 6 (12%) | 7 (14%) | 3 (6%) | 16 (33%) | 17 (24%) |
| $90,000+ | 1 (5%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (5%) | 11 (22%) | 6 (12%) | 2 (4%) | 19 (39%) | 20 (28%) |
|
| |||||||||
| 44.0 (3.4) | 47.0 (2.5) | 50.5 (2.9) | 46.6 (1.9) | 52.2 (1.7) | 57.1 (2.6) | 50.2 (6.4) | 53.5 (1.5) | 51.3 (1.2) | |
|
| |||||||||
| Pre- or Peri- | 7 (32%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9%) | 12 (55%) | 11 (22%) | 5 (10%) | 3 (6%) | 19 (39%) | 31 (44%) |
| Post- | 3 (14%) | 3 (14%) | 4 (18%) | 10 (45%) | 18 (37%) | 10 (20%) | 2 (4%) | 30 (61%) | 40 (56%) |
|
| |||||||||
| 32.0 (2.7) | 29.8 (2.5) | 35.6 (6.3) | 32.4 (2.1) | 30.1 (1.5) | 26.8 (0.9) | 37.3 (4.7) | 29.8 (1.1) | 30.6 (1.0) | |
|
| |||||||||
| 2.6 (0.18) | 2.2 (0.21) | 2.4 (0.25) | 2.4 (0.12) | 2.7 (0.11) | 2.9 (0.13) | 2.7 (0.30) | 2.8 (0.08) | 2.7 (0.07) | |
|
| |||||||||
| Yes | 2 (9%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9%) | 7 (32%) | 4 (8%) | 2 (4%) | 1 (2%) | 7 (12%) | 14 (20%) |
| No | 8 (36%) | 3 (14%) | 4 (18%) | 15 (68%) | 25 (51%) | 13 (27%) | 4 (8%) | 42 (88%) | 57 (80%) |
|
| |||||||||
| Yes | 3 (14%) | 1 (5%) | 2 (9%) | 6 (27%) | 19 (39%) | 11 (22%) | 4 (8%) | 34 (69%) | 40 (56%) |
| No | 7 (32%) | 5 (23%) | 4 (18%) | 16 (73%) | 10 (20%) | 4 (8%) | 1 (2%) | 15 (31%) | 31 (44%) |
1Frequency (percentage of study participants for the category)
2Mean (standard error)
3Nutritional assessments for the participants’ intake of fruits and vegetables
Study participant treatments.
| African American N = 22 | Caucasian N = 49 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TAC | TC | TCH | AA Total | TAC | TC | TCH | C. Total | Study Total | |
|
| 10 (45%) | 6 (27%) | 6 (27%) | 22 (%) | 29 (59%) | 15 (31%) | 5 (10%) | 49 (%) | 71 (100%) |
|
| |||||||||
| Biopsy | 3 (14%) | 0 | 0 | 3 (14%) | 2 (4%) | 0 | 0 | 2 (4%) | 5 (7%) |
| Lumpectomy | 4 (18%) | 0 | 1 (5%) | 5 (23%) | 8 (16%) | 6 (12%) | 1 (2%) | 15 (31%) | 20 (28%) |
| Segmental | 1 (5%) | 5 (23%) | 3 (14%) | 9 (41%) | 1 (2%) | 5 (10%) | 0 | 6 (13%) | 15 (23%) |
| Simple | 2 (9%) | 1 (5%) | 2 (9%) | 5 (23%) | 18 (37%) | 3 (6%) | 4 (8%) | 25 (52%) | 30 (42%) |
|
| |||||||||
| Yes | 3 (14%) | 0 | 1 (5%) | 4 (18%) | 2 (4%) | 1 (2%) | 0 | 3 (6%) | 7 (10%) |
| No | 7 (32%) | 6 (27%) | 5 (23%) | 18 (82%) | 27 (55%) | 14 (29%) | 5 (10%) | 46 (94%) | 64 (90%) |
|
| |||||||||
| Yes | 9 (41%) | 5 (23%) | 5 (23%) | 19 (86%) | 23 (47%) | 12 (24%) | 1 (2%) | 36 (73%) | 55 (77%) |
| No | 1 (5%) | 1 (5%) | 1 (5%) | 3 (14%) | 6 (12%) | 3 (6%) | 4 (8%) | 13 (27%) | 16 (23%) |
1Frequency (percentage of study participants for the category)
Study participants’ tumor characteristics.
| African American N = 22 | Caucasian N = 49 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TAC | TC | TCH | AA Total | TAC | TC | TCH | C. Total | Study Total | |
|
| 10 (46%) | 6 (27%) | 6 (27%) | 22 (31%) | 29 (59%) | 15 (31%) | 5 (10%) | 49 (69%) | 71 (100%) |
|
| |||||||||
| Yes | 6 (27%) | 2 (9%) | 0 | 8 (36%) | 21 (43%) | 9 (18%) | 0 | 30 (61%) | 38 (54%) |
| No | 4 (18%) | 4 (18%) | 6 (27%) | 14 (64%) | 8 (16%) | 6 (12%) | 5 (10%) | 19 (39%) | 33 (46%) |
|
| |||||||||
| Yes | 0 | 0 | 2 (9%) | 2 (9%) | 2 (4%) | 0 | 3 (6%) | 5 (10%) | 7 (10%) |
| No | 10 (45%) | 6 (27%) | 4 (18%) | 20 (91%) | 27 (55%) | 15 (31%) | 2 (4%) | 44 (90%) | 64 (90%) |
|
| |||||||||
| Yes | 3 (14%) | 4 (18%) | 1 (5) | 8 (36%) | 6 (1%2) | 6 (12%) | 0 | 12 (24%) | 20 (28%) |
| No | 7 (32%) | 2 (9%) | 5 (23%) | 14 (64%) | 23 (47%) | 9 (18%) | 5 (10%) | 37 (76%) | 51 (72%) |
|
| |||||||||
| Yes | 1 (5%) | 0 | 3 (14%) | 4 (18%) | 0 | 0 | 2 (4) | 2 (4%) | 6 (8%) |
| No | 9 (41%) | 6 (27%) | 3 (14%) | 18 (82%) | 29 (59%) | 15 (31%) | 3 (6%) | 47 (96%) | 65 (92%) |
|
| |||||||||
| 1 | 1 (5%) | 0 | 0 | 1 (5%) | 2 (4%) | 2 (4%) | 0 | 4 (8%) | 5 (7%) |
| 2 | 5 (23%) | 3 (14%) | 4 (18%) | 12 (55%) | 12 (25%) | 4 (8%) | 0 | 16 (33%) | 28 (39%) |
| 3 | 4 (18%) | 3 (14%) | 2 (9%) | 9 (41%) | 15 (31%) | 9 (18%) | 5 (10%) | 29 (59%) | 38 (54%) |
|
| |||||||||
| I | 1 (5%) | 4 (18%) | 0 | 5 (23%) | 5 (10%) | 8 (16%) | 2 (4%) | 15 (31%) | 20 (28%) |
| IIA | 6 (27%) | 2 (9%) | 3 (14%) | 11 (50%) | 11 (22%) | 6 (12%) | 1 (2%) | 18 (37%) | 29 (41%) |
| IIB | 3 (14%) | 0 | 3 (14%) | 6 (27%) | 5 (10%) | 1 (2%) | 2 (4%) | 8 (16%) | 14 (20%) |
| IIIA | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 (16%) | 0 | 0 | 8 (16%) | 8 (11%) |
1Frequency (percentage of study participants for the category)
Perceived Stress Levels Reported by Women Treated for Breast Cancer.
| Total Perceived Stress (PSS-10) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal (0–15) | Mild to Moderate (16–22) | High/Severe (23–40) | |||||||
| Visit | N | Mean | Std Err | N | Mean | Std Err | N | Mean | Std Err |
| 1 | 32 | 10.06 | 0.74 | 25 | 19.00 | 0.44 | 14 | 28.43 | 1.46 |
| 2 | 38 | 8.84 | 0.65 | 21 | 18.56 | 0.43 | 11 | 26.55 | 0.72 |
| 3 | 38 | 8.82 | 0.72 | 18 | 19.22 | 0.50 | 8 | 28.00 | 1.51 |
| 4 | 30 | 8.23 | 0.94 | 15 | 18.20 | 0.45 | 4 | 26.25 | 1.80 |
1The DASS21 descriptors/PSS-10 correlate values are based on Andreou, et al., 2011.
2N = Number of women providing values for this PSS-10 score category. PSS-10 values were not available for one women at visit 2 (case 2076) and one woman at visit 4 (case 2005).
Nuclear division cytotoxicity index (NDCI) values in lymphocytes.
| Visit | Chemotherapy Regimen | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TAC | TC | TCH | ||||
| Mean | Std Err | Mean | Std Err | Mean | Std Err | |
| 1 | 1.89 | 0.05 | 1.88 | 0.09 | 1.88 | 0.08 |
| 2 | 1.93 | 0.05 | 1.94 | 0.07 | 1.83 | 0.07 |
| 3 | 2.03 | 0.05 | 2.01 | 0.12 | 1.84 | 0.17 |
| 4 | 1.86 | 0.06 | 1.87 | 0.03 | 1.87 | 0.03 |
Mixed effects linear model fitting assessment of predictive associations of variables with peripheral blood micronuclei/cytome abnormality frequencies , .
| Variable | NDF | DFD | F Ratio | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Visit | 3 | 175.1 | 12.7033 | <.0001 |
| Chemo | 2 | 63.58 | 2.1494 | 0.1249 |
| Radiation | 1 | 65.05 | 7.3550 | 0.0085 |
| Chemo by Visit | 6 | 174.1 | 0.9863 | 0.4361 |
| Radiation by Visit | 3 | 175.7 | 4.3921 | 0.0052 |
| Race | 1 | 61.48 | 8.0619 | 0.0061 |
| Luminal B | 1 | 67.08 | 8.3236 | 0.0053 |
| PSS | 1 | 145.6 | 6.3448 | 0.0129 |
1The base model, which was determined by the study design, was: MN frequency = Visit + Chemotherapy (3 types) + Radiation therapy + Visit by Chemotherapy* + Visit by Radiation therapy* with the study subject being a random effect
2Variables having predictive p values greater than 0.25 in the initial stepwise model included: Age (p = 0.9599); BMI (p = 0.2719); Income (p = 0.3728); Menopausal status (p = 0.4964); Alcohol consumption (p = 0.0816); Tumor grade (p = 0.7563); Tumor stage (p = 0.2981); Luminal A (p = 0.9807); HER2 positive (p = 0.6360); and Surgery (p = 0.3092)
*The visit by chemo and visit by radiation interaction variables allowed these values to differ across time points.
Fig 2Changes in MN/cytome abnormality frequencies over the 1 year follow-up period based on the women’s chemotherapy regimen.
When compared to baseline values, the frequencies of acquired chromosomal instability values were significantly higher for at least 1-year following the initiation of treatment (visit 4) for the women who received the TAC (p<0.0001) or TC (p = 0.014) regimens, but not the TCH treatment (p = 0.0884). TAC = black circles; TC = white circles; TCH = black triangles.
Fig 3Changes in MN/cytome abnormality frequencies associated with radiotherapy.
At the baseline and 4 weeks (mid-chemo) time points, no significant differences in the chromosomal instability frequencies were observed between the women who did (white circles) or did not (black circles) receive radiation therapy. However, a statistically significantly increase in MN/cytome abnormality frequencies was observed at six months (compared to baseline) for the group of women receiving radiotherapy versus the group not receiving radiation (see Table 6). Also, for the subset of women who received radiotherapy, this increase in chromosomal instability values persisted at the 1 year time point (p<0.0001).
Fig 4Increased MN/cytome abnormality frequencies were significantly associated with higher levels of perceived stress.
The results of the linear mixed effects model are illustrated in this figure, which shows the increasing trend line of the MN/cytome frequency with increasing PSS (p = 0.0129). The PSS categories proposed by Andreou, et al., 2011 are shown on the X axis (a subset of PSS range); the MN/cytome frequencies (predicted values from linear mixed effects model) are shown on the Y axis.
Summary of previous findings related to cancer/cancer treatment in which MN frequencies were evaluated in peripheral blood.
| Topic | References |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Higher MN frequencies at baseline for women with breast cancer prior to treatment irrespective of smoking and aging | Santos et al., 2010 [ |
| Significant differences in MN frequencies at baseline between patients with breast cancer and controls | Cardinale et al. 2012 [ |
|
| |
|
| Ramos et al., 2011 [ |
|
| Guerreiro et al., 2013 [ |
|
| Minicucci et al., 2008 [ |
|
| Elsendoorn et al., 2001 [ |
|
| |
|
| Jagetia et al., 2001 [ |
| Higher MN frequencies during radiotherapy; while decreases in frequency were observed 6 months and one year after radiotherapy, MN frequencies did not return to pre-therapy levels for the majority of patients; older subjects (ages 75–80; also had more advanced tumors) showed higher MN frequencies than younger subjects (ages 57–70). | Gamulin et al., 2010 [ |
|
| Vral et al., 2011 [ |
|
| Cardinale et al., 2012 [ |
|
| |
|
| Milosevic-Djordjevic et al., 2011 [ |
|
| Aristei et al., 2009 [ |