Rita A Sakr1, Michail Schizas1, Jose V Scarpa Carniello1, Charlotte K Y Ng2, Salvatore Piscuoglio2, Dilip Giri2, Victor P Andrade1, Marina De Brot1, Raymond S Lim2, Russell Towers1, Britta Weigelt2, Jorge S Reis-Filho3, Tari A King4. 1. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. 2. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. 3. Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States; Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: reisfilj@mskcc.org. 4. Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: tking7@partners.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) has been proposed as a non-obligate precursor of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). Here we sought to define the repertoire of somatic genetic alterations in pure LCIS and in synchronous LCIS and ILC using targeted massively parallel sequencing. METHODS: DNA samples extracted from microdissected LCIS, ILC and matched normal breast tissue or peripheral blood from 30 patients were subjected to massively parallel sequencing targeting all exons of 273 genes, including the genes most frequently mutated in breast cancer and DNA repair-related genes. Single nucleotide variants and insertions and deletions were identified using state-of-the-art bioinformatics approaches. RESULTS: The constellation of somatic mutations found in LCIS (n = 34) and ILC (n = 21) were similar, with the most frequently mutated genes being CDH1 (56% and 66%, respectively), PIK3CA (41% and 52%, respectively) and CBFB (12% and 19%, respectively). Among 19 LCIS and ILC synchronous pairs, 14 (74%) had at least one identical mutation in common, including identical PIK3CA and CDH1 mutations. Paired analysis of independent foci of LCIS from 3 breasts revealed at least one common mutation in each of the 3 pairs (CDH1, PIK3CA, CBFB and PKHD1L1). CONCLUSION: LCIS and ILC have a similar repertoire of somatic mutations, with PIK3CA and CDH1 being the most frequently mutated genes. The presence of identical mutations between LCIS-LCIS and LCIS-ILC pairs demonstrates that LCIS is a clonal neoplastic lesion, and provides additional evidence that at least some LCIS are non-obligate precursors of ILC.
PURPOSE:Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) has been proposed as a non-obligate precursor of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC). Here we sought to define the repertoire of somatic genetic alterations in pure LCIS and in synchronous LCIS and ILC using targeted massively parallel sequencing. METHODS: DNA samples extracted from microdissected LCIS, ILC and matched normal breast tissue or peripheral blood from 30 patients were subjected to massively parallel sequencing targeting all exons of 273 genes, including the genes most frequently mutated in breast cancer and DNA repair-related genes. Single nucleotide variants and insertions and deletions were identified using state-of-the-art bioinformatics approaches. RESULTS: The constellation of somatic mutations found in LCIS (n = 34) and ILC (n = 21) were similar, with the most frequently mutated genes being CDH1 (56% and 66%, respectively), PIK3CA (41% and 52%, respectively) and CBFB (12% and 19%, respectively). Among 19 LCIS and ILC synchronous pairs, 14 (74%) had at least one identical mutation in common, including identical PIK3CA and CDH1 mutations. Paired analysis of independent foci of LCIS from 3 breasts revealed at least one common mutation in each of the 3 pairs (CDH1, PIK3CA, CBFB and PKHD1L1). CONCLUSION: LCIS and ILC have a similar repertoire of somatic mutations, with PIK3CA and CDH1 being the most frequently mutated genes. The presence of identical mutations between LCIS-LCIS and LCIS-ILC pairs demonstrates that LCIS is a clonal neoplastic lesion, and provides additional evidence that at least some LCIS are non-obligate precursors of ILC.
Authors: G Berx; A M Cleton-Jansen; K Strumane; W J de Leeuw; F Nollet; F van Roy; C Cornelisse Journal: Oncogene Date: 1996-11-07 Impact factor: 9.867
Authors: Teresa L Mastracci; Ashleen Shadeo; Sarah M Colby; Alan B Tuck; Frances P O'Malley; Shelley B Bull; Wan L Lam; Irene L Andrulis Journal: Genes Chromosomes Cancer Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.006
Authors: David E Larson; Christopher C Harris; Ken Chen; Daniel C Koboldt; Travis E Abbott; David J Dooling; Timothy J Ley; Elaine R Mardis; Richard K Wilson; Li Ding Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Katherine Stemke-Hale; Ana Maria Gonzalez-Angulo; Ana Lluch; Richard M Neve; Wen-Lin Kuo; Michael Davies; Mark Carey; Zhi Hu; Yinghui Guan; Aysegul Sahin; W Fraser Symmans; Lajos Pusztai; Laura K Nolden; Hugo Horlings; Katrien Berns; Mien-Chie Hung; Marc J van de Vijver; Vicente Valero; Joe W Gray; René Bernards; Gordon B Mills; Bryan T Hennessy Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2008-08-01 Impact factor: 12.701
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
Authors: Rachael Natrajan; Paul M Wilkerson; Caterina Marchiò; Salvatore Piscuoglio; Charlotte K Y Ng; Patty Wai; Maryou B Lambros; Eleftherios P Samartzis; Konstantin J Dedes; Jessica Frankum; Ilirjana Bajrami; Alicja Kopec; Alan Mackay; Roger A'hern; Kerry Fenwick; Iwanka Kozarewa; Jarle Hakas; Costas Mitsopoulos; David Hardisson; Christopher J Lord; Chandan Kumar-Sinha; Alan Ashworth; Britta Weigelt; Anna Sapino; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Christopher A Maher; Jorge S Reis-Filho Journal: J Pathol Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Avrum Spira; Mary L Disis; John T Schiller; Eduardo Vilar; Timothy R Rebbeck; Rafael Bejar; Trey Ideker; Janine Arts; Matthew B Yurgelun; Jill P Mesirov; Anjana Rao; Judy Garber; Elizabeth M Jaffee; Scott M Lippman Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Zexian Zeng; Andy Vo; Xiaoyu Li; Ali Shidfar; Paulette Saldana; Luis Blanco; Xiaoling Xuei; Yuan Luo; Seema A Khan; Susan E Clare Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2020-06-12
Authors: Thomas W Kensler; Avrum Spira; Judy E Garber; Eva Szabo; J Jack Lee; Zigang Dong; Andrew J Dannenberg; William N Hait; Elizabeth Blackburn; Nancy E Davidson; Margaret Foti; Scott M Lippman Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2016-01
Authors: Avrum Spira; Matthew B Yurgelun; Ludmil Alexandrov; Anjana Rao; Rafael Bejar; Kornelia Polyak; Marios Giannakis; Ali Shilatifard; Olivera J Finn; Madhav Dhodapkar; Neil E Kay; Esteban Braggio; Eduardo Vilar; Sarah A Mazzilli; Timothy R Rebbeck; Judy E Garber; Victor E Velculescu; Mary L Disis; Douglas C Wallace; Scott M Lippman Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 13.312