Literature DB >> 27587435

Molecular Differences between Screen-Detected and Interval Breast Cancers Are Largely Explained by PAM50 Subtypes.

Jingmei Li1, Emma Ivansson2,3, Daniel Klevebring2, Nicholas P Tobin4, Linda Sofie Lindström5, Johanna Holm2, Gabriela Prochazka2, Camilla Cristando4, Juni Palmgren2,3, Sven Törnberg6, Keith Humphreys2,3, Johan Hartman4, Jan Frisell7, Mattias Rantalainen2, Johan Lindberg2, Per Hall2, Jonas Bergh4,8, Henrik Grönberg2,3, Kamila Czene2.   

Abstract

Purpose: Interval breast cancer is of clinical interest, as it exhibits an aggressive phenotype and evades detection by screening mammography. A comprehensive picture of somatic changes that drive tumors to become symptomatic in the screening interval can improve understanding of the biology underlying these aggressive tumors.Experimental Design: Initiated in April 2013, Clinical Sequencing of Cancer in Sweden (Clinseq) is a scientific and clinical platform for the genomic profiling of cancer. The breast cancer pilot study consisted of women diagnosed with breast cancer between 2001 and 2012 in the Stockholm/Gotland regions. A subset of 307 breast tumors was successfully sequenced, of which 113 were screen-detected and 60 were interval cancers. We applied targeted deep sequencing of cancer-related genes; low-pass, whole-genome sequencing; and RNA sequencing technology to characterize somatic differences in the genomic and transcriptomic architecture by interval cancer status. Mammographic density and PAM50 molecular subtypes were considered.
Results: In the univariate analyses, TP53, PPP1R3A, and KMT2B were significantly more frequently mutated in interval cancers than in screen-detected cancers. Acquired somatic copy number aberrations with a frequency difference of at least 15% between the two groups included gains in 17q23-q25.3 and losses in 16q24.2. Gene expression analysis identified 447 significantly differentially expressed genes, of which 120 were replicated in an independent microarray dataset. After adjusting for PAM50, most differences were no longer significant.Conclusions: Molecular differences by interval cancer status were observed, but they were largely explained by PAM50 subtypes. This work offers new insights into the biological differences between the two tumor groups. Clin Cancer Res; 23(10); 2584-92. ©2016 AACR. ©2016 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27587435     DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-0967

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Cancer Res        ISSN: 1078-0432            Impact factor:   12.531


  9 in total

1.  PAM50 and Risk of Recurrence Scores for Interval Breast Cancers.

Authors:  Samantha Puvanesarajah; Sarah J Nyante; Cherie M Kuzmiak; Mengjie Chen; Chiu-Kit Tse; Xuezheng Sun; Emma H Allott; Erin L Kirk; Lisa A Carey; Charles M Perou; Andrew F Olshan; Louise M Henderson; Melissa A Troester
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2018-04-05

2.  Identification of a 5-gene-risk score model for predicting luminal A-invasive lobular breast cancer survival.

Authors:  Yi-Huan Chen; Tao-Feng Zhang; Yi-Yuan Liu; Jie-Hua Zheng; Wei-Xun Lin; Yao-Kun Chen; Jie-Hui Cai; Juan Zou; Zhi-Yang Li
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 1.633

3.  Combining method of detection and 70-gene signature for enhanced prognostication of breast cancer.

Authors:  J M N Lopes Cardozo; M K Schmidt; L J van 't Veer; F Cardoso; C Poncet; E J T Rutgers; C A Drukker
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 4.872

Review 4.  Cancer overdiagnosis: a biological challenge and clinical dilemma.

Authors:  Sudhir Srivastava; Eugene J Koay; Alexander D Borowsky; Angelo M De Marzo; Sharmistha Ghosh; Paul D Wagner; Barnett S Kramer
Journal:  Nat Rev Cancer       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 60.716

5.  Integrating biology and access to care in addressing breast cancer disparities: 25 years' research experience in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study.

Authors:  Marc A Emerson; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Heather J Tipaldos; Mary E Bell; Marina R Sweeney; Lisa A Carey; H Shelton Earp; Andrew F Olshan; Melissa A Troester
Journal:  Curr Breast Cancer Rep       Date:  2020-05-14

6.  Five-Year Overall Survival of Interval Breast Cancers is Better than Non- Interval Cancers from Korean Breast Cancer Registry.

Authors:  Jung Sun Lee; Hyun-Ah Kim; Se-Heon Cho; Han-Byoel Lee; Min Ho Park; Joon Jeong; Heung Kyu Park; Minkyung Oh; Onvox Yi
Journal:  Asian Pac J Cancer Prev       Date:  2019-06-01

7.  E-Science technologies in a workflow for personalized medicine using cancer screening as a case study.

Authors:  Ola Spjuth; Andreas Karlsson; Mark Clements; Keith Humphreys; Emma Ivansson; Jim Dowling; Martin Eklund; Alexandra Jauhiainen; Kamila Czene; Henrik Grönberg; Pär Sparén; Fredrik Wiklund; Abbas Cheddad; Þorgerður Pálsdóttir; Mattias Rantalainen; Linda Abrahamsson; Erwin Laure; Jan-Eric Litton; Juni Palmgren
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 4.497

8.  Risk factors for breast cancer subtypes among Black women undergoing screening mammography.

Authors:  Tara M Friebel-Klingner; Sarah Ehsan; Emily F Conant; Despina Kontos; Susan M Domchek; Anne Marie McCarthy
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-08-03       Impact factor: 4.872

9.  Discontinuation of adjuvant hormone therapy among breast cancer patients not previously attending mammography screening.

Authors:  Wei He; Louise Eriksson; Sven Törnberg; Fredrik Strand; Per Hall; Kamila Czene
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2019-01-31       Impact factor: 8.775

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.