Karama Asleh1, Jennifer R Won1,2, Dongxia Gao1, K David Voduc3, Torsten O Nielsen4,5. 1. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Genetic Pathology Evaluation Centre, University of British Columbia, 509-2660 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3Z6, Canada. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Canadian Immunohistochemistry Quality Control (CIQC), University of British Columbia, G408-2211 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 2B5, Canada. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, British Columbia Cancer Agency, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada. 4. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Genetic Pathology Evaluation Centre, University of British Columbia, 509-2660 Oak Street, Vancouver, BC, V6H 3Z6, Canada. torsten@mail.ubc.ca. 5. Anatomical Pathology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Vancouver General Hospital, 899 west 12th Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1M9, Canada. torsten@mail.ubc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Basal-like breast cancers, originally recognized by gene expression profiling, can be clinically identified using immunohistochemical (IHC) definitions that require estrogen receptor (ER) negativity. However, some basal cases are ER positive and are mistakenly considered to be luminal by standard IHC approaches, leading to suboptimal treatment choices. Nestin, an intermediate filament expressed in many stem cells, is a recently identified positive marker of basal-like phenotype independent of ER status. In this study, we evaluated its clinical associations and prognostic capacity in a large breast cancer cohort. METHODS: A tissue microarray series of clinically annotated invasive breast cancers with 12.6-year median follow-up was assessed for nestin expression by IHC. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were used to evaluate the prognostic significance of nestin status, for the primary endpoint of breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). RESULTS: Among 3641 cases interpretable for nestin by IHC, positive staining was found in 371 cases (10%) and was significantly associated with poor prognostic factors including other markers of basal-like differentiation. Patients with nestin-positive tumors had a significantly lower 10 year BCSS (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.62-2.40; P < 0.001). Importantly, within the large group of 2323 ER+ cases, nestin positivity identified a subgroup of 120 patients (5%) with a significantly inferior 10-year BCSS (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.10-2.13; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Nestin IHC positivity is associated with the poor clinical outcomes and reduced survival rates that characterize the gene expression basal-like subtype. This easily applicable tool identifies ER+ poor prognosis basal phenotype patients that are currently being missed by "Triple negative" or "Core basal" IHC definitions.
BACKGROUND: Basal-like breast cancers, originally recognized by gene expression profiling, can be clinically identified using immunohistochemical (IHC) definitions that require estrogen receptor (ER) negativity. However, some basal cases are ER positive and are mistakenly considered to be luminal by standard IHC approaches, leading to suboptimal treatment choices. Nestin, an intermediate filament expressed in many stem cells, is a recently identified positive marker of basal-like phenotype independent of ER status. In this study, we evaluated its clinical associations and prognostic capacity in a large breast cancer cohort. METHODS: A tissue microarray series of clinically annotated invasive breast cancers with 12.6-year median follow-up was assessed for nestin expression by IHC. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression models were used to evaluate the prognostic significance of nestin status, for the primary endpoint of breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS). RESULTS: Among 3641 cases interpretable for nestin by IHC, positive staining was found in 371 cases (10%) and was significantly associated with poor prognostic factors including other markers of basal-like differentiation. Patients with nestin-positive tumors had a significantly lower 10 year BCSS (HR 1.97, 95% CI 1.62-2.40; P < 0.001). Importantly, within the large group of 2323 ER+ cases, nestin positivity identified a subgroup of 120 patients (5%) with a significantly inferior 10-year BCSS (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.10-2.13; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS:Nestin IHC positivity is associated with the poor clinical outcomes and reduced survival rates that characterize the gene expression basal-like subtype. This easily applicable tool identifies ER+ poor prognosis basal phenotype patients that are currently being missed by "Triple negative" or "Core basal" IHC definitions.
Authors: Brian D Lehmann; Joshua A Bauer; Xi Chen; Melinda E Sanders; A Bapsi Chakravarthy; Yu Shyr; Jennifer A Pietenpol Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: Karama Asleh-Aburaya; Brandon S Sheffield; Zuzana Kos; Jennifer R Won; Xiu Q Wang; Dongxia Gao; Robert Wolber; C Blake Gilks; Philip S Bernard; Stephen K L Chia; Torsten O Nielsen Journal: Histopathology Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 5.087
Authors: Takayuki Iwamoto; Daniel Booser; Vicente Valero; James L Murray; Kimberly Koenig; Francisco J Esteva; Naoto T Ueno; Jie Zhang; Weiwei Shi; Yuan Qi; Junji Matsuoka; Elliana J Yang; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Christos Hatzis; W Fraser Symmans; Lajos Pusztai Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aleksandra Nowak; Jedrzej Grzegrzolka; Maria Paprocka; Aleksandra Piotrowska; Janusz Rys; Rafal Matkowski; Piotr Dziegiel Journal: Int J Oncol Date: 2017-06-26 Impact factor: 5.650
Authors: C M Perou; T Sørlie; M B Eisen; M van de Rijn; S S Jeffrey; C A Rees; J R Pollack; D T Ross; H Johnsen; L A Akslen; O Fluge; A Pergamenschikov; C Williams; S X Zhu; P E Lønning; A L Børresen-Dale; P O Brown; D Botstein Journal: Nature Date: 2000-08-17 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Hua Li; Pratima Cherukuri; Na Li; Victoria Cowling; Michael Spinella; Michael Cole; Andrew K Godwin; Wendy Wells; James DiRenzo Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2007-01-15 Impact factor: 12.701
Authors: Torsten O Nielsen; Forrest D Hsu; Kristin Jensen; Maggie Cheang; Gamze Karaca; Zhiyuan Hu; Tina Hernandez-Boussard; Chad Livasy; Dave Cowan; Lynn Dressler; Lars A Akslen; Joseph Ragaz; Allen M Gown; C Blake Gilks; Matt van de Rijn; Charles M Perou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2004-08-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Joel S Parker; Michael Mullins; Maggie C U Cheang; Samuel Leung; David Voduc; Tammi Vickery; Sherri Davies; Christiane Fauron; Xiaping He; Zhiyuan Hu; John F Quackenbush; Inge J Stijleman; Juan Palazzo; J S Marron; Andrew B Nobel; Elaine Mardis; Torsten O Nielsen; Matthew J Ellis; Charles M Perou; Philip S Bernard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-02-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Brandon S Sheffield; Zuzana Kos; Karama Asleh-Aburaya; Xiu Qing Wang; Samuel Leung; Dongxia Gao; Jennifer Won; Christine Chow; Rakesh Rachamadugu; Inge Stijleman; Robert Wolber; C Blake Gilks; Nickolas Myles; Tom Thomson; Malcolm M Hayes; Philip S Bernard; Torsten O Nielsen; Stephen K L Chia Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-02-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Xinyi Zhang; Changsheng Xing; Wenting Guan; Lang Chen; Kai Guo; Anze Yu; Kai Xie Journal: Cancer Cell Int Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 5.722
Authors: Kevin Chappell; Kanishka Manna; Charity L Washam; Stefan Graw; Duah Alkam; Matthew D Thompson; Maroof Khan Zafar; Lindsey Hazeslip; Christopher Randolph; Allen Gies; Jordan T Bird; Alicia K Byrd; Sayem Miah; Stephanie D Byrum Journal: Mol Omics Date: 2021-10-11
Authors: Martin Götte; Burkhard Greve; Fabian M Troschel; Heike Palenta; Katrin Borrmann; Kristin Heshe; San Hue Hua; George W Yip; Ludwig Kiesel; Hans Theodor Eich Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-07-22 Impact factor: 4.553