| Literature DB >> 30770770 |
Bastien Nguyen1,2, David Venet3, Matteo Lambertini3,4, Christine Desmedt3, Roberto Salgado3,5, Hugo Mark Horlings6, Françoise Rothé3, Christos Sotiriou3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although parity and age at first pregnancy are among the most known extrinsic factors that modulate breast cancer risk, their impact on the biology of subsequent breast cancer has never been explored in depth. Recent data suggest that pregnancy-induced tumor protection is different according to breast cancer subtypes, with parity and young age at first pregnancy being associated with a marked reduction in the risk of developing luminal subtype but not triple negative breast cancer. In this study, we investigated the imprint of parity and age at first pregnancy on the pattern of somatic mutations, somatic copy number alterations, transcriptomic profiles, and tumor immune microenvironment by assessing tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) levels of subsequent breast cancer.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; Genomics; Mutational landscape; PABC; Pregnancy; SCNAs; Whole genome sequencing
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30770770 PMCID: PMC6377756 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-019-1111-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res ISSN: 1465-5411 Impact factor: 6.466
Clinicopathological features of nulliparous and parous patients
|
| Nulliparous | Parous |
| Early parous | Late parous |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 49 | 264 | 82 | 71 | |||
| Age at diagnosis | 54 (30–81) | 55 (28–81) | 0.796a | 59 (34–81) | 49 (28–81) | 2.6 × 10–5a |
| Menopausal status | ||||||
| Pre | 13 (33.3%) | 60 (30.3%) | 0.85 | 14 (20.9%) | 29 (45.3%) | 0.0053 |
| Post | 26 (66.7%) | 138 (69.7%) | 53 (79.1%) | 35 (54.7%) | ||
| Stage | ||||||
| I | 7 (14.9%) | 41 (15.9%) | 0.019 | 6 (7.6%) | 17 (24.3%) | 0.039 |
| II | 20 (42.6%) | 81 (31.4%) | 33 (41.8%) | 27 (38.6%) | ||
| III | 11 (23.4%) | 30 (11.6%) | 12 (15.2%) | 10 (14.3%) | ||
| IV | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.4%) | 1 (1.3%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| Na | 9 (19.1%) | 105 (40.7%) | 27 (34.2%) | 16 (22.9%) | ||
| pT | ||||||
| Tx | 9 (18.4%) | 105 (39.8%) | 0.0062 | 27 (32.9%) | 16 (22.5%) | 0.012 |
| ≤ 2 cm | 11 (22.4%) | 61 (23.1%) | 13 (15.9%) | 26 (36.6%) | ||
| > 2 cm | 29 (59.2%) | 98 (37.1%) | 42 (51.2%) | 29 (40.8%) | ||
| pN | ||||||
| Nx | 11 (22.4%) | 112 (42.4%) | 0.027 | 30 (36.6%) | 17 (23.9%) | 0.2 |
| N0 | 18 (36.7%) | 79 (29.9%) | 25 (30.5%) | 23 (32.4%) | ||
| N1+ | 20 (40.8%) | 73 (27.7%) | 27 (32.9%) | 31 (43.7%) | ||
| Grade | ||||||
| I | 6 (14%) | 29 (12.7%) | 0.93 | 8 (9.8%) | 5 (7%) | 0.059 |
| II | 17 (39.5%) | 86 (37.7%) | 25 (30.5%) | 35 (49.3%) | ||
| III | 20 (46.5%) | 113 (49.6%) | 49 (59.8%) | 31 (43.7%) | ||
| Subtype by IHC | ||||||
| Lum A-like | 22 (44.9%) | 106 (40.3%) | 0.0013 | 29 (35.4%) | 39 (54.9%) | 0.026 |
| Lum B-like | 19 (38.8%) | 54 (20.5%) | 20 (24.4%) | 17 (23.9%) | ||
| HER2+/HR+ | 6 (12.2%) | 29 (11%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
| HER2+/HR- | 0 (0%) | 13 (4.9%) | 1 (1.2%) | 1 (1.4%) | ||
| TNBC | 2 (4.1%) | 61 (23.2%) | 32 (39%) | 14 (19.7%) | ||
| Histology | ||||||
| Ductal | 36 (76.6%) | 203 (81.2%) | 0.67 | 71 (88.8%) | 49 (71%) | 0.01 |
| Lobular | 5 (10.6%) | 23 (9.2%) | 2 (2.5%) | 10 (14.5%) | ||
| Other | 6 (12.8%) | 24 (9.6%) | 7 (8.8%) | 10 (14.5%) | ||
pT pathological tumor size, pN pathological nodal status, HR hormone receptor, P P value derived from χ2 test or the Fisher exact test when appropriate
aExcept continuous variable derived from Mann–Whitney U test
Fig. 1Imprint of pregnancy and age at first pregnancy on breast cancer biology. a Comparison of somatic SNVs and Indels in tumor between nulliparous (n = 49) and parous (upper) (n = 264) and between early (n = 82) and late parous (bottom) (n = 71). Padj, P values derived from multivariate linear regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders. b Radar plots showing the frequency of somatic driver mutations and somatic driver SNCAs in breast cancer from nulliparous (n = 49) and parous (upper) (n = 264) and between early (n = 82) and late parous (bottom) (n = 71) patients. Significant genes independently associated with parity or age at first pregnancy are highlighted in bold. c Proportion of PAM50 breast cancer subtypes in nulliparous (n = 34) and parous (upper) (n = 148) and in early (n = 51) and late parous (bottom) (n = 45) patients. d Comparison of TIL levels (%) between nulliparous (n = 26) and parous (upper) (n = 134) and between early (n = 47) and late parous (bottom) (n = 38) patients. Padj, P values derived from multivariate linear regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders
Fig. 2Co-occurrence of MYC amplification and TP53 mutations is associated with age at first pregnancy. a Timeline of 153 patients with available data on age at first pregnancy. Each line represents an individual patient from age at first pregnancy (start of the line) to age at breast cancer diagnosis (end of the line). Late parous patients (upper) (n = 71) and early parous patients (bottom) (n = 82) are grouped according to median age at first pregnancy (25 years). Gray diamond represents the median age at first pregnancy and at diagnosis in the two groups. Lines are colored according to TP53 mutations (green) MYC amplification (dark red) and the co-occurrence of both (red). b Comparison of MYC expression in early (n = 51) and late parous patients (n = 45). Each dot represents an individual patient and is colored according to TP53 mutations (green) MYC amplification (dark red) and the co-occurrence of both (red). P value is derived from the multivariate linear regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders. c MYC expression according to TP53 mutations, MYC amplification or the co-occurrence of both. P value is derived from the Kruskal–Wallis test
Fig. 3PABC patients are associated with higher TIL levels. a Results from the GAGE analysis showing the top 20 most significant biological processes enriched in PABC patients. b Comparison of stromal and c intratumoral (right) TIL levels (%) between nulliparous (n = 49) and PABC (n = 17). Padj, P values derived from multivariate linear regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders
Fig. 4Proposed model explaining the difference of parity-induced protection according to breast cancer subtypes. TP53 has long been recognized as a potential mediator of pregnancy-induced resistance to mammary carcinogenesis. We hypothesize that an early pregnancy might protect less effectively against TP53 mutant premalignant lesion. TP53 mutations are highly linked to the TNBC subtype; this could explain why the pregnancy-induced resistance is lost in TNBC