| Literature DB >> 30867005 |
Brett L Ecker1,2, Jun Y Lee2,3,4, Christopher J Sterner2,3,4, Aaron C Solomon2,3,4, Dhruv K Pant2,3,4, Fei Shen2,3,4, Javier Peraza2,3,4, Lauren Vaught2,3,4, Samyukta Mahendra2,3,4, George K Belka2,3,4, Tien-Chi Pan2,3,4, Kathryn H Schmitz5, Lewis A Chodosh6,7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obesity is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer recurrence and cancer death. Recurrent cancers arise from the pool of residual tumor cells, or minimal residual disease (MRD), that survives primary treatment and persists in the host. Whether the association of obesity with recurrence risk is causal is unknown, and the impact of obesity on MRD and breast cancer recurrence has not been reported in humans or in animal models.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; High-fat diet; Obesity; Recurrence; Tumor dormancy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30867005 PMCID: PMC6416940 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-018-1087-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res ISSN: 1465-5411 Impact factor: 6.466
Fig. 1Study design. Three-week-old female MTB/TAN mice were weaned onto matched study diets consisting of 60% calories from fat (high-fat diet) or 10% calories from fat (low-fat diet). Doxycycline (0.03 mg/ml) was provided in drinking water beginning at age 6 weeks to induce human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-driven mammary tumors. Once primary tumors reached target volume (500 cm3), the HER2 oncogene was downregulated by doxycycline withdrawal to induce tumor regression. Mice were then observed twice weekly for recurrence
Fig. 2a Body weights were measured in MTB/TAN mice fed a high-fat diet (HFD) or low-fat diet (LFD) 4 weeks following tumor regression induced by doxycycline withdrawal. HFD mice weighed significantly more than LFD mice (32.9 ± 6.8 g vs. 25.2 ± 2.6 g, p < 0.001). b Representative photograph of mice fed a LFD or HFD. c HFD-Obese mice weighed more than HFD-Lean and LFD mice at enrollment (38.2 ± 5.1 g vs. 27.2 ± 1.8 g vs. 25.2 ± 2.6 g, respectively; p < 0.001; n = 50/arm). d HFD-Obese mice remained heavier than HFD-lean and LFD mice at study end (39.7 ± 5.4 g vs. 32.2 ± 3.9 g vs. 28.5 ± 3.9 g, respectively; p < 0.001; n = 50/arm). e Four weeks following doxycycline withdrawal, body fat composition determined by nuclear magnetic resonance was significantly increased in HFD-Obese mice compared with HFD-Lean and LFD mice, with greater total fat mass (14.3 ± 3.7 g vs. 6.9 ± 2.3 g vs. 4.2 ± 2.1 g, respectively; p < 0.001; n = 10/arm) and body fat percentage (38.6 ± 5.8% vs. 24.9 ± 6.0% vs. 15.7 ± 6.4%, respectively; p < 0.001). f HFD-Obese mice had greater body fat percentage than LFD and HFD-Lean mice at study end (36.8 ± 6.4% vs. 28.5 ± 6.7% vs. 22.4 ± 8.0%, p < 0.001; n = 50/arm). Figures are dot plots showing mean data. *p < 0.05 and ***p < 0.001
Fig. 3a Serum adipokines were measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in a subset of mice (n = 10/arm) at time of enrollment. High-fat diet (HFD)-Obese mice had higher circulating levels of leptin relative to HFD-Lean and low-fat diet (LFD) mice (17,512 ± 6876 pg/ml vs. 7310 ± 4341 pg/ml vs. 6461 ± 4036 pg/ml, respectively; p < 0.001). b Serum resistin levels were elevated in HFD-Obese mice relative to HFD-Lean and LFD mice (9884 ± 3443 pg/ml vs. 6158 ± 4653 pg/ml vs. 5486 ± 2008 pg/ml, respectively; p < 0.001). c Serum adiponectin levels were decreased in HFD-Obese mice relative to HFD-Lean and LFD mice (11.6 ± 2.0 ng/ml vs. 15.7 ± 2.5 ng/ml vs. 13.0 ± 1.8 ng/ml, respectively; p < 0.001). Figures are dot plots showing mean data. **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001
Fig. 4a Fasting serum glucose levels were measured after an overnight fast at time of enrollment. Obesity was associated with elevated fasting serum glucose levels relative to high-fat diet (HFD)-Lean and low-fat diet (LFD) mice (140.0 ± 24.7 mg/dl vs. 124.1 ± 19.8 mg/dl vs. 123.3 ± 18.9 mg/dl, respectively; p < 0.001; n = 50/arm). b Glucose values during 2-h intraperitoneal glucose tolerance test (IP-GTT). c Quantification of 2-h IP-GTT assay using the AUC of serum glucose levels as a function of time. HFD-Obese mice had significantly higher serum glucose levels following a glucose load, relative to HFD-Lean and LFD mice (30,500.4 ± 7437.7 mg/dl/minute vs. 19,798.4 ± 5419.4 mg/dl/minute vs. 16,557.1 ± 6517.3 mg/dl/minute, respectively; p < 0.001; n = 50/arm). d Fasting serum insulin was measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay in a subset of mice (n = 10/arm) at time of enrollment. HFD-Obese mice exhibited hyperinsulinemia relative to HFD-Lean and LFD mice (519.9 ± 366.1 ng/ml vs. 168.3 ± 106.8 ng/ml vs. 405.6 ± 257.3 ng/ml, respectively; p = 0.028). Dot plots show mean data. Error bars represent the SEM. **p < 0.01 and ***p < 0.001
Serum biomarkers of diet-induced obesity (n = 10/arm)
| LFD | HFD-Lean | HFD-Obese | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex hormones | ||||||
| Estradiol, pg/ml | 5.46 [4.97–6.49] | 0.190 | 4.82 [4.22–7.55] | 0.739 | 4.81 [4.4–5.83] | 0.474 |
| Testosterone, ng/ml | 0.492 [0.161–0.754] | 0.463 | 0.466 [0.124–7.17] | 0.876 | 0.227 [0.197–0.44] | 0.769 |
| SHBG, μg/ml | 1.3 [1.08–303] | 0.631 | 24.7 [1.44–332] | 0.529 | 9.65 [1.15–316] | 0.416 |
| Adipokines | ||||||
| Leptin, pg/ml | 5630 [3190–8070] |
| 6940 [4250–12,100] |
| 18,100 [11,800–20,900] |
|
| Adiponectin, ng/ml | 12.6 [11.6–14.1] | 0.190 | 14.7 [13.4–17.9] |
| 12.2 [9.96–13] |
|
| Resistin, pg/ml | 5410 [3640–6690] |
| 5640 [3600–7780] |
| 9250 [6950–12,400] |
|
| Inflammatory markers | ||||||
| TNF-α, pg/ml | 9.86 [5.67–12.5] | 0.268 | 11.6 [10.1–14.5] | 0.918 | 12.5 [8.33–15.2] | 0.287 |
| IL-6, pg/ml | 4.58 [2.13–5.94] | 0.536 | 0.548 [0.387–1.13] | 0.083 | 1.88 [0.316–11.6] |
|
| MCP-1, pg/ml | 39.3 [36.9–41.9] | 0.094 | 38.7 [31.1–53.2] | 0.202 | 64.4 [40.2–93.2] | 0.175 |
| CRP, ng/ml | 18.2 [15.3–19.4] | 0.286 | 16.9 [15.2–18.1] | 0.421 | 15.7 [15–18] | 0.334 |
| tPAI-1, pg/ml | 12,200 [8650–16,200] | 0.739 | 11,900 [9480–14,900] | 0.481 | 13,900 [8580–17,500] | 0.774 |
| Corticosterone, ng/ml | 110 [72.5–164] | 0.315 | 200 [85.2–304] | 0.796 | 199 [75.3–223] | 0.379 |
| HGF, pg/ml | 9910 [7860–10,800] | 0.280 | 9370 [7600–11,900] | 0.247 | 8520 [6210–10,300] | 0.384 |
| Insulin/IGF-1 signaling | ||||||
| Insulin, pg/ml | 359 [216–625] | 0.481 | 161 [117–245] |
| 426 [228–840] |
|
| IGF-1, ng/ml | 462 [417–542] |
| 542 [518–609] | 0.280 | 581 [559–617] |
|
| IGFBP1, ng/ml | 7.12 [4.35–11.5] | 0.064 | 5.16 [4.1–9.01] | 0.436 | 4.37 [3.32–7.02] | 0.170 |
| IGFBP2, ng/ml | 145 [107–184] | 0.912 | 224 [155–292] |
| 148 [105–176] | 0.057 |
| IGFBP3, ng/ml | 204 [191–213] | 0.579 | 197 [176–223] | 0.912 | 193 [176–228] | 0.836 |
| IGFBP5, ng/ml | 12.7 [0.811–18.8] | 0.345 | 6.97 [0.861–18.9] | 0.579 | 3.99 [0.818–10.4] | 0.607 |
| IGFBP6, ng/ml | 206 [180–216] | 0.105 | 224 [196–283] | 0.684 | 223 [200–254] | 0.121 |
| IGFBP7, ng/ml | 18.2 [16.4–21.6] | 0.393 | 19.2 [16.3–23] | 0.684 | 20.5 [17.7–22.5] | 0.673 |
| IGF1/IGFBP1 | 69.7 [42.6–109] |
| 111 [62.5–138] | 0.393 | 131 [92.6–197] | 0.079 |
| IGF1/IGFBP2 | 3.51 [2.52–4.7] | 0.218 | 2.5 [1.83–4.03] |
| 4.01 [3.2–5.64] | 0.061 |
| IGF1/IGFBP3 | 2.4 [2.06–2.64] |
| 2.81 [2.59–3.05] | 0.631 | 3.02 [2.56–3.33] |
|
| IGF1/IGFBP5 | 41.2 [22.7–574] | 0.075 | 94.1 [39.6–673] | 0.353 | 501 [77.8–703] | 0.171 |
| IGF1/IGFBP6 | 2.39 [2.08–2.61] | 0.247 | 2.38 [2.04–2.94] | 0.436 | 2.84 [2.18–3.17] | 0.475 |
| IGF1/IGFBP7 | 26.2 [22.7–29.4] | 0.280 | 28 [25.1–33.7] | 1.000 | 29.7 [22.9–35] | 0.394 |
Abbreviations: CRP C-reactive protein, HFD High-fat diet, HGF Hepatocyte growth factor, IGF Insulin-like growth factor, IGFBP Insulin-like growth factor-binding protein, IL Interleukin, LFD Low-fat diet, MCP Monocyte chemoattractant protein, SHBG Sex hormone-binding globulin, TNF-α Tumor necrosis factor-α, tPAI1 Tissue plasminogen activator inhibitor 1
Values represent medians [95% CI]. Bold indicates statistical significance (p ≤ 0.05)
aMann-Whitney U test between LFD and HFD-Obese
bMann-Whitney U test between HFD-Lean and HFD-Obese
cKruskal-Wallis test across three arms
Fig. 5A 679-gene expression signature derived from comparison of mouse parametrial fat collected following primary tumor regression in high-fat diet (HFD)-Obese and low-fat diet (LFD) mice (fold change > 1.5, false discovery rate < 0.1) was applied to a body mass index (BMI)-stratified human dataset (Gene Expression Omnibus accession number GSE27949). Scores of an obesity-associated gene signature derived from murine adipose tissue identified parallel transcriptomic changes in human adipose samples from obese and overweight subjects compared with subjects of normal weight (overall analysis of variance p value = 0.003); t test ***p value < 0.001. Horizontal lines represent means
Fig. 6Diet-induced obesity is associated with accelerated mammary tumor recurrence (median recurrence-free survival [RFS]: high-fat diet [HFD]-Obese: 53.0 days vs. HFD-lean: 87.0 days vs. low-fat diet [LFD]: 80.0 days, p < 0.001) and increased recurrence risk (relative to HFD-Lean: HR 2.52, 95% CI 1.52–4.16; relative to LFD: HR 2.27, 95% CI 1.42–3.63). There was no significant difference in RFS between the two lean cohorts (p = 0.647)
Fig. 7a High-fat diet (HFD)-Obese, HFD-Lean, and low-fat diet (LFD) TAN mice (n = 5/arm) were killed following primary tumor regression to assess residual disease. HFD-Obese mice weighed significantly more than HFD-Lean and LFD mice (37.9 ± 5.3 g vs. 29.8 ± 1.6 g vs. 28.4 ± 4.9 g, respectively; p = 0.004). b HFD-Obese TAN mice had elevated body fat percentage relative to HFD-Lean and LFD mice (37.9 ± 4.5% vs. 30.1 ± 2.0% vs. 23.7 ± 11.5%, respectively; p = 0.004). c HFD-Obese TAN mice had elevated fasting serum glucose levels relative to HFD-Lean and LFD mice (99.6 ± 15.3 mg/dl vs. 70.3 ± 10.0 mg/dl vs. 76.2 ± 6.8 mg/dl, respectively; p = 0.009). d Representative bright-field and fluorescence imaging of residual disease within the mammary glands of mice following tumor regression. e Representative residual lesion quantification of rtTA-positive droplets by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR). f Representative control mammary tissue quantification of rtTA-positive droplets by ddPCR. g HFD-Obese mice harbored a significantly greater number of rtTA-positive tumor cells in residual lesions relative to HFD-Lean and LFD mice (12,550 ± 991 vs. 7339 ± 2182 vs. 4793 ± 1618 cells, respectively; p < 0.001). h Recurrence-free survival of TAN mice (n = 15/arm) following primary tumor induction by orthotopic injection of MTB/TAN tumor cells and subsequent doxycycline withdrawal. Recurrence-free survival was significantly poorer for HFD-Obese mice than for HFD-Lean and LFD mice (log-rank p = 0.009, HR 5.81, 95% CI 1.28–26.36). Dot plots show mean data. Error bars represent the SEM. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01