| Literature DB >> 31568637 |
María Auxiliadora Olivares-Urbano1, Carmen Griñán-Lisón2,3, Mercedes Zurita4, Rosario Del Moral4, Sandra Ríos-Arrabal1, Francisco Artacho-Cordón1,5, Juan Pedro Arrebola5,6, Amanda Rocío González7, Josefa León5, Juan Antonio Marchal2,3,5, María Isabel Núñez1,2,5.
Abstract
Breast cancer (BC) is the most common tumour in women and one of the most important causes of cancer death worldwide. Radiation therapy (RT) is widely used for BC treatment. Some proteins have been identified as prognostic factors for BC (Ki67, p53, E-cadherin, HER2). In the last years, it has been shown that variations in the expression of MMPs and TIMPs may contribute to the development of BC. The aim of this pilot work was to study the effects of RT on different MMPs (-1, -2, -3, -7, -8, -9, -10, -12 and -13) and TIMPs (-1 to -4), as well as their relationship with other variables related to patient characteristics and tumour biology. A group of 20 BC patients treated with RT were recruited. MMP and TIMP serum levels were analysed by immunoassay before, during and after RT. Our pilot study showed a slight increase in the levels of most MMP and TIMP with RT. However, RT produced a significantly decrease in TIMP-1 and TIMP-3 levels. Significant correlations were found between MMP-3 and TIMP-4 levels, and some of the variables studied related to patient characteristics and tumour biology. Moreover, MMP-9 and TIMP-3 levels could be predictive of RT toxicity. For this reason, MMP-3, MMP-9, TIMP-3 and TIMP-4 could be used as potential prognostic and predictive biomarkers for BC patients treated with RT.Entities:
Keywords: breast cancer patients; matrix metalloproteases; prognostic and predictive biomarkers; radiotherapy; tissue inhibitors
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31568637 PMCID: PMC6933337 DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.14671
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cell Mol Med ISSN: 1582-1838 Impact factor: 5.310
Description of the variables studied related to patient characteristics, tumour biology and RT (n = 20)
| Variables | n | (%) | Recurrence | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No | Yes | |||
| Age | ||||
| ≤50 y | 10 | 50 | 9 | 1 |
| >50 y | 10 | 50 | 8 | 2 |
| Menopausal status | ||||
| Pre‐menopausal | 10 | 50 | 9 | 1 |
| Menopausal | 6 | 30 | 5 | 1 |
| Post‐menopausal | 4 | 20 | 3 | 1 |
| Type of carcinoma | ||||
| Invasive ductal | 19 | 95 | 16 | 3 |
| Invasive lobular | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Tumour classification (ER, PR, HER2) | ||||
| Hormone‐negative | 2 | 10 | 1 | 1 |
| Hormone‐positive | 18 | 90 | 16 | 2 |
| Differentiation grade | ||||
| Grade I | 9 | 45 | 8 | 1 |
| Grade II | 7 | 35 | 6 | 1 |
| Grade III | 4 | 20 | 3 | 1 |
| E‐cadherin | ||||
| Positive | 16 | 80 | 14 | 2 |
| Negative | 4 | 20 | 3 | 1 |
| p53 | ||||
| Positive | 3 | 15 | 2 | 1 |
| Negative | 17 | 85 | 15 | 2 |
| Ki67 | ||||
| <20% | 15 | 75 | 13 | 2 |
| ≥20% | 5 | 25 | 4 | 1 |
| Sentinel lymph node | ||||
| Yes | 12 | 60 | 11 | 1 |
| No | 8 | 40 | 6 | 2 |
| RT regimen | ||||
| Conventional | 7 | 35 | 6 | 1 |
| Hypofractionated | 13 | 65 | 11 | 2 |
| Lymph node RT | ||||
| Yes | 9 | 45 | 7 | 2 |
| No | 11 | 55 | 10 | 1 |
| RT toxicity | ||||
| No | 2 | 10 | 2 | 0 |
| Hyperpigmentation | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Erythema | 12 | 60 | 10 | 2 |
| Radiodermitis | 5 | 25 | 4 | 1 |
| Chemotherapy | ||||
| Yes | 11 | 55 | 9 | 2 |
| No | 9 | 45 | 8 | 1 |
| Recurrence | ||||
| Healthy | 17 | 85 | ||
| Sick | 3 | 15 | ||
Figure 1Time course of serum levels of MMPs and TIMPs before, during and after RT. Values are presented as median ± SD (error bars); * P < .05 and ** P < .01
Figure 2Correlation between the serum levels of MMPs and TIMPs before (A), during (B) and after (C) RT. The range of colours represents the different values of rho (ρ): positive correlation (0 < ρ < 1), negative correlation (−1 < ρ < 0) and no correlation (ρ = 0)
Figure 3Serum levels of MMPs and TIMPs before, during and after RT in relation to patient‐dependent variables (A) and tumour biology‐dependent variables (B and C). Only the statistically significant variables are represented. (A) MMP‐3 levels in relation to menopausal status of the patients. (B) MMP‐3 levels in relation to tumour classification, differentiation grade and E‐cadherin presence. (C) TIMP‐4 levels in relation to sentinel lymph node, Ki67 percentage and E‐cadherin presence. Values are presented as median ± SD (error bars); * P < .05 and ** P < .01
Figure 4Serum levels of MMPs and TIMPs before, during and after RT based on RT‐related variables (A, B and C). Only the statistically significant variables are represented. (A) MMP‐9 levels in relation to radiation toxicity. (B) TIMP‐1 levels in relation to lymph node radiotherapy. (C) TIMP‐3 levels in relation to radiation toxicity. Values are presented as median ± SD (error bars); * P < .05
Figure 5Serum levels of MMPs and TIMPs before and after RT in relation to the six‐month recurrence. Values are presented as median ± SD (error bars); * P < .05 and ** P < .01