| Literature DB >> 33050096 |
Iris Garrido-Cano1,2, Vera Constâncio2, Anna Adam-Artigues1, Ana Lameirinhas1, Soraya Simón1,3, Belen Ortega1,3, María Teresa Martínez1,3, Cristina Hernando1,3, Begoña Bermejo1,3, Ana Lluch3,4,5, Paula Lopes2,6, Rui Henrique2,6,7, Carmen Jerónimo2,7, Juan Miguel Cejalvo1,3, Pilar Eroles1,4,8,9.
Abstract
MicroRNAs have emerged as new diagnostic and therapeutic biomarkers for breast cancer. Herein, we analysed miR-99a-5p expression levels in primary tumours and plasma of breast cancer patients to evaluate its usefulness as a minimally invasive diagnostic biomarker. MiR-99a-5p expression levels were determined by quantitative real-time PCR in three independent cohorts of patients: (I) Discovery cohort: breast cancer tissues (n = 103) and healthy breast tissues (n = 26); (II) Testing cohort: plasma samples from 105 patients and 98 healthy donors; (III) Validation cohort: plasma samples from 89 patients and 85 healthy donors. Our results demonstrated that miR-99a-5p was significantly downregulated in breast cancer tissues compared to healthy breast tissues. Conversely, miR-99a-5p levels were significantly higher in breast cancer patients than in healthy controls in plasma samples from both testing and validation cohorts, and ROC curve analysis revealed that miR-99a-5p has good diagnostic potential even to detect early breast cancer. In conclusion, miR-99a-5p's deregulated expression distinguished healthy patients from breast cancer patients in two different types of samples (tissues and plasma). Interestingly, expression levels in plasma were significantly lower in healthy controls than in early-stage breast cancer patients. Our findings suggest circulating miR-99a-5p as a novel promising non-invasive biomarker for breast cancer detection.Entities:
Keywords: biomarker; breast cancer; diagnosis; plasma
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33050096 PMCID: PMC7582935 DOI: 10.3390/ijms21197427
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Study design to develop a novel miRNA biomarker.
Clinicopathological characteristics of breast cancer patients and controls in discovery cohort: cohort #1.
| Characteristics | Tissue Samples | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Breast Cancer Patients | Controls | ||
| Number | 103 | 26 | |
| Median age, years (range) | 59.7 (57–62) | 54.6 (47–63) | |
| Molecular subtype, | |||
| Luminal | 59 (57.3%) | n.a. | |
| TNBC | 30 (29.1%) | ||
| Her 2 | 14 (13.6%) | ||
| Grade group, | |||
| 1 | 9 (8.7%) | n.a. | |
| 2 | 36 (35%) | ||
| 3 | 46 (44.7%) | ||
| Unknown | 12 (11.6%) | ||
| Stage, | |||
| I | 12 (11.7%) | n.a. | |
| II | 63 (61.2%) | ||
| III | 13 (12.6%) | ||
| Unknown | 15 (14.6%) | ||
| Pathological T stage, | |||
| pT1 | 24 (23.3%) | n.a. | |
| pT2 | 57 (55.3%) | ||
| pT3 | 6 (5.8%) | ||
| pT4 | 1 (1%) | ||
| Unknown | 15 (14.6%) | ||
| Regional lymph node metastasis, | |||
| No | 39 (37.9%) | n.a. | |
| Yes | 50 (48.5%) | ||
| Unknown | 14 (13.6) | ||
| Distant metastasis, | |||
| No | 89 (86.4%) | n.a. | |
| Yes | 0 (0%) | ||
| Unknown | 14 (13.6%) | ||
| TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; n.a., not applicable | |||
Figure 2(A) MiR-99a expression levels in breast cancer tissues from Cohort #1. Differential miR-99a expression levels in 103 breast cancer tissues were compared with 26 normal breast tissues. Red horizontal line: median with interquartile range. Mann–Whitney U, **** p < 0.0001. (B) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for miR-99a expression levels in breast cancer tissue samples. (C) TCGA data for the expression of miR-99a-5p in normal solid tissue (n = 52) and breast primary tumour (n = 782). Expression is represented as reads per million miRNA mapped. Horizontal line: median with interquartile range. Mann–Whitney U, **** p < 0.0001.
Association between tissue miR-99a levels and clinicopathological features of breast cancer patients (cohort #1).
| Number (%) | Median (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Histological subtype, | ||||
| Luminal | 59 (57.3%) | 27.00 (31.25–55.26) | 0.9783 | |
| TNBC | 30 (29.1%) | 33.65 (25.62–44.83) | ||
| Her 2-enriched | 14 (13.6%) | 18.51 (8.64–93.79) | ||
| Unknown | n.a. | |||
| Grade group, | ||||
| 1 | 9 (8.7%) | 38.76 (9.45–110.10) | 0.7869 | |
| 2 | 36 (35.0%) | 18.18 (25.27–56.10) | ||
| 3 | 46 (44.7%) | 32.33 (25.31–57.65) | ||
| Unknown | 12 (11.6%) | |||
| Stage | ||||
| Early (I and II) | 75 (72.8%) | 21.38 (29.78–54.31) | 0.8250 | |
| Late (III and IV) | 13 (12.6%) | 35.87 (19.85–43.36) | ||
| Unknown | 15 (14.6%) | |||
| Pathological T stage, | ||||
| pT1 | 24 (23.3%) | 23.40 (18.43–52.7) | 0.687 | |
| pT2 | 57 (55.3%) | 23.05 (28.32–48.89) | ||
| pT3 | 6 (5.8%) | 24.57 (-61.25–213.1) | ||
| pT4 | 1 (1%) | 54.97 | ||
| Unknown | 15 (14.6%) | |||
| Regional lymph node metastasis, | ||||
| No | 39 (37.9%) | 18.51 (23.08–64.21) | 0.6279 | |
| Yes | 50 (48.5%) | 33.90 (28.52–49.03) | ||
| Unknown | 14 (13.6) | |||
| TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; n.a., not applicable | ||||
Clinicopathological characteristics of breast cancer patients and controls of testing and validation cohorts: cohort #2 and cohort #3.
| Plasma Samples | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cohort #2 | Cohort #3 | |||
| Breast Cancer Patients | Controls | Breast Cancer Patients | Controls | |
| Number | 105 | 98 | 89 | 85 |
| Median age, years (range) | 52 (29–82) | 50 (40–64) | 54.1(32–92) | 55 (32–90) |
| Histological subtype, | ||||
| Luminal | 92 (87.6%) | n.a. | 54 (60.7%) | n.a. |
| TNBC | 7 (6.7%) | 15 (16.9%) | ||
| Her 2-enriched | 5 (4.8%) | 18 (20.2%) | ||
| Unknown | 1 (1%) | 2 (2.2%) | ||
| Grade group, n (%) | ||||
| 1 | 8 (7.6%) | n.a. | 19 (21.3%) | n.a. |
| 2 | 54 (51.4%) | 44 (49.4%) | ||
| 3 | 39 (37.1%) | 25 (28.1%) | ||
| Unknown | 4 (3.8%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
| Stage, | ||||
| I | 42 (40%) | n.a. | 24 (27.0%) | n.a. |
| II | 18 (17.1%) | 41 (46.1%) | ||
| III | 32 (30.5%) | 15 (16.3%) | ||
| IV | 13 (12.4%) | 5 (5.4%) | ||
| Unknown | 4 (4.3%) | |||
| Pathological T stage, | ||||
| pT1 | 46 (43.8%) | n.a. | 36 (40.4%) | n.a. |
| pT2 | 29 (27.6%) | 37 (41.6%) | ||
| pT3 | 18 (17.1%) | 9 (10.1%) | ||
| pT4 | 10 (9.5%) | 1 (1.1%) | ||
| Unknown | 2 (1.9%) | 6 (6.7%) | ||
| Regional lymph node metastasis, | ||||
| No | 53 (50.5%) | n.a. | 47 (52.8%) | n.a. |
| Yes | 50 (47.6%) | 36 (40.4%) | ||
| Unknown | 2 (1.9%) | 6 (6.7%) | ||
| Distant metastasis, | ||||
| No | 92 (87.6%) | n.a. | 80 (89.9%) | n.a. |
| Yes | 13 (12.4%) | 7 (7.9%) | ||
| Unknown | 2 (2.2%) | |||
| TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; n.a., not applicable | ||||
Figure 3(A) Circulating miR-99a levels in cohort #2. Differential miR-99a levels in 105 plasma of breast cancer patients were compared with those of 98 healthy controls. Expression levels were significantly lower in healthy controls than in breast cancer patients. Red horizontal line: median with interquartile range. Mann–Whitney U, **** p < 0.0001. (B) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for circulating miR-99a levels in cohort #2.
Figure 4(A) Circulating miR-99a levels in cohort #3. Differential miR-99a levels in plasma of 89 breast cancer patients were compared with those of 85 healthy controls. Expression levels were significantly lower in healthy controls than in breast cancer patients. Red horizontal line: median with interquartile range. Mann–Whitney U, **** p < 0.0001. (B) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for circulating miR-99a levels in cohort #3.
Association between circulating miR-99a levels and clinicopathological features of breast cancer patients (cohorts #2 and #3).
| Number (%) | Median (95% CI) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Histological subtype, | ||||
| Luminal | 146 (75.3%) | 24.42 (16.00–36.14) | 0.0590 | |
| TNBC | 22 (11.3%) | 9.50 (3.46–33.22) | ||
| Her 2-enriched | 23 (11.9%) | 29.93 (13.53–89.41) | ||
| Unknown | 3 (1.5%) | |||
| Grade group, | ||||
| 1 | 27 (13.9%) | 14.86 (5.61–36.9) | 0.4594 | |
| 2 | 98 (50.5%) | 28.29 (18.05–44.09) | ||
| 3 | 64 (33.0%) | 18.06 (12.88–36.14) | ||
| Unknown | 5 (2.6%) | |||
| Stage | ||||
| Early (I and II) | 125 (64.4%) | 24.26 (15.98–36.90) | 0.2382 | |
| Late (III and IV) | 65 (33.5%) | 21.02 (12.08–35.81) | ||
| Unknown | 4 (2.1%) | |||
| Pathological T stage, | ||||
| pT1 | 82 (42.3%) | 24.23 (15.98–38.61) | 0.4119 | |
| pT2 | 66 (34.0%) | 27.26 (12.91–44.91) | ||
| pT3 | 27 (13.9%) | 10.99 (3.54–49.49) | ||
| pT4 | 11 (5.6%) | 35.81 (5.34–48.45) | ||
| Unknown | 8 (4.1%) | |||
| Regional lymph node metastasis, | ||||
| No | 100 (51.5%) | 24.23 (15.98–38.61) | 0.3232 | |
| Yes | 86 (44.3%) | 19.54 (12.91–35.84) | ||
| Unknown | 8 (4.1%) | |||
| Distant metastasis, | ||||
| No | 172 (88.7%) | 20.03 (15.18–29.70) | 0.1810 | |
| Yes | 20 (10.3%) | 35.82 (16.2–91.99) | ||
| Unknown | 2 (1.0%) | |||
| TNBC, triple-negative breast cancer; n.a., not applicable | ||||
Figure 5(A) Expression of miR-99a in early-stage breast cancer plasma. Distribution of circulating miR-99a levels in 125 plasma of early-stage breast cancer patients (stage I and II) and 193 healthy controls. Expression levels were significantly lower in healthy controls than in early-stage breast cancer patients. Horizontal line: median with interquartile range. Mann–Whitney U, **** p < 0.0001. (B) Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for circulating miR-99a levels in early-stage breast cancer patients.