Suppr超能文献

导管原位癌与浸润性乳腺癌分子表型的比较。

Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.

作者信息

Tamimi Rulla M, Baer Heather J, Marotti Jonathan, Galan Mark, Galaburda Laurie, Fu Yineng, Deitz Anne C, Connolly James L, Schnitt Stuart J, Colditz Graham A, Collins Laura C

机构信息

Channing Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 181 Longwood Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA.

出版信息

Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(4):R67. doi: 10.1186/bcr2128. Epub 2008 Aug 5.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

At least four major categories of invasive breast cancer that are associated with different clinical outcomes have been identified by gene expression profiling: luminal A, luminal B, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) and basal-like. However, the prevalence of these phenotypes among cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has not been previously evaluated in detail. The purpose of this study was to compare the prevalence of these distinct molecular subtypes among cases of DCIS and invasive breast cancer.

METHODS

We constructed tissue microarrays (TMAs) from breast cancers that developed in 2897 women enrolled in the Nurses' Health Study (1976 to 1996). TMA slides were immunostained for oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), HER2, cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Using these immunostain results, cases were grouped into molecularly defined subtypes.

RESULTS

The prevalence of the distinct molecular phenotypes differed significantly between DCIS (n = 272) and invasive breast cancers (n = 2249). The luminal A phenotype was significantly more frequent among invasive cancers (73.4%) than among DCIS lesions (62.5%) (p = 0.0002). In contrast, luminal B and HER2 molecular phenotypes were both more frequent among DCIS (13.2% and 13.6%, respectively) as compared with invasive tumours (5.2% and 5.7%, respectively) (p < 0.0001). The basal-like phenotype was more frequent among the invasive cancers (10.9%) than DCIS (7.7%), although this difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.15). High-grade DCIS and invasive tumours were more likely to be HER2 type and basal-like than low- or intermediate-grade lesions. Among invasive tumours, basal-like and HER2 type tumours were more likely to be more than 2 cm in size, high-grade and have nodal involvement compared with luminal A tumours.

CONCLUSION

The major molecular phenotypes previously identified among invasive breast cancers were also identified among cases of DCIS. However, the prevalence of the luminal A, luminal B and HER2 phenotypes differed significantly between DCIS and invasive breast cancers.

摘要

引言

通过基因表达谱分析已确定至少四类与不同临床结果相关的浸润性乳腺癌:腔面A型、腔面B型、人表皮生长因子受体2(HER2)型和基底样型。然而,导管原位癌(DCIS)病例中这些表型的患病率此前尚未得到详细评估。本研究的目的是比较DCIS病例和浸润性乳腺癌中这些不同分子亚型的患病率。

方法

我们从参加护士健康研究(1976年至1996年)的2897名女性所患的乳腺癌中构建了组织微阵列(TMA)。TMA载玻片用雌激素受体(ER)、孕激素受体(PR)、HER2、细胞角蛋白5/6(CK5/6)和表皮生长因子受体(EGFR)进行免疫染色。利用这些免疫染色结果,将病例分组为分子定义的亚型。

结果

DCIS(n = 272)和浸润性乳腺癌(n = 2249)中不同分子表型的患病率存在显著差异。腔面A型在浸润性癌(73.4%)中比在DCIS病变(62.5%)中更为常见(p = 0.0002)。相反,与浸润性肿瘤(分别为5.2%和5.7%)相比,腔面B型和HER2分子表型在DCIS中更为常见(分别为13.2%和13.6%)(p < 0.0001)。基底样型在浸润性癌(10.9%)中比在DCIS(7.7%)中更为常见,尽管这种差异无统计学意义(p = 0.15)。高级别DCIS和浸润性肿瘤比低级别或中级别的病变更可能是HER2型和基底样型。在浸润性肿瘤中,与腔面A型肿瘤相比,基底样型和HER2型肿瘤更可能大于2 cm、高级别且有淋巴结受累。

结论

此前在浸润性乳腺癌中确定的主要分子表型在DCIS病例中也被发现。然而,DCIS和浸润性乳腺癌之间腔面A型、腔面B型和HER2型表型的患病率存在显著差异。

相似文献

1
Comparison of molecular phenotypes of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer.
Breast Cancer Res. 2008;10(4):R67. doi: 10.1186/bcr2128. Epub 2008 Aug 5.
2
Androgen receptor expression in breast cancer in relation to molecular phenotype: results from the Nurses' Health Study.
Mod Pathol. 2011 Jul;24(7):924-31. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2011.54. Epub 2011 May 6.
5
Clonal alteration of breast cancer receptors between primary ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and corresponding local events.
Eur J Cancer. 2014 Feb;50(3):517-24. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.10.020. Epub 2013 Nov 22.
6
Molecular subtyping of DCIS: heterogeneity of breast cancer reflected in pre-invasive disease.
Br J Cancer. 2011 Jan 4;104(1):120-7. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjc.6606021. Epub 2010 Dec 7.
8
Molecular phenotypes of DCIS predict overall and invasive recurrence.
Ann Oncol. 2015 May;26(5):1019-1025. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdv062. Epub 2015 Feb 12.
9
Molecular profile of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutation carriers.
J Clin Pathol. 2009 Oct;62(10):926-30. doi: 10.1136/jcp.2009.065524. Epub 2009 Jun 18.
10
Traditional breast cancer risk factors in relation to molecular subtypes of breast cancer.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Jan;131(1):159-67. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1702-0. Epub 2011 Aug 10.

引用本文的文献

1
Regular aspirin use, breast tumor characteristics and long-term breast cancer survival.
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2025 Jul 1;11(1):62. doi: 10.1038/s41523-025-00775-2.
3
An Overview of Invasive Ductal Carcinoma (IDC) in Women's Breast Cancer.
Curr Mol Med. 2025;25(4):361-371. doi: 10.2174/0115665240349468241113065031.
4
Comparison of the Structural, Cytological and Biomarker Expression in Carcinoma in situ and Invasive Components in Breast Carcinoma.
Iran J Pathol. 2024;19(3):318-325. doi: 10.30699/IJP.2024.2025907.3285. Epub 2024 Apr 7.
5
Spectrum of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) Lesions of the Breast: From Morphology to Molecular Characteristics.
Cureus. 2024 Sep 22;16(9):e69929. doi: 10.7759/cureus.69929. eCollection 2024 Sep.
6
Consumption of aspartame and risk of breast cancer in the Nurses' Health Studies.
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2025 Apr 1;117(4):795-800. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djae259.
7
Expression of T cell-related proteins in breast ductal carcinoma .
Histol Histopathol. 2025 Apr;40(4):467-475. doi: 10.14670/HH-18-805. Epub 2024 Sep 2.
8
Germline polygenic risk scores are associated with immune gene expression signature and immune cell infiltration in breast cancer.
Am J Hum Genet. 2024 Oct 3;111(10):2150-2163. doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2024.08.009. Epub 2024 Sep 12.
9
Differentiating Primary and Recurrent Lesions in Patients with a History of Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Review.
Galen Med J. 2024 Apr 22;13:e3340. doi: 10.31661/gmj.v13i.3340. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

1
Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype.
Clin Cancer Res. 2008 Mar 1;14(5):1368-76. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1658.
3
Epidemiology of basal-like breast cancer.
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008 May;109(1):123-39. doi: 10.1007/s10549-007-9632-6. Epub 2007 Jun 20.
5
Pathological and biological differences between screen-detected and interval ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast.
Ann Surg Oncol. 2007 Jul;14(7):2097-104. doi: 10.1245/s10434-007-9395-7. Epub 2007 Apr 24.
6
Differences in risk factors for breast cancer molecular subtypes in a population-based study.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007 Mar;16(3):439-43. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0806.
8
Identification of a basal-like subtype of breast ductal carcinoma in situ.
Hum Pathol. 2007 Feb;38(2):197-204. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2006.08.017.
9
P-cadherin and cytokeratin 5: useful adjunct markers to distinguish basal-like ductal carcinomas in situ.
Virchows Arch. 2007 Jan;450(1):73-80. doi: 10.1007/s00428-006-0334-y. Epub 2006 Nov 23.
10
Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study.
JAMA. 2006 Jun 7;295(21):2492-502. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.21.2492.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验