Ingrid Hedenfalk

Gene-expression profiles in hereditary breast cancer.

BACKGROUND Many cases of hereditary breast cancer are due to mutations in either the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene. The histopathological changes in these cancers are often characteristic of the mutant gene. We hypothesized that the genes expressed by these two types of tumors are also distinctive, perhaps allowing us to identify cases of hereditary breast cancer on the basis of gene-expression profiles. METHODS RNA from samples of primary tumor from seven carriers of the BRCA1 mutation, seven carriers of the BRCA2 mutation, and seven patients with sporadic cases of breast cancer was compared with a microarray of 6512 complementary DNA clones of 5361 genes. Statistical analyses were used to identify a set of genes that could distinguish the BRCA1 genotype from the BRCA2 genotype. RESULTS Permutation analysis of multivariate classification functions established that the gene-expression profiles of tumors with BRCA1 mutations, tumors with BRCA2 mutations, and sporadic tumors differed significantly from each other. An analysis of variance between the levels of gene expression and the genotype of the samples identified 176 genes that were differentially expressed in tumors with BRCA1 mutations and tumors with BRCA2 mutations. Given the known properties of some of the genes in this panel, our findings indicate that there are functional differences between breast tumors with BRCA1 mutations and those with BRCA2 mutations. CONCLUSIONS Significantly different groups of genes are expressed by breast cancers with BRCA1 mutations and breast cancers with BRCA2 mutations. Our results suggest that a heritable mutation influences the gene-expression profile of the cancer.

Molecular classification of familial non-BRCA1/BRCA2 breast cancer

In the decade since their discovery, the two major breast cancer susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2, have been shown conclusively to be involved in a significant fraction of families segregating breast and ovarian cancer. However, it has become equally clear that a large proportion of families segregating breast cancer alone are not caused by mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Unfortunately, despite intensive effort, the identification of additional breast cancer predisposition genes has so far been unsuccessful, presumably because of genetic heterogeneity, low penetrance, or recessive/polygenic mechanisms. These non-BRCA1/2 breast cancer families (termed BRCAx families) comprise a histopathologically heterogeneous group, further supporting their origin from multiple genetic events. Accordingly, the identification of a method to successfully subdivide BRCAx families into recognizable groups could be of considerable value to further genetic analysis. We have previously shown that global gene expression analysis can identify unique and distinct expression profiles in breast tumors from BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Here we show that gene expression profiling can discover novel classes among BRCAx tumors, and differentiate them from BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors. Moreover, microarray-based comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) to cDNA arrays revealed specific somatic genetic alterations within the BRCAx subgroups. These findings illustrate that, when gene expression-based classifications are used, BRCAx families can be grouped into homogeneous subsets, thereby potentially increasing the power of conventional genetic analysis.

RNA quality in frozen breast cancer samples and the influence on gene expression analysis – a comparison of three evaluation methods using microcapillary electrophoresis traces

BackgroundAssessing RNA quality is essential for gene expression analysis, as the inclusion of degraded samples may influence the interpretation of expression levels in relation to biological and/or clinical parameters. RNA quality can be analyzed by agarose gel electrophoresis, UV spectrophotometer, or microcapillary electrophoresis traces, and can furthermore be evaluated using different methods. No generally accepted recommendations exist for which technique or evaluation method is the best choice. The aim of the present study was to use microcapillary electrophoresis traces from the Bioanalyzer to compare three methods for evaluating RNA quality in 24 fresh frozen invasive breast cancer tissues: 1) Manual method = subjective evaluation of the electropherogram, 2) Ratio Method = the ratio between the 28S and 18S peaks, and 3) RNA integrity number (RIN) method = objective evaluation of the electropherogram. The results were also related to gene expression profiling analyses using 27K oligonucleotide microarrays, unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis and ontological mapping.ResultsComparing the methods pair-wise, Manual vs. Ratio showed concordance (good vs. degraded RNA) in 20/24, Manual vs. RIN in 23/24, and Ratio vs. RIN in 21/24 samples. All three methods were concordant in 20/24 samples. The comparison between RNA quality and gene expression analysis showed that pieces from the same tumor and with good RNA quality clustered together in most cases, whereas those with poor quality often clustered apart. The number of samples clustering in an unexpected manner was lower for the Manual (n = 1) and RIN methods (n = 2) as compared to the Ratio method (n = 5).Assigning the data into two groups, RIN ≥ 6 or RIN < 6, all but one of the top ten differentially expressed genes showed decreased expression in the latter group; i.e. when the RNA became degraded. Ontological mapping using GoMiner (p ≤ 0.05; ≥ 3 genes changed) revealed deoxyribonuclease activity, collagen, regulation of cell adhesion, cytosolic ribosome, and NADH dehydrogenase activity, to be the five categories most affected by RNA quality.ConclusionThe results indicate that the Manual and RIN methods are superior to the Ratio method for evaluating RNA quality in fresh frozen breast cancer tissues. The objective measurement when using the RIN method is an advantage. Furthermore, the inclusion of samples with degraded RNA may profoundly affect gene expression levels.

Gene expression profiling of primary male breast cancers reveals two unique subgroups and identifies N-acetyltransferase-1 (NAT1) as a novel prognostic biomarker

IntroductionMale breast cancer (MBC) is a rare and inadequately characterized disease. The aim of the present study was to characterize MBC tumors transcriptionally, to classify them into comprehensive subgroups, and to compare them with female breast cancer (FBC).MethodsA total of 66 clinicopathologically well-annotated fresh frozen MBC tumors were analyzed using Illumina Human HT-12 bead arrays, and a tissue microarray with 220 MBC tumors was constructed for validation using immunohistochemistry. Two external gene expression datasets were used for comparison purposes: 37 MBCs and 359 FBCs.ResultsUsing an unsupervised approach, we classified the MBC tumors into two subgroups, luminal M1 and luminal M2, respectively, with differences in tumor biological features and outcome, and which differed from the intrinsic subgroups described in FBC. The two subgroups were recapitulated in the external MBC dataset. Luminal M2 tumors were characterized by high expression of immune response genes and genes associated with estrogen receptor (ER) signaling. Luminal M1 tumors, on the other hand, despite being ER positive by immunohistochemistry showed a lower correlation to genes associated with ER signaling and displayed a more aggressive phenotype and worse prognosis. Validation of two of the most differentially expressed genes, class 1 human leukocyte antigen (HLA) and the metabolizing gene N-acetyltransferase-1 (NAT1), respectively, revealed significantly better survival associated with high expression of both markers (HLA, hazard ratio (HR) 3.6, P = 0.002; NAT1, HR 2.5, P = 0.033). Importantly, NAT1 remained significant in a multivariate analysis (HR 2.8, P = 0.040) and may thus be a novel prognostic marker in MBC.ConclusionsWe have detected two unique and stable subgroups of MBC with differences in tumor biological features and outcome. They differ from the widely acknowledged intrinsic subgroups of FBC. As such, they may constitute two novel subgroups of breast cancer, occurring exclusively in men, and which may consequently require novel treatment approaches. Finally, we identified NAT1 as a possible prognostic biomarker for MBC, as suggested by NAT1 positivity corresponding to better outcome.

Genome-wide association study identifies a common variant in RAD51B associated with male breast cancer risk

We conducted a genome-wide association study of male breast cancer comprising 823 cases and 2,795 controls of European ancestry, with validation in independent sample sets totaling 438 cases and 474 controls. A SNP in RAD51B at 14q24.1 was significantly associated with male breast cancer risk (P = 3.02 × 10−13; odds ratio (OR) = 1.57). We also refine association at 16q12.1 to a SNP within TOX3 (P = 3.87 × 10−15; OR = 1.50).

High-resolution genomic profiling of male breast cancer reveals differences hidden behind the similarities with female breast cancer

Male breast cancer (MBC) is extremely rare and poorly characterized on the molecular level. Using high-resolution genomic data, we aimed to characterize MBC by genomic imbalances and to compare it with female breast cancer (FBC), and further to investigate whether the genomic profiles hold any prognostic information. Fifty-six fresh frozen MBC tumors were analyzed using high-resolution tiling BAC arrays. Significant regions in common between cases were assessed using Genomic Identification of Significant Targets in Cancer (GISTIC) analysis. A publicly available genomic data set of 359 FBC tumors was used for reference purposes. The data revealed a broad pattern of aberrations, confirming that MBC is a heterogeneous tumor type. Genomic gains were more common in MBC than in FBC and often involved whole chromosome arms, while losses of genomic material were less frequent. The most common aberrations were similar between the genders, but high-level amplifications were more common in FBC. We identified two genomic subgroups among MBCs; male-complex and male-simple. The male-complex subgroup displayed striking similarities with the previously reported luminal-complex FBC subgroup, while the male-simple subgroup seems to represent a new subgroup of breast cancer occurring only in men. There are many similarities between FBC and MBC with respect to genomic imbalances, but there are also distinct differences as revealed by high-resolution genomic profiling. MBC can be divided into two comprehensive genomic subgroups, which may be of prognostic value. The male-simple subgroup appears notably different from any genomic subgroup so far defined in FBC.

Characterization of a Novel Breast Carcinoma Xenograft and Cell Line Derived from a BRCA1 Germ-Line Mutation Carrier

A human tumor xenograft (L56Br-X1) was established from a breast cancer axillary lymph node metastasis of a 53-year-old woman with a BRCA1 germ-line nonsense mutation (1806C>T; Q563X), and a cell line (L56Br-C1) was subsequently derived from the xenograft. The xenograft carries only the mutant BRCA1 allele and expresses mutant BRCA1 mRNA but no BRCA1 protein as determined by immunoprecipitation or Western blotting. The primary tumor, lymph node metastasis, and xenograft were hypodiploid by DNA flow cytometry, whereas the cell line displayed an aneuploidy apparently developed via polyploidization. Cytogenetic analysis, spectral karyotyping, and comparative genomic hybridization of the cell line revealed a highly complex karyotype with numerous unbalanced translocations. The xenograft and cell line had retained a somatic TP53 missense mutation (S215I) originating from the primary tumors, as well as a lack of immunohistochemically detectable expression of steroid hormone receptors, epidermal growth factor receptor, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2), and keratin 8. Global gene expression analysis by cDNA microarrays supported a correlation between the expression profiles of the primary tumor, lymph node metastasis, xenograft, and cell line. We conclude that L56Br-X1 and L56Br-C1 are useful model systems for studies of the pathogenesis and new therapeutic modalities of BRCA1-induced human breast cancer.

ERK1/2 inhibition increases antiestrogen treatment efficacy by interfering with hypoxia-induced downregulation of ERalpha: a combination therapy potentially targeting hypoxic and dormant tumor cells.

Tumor hypoxia is associated with cancer invasiveness, metastasis and treatment failure. Recent data suggest that the major target for endocrine treatment in breast cancer, ERα, is downregulated during hypoxia, but the mechanism behind this remains unknown. MAPK signaling as well as ERα regulation has earlier been independently linked to hypoxia and we now demonstrate HIF-1α and ERK1/2-activation in vivo towards the necrotic zone in DCIS of the breast, parallel with ERα downregulation. Hypoxia further caused transcriptional downregulation of ERα via activation of ERK1/2 in cell lines and, importantly, MEK1/2 inhibitors (U0126 or PD184352) or ERK1/2 suppression by siRNA partially restored the ERα expression. U0126 combined with tamoxifen accordingly produced an increased efficacy of the anti-estrogens during hypoxia. Based on these findings, we suggest a promising novel therapy for ERα-positive breast cancer where a combination of endocrine treatment and ERK1/2 inhibitors may increase treatment response by improved targeting of dormant hypoxic tumor cells.

Co-targeting of the PI3K pathway improves the response of BRCA1 deficient breast cancer cells to PARP1 inhibition

Although pre-clinical and clinical studies on PARP1 inhibitors, alone and in combination with DNA-damaging agents, show promising results, further ways to improve and broaden the scope of application of this therapeutic approach are warranted. To this end, we have investigated the possibility of improving the response of BRCA1 mutant breast cancer cells to PARP1 inhibition by co-targeting the PI3K pathway. Human breast cancer cell lines with or without the expression of BRCA1 and/or PTEN were treated with PARP1 and PI3K inhibitors as single agents and in combination. PARP1 inhibition induced DNA damage conferring a G2/M arrest and decrease in viability, paralleled by the induction of apoptosis. PI3K inhibition alone caused a G1 arrest and decreased cell growth. Most importantly, sequential combination of PARP and PI3K inhibitors interacted synergistically to significantly decrease growth compared to PARP inhibition alone. Global transcriptional profiling revealed that this decrease in growth was associated with down-regulation of macromolecule biosynthesis and the induction of apoptosis. Taken together, these results suggest an improved treatment strategy for BRCA1-mutant and possibly also triple-negative breast cancers with similar molecular defects.

Clinical and molecular complexity of breast cancer metastases.

Clinical oncology is advancing toward a more personalized treatment orientation, making the need to understand the biology of metastasis increasingly acute. Dissecting the complex molecular, genetic and clinical phenotypes underlying the processes involved in the development of metastatic disease, which remains the principal cause of cancer-related deaths, could lead to the identification of more effective prognostication and targeted approaches to prevent and treat metastases. The past decade has witnessed significant progress in the field of cancer metastasis research. Clinical and technological milestones have been reached which have tremendously enriched our understanding of the complex pathways undertaken by primary tumors to progress into lethal metastases and how some of these processes might be amenable to therapy. The aim of this review article is to highlight the recent advances toward unraveling the clinical and molecular complexity of breast cancer metastases. We focus on genes mediating breast cancer metastases and organ-specific tropism, and discuss gene signatures for prediction of metastatic disease. The challenges of translating this information into clinically applicable tools for improving the prognostication of the metastatic potential of a primary breast tumor, as well as for therapeutic interventions against latent and active metastatic disease are addressed.