Comparison of protein expression between formalin-fixed core-cut biopsies and surgical excision specimens using a novel multiplex approach.
AMP-Activated Protein Kinase Kinases
Biomarkers, Tumor
/ genetics
Biopsy, Large-Core Needle
Breast Neoplasms
/ genetics
Female
Formaldehyde
Gene Expression Regulation, Neoplastic
/ genetics
Humans
Immunohistochemistry
Ki-67 Antigen
/ genetics
Mastectomy
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Proteins
/ genetics
Paraffin Embedding
Protein Kinases
/ genetics
Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-raf
/ genetics
Receptor, ErbB-2
/ genetics
Receptors, Progesterone
/ genetics
Breast cancer
Immunohistochemistry
Multiplex protein analysis
NanoString technology
Phosphorylation
Tissue fixation
Journal
Breast cancer research and treatment
ISSN: 1573-7217
Titre abrégé: Breast Cancer Res Treat
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 8111104
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2019
Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
31
01
2019
accepted:
06
02
2019
pubmed:
24
2
2019
medline:
16
11
2019
entrez:
24
2
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We evaluated whether multiplex protein quantification using antibody bar-coding with photocleavable oligonucleotides (NanoString) can be applied to evaluate protein expression in breast cancer FFPE specimens. We also assessed whether diagnostic core-cuts fixed immediately at time of procedures and surgical excision sections from routinely fixed breast cancers are affected by the same fixation related differences noted using immunohistochemistry (IHC). The expression of 26 proteins was analysed using NanoString technology in 16 pairs of FFPE breast cancer core-cuts and surgical excisions. The measurements yielded were compared with those by IHC on Ki67, PgR and HER2 biomarkers and pAKT and pERK1/2 phosphorylated proteins. When considered irrespective of sample type, expression measured by the two methods was strongly correlated for all markers (p < 0.001; ρ = 0.69-0.88). When core-cuts and excisions were evaluated separately, the correlations between NanoString and IHC were weaker but significant except for pAKT in excisions. Surgical excisions showed lower levels of 8/12 phosphoproteins and higher levels of 4/13 non-phosphorylated proteins in comparison to core-cuts (p < 0.01). Reduced p4EBP1, pAMPKa, pRPS6 and pRAF1 immunogenicity in excisions was correlated with tumour size and mastectomy specimens showed lower p4EBP1 and pRPS6 expression than lumpectomy (p < 0.05). Our study supports the validity of the new multiplex approach to protein analysis but indicates that, as with IHC, caution is necessary for the analysis in excisions particularly of phosphoproteins. The specimen type, tumour size and surgery type may lead to biases in the quantitative analysis of many proteins of biologic and clinical interest in excision specimens.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30796652
doi: 10.1007/s10549-019-05163-6
pii: 10.1007/s10549-019-05163-6
pmc: PMC6533418
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Ki-67 Antigen
0
Neoplasm Proteins
0
Receptors, Progesterone
0
Formaldehyde
1HG84L3525
Protein Kinases
EC 2.7.-
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
Proto-Oncogene Proteins c-raf
EC 2.7.11.1
Raf1 protein, human
EC 2.7.11.1
AMP-Activated Protein Kinase Kinases
EC 2.7.11.3
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
317-326Références
Int J Cancer. 2013 Jul;133(1):1-13
pubmed: 23280579
Breast Cancer Res. 2017 Feb 9;19(1):16
pubmed: 28183321
JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018 May 22;2(2):pky005
pubmed: 31360844
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010 Jul;134(7):e48-72
pubmed: 20586616
Nat Biotechnol. 2006 Aug;24(8):914-6
pubmed: 16900128
Lab Invest. 2015 Mar;95(3):334-41
pubmed: 25418580
Breast Cancer Res. 2016 Apr 01;18(1):39
pubmed: 27036195
Am J Pathol. 2017 Oct;187(10):2175-2184
pubmed: 28736317
Lab Invest. 2014 Apr;94(4):467-74
pubmed: 24535259
J Pathol Clin Res. 2016 Apr 06;2(3):138-53
pubmed: 27499923
Cancer Res. 1984 Aug;44(8):3448-53
pubmed: 6331648
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2012 Dec 5;104(23):1815-24
pubmed: 23090068
Oncogene. 2005 Oct 13;24(45):6835-41
pubmed: 16007158
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2016 May 18;2:16014
pubmed: 28721378
Am J Clin Pathol. 2003 Jul;120(1):86-92
pubmed: 12866377
Am J Clin Pathol. 2010 Oct;134(4):594-6
pubmed: 20855640
Nat Commun. 2016 Nov 09;7:13294
pubmed: 27827358
J Clin Oncol. 2017 Apr 1;35(10):1061-1069
pubmed: 28045625
Lancet. 2017 Mar 25;389(10075):1195-1205
pubmed: 28215665
Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 14;7(1):15580
pubmed: 29138507
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Jan 17;99(2):167-70
pubmed: 17228000
J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2011;2011(43):120-3
pubmed: 22043057
Lancet. 1985 Feb 16;1(8425):364-6
pubmed: 2857419
Histopathology. 2006 Oct;49(4):406-10
pubmed: 16978204
Histopathology. 2009 Nov;55(5):587-93
pubmed: 19912364
Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(6):113
pubmed: 21176180
Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12(5):R76
pubmed: 20920193
Sci Transl Med. 2014 Jan 15;6(219):219ra9
pubmed: 24431113
Lab Invest. 2018 Jan;98(1):15-26
pubmed: 29251737
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Jan 1;25(1):118-45
pubmed: 17159189
Histopathology. 2018 Jan;72(2):227-238
pubmed: 28771788