Combined analysis of PTEN, HER2, and hormone receptors status: remodeling breast cancer risk profiling.
Biomarkers
Breast cancer
Estrogen receptor
HER2
Hormone receptors
PTEN
Progesterone receptor
Prognosis
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Oct 2021
28 Oct 2021
Historique:
received:
01
05
2021
accepted:
19
10
2021
entrez:
28
10
2021
pubmed:
29
10
2021
medline:
8
2
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) loss is associated with tumorigenesis, tumor progression, and therapy resistance in breast cancer. However, the clinical value of PTEN as a biomarker in these patients is controversial. We sought to determine whether the benefit of traditional biomarkers testing is improved by the analysis of PTEN status for the identification of high-risk breast cancer. A cohort of 608 patients with breast cancer was included in this study. Based on the expression on the neoplastic cells compared to the normal internal controls by immunohistochemistry (IHC), cases were classified as PTEN-low (PTEN-L) or PTEN-retained (PTEN-WT). The former constituted the study group, while the latter the control group. Analysis of gene expression was performed on publicly available genomic data and included 4265 patients from the METABRIC and MSK cohorts retrieved from cBioPortal. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to analyze the normal distributions of continuous variables. Relationships between PTEN status and the clinicopathologic and molecular features of the patient population were assessed using Fisher's exact test or Chi-squared/Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Survival curves were built according to the Kaplan-Meier method. Alteration in PTEN status was significantly different at protein and gene levels, where the reduced protein expression was observed in 280/608 cases (46.1%) from our group, while genetic aberrations in only 315/4265 (7.4%) cases of the METABRIC and MSK cohorts. PTEN-L tumors were significantly enriched for hormone receptors (HR) and HER2 negativity (n = 48, 17.1%) compared to PTEN-WT tumors (n = 22, 6.7%; p = 0.0008). Lack of HR with or without HER2 overexpression/amplification was significantly associated with worse overall survival (OS) in PTEN-L but not in PTEN-WT breast cancers (p < .0001). Moreover, PTEN-L protein expression but not gene alterations was related to the outcome, in terms of both OS and disease-free survival (p = 0.002). The combined analysis of PTEN, HER2, and HR status offers relevant information for a more precise risk assessment of patients with breast cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Phosphatase and tensin homolog (PTEN) loss is associated with tumorigenesis, tumor progression, and therapy resistance in breast cancer. However, the clinical value of PTEN as a biomarker in these patients is controversial. We sought to determine whether the benefit of traditional biomarkers testing is improved by the analysis of PTEN status for the identification of high-risk breast cancer.
METHODS
METHODS
A cohort of 608 patients with breast cancer was included in this study. Based on the expression on the neoplastic cells compared to the normal internal controls by immunohistochemistry (IHC), cases were classified as PTEN-low (PTEN-L) or PTEN-retained (PTEN-WT). The former constituted the study group, while the latter the control group. Analysis of gene expression was performed on publicly available genomic data and included 4265 patients from the METABRIC and MSK cohorts retrieved from cBioPortal. The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to analyze the normal distributions of continuous variables. Relationships between PTEN status and the clinicopathologic and molecular features of the patient population were assessed using Fisher's exact test or Chi-squared/Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Survival curves were built according to the Kaplan-Meier method.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Alteration in PTEN status was significantly different at protein and gene levels, where the reduced protein expression was observed in 280/608 cases (46.1%) from our group, while genetic aberrations in only 315/4265 (7.4%) cases of the METABRIC and MSK cohorts. PTEN-L tumors were significantly enriched for hormone receptors (HR) and HER2 negativity (n = 48, 17.1%) compared to PTEN-WT tumors (n = 22, 6.7%; p = 0.0008). Lack of HR with or without HER2 overexpression/amplification was significantly associated with worse overall survival (OS) in PTEN-L but not in PTEN-WT breast cancers (p < .0001). Moreover, PTEN-L protein expression but not gene alterations was related to the outcome, in terms of both OS and disease-free survival (p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The combined analysis of PTEN, HER2, and HR status offers relevant information for a more precise risk assessment of patients with breast cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34706703
doi: 10.1186/s12885-021-08889-z
pii: 10.1186/s12885-021-08889-z
pmc: PMC8555186
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Receptor, ErbB-2
EC 2.7.10.1
PTEN Phosphohydrolase
EC 3.1.3.67
PTEN protein, human
EC 3.1.3.67
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1152Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Clin Cancer Res. 2015 May 1;21(9):2065-74
pubmed: 25649019
Lung Cancer. 2020 Dec;150:53-61
pubmed: 33065463
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Nov 01;20(21):
pubmed: 31683784
Nat Cancer. 2020 Apr;1(4):382-393
pubmed: 32864625
J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jun 10;31(17):2115-22
pubmed: 23650412
JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2018 Dec 13;2(4):pky056
pubmed: 31360876
Oncotarget. 2017 May 9;8(19):32043-32054
pubmed: 28410191
Pharmacol Ther. 2019 Mar;195:162-171
pubmed: 30439456
Nat Rev Cancer. 2020 Feb;20(2):74-88
pubmed: 31686003
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):e1-37
pubmed: 20346624
Ann Oncol. 2015 Jul;26(7):1494-500
pubmed: 25851628
Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Feb 21;21(4):
pubmed: 32098071
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2020 Sep 1;10(9):
pubmed: 31932469
Oncoscience. 2014 Oct 22;1(10):614-623
pubmed: 25593991
Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Jan 25;20(3):
pubmed: 30691046
Genes (Basel). 2020 Jun 28;11(7):
pubmed: 32605290
Cells. 2021 Jun 02;10(6):
pubmed: 34199522
Cancer Cell Int. 2021 May 17;21(1):266
pubmed: 34001143
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2020 Apr 1;10(4):
pubmed: 31570378
Int J Cancer. 2013 Jul 15;133(2):323-34
pubmed: 23319441
Cancer Discov. 2020 Jan;10(1):72-85
pubmed: 31594766
J Clin Med. 2019 Jan 24;8(2):
pubmed: 30682851
Cancer Manag Res. 2020 Jan 30;12:675-686
pubmed: 32099464
Oncology. 2010;78(2):141-9
pubmed: 20389136
Cancers (Basel). 2019 Sep 19;11(9):
pubmed: 31546901
Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2010 Jul;18(4):371-4
pubmed: 20216404
Nature. 2015 Feb 12;518(7538):240-4
pubmed: 25409150
Front Oncol. 2015 Feb 16;5:24
pubmed: 25763354
J Cancer. 2020 Jan 13;11(6):1436-1445
pubmed: 32047550
Cancer Discov. 2012 May;2(5):401-4
pubmed: 22588877
Semin Cancer Biol. 2018 Oct;52(Pt 1):56-73
pubmed: 28882552
Int J Surg. 2012;10(1):28-55
pubmed: 22036893
Front Oncol. 2014 Apr 14;4:64
pubmed: 24782981
JCO Precis Oncol. 2019 Dec 5;3:
pubmed: 32923864
Cell. 2011 Jan 21;144(2):187-99
pubmed: 21241890
Cancers (Basel). 2019 Mar 28;11(4):
pubmed: 30925702
J Vis Exp. 2017 Dec 5;(130):
pubmed: 29286417
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2014 Aug;138(8):1027-36
pubmed: 25076292
Anticancer Res. 2014 Mar;34(3):1387-400
pubmed: 24596386
Front Oncol. 2021 Mar 25;11:644737
pubmed: 33842357
Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2020 Mar 2;10(3):
pubmed: 31636093
Histopathology. 2020 Aug;77(2):181-185
pubmed: 32056259
Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2019 Aug;27(7):508-514
pubmed: 29084054
BMC Cancer. 2018 Sep 29;18(1):935
pubmed: 30268112
Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015 Jun;151(3):541-53
pubmed: 25981902
Mol Biol Rep. 2018 Dec;45(6):2869-2881
pubmed: 30145641
NPJ Precis Oncol. 2019 Apr 15;3:11
pubmed: 30993208
Front Oncol. 2020 Mar 31;10:360
pubmed: 32296634
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021 Jul 1;113(7):808-819
pubmed: 33369635
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Jul 1;26(19):3153-8
pubmed: 18490649