Search

PDF file - 67K, Genes modulated by tamoxifen but not placebo in an analysis that combined pre- and post-menopausal women.

PDF file - 19K, Genes modulated by tamoxifen but not placebo in an analysis restricted to premenopausal women.

PDF file - 42K, RT-PCR primer sequences.

Five years of tamoxifen reduces breast cancer risk by nearly 50% but is associated with significant side effects and toxicities. A better understanding of the direct and indirect effects of tamoxifen in benign breast tissue could elucidate new mechanisms of breast carcinogenesis, suggest novel chemoprevention targets, and provide relevant early response biomarkers for phase II prevention trials. Seventy-three women at increased risk for breast cancer were randomized to tamoxifen (20 mg daily) or placebo for 3 months. Blood and breast tissue samples were collected at baseline and posttreatment. Sixty-nine women completed all study activities (37 tamoxifen and 32 placebo). The selected biomarkers focused on estradiol and IGFs in the blood; DNA methylation and cytology in random periareolar fine-needle aspirates; and tissue morphometry, proliferation, apoptosis, and gene expression (microarray and reverse transcriptase PCR) in the tissue core samples. Tamoxifen downregulated Ets oncogene transcription factor family members ETV4 and ETV5 and reduced breast epithelial cell proliferation independent of CYP2D6 genotypes or effects on estradiol, ESR1, or IGFs. Reduction in proliferation was correlated with downregulation of ETV4 and DNAJC12. Tamoxifen reduced the expression of ETV4- and ETV5-regulated genes implicated in epithelial-stromal interaction and tissue remodeling. Three months of tamoxifen did not affect breast tissue composition, cytologic atypia, preneoplasia, or apoptosis. A plausible mechanism for the chemopreventive effects of tamoxifen is restriction of lobular expansion into stroma through downregulation of ETV4 and ETV5. The human equivalent of murine multipotential progenitor cap cells of terminal end buds may be the primary target. Cancer Prev Res; 4(11); 1852–62. ©2011 AACR.

PDF file - 3706K, Pathway Analysis.

PDF file - 37K, Detailed RT-PCR results.

PDF - 861KB, Marker discovery and validation pipeline.

Supplementary Table 2 from Identification of Breast Cancer DNA Methylation Markers Optimized for Fine-Needle Aspiration Samples

Background: Random periareolar fine-needle aspiration (RP-FNA) is increasingly used in trials of breast cancer prevention for biomarker assessments. DNA methylation markers may have value as surrogate endpoint biomarkers, but this requires identification of biologically relevant markers suitable for paucicellular, lymphocyte-contaminated clinical samples.Methods: Unbiased whole-genome 5-aza-2′-deoxycytidine (5AZA)–induced gene expression assays, followed by several phases of qualitative and quantitative methylation-specific PCR (MSP) testing, were used to identify novel breast cancer DNA methylation markers optimized for clinical FNA samples.Results: The initial 5AZA experiment identified 453 genes whose expression was potentially regulated by promoter region methylation. Informatics filters excluded 273 genes unlikely to yield useful DNA methylation markers. MSP assays were designed for 271 of the remaining genes and, ultimately, 33 genes were identified that were differentially methylated in clinical breast cancer samples, as compared with benign RP-FNA samples, and never methylated in lymphocytes. A subset of these markers was validated by quantitative multiplex MSP in extended clinical sample sets. Using a novel permutation method for analysis of quantitative methylation data, PSAT1, GNE, CPNE8, and CXCL14 were found to correlate strongly with specific clinical and pathologic features of breast cancer. In general, our approach identified markers methylated in a smaller subpopulation of tumor cells than those identified in published methylation array studies.Conclusions: Clinically relevant DNA methylation markers were identified using a 5AZA-induced gene expression approach.Impact: These breast cancer-relevant, FNA-optimized DNA methylation markers may have value as surrogate endpoint biomarkers in RP-FNA studies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(12); 2212–21. ©2013 AACR.

Supplementary Table 3 from Identification of Breast Cancer DNA Methylation Markers Optimized for Fine-Needle Aspiration Samples

Supplementary Table 1 from Identification of Breast Cancer DNA Methylation Markers Optimized for Fine-Needle Aspiration Samples

AimsTouch preparation (TP) and frozen section (FS) are the two methods routinely used in the intraoperative evaluation (IOE) of sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) to detect metastases in patients with breast cancer. Both methods are extremely sensitive and specific in the primary surgery (non-neoadjuvant systemic therapy (non-NST)) setting. Since NST introduces unique challenges in the IOE of SLNs, the aim was to determine the accuracy of TP and FS in the IOE of SLNs in the NST setting and compare the results with the non-NST setting and to examine factors that contribute to any differences.MethodsWe analysed 871 SLNs from 232 patients (615 SLNs from NST and 256 SLNs from non-NST settings) between 2016 through 2019.ResultsIn the NST group, TP alone (n=366) had a sensitivity of 45.7% and specificity of 99.7%; FS alone (n=90) had a sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 100%. When both TP and FS (n=135) were used, the sensitivity was 80.3% and the specificity was 98.6%.In the non-NST group, TP alone (n=193) had a sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 100%; FS alone (n=22) had a sensitivity and specificity of 100%; and combined TP and FS (n=34) had a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 96%, respectively.ConclusionsEvaluating SLNs intraoperatively in the NST setting can be challenging secondary to therapy-related changes. In the NST setting, FS has higher sensitivity and specificity compared with TP for the IOE of SLNs and should be the preferred method.

A comparative analysis of clinical and pathologic characteristics of HER2 positive breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant versus neoadjuvant antiHer2 therapy: an analysis of 397 cases. Introduction: Currently there are several anti-HER2 therapy options for patients with HER2 positive breast cancer. Surgery as an initial treatment is usually performed in patients with smaller, node negative tumors. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) is the treatment of choice for patients with higher stage disease. Detailed analysis of clinical and pathologic characteristics of patients who received adjuvant versus NAT anti-HER2 therapy has not been well elucidated. Objectives: A comparative analysis of clinical and pathologic findings including biomarker expression (ER, PR, HER2 and Ki67) was performed to determine if there were differences in tumor characteristics and clinical outcome in the two groups.Methods:We retrospectively analyzed data on HER2+ breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant and NAT anti-HER2 therapy from 2011 to 2017. Clinical and pathologic parameters including biomarker expression prior to the start of therapy were obtained from the electronic database after IRB approval. In the adjuvant group, patients were treated with initial surgery followed by anti-HER2 therapy plus chemotherapy. In the NAT group, anti-HER2 therapy plus chemotherapy was administered prior to definitive surgery. Types of anti-HER2 therapies and follow-up information were obtained from the electronic medical record. Results:We identified 258 (64.9%) patients who received NAT and 139 (35.0%) received adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy. Table 1.VariablesNeoadjuvant groupAdjuvant groupp-valueAgeBelow 40 years42 (16.2%)11(7.9%)0.02940 years and above Total216 (83.7%) 258128 (92.0%) 139Menopausal statusPremenopausalPostmenopausal Total113 (45.3%)136 (54.6%) 24935 (25.1%)104 (74.8%) 139 Citation Format: Venetia Sarode, Tricia Rood, Yulun Liu, Yisheng Fang, Sunati Sahoo, Yan Peng, Helena Hwang, Marilyn Leitch, Barbara Haley. A comparative analysis of clinical and pathologic characteristics of patients with HER2 positive breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant versus adjuvant anti-HER2 therapy: Analysis of 397 cases [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-02-14.

To investigate the performance of an imaging and biopsy parameters-based multivariate model in decreasing unnecessary surgeries for high-risk breast lesions.In an IRB-approved study, we retrospectively reviewed all high-risk lesions (HRL) identified at imaging-guided biopsy in our institution between July 1, 2014-July 1, 2017. Lesions were categorized high-risk-I (HR-I = atypical ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical papillary lesion) and II (HR-II = Flat epithelial atypia, radial scar, benign papilloma). Patient risk factors, lesion features, detection and biopsy modality, excision and cancer upgrade rates were collected. Reference standard for upgrade was either excision or at least 2-year imaging follow-up. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a multivariate model using HRL type, lesion and biopsy needle size for surgical cancer upgrade with performance assessed using ROC analysis.Of 699 HRL in 652 patients, 525(75%) had reference standard available, and 48/525(9.1%) showed cancer at surgical excision. Excision (84.5% vs 51.1%) and upgrade (17.6%vs1.8%) rates were higher in HR-I compared to HR-II (p 0.01). In HR-I, small needle size 12G vs ≥ 12G [32.1% vs 13.2%, p 0.01] and less cores [ 6 vs ≥ 6, 28.6%vs13.7%, p = 0.01] were significantly associated with higher cancer upgrades. Our multivariate model had an AUC = 0.87, saving 28.1% of benign surgeries with 100% sensitivity, based on HRL subtype, lesion size(mm, continuous), needle size ( 12G vs ≥ 12G) and biopsy modality (US vs MRI vs stereotactic) CONCLUSION: Our multivariate model using lesion size, needle size and patient age had a high diagnostic performance in decreasing unnecessary surgeries and shows promise as a decision support tool.

Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NAST) provides the unique opportunity to assess response to treatment after months rather than years of follow-up. However, significant variability exists in methods of pathologic assessment of response to NAST, and thus its interpretation for subsequent clinical decisions. Our international multidisciplinary working group was convened by the Breast International Group-North American Breast Cancer Group (BIG-NABCG) collaboration and tasked to recommend practical methods for standardized evaluation of the post-NAST surgical breast cancer specimen for clinical trials that promote accurate and reliable designation of pathologic complete response (pCR) and meaningful characterization of residual disease. Recommendations include multidisciplinary communication; clinical marking of the tumor site (clips); and radiologic, photographic, or pictorial imaging of the sliced specimen, to map the tissue sections and reconcile macroscopic and microscopic findings. The information required to define pCR (ypT0/is ypN0 or ypT0 yp N0), residual ypT and ypN stage using the current AJCC/UICC system, and the Residual Cancer Burden system were recommended for quantification of residual disease in clinical trials.

Skin-sparing mastectomy (SSM) is an accepted surgical option for breast cancer treatment. SSM allows for preservation of the skin envelope and improved cosmesis. Despite initial concerns, large series have not revealed higher recurrence rates. There is, however, a paucity of data regarding the rates of residual breast tissue (RBT) left behind after SSM, what factors influence this, and the oncologic implications of RBT. Retrospective review identified 288 total mastectomies. Patients who had undergone SSM with excision of additional skin for reconstructive purposes, either at the initial oncologic surgery or at subsequent revision, were included in the final study group. Pathologic analysis was performed to evaluate excised skin. Data regarding demographics, tumor type, and treatment were collected. Comparison between patients who had pathologically confirmed RBT in the excised skin and those who did not was performed. Of 288 total mastectomies, 92 were SSM's, and 66 had skin specimens removed for nononcologic reasons, of these, 4 (6%) had RBT. Age at diagnosis (p = 0.806), BMI (p = 0.531), tumor size (p = 0.922), and estrogen receptor status (p 0.999) did not contribute to increased RBT risk. At median follow-up of 33.5 months, there have been no recurrences. In addition, cost analysis reveals it is likely not cost-effective to perform pathologic evaluation of these specimens. SSM, performed at an academic medical center by fellowship-trained surgeons, has a very low rate of RBT, and does not compromise oncologic outcomes. Routine pathologic assessment of these skin specimens, removed for nononcologic reasons, may not be required.

The diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) using core biopsy does not ensure the absence of invasion on final excision. We performed a retrospective analysis of 255 patients with DCIS who had subsequent excision. Clinical, radiologic, and pathologic findings were correlated with risk of invasion and sentinel lymph node (SLN) metastasis. Of 255 patients with DCIS, 199 had definitive surgery and 52 (26%) had invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) on final excision. Extent of abnormal microcalcification on mammography, and presence of a radiologic/palpable mass and solid type of DCIS were significantly associated with invasion on final excision. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed in 131 (65.8%) patients of whom 18 (13.4%) had metastasis. Size of IDC and extent of DCIS on final pathology were significantly associated with positive SLN. Micrometastasis and isolated tumor cells comprised majority (71.4%) of the metastases in DCIS. SLN biopsy should be considered in those with high risk DCIS.