Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Cellular Oncology
Published in: Cellular Oncology 5/2011

Open Access 01-10-2011 | Original Paper

Molecular differences between ductal carcinoma in situ and adjacent invasive breast carcinoma: a multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification study

Authors: Cathy B. Moelans, Roel A. de Wegers, Hanneke N. Monsuurs, Anoek H. J. Maess, Paul J. van Diest

Published in: Cellular Oncology | Issue 5/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) accounts for approximately 20% of mammographically detected breast cancers. Although DCIS is generally highly curable, some women with DCIS will develop life-threatening invasive breast cancer, but the determinants of progression to infiltrating ductal cancer (IDC) are largely unknown.

Methods

In the current study, we used multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA), a multiplex PCR-based test, to compare copy numbers of 21 breast cancer related genes between laser-microdissected DCIS and adjacent IDC lesions in 39 patients. Genes included in this study were ESR1, EGFR, FGFR1, ADAM9, IKBKB, PRDM14, MTDH, MYC, CCND1, EMSY, CDH1, TRAF4, CPD, MED1, HER2, CDC6, TOP2A, MAPT, BIRC5, CCNE1 and AURKA.

Results

There were no significant differences in copy number for the 21 genes between DCIS and adjacent IDC. Low/intermediate-grade DCIS showed on average 6 gains/amplifications versus 8 in high-grade DCIS (p = 0.158). Furthermore, alterations of AURKA and CCNE1 were exclusively found in high-grade DCIS, and HER2, PRDM14 and EMSY amplification was more frequent in high-grade DCIS than in low/intermediate-grade DCIS. In contrast, the average number of alterations in low/intermediate and high grade IDC was similar, and although EGFR alterations were exclusively found in high grade IDC compared to low/intermediate-grade IDC, there were generally fewer differences between low/intermediate-grade and high-grade IDC than between low/intermediate-grade and high-grade DCIS.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there were no significant differences in copy number for 21 breast cancer related genes between DCIS and adjacent IDC, indicating that DCIS is genetically as advanced as its invasive counterpart. However, high grade DCIS showed more copy number changes than low/intermediate grade DCIS with specifically involved genes, supporting a model in which different histological grades of DCIS are associated with distinct genomic changes that progress to IDC in different routes. These high grade DCIS specific genes may be potential targets for treatment and/or predict progression.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
E. Arriola, C. Marchio, D.S. Tan, S.C. Drury, M.B. Lambros, R. Natrajan et al., Genomic analysis of the HER2/TOP2A amplicon in breast cancer and breast cancer cell lines. Lab. Invest. 88, 491–503 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
2.
M. Aubele, A. Mattis, H. Zitzelsberger, A. Walch, M. Kremer, G. Welzl et al., Extensive ductal carcinoma In situ with small foci of invasive ductal carcinoma: evidence of genetic resemblance by CGH. Int. J. Cancer 85, 82–86 (2000)PubMedCrossRef
3.
N. Barnes, P. Haywood, P. Flint, W.F. Knox, N.J. Bundred, Survivin expression in in situ and invasive breast cancer relates to COX-2 expression and DCIS recurrence. Br. J. Cancer 94, 253–258 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
4.
P. Bertheau, L.F. Plassa, F. Lerebours, A. de Roquancourt, E. Turpin, R. Lidereau et al., Allelic loss detection in inflammatory breast cancer: improvement with laser microdissection. Lab. Invest. 81, 1397–1402 (2001)PubMed
5.
H. Buerger, E.C. Mommers, R. Littmann, R. Simon, R. Diallo, C. Poremba et al., Ductal invasive G2 and G3 carcinomas of the breast are the end stages of at least two different lines of genetic evolution. J. Pathol. 194, 165–170 (2001)PubMedCrossRef
6.
H. Buerger, R. Simon, K.L. Schafer, R. Diallo, R. Littmann, C. Poremba et al., Genetic relation of lobular carcinoma in situ, ductal carcinoma in situ, and associated invasive carcinoma of the breast. Mol. Pathol. 53, 118–121 (2000)PubMedCrossRef
7.
D.J. Bunyan, D.M. Eccles, J. Sillibourne, E. Wilkins, N.S. Thomas, J. Shea-Simonds et al., Dosage analysis of cancer predisposition genes by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Br. J. Cancer 91, 1155–1159 (2004)PubMedCrossRef
8.
L. Burkhardt, T.J.Grob, I. Hermann, E. Burandt, M. Choschzick, F. Janicke et al., Gene amplification in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. (2009)
9.
G. Callagy, P. Pharoah, S.F. Chin, T. Sangan, Y. Daigo, L. Jackson et al., Identification and validation of prognostic markers in breast cancer with the complementary use of array-CGH and tissue microarrays. J. Pathol. 205, 388–396 (2005)PubMedCrossRef
10.
S. Camilleri-Broet, I. Cremer, B. Marmey, E. Comperat, F. Viguie, J. Audouin et al., TRAF4 overexpression is a common characteristic of human carcinomas. Oncogene 26, 142–147 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
11.
K. Chin, S. DeVries, J. Fridlyand, P.T. Spellman, R. Roydasgupta, W.L. Kuo et al., Genomic and transcriptional aberrations linked to breast cancer pathophysiologies. Cancer Cell 10, 529–541 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
12.
A.M. Cleton-Jansen, E-cadherin and loss of heterozygosity at chromosome 16 in breast carcinogenesis: different genetic pathways in ductal and lobular breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res. 4, 5–8 (2002)PubMedCrossRef
13.
J. Climent, J.L. Garcia, J.H. Mao, J. Arsuaga, J. Perez-Losada, Characterization of breast cancer by array comparative genomic hybridization. Biochem. Cell Biol. 85, 497–508 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
14.
J. Coffa, M.A. van de Wiel, B. Diosdado, B. Carvalho, J. Schouten, G.A. Meijer, MLPAnalyzer: data analysis tool for reliable automated normalization of MLPA fragment data. Cell. Oncol. 30, 323–335 (2008)PubMed
15.
L.M. Davis, C. Harris, L. Tang, P. Doherty, P. Hraber, Y. Sakai et al., Amplification patterns of three genomic regions predict distant recurrence in breast carcinoma. J. Mol. Diagn. 9, 327–336 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
16.
C.W. Elston, I.O. Ellis, Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19, 403–410 (1991)PubMedCrossRef
17.
M. Fiche, H. Avet-Loiseau, C.M. Maugard, C. Sagan, M.F. Heymann, M. Leblanc et al., Gene amplifications detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization in pure intraductal breast carcinomas: relation to morphology, cell proliferation and expression of breast cancer-related genes. Int. J. Cancer 89, 403–410 (2000)PubMedCrossRef
18.
C. Ginestier, N. Cervera, P. Finetti, S. Esteyries, B. Esterni, J. Adelaide et al., Prognosis and gene expression profiling of 20q13-amplified breast cancers. Clin. Cancer Res. 12, 4533–4544 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
19.
J. Hannemann, A. Velds, J.B. Halfwerk, B. Kreike, J.L. Peterse, M.J. van de Vijver, Classification of ductal carcinoma in situ by gene expression profiling. Breast Cancer Res. 8, R61 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
20.
R. Holland, J.L. Peterse, R.R. Millis, V. Eusebi, D. Faverly, M.J. van de Vijver et al., Ductal carcinoma in situ: a proposal for a new classification. Semin. Diagn. Pathol. 11, 167–180 (1994)PubMed
21.
F. Holst, P.R. Stahl, C. Ruiz, O. Hellwinkel, Z. Jehan, M. Wendland et al., Estrogen receptor alpha (ESR1) gene amplification is frequent in breast cancer. Nat. Genet. 39, 655–660 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
22.
G. Hu, R.A. Chong, Q. Yang, Y. Wei, M.A. Blanco, F. Li et al., MTDH activation by 8q22 genomic gain promotes chemoresistance and metastasis of poor-prognosis breast cancer. Cancer Cell 15, 9–20 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
23.
E.S. Hwang, S. DeVries, K.L. Chew, D.H. Moore, K. Kerlikowske, A. Thor et al., Patterns of chromosomal alterations in breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin. Cancer Res. 10, 5160–5167 (2004)PubMedCrossRef
24.
T. Irvine, I.S. Fentiman, Biology and treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ. Expert Rev. Anticancer Ther. 7, 135–145 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
25.
L.B. Jensen, J.M. Bartlett, C.J. Witton, T. Kirkegaard, S. Brown, S. Muller et al., Frequent amplifications and deletions of G1/S-phase transition genes, CCND1 and MYC in early breast cancers: a potential role in G1/S escape. Cancer Biomark. 5, 41–49 (2009)PubMed
26.
T. Kirkegaard, K.V. Nielsen, L.B. Jensen, F.M. Campbell, S. Muller, S.M. Tovey et al., Genetic alterations of CCND1 and EMSY in breast cancers. Histopathology 52, 698–705 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
27.
S.S. Kwek, R. Roy, H. Zhou, J. Climent, J.A. Martinez-Climent, J. Fridlyand et al., Co-amplified genes at 8p12 and 11q13 in breast tumors cooperate with two major pathways in oncogenesis. Oncogene (2009)
28.
C.B. Moelans, R.A. de Weger, C. Ezendam, P.J. van Diest, HER-2/neu amplification testing in breast cancer by Multiplex Ligation-dependent Probe Amplification: influence of manual- and laser microdissection. BMC Cancer 9, 4 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
29.
C.B. Moelans, R.A. de Weger, H.N. Monsuur, R. Vijzelaar, P.J. van Diest, Molecular profiling of invasive breast cancer by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification-based copy number analysis of tumor suppressor and oncogenes. Mod. Pathol. 23, 1029–1039 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
30.
C.B. Moelans, R.A. de Weger, M.T. van Blokland, C. Ezendam, S. Elshof, M.G. Tilanus et al., HER-2/neu amplification testing in breast cancer by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification in comparison with immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. Cell. Oncol. 31, 1–10 (2009)PubMed
31.
C.B. Moelans, R.A. de Weger, M.T. van Blokland, R.A. de Weger, C. Ezendam, P.J. van Diest, Simultaneous detection of TOP2A and HER2 gene amplification by multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification in breast cancer. Mod. Pathol. 23, 62–70 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
32.
C.B. Moelans, R.A. de Weger, P.J. van Diest, Absence of chromosome 17 polysomy in breast cancer: analysis by CEP17 chromogenic in situ hybridization and multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 120, 1–7 (2010)PubMedCrossRef
33.
E.C. Mommers, A.M. Leonhart, F. Falix, R. Michalides, C.J. Meijer, J.P. Baak et al., Similarity in expression of cell cycle proteins between in situ and invasive ductal breast lesions of same differentiation grade. J. Pathol. 194, 327–333 (2001)PubMedCrossRef
34.
R.M. Neve, K. Chin, J. Fridlyand, J. Yeh, F.L. Baehner, T. Fevr et al., A collection of breast cancer cell lines for the study of functionally distinct cancer subtypes. Cancer Cell 10, 515–527 (2006)PubMedCrossRef
35.
N. Nishikawa, M. Toyota, H. Suzuki, T. Honma, T. Fujikane, T. Ohmura et al., Gene amplification and overexpression of PRDM14 in breast cancers. Cancer Res. 67, 9649–9657 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
36.
S. Nofech-Mozes, J. Spayne, E. Rakovitch, W. Hanna, Prognostic and predictive molecular markers in DCIS: a review. Adv. Anat. Pathol. 12, 256–264 (2005)PubMedCrossRef
37.
P. O’Connell, V. Pekkel, S.A. Fuqua, C.K. Osborne, G.M. Clark, D.C. Allred, Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in 399 premalignant breast lesions at 15 genetic loci. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 90, 697–703 (1998)PubMedCrossRef
38.
F.P. O’Malley, S. Chia, D. Tu, L.E. Shepherd, M.N. Levine, V.H. Bramwell et al., Topoisomerase II alpha and responsiveness of breast cancer to adjuvant chemotherapy. J. Natl Cancer Inst. 101, 644–650 (2009)PubMedCrossRef
39.
K. Park, S. Han, E. Shin, H.J. Kim, J.Y. Kim, EGFR gene and protein expression in breast cancers. Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 33, 956–960 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
40.
J.S. Reis-Filho, S. Drury, M.B. Lambros, C. Marchio, N. Johnson, R. Natrajan et al., ESR1 gene amplification in breast cancer: a common phenomenon? Nat. Genet. 40, 809–810 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
41.
E.C. Robanus-Maandag, C.A. Bosch, P.M. Kristel, A.A. Hart, I.F. Faneyte, P.M. Nederlof et al., Association of C-MYC amplification with progression from the in situ to the invasive stage in C-MYC-amplified breast carcinomas. J. Pathol. 201, 75–82 (2003)PubMedCrossRef
42.
S.M. Rodriguez-Pinilla, R.L. Jones, M.B. Lambros, E. Arriola, K. Savage, M. James et al., MYC amplification in breast cancer: a chromogenic in situ hybridisation study. J. Clin. Pathol. 60, 1017–1023 (2007)PubMedCrossRef
43.
S. Sen, H. Zhou, R.A. White, A putative serine/threonine kinase encoding gene BTAK on chromosome 20q13 is amplified and overexpressed in human breast cancer cell lines. Oncogene 14, 2195–2200 (1997)PubMedCrossRef
44.
J.F. Simpson, D.E. Quan, F. O’Malley, T. Odom-Maryon, P.E. Clarke, Amplification of CCND1 and expression of its protein product, cyclin D1, in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Am. J. Pathol. 151, 161–168 (1997)PubMed
45.
M. Singh, M.J. Bleile, A.L. Shroyer, D. Heinz, E.A. Jarboe, K.R. Shroyer, Analysis of survivin expression in a spectrum of benign to malignant lesions of the breast. Appl. Immunohistochem. Mol. Morphol. 12, 296–304 (2004)PubMedCrossRef
46.
P.J. van Diest, No consent should be needed for using leftover body material for scientific purposes. BMJ 325, 648–651 (2002)PubMedCrossRef
47.
L. Wiechmann, H.M. Kuerer, The molecular journey from ductal carcinoma in situ to invasive breast cancer. Cancer 112, 2130–2142 (2008)PubMedCrossRef
48.
Y. Zhu, C. Qi, S. Jain, M.M. Le Beau, R. Espinosa III, G.B. Atkins et al., Amplification and overexpression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor binding protein (PBP/PPARBP) gene in breast cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96, 10848–10853 (1999)PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Molecular differences between ductal carcinoma in situ and adjacent invasive breast carcinoma: a multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification study
Authors
Cathy B. Moelans
Roel A. de Wegers
Hanneke N. Monsuurs
Anoek H. J. Maess
Paul J. van Diest
Publication date
01-10-2011
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Cellular Oncology / Issue 5/2011
Print ISSN: 2211-3428
Electronic ISSN: 2211-3436
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13402-011-0043-7

Other articles of this Issue 5/2011

Cellular Oncology 5/2011 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Pharmacological inhibition of AKT sensitizes MCF-7 human breast cancer-initiating cells to radiation

Original Paper

Gene copy number variation in male breast cancer by aCGH

Original Paper

Ultra-fast processing of gigapixel Tissue MicroArray images using High Performance Computing

Original Paper

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor response in neuroblastoma is highly correlated with ALK mutation status, ALK mRNA and protein levels

Original Paper

High frequency microsatellite instability has a prognostic value in endometrial endometrioid adenocarcinoma, but only in FIGO stage 1 cases

Original Paper

Latent transforming growth factor binding protein 4 (LTBP4) is downregulated in mouse and human DCIS and mammary carcinomas
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits