High-throughput molecular analysis from leftover of fine needle aspiration cytology of mammographically detected breast cancer.

We investigated whether residual material from diagnostic smears of fine needle aspirations (FNAs) of mammographically detected breast lesions can be successfully used to extract RNA for reliable gene expression analysis. Twenty-eight patients underwent FNA of breast lesions under ultrasonographic guidance. After smearing slides for cytology, residual cells were rinsed with TRIzol to recover RNA. RNA yield ranged from 0.78 to 88.40 µg per sample. FNA leftovers from 23 nonpalpable breast cancers were selected for gene expression profiling using oligonucleotide microarrays. Clusters generated by global expression profiles partitioned samples in well-distinguished subgroups that overlapped with clusters obtained using "biologic scores" (cytohistologic variables) and differed from clusters based on "technical scores" (RNA/complementary RNA/microarray quality). Microarray profiling used to measure the grade of differentiation and estrogen receptor and ERBB2/HER2 status reflected the results obtained by histology and immunohistochemistry. Given that proliferative status in the FNA material is not always assessable, we designed and performed on FNA leftover a multiprobe genomic signature for proliferation genes that strongly correlated with the Ki67 index examined on histologic material. These findings show that cells residual to cytologic smears of FNA are suitable for obtaining high-quality RNA for high-throughput analysis even when taken from small nonpalpable breast lesions.

[1]  A. Sapino,et al.  Formalin Fixation at Low Temperature Better Preserves Nucleic Acid Integrity , 2011, PloS one.

[2]  D. Hicks,et al.  Breast cancer predictive factor testing: the challenges and importance of standardizing tissue handling. , 2011, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[3]  C. Dumur,et al.  Preservation of fine‐needle aspiration specimens for future use in RNA‐based molecular testing , 2011, Cancer cytopathology.

[4]  F. Bertucci,et al.  A gene expression signature identifies two prognostic subgroups of basal breast cancer , 2011, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[5]  Jae K. Lee,et al.  Prospective Comparison of Clinical and Genomic Multivariate Predictors of Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

[6]  H. Juhl.  Preanalytical aspects: A neglected issue , 2010, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation. Supplementum.

[7]  C. Isella,et al.  The GAB2 signaling scaffold promotes anchorage independence and drives a transcriptional response associated with metastatic progression of breast cancer , 2009, Oncogene.

[8]  R. Crystal,et al.  Quality control in microarray assessment of gene expression in human airway epithelium , 2009, BMC Genomics.

[9]  S. Michiels,et al.  Exonic expression profiling of breast cancer and benign lesions: a retrospective analysis. , 2009, The Lancet. Oncology.

[10]  F. André,et al.  Fine‐needle aspiration for nucleic acid‐ased molecular analyses in breast cancer , 2009, Cancer.

[11]  W. Leong,et al.  The effects of timing of fine needle aspiration biopsies on gene expression profiles in breast cancers , 2008, BMC Cancer.

[12]  A. Sapino,et al.  Technical limits of comparison of step-sectioning,immunohistochemistry and RT-PCR on breast cancer sentinel nodes: a study on methacarn-fixed tissue , 2008, Journal of cellular and molecular medicine.

[13]  Lajos Pusztai,et al.  Determination of oestrogen-receptor status and ERBB2 status of breast carcinoma: a gene-expression profiling study. , 2007, The Lancet. Oncology.

[14]  Limin Fu,et al.  FLAME, a novel fuzzy clustering method for the analysis of DNA microarray data , 2007, BMC Bioinformatics.

[15]  J. Ross,et al.  Pharmacogenomic predictor of sensitivity to preoperative chemotherapy with paclitaxel and fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide in breast cancer. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[16]  Maqc Consortium.  The MicroArray Quality Control (MAQC) project shows inter- and intraplatform reproducibility of gene expression measurements , 2006, Nature Biotechnology.

[17]  Daniel W Lin,et al.  Influence of surgical manipulation on prostate gene expression: implications for molecular correlates of treatment effects and disease prognosis. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  Hidetoshi Shimodaira,et al.  Pvclust: an R package for assessing the uncertainty in hierarchical clustering , 2006, Bioinform..

[19]  M. J. van de Vijver,et al.  Gene expression profiling in breast cancer: understanding the molecular basis of histologic grade to improve prognosis. , 2006, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[20]  P. Hall,et al.  An expression signature for p53 status in human breast cancer predicts mutation status, transcriptional effects, and patient survival. , 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[21]  Yudong D. He,et al.  A cell proliferation signature is a marker of extremely poor outcome in a subpopulation of breast cancer patients. , 2005, Cancer research.

[22]  T. Yeatman,et al.  Classification of human tumors using gene expression profiles obtained after microarray analysis of fine‐needle aspiration biopsy samples , 2005, Cancer.

[23]  J. Foekens,et al.  Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer , 2005, The Lancet.

[24]  E. Sim,et al.  Feasibility of using low-volume tissue samples for gene expression profiling of advanced non-small cell lung cancers. , 2003, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[25]  J. Stec,et al.  Gene expression profiles obtained from fine-needle aspirations of breast cancer reliably identify routine prognostic markers and reveal large-scale molecular differences between estrogen-negative and estrogen-positive tumors. , 2003, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[26]  J. Stec,et al.  Total RNA yield and microarray gene expression profiles from fine‐needle aspiration biopsy and core‐needle biopsy samples of breast carcinoma , 2003, Cancer.

[27]  C. Sotiriou,et al.  Gene expression profiles derived from fine needle aspiration correlate with response to systemic chemotherapy in breast cancer , 2002, Breast Cancer Research.

[28]  T. Powles,et al.  The feasibility of using fine needle aspiration from primary breast cancers for cDNA microarray analyses. , 2002, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[29]  C. Sotiriou,et al.  Core biopsies can be used to distinguish differences in expression profiling by cDNA microarrays. , 2002, The Journal of molecular diagnostics : JMD.

[30]  A. Hirano.  [Molecular diagnosis of breast cancer]. , 2001, Journal of Nippon Medical School = Nippon Ika Daigaku zasshi.

[31]  J. Silverman,et al.  Prognostic factors from the fine‐needle aspirate: Breast carcinoma nuclear grade , 1994, Diagnostic cytopathology.

[32]  J. Mattick,et al.  'Touchdown' PCR to circumvent spurious priming during gene amplification. , 1991, Nucleic acids research.

[33]  E Medico,et al.  The GAB 2 signaling scaffold promotes anchorage independence and drives a transcriptional response associated to metastatic progression of breast cancer , 2022 .