High‐throughput protein expression analysis using tissue microarray technology of a large well‐characterised series identifies biologically distinct classes of breast cancer confirming recent cDNA expression analyses

Recent studies on gene molecular profiling using cDNA microarray in a relatively small series of breast cancer have identified biologically distinct groups with apparent clinical and prognostic relevance. The validation of such new taxonomies should be confirmed on larger series of cases prior to acceptance in clinical practice. The development of tissue microarray (TMA) technology provides methodology for high‐throughput concomitant analyses of multiple proteins on large numbers of archival tumour samples. In our study, we have used immunohistochemistry techniques applied to TMA preparations of 1,076 cases of invasive breast cancer to study the combined protein expression profiles of a large panel of well‐characterized commercially available biomarkers related to epithelial cell lineage, differentiation, hormone and growth factor receptors and gene products known to be altered in some forms of breast cancer. Using hierarchical clustering methodology, 5 groups with distinct patterns of protein expression were identified. A sixth group of only 4 cases was also identified but deemed too small for further detailed assessment. Further analysis of these clusters was performed using multiple layer perceptron (MLP)‐artificial neural network (ANN) with a back propagation algorithm to identify key biomarkers driving the membership of each group. We have identified 2 large groups by their expression of luminal epithelial cell phenotypic characteristics, hormone receptors positivity, absence of basal epithelial phenotype characteristics and lack of c‐erbB‐2 protein overexpression. Two additional groups were characterized by high c‐erbB‐2 positivity and negative or weak hormone receptors expression but showed differences in MUC1 and E‐cadherin expression. The final group was characterized by strong basal epithelial characteristics, p53 positivity, absent hormone receptors and weak to low luminal epithelial cytokeratin expression. In addition, we have identified significant differences between clusters identified in this series with respect to established prognostic factors including tumour grade, size and histologic tumour type as well as differences in patient outcomes. The different protein expression profiles identified in our study confirm the biologic heterogeneity of breast cancer and demonstrate the clinical relevance of classification in this manner. These observations could form the basis of revision of existing traditional classification systems for breast cancer. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  E B Cox,et al.  Estrogen receptor analyses. Correlation of biochemical and immunohistochemical methods using monoclonal antireceptor antibodies. , 1985, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[2]  H. Høst,et al.  Age as a prognostic factor in breast cancer , 1986, Cancer.

[3]  I Persson,et al.  The relation between survival and age at diagnosis in breast cancer. , 1986, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  W. McGuire,et al.  Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. , 1987, Science.

[5]  M. Fernö,et al.  Estrogen and Progesterone Receptor Analyses in More Than 4000 Human Breast Cancer Samples: A Study with Special Reference to Age at diagnosis and stability of analyses , 1990 .

[6]  M. Fernö,et al.  Estrogen and progesterone receptor analyses in more than 4,000 human breast cancer samples. A study with special reference to age at diagnosis and stability of analyses. Southern Swedish Breast Cancer Study Group. , 1990, Acta oncologica.

[7]  I. Ellis,et al.  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. , 2002, Histopathology.

[8]  R. Blamey,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long‐term follow‐up , 1992, Histopathology.

[9]  S. Pinder,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. III. Vascular invasion: relationship with recurrence and survival in a large study with long‐term follow‐up , 1994, Histopathology.

[10]  J Horiguchi,et al.  Immunohistochemical analysis of cytokeratin #8 as a prognostic factor in invasive breast carcinoma. , 1995, Anticancer research.

[11]  J. Wesseling,et al.  Is episialin/MUC1 involved in breast cancer progression? , 1995, Cancer letters.

[12]  J. Wesseling,et al.  A mechanism for inhibition of E-cadherin-mediated cell-cell adhesion by the membrane-associated mucin episialin/MUC1. , 1996, Molecular biology of the cell.

[13]  D. Palmer-Brown,et al.  Investigating microclimatic influences on ozone injury in clover (Trifolium subterraneum) using artificial neural networks , 1996 .

[14]  Dieter Niederacher,et al.  Multistep carcinogenesis of breast cancer and tumour heterogeneity , 1997, Journal of Molecular Medicine.

[15]  Dihua Yu,et al.  Overexpression of the c-erbB-2 gene enhanced intrinsic metastasis potential in human breast cancer cells without increasing their transformation abilities. , 1997, Cancer research.

[16]  Dominic Palmer-Brown,et al.  Modeling complex environmental data , 1997, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[17]  F. Harrell,et al.  Artificial neural networks improve the accuracy of cancer survival prediction , 1997, Cancer.

[18]  D. Wynford‐Thomas,et al.  Proliferative lifespan checkpoints: cell-type specificity and influence on tumour biology. , 1997, European journal of cancer.

[19]  N. Kohno,et al.  Decreased MUC1 expression induces E-cadherin-mediated cell adhesion of breast cancer cell lines. , 1998, Cancer research.

[20]  J. Bonneterre,et al.  Age as a prognostic factor in breast cancer. , 1998, Anticancer research.

[21]  J. Kononen,et al.  Tissue microarrays for high-throughput molecular profiling of tumor specimens , 1998, Nature Medicine.

[22]  Zsolt Tulassay,et al.  Application of neural networks in medicine - a review , 1998 .

[23]  K Vajda,et al.  [Prognostic factors in breast cancer]. , 1998, Orvosi hetilap.

[24]  R. Moll,et al.  Biological and prognostic significance of stratified epithelial cytokeratins in infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas , 1998, Virchows Archiv.

[25]  I. Ellis,et al.  Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. , 1999, Critical reviews in oncology/hematology.

[26]  H Buerger,et al.  Different genetic pathways in the evolution of invasive breast cancer are associated with distinct morphological subtypes , 1999, The Journal of pathology.

[27]  I. Ellis,et al.  BRCA1 expression levels predict distant metastasis of sporadic breast cancers , 1999, International journal of cancer.

[28]  D. Rimm,et al.  Validation of Tissue Microarray Technology in Breast Carcinoma , 2000, Laboratory Investigation.

[29]  S. Hellman,et al.  Separating favorable from unfavorable prognostic markers in breast cancer: the role of E-cadherin. , 2000, Cancer research.

[30]  F. Bertucci,et al.  Gene expression profiling of primary breast carcinomas using arrays of candidate genes. , 2000, Human molecular genetics.

[31]  Christian A. Rees,et al.  Molecular portraits of human breast tumours , 2000, Nature.

[32]  S. Edge,et al.  Prognostic factors in breast cancer , 2005 .

[33]  F. Révillion,et al.  Prognostic value of the type I growth factor receptors in a large series of human primary breast cancers quantified with a real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assay. , 2000, Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research.

[34]  H. Olsson,et al.  Tumour biology of a breast cancer at least partly reflects the biology of the tissue/epithelial cell of origin at the time of initiation — a hypothesis , 2000, The Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

[35]  D L Rimm,et al.  Amplification of tissue by construction of tissue microarrays. , 2001, Experimental and molecular pathology.

[36]  T. Fleming,et al.  Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[37]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[38]  P. V. van Diest,et al.  Ductal invasive G2 and G3 carcinomas of the breast are the end stages of at least two different lines of genetic evolution , 2001, The Journal of pathology.

[39]  H. Moch,et al.  Tissue microarrays for rapid linking of molecular changes to clinical endpoints. , 2001, The American journal of pathology.

[40]  Ash A. Alizadeh,et al.  Towards a novel classification of human malignancies based on gene expression patterns , 2001, The Journal of pathology.

[41]  G. Li,et al.  An integrated approach utilizing artificial neural networks and SELDI mass spectrometry for the classification of human tumours and rapid identification of potential biomarkers , 2002, Bioinform..

[42]  Yudong D. He,et al.  Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer , 2002, Nature.

[43]  Martin Eisenacher,et al.  Cytogenetic Alterations and Cytokeratin Expression Patterns in Breast Cancer: Integrating a New Model of Breast Differentiation into Cytogenetic Pathways of Breast Carcinogenesis , 2002, Laboratory Investigation.

[44]  G. Cevenini,et al.  p53 mutation in breast cancer. Correlation with cell kinetics and cell of origin. , 2002, Journal of clinical pathology.

[45]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Copyright © American Society for Investigative Pathology Short Communication Expression of Cytokeratins 17 and 5 Identifies a Group of Breast Carcinomas with Poor Clinical Outcome , 2022 .

[46]  F. Bertucci,et al.  Distinct and complementary information provided by use of tissue and DNA microarrays in the study of breast tumor markers. , 2002, The American journal of pathology.

[47]  L. Belghiti,et al.  Prognostic factors in breast cancer , 2002 .

[48]  Hiroko Yamashita,et al.  Coexistence of HER2 over-expression and p53 protein accumulation is a strong prognostic molecular marker in breast cancer , 2003, Breast Cancer Research.

[49]  L. Bégin,et al.  Impact of germline BRCA1 mutations and overexpression of p53 on prognosis and response to treatment following breast carcinoma , 2003, Cancer.

[50]  Carlos Caldas,et al.  Molecular Classification of Breast Carcinomas Using Tissue Microarrays , 2003, Diagnostic molecular pathology : the American journal of surgical pathology, part B.

[51]  J. R. Reeves,et al.  Expression of the HER1–4 family of receptor tyrosine kinases in breast cancer , 2003, The Journal of pathology.

[52]  R. Tibshirani,et al.  Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[53]  S. Bull,et al.  The combination of p53 mutation and neu/erbB-2 amplification is associated with poor survival in node-negative breast cancer. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[54]  I. Ellis,et al.  Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma , 2004, The Journal of pathology.

[55]  Jolanta Lissowska,et al.  Loss of antigenicity in stored sections of breast cancer tissue microarrays. , 2004, Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology.