Genomic aberrations in normal tissue adjacent to HER2-amplified breast cancers: field cancerization or contaminating tumor cells?

Field cancerization effects as well as isolated tumor cell foci extending well beyond the invasive tumor margin have been described previously to account for local recurrence rates following breast conserving surgery despite adequate surgical margins and breast radiotherapy. To look for evidence of possible tumor cell contamination or field cancerization by genetic effects, a pilot study (Study 1: 12 sample pairs) followed by a verification study (Study 2: 20 sample pairs) were performed on DNA extracted from HER2-positive breast tumors and matching normal adjacent mammary tissue samples excised 1–3 cm beyond the invasive tumor margin. High-resolution molecular inversion probe (MIP) arrays were used to compare genomic copy number variations, including increased HER2 gene copies, between the paired samples; as well, a detailed histologic and immunohistochemical (IHC) re-evaluation of all Study 2 samples was performed blinded to the genomic results to characterize the adjacent normal tissue composition bracketing the DNA-extracted samples. Overall, 14/32 (44 %) sample pairs from both studies produced genome-wide evidence of genetic aberrations including HER2 copy number gains within the adjacent normal tissue samples. The observed single-parental origin of monoallelic HER2 amplicon haplotypes shared by informative tumor–normal pairs, as well as commonly gained loci elsewhere on 17q, suggested the presence of contaminating tumor cells in the genomically aberrant normal samples. Histologic and IHC analyses identified occult 25–200 μm tumor cell clusters overexpressing HER2 scattered in more than half, but not all, of the genomically aberrant normal samples re-evaluated, but in none of the genomically normal samples. These genomic and microscopic findings support the conclusion that tumor cell contamination rather than genetic field cancerization represents the likeliest cause of local clinical recurrence rates following breast conserving surgery, and mandate caution in assuming the genomic normalcy of histologically benign appearing peritumor breast tissue.

[1]  C. Begg,et al.  Testing Clonal Relatedness of Tumors Using Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization: A Statistical Challenge , 2010, Clinical Cancer Research.

[2]  M. Lagios,et al.  The concept and implications of multicentricity in breast carcinoma. , 1981, Pathology annual.

[3]  I. Gust,et al.  IMMUNOGLOBULIN M ANTIBODIES AGAINST HEPATITIS B CORE ANTIGEN IN PATIENTS WITH CHRONIC HEPATITIS B INFECTION , 1984, Pathology.

[4]  Fuli Yu,et al.  Highly multiplexed molecular inversion probe genotyping: over 10,000 targeted SNPs genotyped in a single tube assay. , 2005, Genome research.

[5]  J. Urban,et al.  “Residual” mammary carcinoma following simulated partial mastectomy , 1975, Cancer.

[6]  James Ireland,et al.  Analysis of molecular inversion probe performance for allele copy number determination , 2007, Genome Biology.

[7]  C. Heaphy,et al.  Mammary field cancerization: molecular evidence and clinical importance , 2009, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[8]  M. Kerin,et al.  Locoregional recurrence after breast cancer surgery: a systematic review by receptor phenotype , 2012, Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.

[9]  K. Chin,et al.  Protein Acetylation and Histone Deacetylase Expression Associated with Malignant Breast Cancer Progression , 2009, Clinical Cancer Research.

[10]  P. Spellman,et al.  High quality copy number and genotype data from FFPE samples using Molecular Inversion Probe (MIP) microarrays , 2009, BMC Medical Genomics.

[11]  E. S. Venkatraman,et al.  A faster circular binary segmentation algorithm for the analysis of array CGH data , 2007, Bioinform..

[12]  Mary Goldman,et al.  The UCSC cancer genomics browser: update 2011 , 2010, Nucleic Acids Res..

[13]  A. Thor,et al.  Loss of Heterozygosity in Normal Tissue Adjacent to Breast Carcinomas , 1996, Science.

[14]  Kimberly S. Butler,et al.  Markers of fibrosis and epithelial to mesenchymal transition demonstrate field cancerization in histologically normal tissue adjacent to breast tumors , 2011, International journal of cancer.

[15]  Steven J. M. Jones,et al.  Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumors , 2012, Nature.

[16]  D. Slaughter,et al.  “Field cancerization” in oral stratified squamous epithelium. Clinical implications of multicentric origin , 1953, Cancer.

[17]  L. Morgenstern,et al.  Breast cancer: the case against tylectomy; the factor of multicentricity. , 1978, Progress in clinical cancer.

[18]  Ingvar Andersson,et al.  Invasive breast cancer. , 2011 .

[19]  P. Rosen,et al.  Pitfalls of local excision in the treatment of carcinoma of the breast. , 1973, Surgery, gynecology & obstetrics.

[20]  M. Wigler,et al.  Circular binary segmentation for the analysis of array-based DNA copy number data. , 2004, Biostatistics.

[21]  C. Benz,et al.  Prognostic and predictive significance of ErbB-2 breast tumor levels measured by enzyme immunoassay. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  Melissa A Troester,et al.  Gene expression in extratumoral microenvironment predicts clinical outcome in breast cancer patients , 2012, Breast Cancer Research.

[23]  J. Hendriks,et al.  Histologic multifocality of tis, T1–2 breast carcinomas implications for clinical trials of breast‐conserving surgery , 1985, Cancer.

[24]  P. S. Larson,et al.  Quantitative DNA fingerprinting may distinguish new primary breast cancer from disease recurrence. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  S. Khan,et al.  What are safe margins of resection for invasive and in situ breast cancer? , 2011, Oncology.

[26]  Ronald W. Davis,et al.  Multiplexed genotyping with sequence-tagged molecular inversion probes , 2003, Nature Biotechnology.

[27]  Emmanuel Barillot,et al.  High-resolution mapping of DNA breakpoints to define true recurrences among ipsilateral breast cancers. , 2008, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[28]  Ajay N. Jain,et al.  Breast tumor copy number aberration phenotypes and genomic instability , 2006, BMC Cancer.

[29]  Richard Zellars,et al.  Invasive breast cancer. , 2011, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN.

[30]  Helga Thorvaldsdóttir,et al.  Integrative Genomics Viewer (IGV): high-performance genomics data visualization and exploration , 2012, Briefings Bioinform..

[31]  D. Albertson,et al.  Altered promoter usage characterizes monoallelic transcription arising with ERBB2 amplification in human breast cancers , 2006, Genes, chromosomes & cancer.

[32]  Robert E. Brown,et al.  Field effect in cancer-an update. , 2009, Annals of clinical and laboratory science.

[33]  M. Ringnér,et al.  High-resolution genomic and expression analyses of copy number alterations in HER2-amplified breast cancer , 2010, Breast Cancer Research.

[34]  S. Schnitt,et al.  Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer--bigger is not better. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.