J. Leigh Fantacone-Campbell

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment of a benign breast disease/lesion (BBD) for invasive breast cancer (IBC) is typically done through a longitudinal study. For an infrequently-reported BBD, the shortage of occurrence data alone is a limiting factor to conducting such a study. Here we present an approach based on co-occurrence analysis, to help address this issue. We focus on fibroadenomatoid change (FAC), an under-studied BBD, as our preliminary analysis has suggested its previously unknown significant co-occurrence with IBC. METHODS: A cohort of 1667 female patients enrolled in the Clinical Breast Care Project was identified. A single experienced breast pathologist reviewed all pathology slides for each case and recorded all observed lesions, including FAC. Fibroadenoma (FA) was studied for comparison since FAC had been speculated to be an immature FA. FA and Fibrocystic Changes (FCC) were used for method validation since they have been comprehensively studied. Six common IBC and BBD risk/protective factors were also studied. Co-occurrence analyses were performed using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Common risk/protective factors were associated with FA, FCC, and IBC in ways consistent with the literature in general, and they were associated with FAC, FA, and FCC in distinct patterns. Age was associated with FAC in a bell-shape curve so that middle-aged women were more likely to have FAC. We report for the first time that FAC is positively associated with IBC with odds ratio (OR) depending on BMI (OR = 6.78, 95%CI = 3.43-13.42 at BMI<25 kg/m2; OR = 2.13, 95%CI = 1.20-3.80 at BMI>25 kg/m2). This association is only significant with HER2-negative IBC subtypes. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that FAC is a candidate risk factor for HER2-negative IBCs, and it is a distinct disease from FA. Co-occurrence analysis can be used for initial assessment of the risk for IBC from a BBD, which is vital to the study of infrequently-reported BBDs.

OBJECTIVE: Many differences between U.S. military beneficiaries and the U.S. general population, including differences in health care access, are known factors affecting invasive breast cancer outcomes. Thus, comparing the two populations for any outcome differences and their contributing factors may provide insights to breast cancer prognosis. METHODS: Using a marginal Cox proportional hazards regression model, we compared disease-specific survival (DSS) and 5-year DSS rates between 418 patients from the Clinical Breast Care Project at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (CBCP-WR) and a set of 1:5 randomly matched patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results program. Patients were compared in the "demographic model" (adjusted by diagnosis year, age, and race) and the "overall model" (further adjusted by estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, stage, and grade). RESULTS: In the "overall model," CBCP-WR patients were less likely overall to die from breast cancer (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.631, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.437-0.911; p = 0.014). This increase in survival was also significant in African American patients (HR = 0.524, 95% CI = 0.277-0.992; p = 0.047) and patients older than 50 (HR = 0.511, 95% CI = 0.306-0.854; p = 0.010). The advantage in 5-year DSS rate for CBCP-WR patients was 5.3% (93.1% vs. 87.8%; p < 0.001) in the "demographic model" and 3.4% (91.3% vs. 87.9%; p = 0.018) in the "overall model." CONCLUSION: CBCP-WR patients demonstrated significantly better DSS over matched SEER patients. Although a portion of the outcome disparity, i.e., 36% of the 5.3% DSS rate difference, could be explained by differences in tumor characteristics, the cause(s) behind the majority of the disparity has yet to be identified. Identification and further analysis of contributing factors to survival differences have the potential to improve clinical practice and outcomes for invasive breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Proteomic studies are typically conducted using flash-frozen (FF) samples utilizing tandem mass spectrometry (MS). However, FF specimens are comprised of multiple cell types, making it difficult to ascertain the proteomic profiles of specific cells. Conversely, OCT-embedded (Optimal Cutting Temperature compound) specimens can undergo laser microdissection (LMD) to capture and study specific cell types separately from the cell mixture. In the current study, we compared proteomic data obtained from FF and OCT samples to determine if samples that are stored and processed differently produce comparable results. METHODS: Proteins were extracted from FF and OCT-embedded invasive breast tumors from 5 female patients. FF specimens were lysed via homogenization (FF/HOM) while OCT-embedded specimens underwent LMD to collect only tumor cells (OCT/LMD-T) or both tumor and stromal cells (OCT/LMD-TS) followed by incubation at 37 °C. Proteins were extracted using the illustra triplePrep kit and then trypsin-digested, TMT-labeled, and processed by two-dimensional liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (2D LC-MS/MS). Proteins were identified and quantified with Proteome Discoverer v1.4 and comparative analyses performed to identify proteins that were significantly differentially expressed amongst the different processing methods. RESULTS: FC|> 1) between FF/HOM vs. OCT/LMD-T and FF/HOM vs. OCT/LMD-TS, respectively, with most proteins being more highly abundant in the FF/HOM samples. PCA and unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis with these 216 and 171 proteins were able to distinguish FF/HOM from OCT/LMD-T and OCT/LMD-TS samples, respectively. Similar analyses using significantly differentially enriched GO terms also discriminated FF/HOM from OCT/LMD samples. No significantly differentially expressed proteins were detected between the OCT/LMD-T and OCT/LMD-TS samples but trended differences were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The proteomic profiles of the OCT/LMD-TS samples were more similar to those from OCT/LMD-T samples than FF/HOM samples, suggesting a strong influence from the sample processing methods. These results indicate that in LC-MS/MS proteomic studies, FF/HOM samples exhibit different protein expression profiles from OCT/LMD samples and thus, results from these two different methods cannot be directly compared.

Abstract Introduction: Breast tumors have 4 well-established intrinsic subtypes based on transcriptome profiling. However, clusters defined by proteomics are often in disagreement with those defined by transcriptomics. Here, we report the findings of proteogenomic profiling of 118 laser microdissected (LMD) breast tumors using RNA-Seq and mass-spectrometry (MS)-based proteomic technologies. Methods: Cases used in this study were drawn from the Clinical Breast Care Project, with patients consented using an IRB-approved protocol. A total of 118 primary breast tumors embedded in OCT were selected and processed by LMD. Total RNA and protein were extracted using the Illustra triplePrep kit. Paired-end RNA sequencing of 118 cases was performed using the Illumina HiSeq platform, and the reads were preprocessed using a PERL-based pipeline involving the preprocessing tool PRINSEQ, splice-aligner GSNAP and HTSeq for quantifying expression. Quantitative global proteomics analyses were performed on 113 cases using isobaric TMT 6-plex labeling with the “universal reference” strategy. MS data were acquired using a Q-Exactive instrument and analyzed using Proteome Discoverer with Byonic node. Sample-to-sample normalization was conducted to remove pipetting errors and ComBat was used to remove batch effect. K-means clustering was done using Bioconductor package Consensusclustering. Results: The number of preprocessed RNA sequencing reads for the 118 cases ranged from over 43 to 295 million. An average of 83% of reads was mapped, and 24,518 genes with a mean expression of ≥ 10 counts across 118 tumor samples were identified. The PAM50 algorithm was used for intrinsic subtyping, yielding 37 Basal-like, 16 HER2-enriched, 39 Luminal A and 26 Luminal B calls. Unsupervised clustering of 3,000 highly varying genes reflected 4 intrinsic subtypes. In the global proteomics data, 840 proteins were identified across all 113 cases. Unsupervised K-means consensus clustering on all 840 or just using the top 210 highly varying proteins indicated the optimal number of clusters to be 3. These 3 clusters were identified as Basal-enriched, Luminal A-enriched and Luminal B-enriched. HER2-enriched cases were distributed among these clusters. We did not observe a stromal-enriched cluster in this analysis of LMD-prepared samples that selected against stromal components of the tumor. Conclusion: Analysis of LMD breast tumors using proteogenomic technologies resulted in 3 clusters for proteome data: basal-enriched, luminal A-enriched and luminal B-enriched. Unlike a recent report on proteomics clustering using bulk processing of tumors, a stromal-enriched cluster was not observed in this analysis which excluded stromal components of the samples. The views expressed in this abstract are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government. Citation Format: Praveen-Kumar Raj-Kumar, Tao Liu, Lori A. Sturtz, Albert J. Kovatich, Marina A. Gritsenko, Vladislav A. Petyuk, Brenda Deyarmin, Viswanadham Sridhara, James Craig, Jason E. McDermott, Anil K. Shukla, Ronald J. Moore, Matthew E. Monroe, Bobbie-Jo M. Webb-Robertson, Jeffrey A. Hooke, J.Leigh Fantacone-Campbell, Leonid Kvecher, Jianfang Liu, Jennifer Kane, Jennifer Melley, Stella Somiari, Stephen C. Benz, Justin Golovato, Shahrooz Rabizadeh, Patrick Soon-Shiong, Richard D. Smith, Richard J. Mural, Karin D. Rodland, Craig D. Shriver, Hai Hu. Integrated proteogenomic analysis of laser microdissected primary breast tumors define proteome clusters [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 284.