B.A. Gusterson

BACKGROUND: Many cases of hereditary breast cancer are due to mutations in either the BRCA1 or the BRCA2 gene. The histopathological changes in these cancers are often characteristic of the mutant gene. We hypothesized that the genes expressed by these two types of tumors are also distinctive, perhaps allowing us to identify cases of hereditary breast cancer on the basis of gene-expression profiles. METHODS: RNA from samples of primary tumor from seven carriers of the BRCA1 mutation, seven carriers of the BRCA2 mutation, and seven patients with sporadic cases of breast cancer was compared with a microarray of 6512 complementary DNA clones of 5361 genes. Statistical analyses were used to identify a set of genes that could distinguish the BRCA1 genotype from the BRCA2 genotype. RESULTS: Permutation analysis of multivariate classification functions established that the gene-expression profiles of tumors with BRCA1 mutations, tumors with BRCA2 mutations, and sporadic tumors differed significantly from each other. An analysis of variance between the levels of gene expression and the genotype of the samples identified 176 genes that were differentially expressed in tumors with BRCA1 mutations and tumors with BRCA2 mutations. Given the known properties of some of the genes in this panel, our findings indicate that there are functional differences between breast tumors with BRCA1 mutations and those with BRCA2 mutations. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly different groups of genes are expressed by breast cancers with BRCA1 mutations and breast cancers with BRCA2 mutations. Our results suggest that a heritable mutation influences the gene-expression profile of the cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the prognostic importance of immunocytochemically determined c-erbB-2 overexpression in the primary tumors of patients with breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Primary tumors from 1,506 breast cancer patients (760 node-negative and 746 node-positive) who were treated in the International (Ludwig) Breast Cancer Study Group Trial V were studied. Node-negative patients were allocated randomly to either a single cycle of perioperative chemotherapy (PeCT) or no adjuvant treatment, and node-positive patients received either a prolonged chemotherapy (with tamoxifen for postmenopausal patients) or a single perioperative cycle. RESULTS: Tumors from 16% of the node-negative patients and 19% of the node-positive patients were found to be c-erbB-2-positive. In both groups c-erbB-2 positivity correlated with negative progesterone receptors (PR), negative estrogen receptors (ER), and high tumor grade. Lobular carcinomas were all negative, and, thus support the view that such tumors represent a defined subtype of breast carcinoma. The expression of c-erbB-2 was prognostically significant for node-positive but not for node-negative patients. However, in both subgroups, the prognostic significance was greater for patients who had received more adjuvant therapy. For node-positive patients, the effect of prolonged-duration therapy on disease-free survival (DFS) was greater for patients without c-erbB-2 overexpression (hazards ratio [HR], = 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.72) than for those with c-erbB-2 overexpression (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.16). Similarly, for node-negative patients, the effect of PeCT on DFS was greater for those without c-erbB-2 overexpression (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.09) than for those with c-erbB-2 overexpression (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.66 to 2.25). CONCLUSION: We conclude that tumors with overexpression of the c-erbB-2 oncogene are less responsive to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF)-containing adjuvant therapy regimens than those with a normal amount of gene product.

BACKGROUND: We have previously demonstrated that breast cancers associated with inherited BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations differ from each other in their histopathologic appearances and that each of these types differs from breast cancers in patients unselected for family history (i.e., sporadic cancers). We have now conducted a more detailed examination of cytologic and architectural features of these tumors. METHODS: Specimens of tumor tissue (5-microm-thick sections) were examined independently by two pathologists, who were unaware of the case or control subject status, for the presence of cell mitosis, lymphocytic infiltration, continuous pushing margins, and solid sheets of cancer cells; cell nuclei, cell nucleoli, cell necrosis, and cell borders were also evaluated. The resulting data were combined with previously available information on tumor type and tumor grade and further evaluated by multifactorial analysis. All statistical tests are two-sided. RESULTS: Cancers associated with BRCA1 mutations exhibited higher mitotic counts (P = .001), a greater proportion of the tumor with a continuous pushing margin (P<.0001), and more lymphocytic infiltration (P = .002) than sporadic (i.e., control) cancers. Cancers associated with BRCA2 mutations exhibited a higher score for tubule formation (fewer tubules) (P = .0002), a higher proportion of the tumor perimeter with a continuous pushing margin (P<.0001), and a lower mitotic count (P = .003) than control cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study has identified key features of the histologic phenotypes of breast cancers in carriers of mutant BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This information may improve the classification of breast cancers in individuals with a family history of the disease and may ultimately aid in the clinical management of patients.