Uncovering the Molecular Secrets of Inflammatory Breast Cancer Biology: An Integrated Analysis of Three Distinct Affymetrix Gene Expression Datasets

Steven Van Laere(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Naoto T. Ueno(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Pascal Finetti(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Peter Vermeulen(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Anthony Lucci(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Fredika M. Robertson(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Melike Marsan(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Takayuki Iwamoto(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Savitri Krishnamurthy(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Hiroko Masuda(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Peter A. van Dam(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Wendy A. Woodward(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Patrice Viens(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Massimo Cristofanilli(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Daniel Birnbaum(Fox Chase Cancer Center), Luc Dirix(Fox Chase Cancer Center), James M. Reuben(Fox Chase Cancer Center), François Bertucci(Fox Chase Cancer Center)
Clinical Cancer Research
February 8, 2013
Cited by 180Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is a poorly characterized form of breast cancer. So far, the results of expression profiling in IBC are inconclusive due to various reasons including limited sample size. Here, we present the integration of three Affymetrix expression datasets collected through the World IBC Consortium allowing us to interrogate the molecular profile of IBC using the largest series of IBC samples ever reported. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Affymetrix profiles (HGU133-series) from 137 patients with IBC and 252 patients with non-IBC (nIBC) were analyzed using unsupervised and supervised techniques. Samples were classified according to the molecular subtypes using the PAM50-algorithm. Regression models were used to delineate IBC-specific and molecular subtype-independent changes in gene expression, pathway, and transcription factor activation. RESULTS: Four robust IBC-sample clusters were identified, associated with the different molecular subtypes (P<0.001), all of which were identified in IBC with a similar prevalence as in nIBC, except for the luminal A subtype (19% vs. 42%; P<0.001) and the HER2-enriched subtype (22% vs. 9%; P<0.001). Supervised analysis identified and validated an IBC-specific, molecular subtype-independent 79-gene signature, which held independent prognostic value in a series of 871 nIBCs. Functional analysis revealed attenuated TGF-β signaling in IBC. CONCLUSION: We show that IBC is transcriptionally heterogeneous and that all molecular subtypes described in nIBC are detectable in IBC, albeit with a different frequency. The molecular profile of IBC, bearing molecular traits of aggressive breast tumor biology, shows attenuation of TGF-β signaling, potentially explaining the metastatic potential of IBC tumor cells in an unexpected manner.


Related Papers