Dataset Information

Estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive breast cancer is not a reproducible subtype.

ABSTRACT: Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) testing are performed in the evaluation of breast cancer. While the clinical utility of ER as a predictive biomarker to identify patients likely to benefit from hormonal therapy is well-established, the added value of PR is less well-defined. The primary goals of our study were to assess the distribution, inter-assay reproducibility, and prognostic significance of breast cancer subtypes defined by patterns of ER and PR expression.We integrated gene expression microarray (GEM) and clinico-pathologic data from 20 published studies to determine the frequency (n = 4,111) and inter-assay reproducibility (n = 1,752) of ER/PR subtypes (ER+/PR+, ER+/PR-, ER-/PR-, ER-/PR+). To extend our findings, we utilized a cohort of patients from the Nurses' Health Study (NHS) with ER/PR data recorded in the medical record and assessed on tissue microarrays (n = 2,011). In both datasets, we assessed the association of ER and PR expression with survival.In a genome-wide analysis, progesterone receptor was among the least variable genes in ER- breast cancer. The ER-/PR+ subtype was rare (approximately 1 to 4%) and showed no significant reproducibility (Kappa = 0.02 and 0.06, in the GEM and NHS datasets, respectively). The vast majority of patients classified as ER-/PR+ in the medical record (97% and 94%, in the GEM and NHS datasets) were re-classified by a second method. In the GEM dataset (n = 2,731), progesterone receptor mRNA expression was associated with prognosis in ER+ breast cancer (adjusted P <0.001), but not in ER- breast cancer (adjusted P = 0.21). PR protein expression did not contribute significant prognostic information to multivariate models considering ER and other standard clinico-pathologic features in the GEM or NHS datasets.ER-/PR+ breast cancer is not a reproducible subtype. PR expression is not associated with prognosis in ER- breast cancer, and PR does not contribute significant independent prognostic information to multivariate models considering ER and other standard clinico-pathologic factors. Given that PR provides no clinically actionable information in ER+ breast cancer, these findings question the utility of routine PR testing in breast cancer.

SUBMITTER: Hefti MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3978610 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive breast cancer is not a reproducible subtype.

Hefti Marco M MM Hu Rong R Knoblauch Nicholas W NW Collins Laura C LC Haibe-Kains Benjamin B Tamimi Rulla M RM Beck Andrew H AH

Breast cancer research : BCR 20130101 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) testing are performed in the evaluation of breast cancer. While the clinical utility of ER as a predictive biomarker to identify patients likely to benefit from hormonal therapy is well-established, the added value of PR is less well-defined. The primary goals of our study were to assess the distribution, inter-assay reproducibility, and prognostic significance of breast cancer subtypes defined by patterns of ER and PR ex ...[more]

PMID: 23971947

Similar Datasets

Project description:The clinical significance of progesterone receptor (PgR) expression in estrogen receptor-negative (ER-) breast cancer is controversial. Herein, we systemically investigate the clinicopathologic features, molecular essence, and endocrine responsiveness of ER-/PgR+/HER2- phenotype.Four study cohorts were included. The first and second cohorts were from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (n?=?67,932) and Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (n?=?2,338), respectively, for clinicopathologic and survival analysis. The third and fourth cohorts were from two independent publicly available microarray datasets including 837 operable cases and 483 cases undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy, respectively, for clinicopathologic and gene-expression analysis. Characterized genes defining subgroups within the ER-/PgR+/HER2- phenotype were determined and further validated.Clinicopathologic features and survival outcomes of the ER-/PgR+ phenotype fell in between the ER+/PgR+ and ER-/PgR- phenotypes, but were more similar to ER-/PgR-. Among the ER-/PgR+ phenotype, 30% (95% confidence interval [CI] 17-42%, pooled by a fixed-effects method) were luminal-like and 59% (95% CI 45-72%, pooled by a fixed-effects method) were basal-like. We further refined the characterized genes for subtypes within the ER-/PgR+ phenotype and developed an immunohistochemistry-based method that could determine the molecular essence of ER-/PgR+ using three markers, TFF1, CK5, and EGFR. Either PAM50-defined or immunohistochemistry-defined basal-like ER-/PgR+ cases have a lower endocrine therapy sensitivity score compared with luminal-like ER-/PgR+ cases (P <0.0001 by Mann-Whitney test for each study set and P <0.0001 for pooled standardized mean difference in meta-analysis). Immunohistochemistry-defined basal-like ER-/PgR+ cases might not benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy (log-rank P?=?0.61 for sufficient versus insufficient endocrine therapy).The majority of ER-/PgR+/HER2- phenotype breast cancers are basal-like and associated with a lower endocrine therapy sensitivity score. Additional studies are needed to validate these findings.

Project description:Estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-negative, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (ER+PR-HER2-) breast cancer comprise a special type of breast cancer that constitutes ~10% of all breast cancer patients. ER+PR-HER2- tumor benefits less from endocrine therapy, while its genomic features remain elusive. In this study, we systematically assessed the multiomic landscape and endocrine responsiveness of ER+PR-HER2- breast cancer. Methods: This study incorporated five cohorts. The first and second cohorts were from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (n=130,856) and Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (n=1,055) for analyzing survival outcomes and endocrine responsiveness. The third cohort was from The Cancer Genome Atlas (n=630) for multiomic analysis and endocrine-resistant subgroup exploration. The fourth cohort, from the MD Anderson database (n=92), was employed to assist gene selection. The fifth cohort was a prospective observational cohort from Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center (n=245) that was utilized to validate the gene-defined subgroup by immunohistochemistry (IHC). Results: Clinically, ER+PR-HER2- tumors showed lower endocrine responsiveness than did ER+PR+HER2- tumors. Genomically, copy number loss or promoter methylation of PR genes occurred in 75% of ER+PR-HER2- tumors, collectively explaining PR loss. ER+PR-HER2- tumors had higher TP53 (30.3% vs. 17.0%) and lower PIK3CA mutation rates (25.8% vs. 42.7%) and exhibited more ZNF703 (21.5% vs. 13.6%) and RPS6KB1 (18.5% vs. 7.8%) amplification events than ER+PR+HER2- tumors. Among ER+PR-HER2- tumors, nearly 20% were of the PAM50-defined non-luminal-like subgroup and manifested lower endocrine sensitivity scores and enriched biosynthesis, metabolism and DNA replication pathways. We further identified the non-luminal-like subgroup using three IHC markers, GATA3, CK5, and EGFR. These IHC-defined non-luminal-like (GATA3-negative, CK5-positive and/or EGFR-positive) tumors received limited benefit from adjuvant endocrine therapy. Conclusion: ER+PR-HER2- breast cancer consists of clinically and genomically distinct groups that may require different treatment strategies. The non-luminal-like subgroup was associated with reduced benefit from endocrine therapy.

Project description:Simple Summary Most breast cancers co-express estrogen receptor α (ERα) and progesterone receptor (PgR). These cancers are sensitive to endocrine therapy and, in general, have superior outcomes. However, a subset of tumors expresses ERα but loses expression of PgR in various mechanisms. The processes driving the loss of PgR may cause resistance to hormonal treatment and a more aggressive clinical course. The current review summarizes current knowledge on the biology of ERα-positive PgR(−)negative breast cancer and discusses the associations between molecular mechanisms and clinical characteristics. Abstract Estrogen receptor α (ERα) and progesterone receptor (PgR) are crucial prognostic and predictive biomarkers that are usually co-expressed in breast cancer (BC). However, 12–24% of BCs present ERα(+)/PgR(−) phenotype at immunohistochemical evaluation. In fact, BC may either show primary PgR(−) status (in chemonaïve tumor sample), lose PgR expression during neoadjuvant treatment, or acquire PgR(−) phenotype in local relapse or metastasis. The loss of PgR expression in ERα(+) breast cancer may signify resistance to endocrine therapy and poorer outcomes. On the other hand, ERα(+)/PgR(−) BCs may have a better response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy than double-positive tumors. Loss of PgR expression may be a result of pre-transcriptional alterations (copy number loss, mutation, epigenetic modifications), decreased transcription of the PGR gene (e.g., by microRNAs), and post-translational modifications (e.g., phosphorylation, sumoylation). Various processes involved in the down-regulation of PgR have distinct consequences on the biology of cancer cells. Occasionally, negative PgR status detected by immunohistochemical analysis is paradoxically associated with enhanced transcriptional activity of PgR that might be inhibited by antiprogestin treatment. Identification of the mechanism of PgR loss in each patient seems challenging, yet it may provide important information on the biology of the tumor and predict its responsiveness to the therapy.

Dataset Information

Estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive breast cancer is not a reproducible subtype.

Publications

Estrogen receptor negative/progesterone receptor positive breast cancer is not a reproducible subtype.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets