THE HISTOPATHOLOGICAL AND IMMUNOHISTOCHEMICAL PROFILE OF MALIGNANT BREAST TUMORS IN NORTH-EAST ROMANIA

Authors

  • Sorana-Caterina ANTON “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • Delia NICOLAICIUC “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • G. COSTACHESCU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • C. ILEA “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • Adelina TINTILA “Sf. Ioan” Emergency County Hospital, Suceava, Romania
  • T. CALISTRU “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • N. IOANID Regional Institute of Oncology (IRO), Iasi, Romania
  • Mihaela GRIGORE “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi
  • E ANTON “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

Abstract

Studies using gene expression profiling have identified five major subtypes of breast cancer, apart from the traditional hormone receptor positive or negative ones: luminal A, luminal B, the HER2 group, the basaloid carcinoma group and the “normal breast-like” group. Material and methods: In this retrospective study, 281 patients admitted to the Regional Institute of Oncology Iasi and the Clinical Hospital of Obstetrics and Gynecology Cuza Voda Iasi were included, for whom the oncological records, the operative protocols of the operating room, the unique register of the service were studied; the pathological anatomy and observation sheets were considered for a period of 8 years: 2015-2022. For all 281 invasive mammary carcinomas diagnosed on hematoxylin-eosin staining, they were classified into one of the corresponding histopathological types and subtypes according to WHO criteria. Results: The histopathological study allowed: 1. invasive ductal carcinoma NOS (not otherwise specified - non-specific type of invasive ductal carcinoma)-193 cases (68.68%),2. invasive lobular carcinoma-42 cases (14.94%). Immuno-labeling analysis Estrogen receptors (ER) were positive (Allred score ≥ 3) in 61% of cases (169 patients), and progesterone receptors (PR) in 64% of cases (180 patients). Ki 67 immunolabeling analysis highlighted: the presence of positivity in all cases studied, overexpression of the p53 protein in 99 cases and HER 2 immunoassays allowed the highlighting of 42 cases. Identifying cases with p53 protein mutations can select a group of patients with a higher risk of recurrence and death, and testing p53 expression in HER2 positive patients identifies the subgroup with more aggressive tumors that will benefit from a more aggressive treatment. Conclusions: The most common histological types were invasive ductal carcinoma in 90% of patients. TNM stages was as follows: stage I in 9 cases (3.2%), stage II in 88 cases (31.49%), stage III in 138 cases (48.93%), stage IV in 31 cases (11.03%) ER+/PR- phenotype were more frequent over 50years and tumors larger than 2 cm. Patients under 50 years presented twice as often HER2 positive tumors. Ki67 immunostaining seems to be associated with an unfavorable prognosis (2% of cases in the present study). p53 overexpression occurs most frequently in patients under 50 years, with tumors larger than 2 cm

Author Biographies

  • Sorana-Caterina ANTON, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

    Faculty of Medicine,
    Department of Mother and Child Medicine

  • Delia NICOLAICIUC, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

    Faculty of Medicine,
    Department of Mother and Child Medicine

  • G. COSTACHESCU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

    Faculty of Medicine,
    Department of Mother and Child Medicine

  • C. ILEA, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

    Faculty of Medicine,
    Department of Mother and Child Medicine

  • T. CALISTRU, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

    Faculty of Medicine,
    Department of Mother and Child Medicine

  • Mihaela GRIGORE, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

    Faculty of Medicine,
    Department of Mother and Child Medicine

  • E ANTON, “Grigore T. Popa” University of Medicine and Pharmacy Iasi

    Faculty of Medicine,
    Department of Mother and Child Medicine

References

1. Feitelson MA, Arzumanyan A, Kulathinal RJ, et al Sustained proliferation in cancer: Mechanisms and novel therapeutic targets. Semin Cancer Biol 2015; 35(Suppl 1): S25-S54.
2. Fattaneh A. Tavassoli, MD. Correlation Between Gene Expression Profiling-Based Molecular and Morphologic Classification of Breast Cancer. International Journal of Surgical Pathology 2010; 18(3)Supplement: 167S-169S.
3. Stuart J. Schnitt, MD. Molecular Biology of Breast Tumor Progression: A View From the Other Side. International Journal of Surgical Pathology 2010; 18(3)Supplement: 170S-173S.
4. Yersal O, Barutca S. Biological subtypes of breast cancer: Prognostic and therapeutic implications World J Clin Oncol 2014; 5(3): 412-424 / doi: 10.5306/wjco.v5.i3.412.
5. Eroles P, Bosch A, Pérez-Fidalgo JA, Lluch A. Molecular biology in breast cancer: intrinsic subtypes and signaling pathways. Cancer Treat Rev 2012; 38: 698-707.
6. Rakha EA, Ellis IO. Modern classification of breast cancer: should we stick with morphology or convert to molecular profile characteristics. Adv Anat Pathol 2011; 18: 255-267.
7. DePolo J. The molecular subtype of an invasive breast cancer is based on the genes the cancer cells express, which control how the cells behave. Breast Cancer Org. 2022 https://www.breastcancer.org/
8. Arpino G, Weiss H, Lee A. Estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer: association with growth factor receptor expression and tamoxifen resistance. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97(17): 1254-1261.
9. Wirapati P, Sotiriou C, Kunkel S, et al. Meta-analysis of gene expression profiles in breast cancer: toward a unified understanding of breast cancer subtyping and prognosis signatures. Breast Cancer Res 2008; 10: R65.
10. Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumors. Nature 2000; 406: 747-752.
11. Carey LA. Through a glass darkly: advances in understanding breast cancer biology, 2000-2010. Clin Breast Cancer 2010; 10: 188-195.
12. Chap LI, Barsky SH, Basset LW, Haskell CM. Breast cancer in Cancer treatment, edited by Charles Haskell, 5th edition, WB Saunders Company 2000, 507-531.
13. McGuire A, Brown JAL, et al Effects of Age on the Detection and Management of Breast Cancer. Cancers (Basel) 2015; 7(2): 908-929 / doi:10.3390/cancers7020815.
14. Obedian E, Haffty BG. Breast conserving therapy in breast cancer patients presenting with nipple discharge. International Journal of Radiation Oncology* Biology* Physics 200; 47(1): 137-142.
15. McQuellon RP, Kimmick G, Hurt GI. Quality of life in women with breast cancer. The Breast Journal 1997; 3: 178-186.
16. Lichter AS, Fraass BA, Yanke B. Treatment techniques in the conservative management of breast cancer. Seminars in Radiation Oncology 1992; 2(2): 94-106.
17. Schuh F , Biazús JV, Resetkova E, et al. Histopathological grading of breast ductal carcinoma In Situ: validation of a web-based survey through intra-observer reproducibility analysis. Diagn Pathol 2015; 10: 93.
18. American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2005-2006, Atlanta, Georgia, 2005, 1-7.
19. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistic Review, 1975-2004. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda 2007.
20. Moinfar F. Essentials of Diagnostic Breast Pathology: A Practical Approach. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007, 156-180.
21. Hanagiri T, Nozoe T, Mizukami M, et al. Clinicopathological Characteristics of Invasive Lobular Carcinoma of the Breast. Asian journal of Surgery 2009; 32(2): 76-80.
22. Ellis IO, Galea M, Broughton N, Locker A, Blamey RW, Elston CW. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. II. Histological type. Relationship with survival in a large study with long term follow-up. Histopathology 1992; 20: 479-489.
23. Ellis IO, Schnitt SJ, Sastre-Garau X, et al. Invasive Breast Carcinoma. In: Ellis IO et al., 2003, Deilee P. World health Organization Classification of 24 Tumors. Pathology and Genetics of Tumors of the Breast and Female Genital Organs. Lyon, France IARC Press 2003: 23-26.
24. Bane AL, Tjan S, Parkes RK et al. Invasive lobular carcinoma: to grade or not to grade, Mod Pathol 2005; 18: 621-628.
25. Zhou Bo, Yang De-qi, and Xie Fei Biological markers as predictive factors of response to neoadjuvant taxanes and anthracycline chemotherapy in breast carcinoma Chinese Medical Journal 2008; 121(5): 387-391.
26. Valerie-Jeanne Bardou 1, Grazia Arpino, Richard M Elledge, C Kent Osborne, Gary M Clark Progesterone receptor status significantly improves outcome prediction over estrogen receptor status alone for adjuvant endocrine therapy in two large breast cancer databases. J Clin Oncol 2003; 21(10): 1973-1979.
27. Arpino G, Weiss H, Lee A. Estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer: association with growth factor receptor expression and tamoxifen resistance. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97(17): 1254-1261.
28. Keating JT, Ince T, Crum CP. Surrogate biomarkers of HPV infection in cervical neoplasia screening and diagnosis. Advances in Anatomic Pathology 2001; 8: 83-92.
29. Lindboe CF, Torp SH. Comparison of Ki/67 equivalent antibodies. Journal of Clinical Pathology 2002; 55(6): 467-471.
30. Taylor RJ, Jackson TC, Reid JG. The differential expression of estrogen receptors, progesterone receptors, Bcl 2 and Ki-67 in endometrial polyps. BJOG 2003; 110: 794-798.
31. Tan PH, Boon-Huat Bay, George Yip, et al. immunohistochemical detection of Ki 67 in breast cancer correlates with transcriptional regulation of genes related to apoptosis and cell death. Modern Pathol 2005; 18: 374-381.
32. Petit T, Wikt M, Velter M, Rodier JF, Boel C, Mors R. Comparative value of tumor grade, hormonal receptors, Ki-67, HER-2 and topoisomerase II alpha status as predictive markers in breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy. European Journal of Cancer 2011; 40(2): 205-211
33. Ding SL, Sheu LF, Yu JC, Yang TL, Chen B, Leu FJ, Shen CY. Expression of estrogen receptor alpha and Ki 67 in relation to pathological and molecular features in early onset infiltrating ductal carcinoma, J Biomed Sci 2004; 11: 911-919.
34. Trihia H, Murray S, Price K, Gelber RD, et al. Ki 67 expression in breast carcinoma, its association with grading systems, clinical parameters and other prognostic factors-a surrogate marker? Cancer 2003; 97(5): 1321-1331.
35. Houlston RS. What we could do now: molecular pathology of colorectal cancer. J Clin Pathol: Mol Pathol 2001; 54: 206-214.
36. Al-Moundhri M, Nirmala V, Al-Mawaly. Significance of p53, bcl-2, and HER-2/neu protein expression in Ormani arab females with breast cancer. Pathol Oncol Res 2003; 9: 226-231.
37. Bull SB, Ozcelik H, Pinnanduwage D. The combination of p53 mutation and neu/cerbB2 amplification is associated with poor survival in node-negative breast cancer, J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 86-96.
38. Korkolis D, Tsoli E, Yiotis J. Her2-neu overexpression in breast cancer an immunohistochemical study including correlation with clinico-pathologic parameters, p53 oncoprotein and cathepsin-D. Anticancer Res 2002; 21: 2207-2212.
39. Qualino E. Concordant morphologic and gene expression data show that a vaccine halts HER2/neu preneoplastic lesions. J Clin Invest 2004; 113: 709-717.
40. Ayadi L, Khabor A. Correlation of HER 2 over-expressions with clinico-pathological parameters in Tunisian breast cancer. World J of Surg Oncol 2008; 6: 112- 120.
41. Al Dujaily YE, Al Janabi AA. High prevalence of HER2 neu overexpression in female breast cancer among Iraqi population exposed to depleted uranium. Journal of Carcinogenesis 2008; 7: 8.
42. Ryden L, Landberg G, Stal O. HER 2 statuses in hormone receptor positive premenopausal primary breast cancer adds prognostic, but not tamoxifen treatment predictive information, Breast Cancer Res Treat 2008; 109: 351-357.
43. Bousen H, Bouzaiene H (2008): Inflammatory breast cancer in Tunisia: reassessment of incidence and clinicopathological features, Semin Oncol 2008; 35(1): 17-24.
44. Brufski A, Lemberski B. Hormone receptor status does not affect the clinical benefit of transtuzumab therapy. Clin Breast Cancer 2005; 6: 247-251.

Additional Files

Published

2023-03-31