Triple-negative breast cancers: an updated review on treatment options

Triple-negative breast cancers: an updated review on treatment options


K.B. Reddy, PhD

ABSTRACT

Morphologic features of tumour cells have long been validated for the clinical classification of breast cancers and are regularly used as a “gold standard” to ascertain prognostic outcome in patients. Identification of molecular markers such as expression of the receptors for estrogen (er) and progesterone (pgr) and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (her2) has played an important role in determining targets for the development of efficacious drugs for treatment and has also offered additional predictive value for the therapeutic assessment of patients with breast cancer. More recent technical advancements in identifying several cancer-related genes have provided further opportunities to identify specific subtypes of breast cancer. Among the subtypes, tumours with triple-negative cells are identified using specific staining procedures for basal markers such as cytokeratin 5 and 6 and the absence of er, pgr, and her2 expression. Patients with triple-negative breast cancers therefore have the disadvantage of not benefiting from currently available receptor-targeted systemic therapy. Optimal conditions for the therapeutic assessment of women with triple-negative breast tumours and for the management of their disease have yet to be validated in prospective investigations. The present review discusses the differences between triple-negative breast tumours and basal-like breast tumours and also the role of mutations in the BRCA genes. Attention is also paid to treatment options available to patients with triple-negative breast tumours.

KEYWORDS: Triple-negative breast tumours, epidermal growth factor receptor, chemotherapy

1. INTRODUCTION

Tumours in the breast have long been classified according to their morphologic features, histologic type, and grade (severity). Identification of molecular markers such as expression of the estrogen (er) and progesterone receptors (pgr) and the human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (her2) has offered additional predictive value for the therapeutic assessment of women diagnosed with breast cancer 14. More recently, gene expression analysis using dna microarray technology has identified additional breast tumour subtypes that were not apparent using traditional histopathologic methods. Based on gene expression profiles, breast cancer can be classified into 5 main groups 58:

  • Luminal A

  • Luminal B

  • Basal-like

  • her2

  • Normal breast–like 69

Most breast cancers originate from the inner (“luminal”) cells that line the mammary ducts. Luminal A and luminal B tumours are similar in that both are typically er+ or pgr+, or both. However, they are dissimilar in that the A type is usually her2– and the B type is more likely to be her2+ and lymph node–positive.

Women with luminal A tumours are often diagnosed at a younger age. They tend to have the best prognosis, with relatively high rates of overall survival and relatively low rates of recurrence. Those with luminal B tumours tend to have a higher tumour grade and a poorer prognosis 10, 11 (Table i).

TABLE I Microarray-based breast tumour classification

 

Basal-like tumours originate in the outer (“basal”) cells that line the mammary ducts. Their incidence has been estimated to be between 13% and 25% 1214. These tumours are diagnosed more frequently among younger women and are associated with hereditary BRCA1-related breast cancers. They are often aggressive 1517 and are associated with a prognosis poorer than those for the luminal A, luminal B, and normal breast–like types 11, 16. Metastatically, they seems to disseminate to the axillary nodes and, less frequently, to bone 18. In a population-based study, basal-like breast cancer was suggested to be more prevalent among premenopausal African American women (39% vs. 16% in non–African American women and 14% in postmenopausal African American women) 11.

The mechanism or mechanisms by which basal-like breast cancer metastasizes to the brain is not currently clear. However, the incidence of brain metastasis among patients with her2+ or cytokeratin 14 tumours has been documented 18, 19. Data developed by sequencing primary breast tumours, brain metastases, matched normal tissue, and a mouse xenograft developed from the primary tumour identified 50 point mutations and small insertions or deletions that were present in the tumour genomes but not in the matched normal tissue 20. The increased incidence of brain metastases in patients with her2+ metastatic breast cancer has been documented, and a targeted therapeutic—namely, lapatinib (Tykerb: GlaxoSmithKline, Mississauga, ON)—has shown promise in the treatment of progressive her2+ brain metastases refractory to trastuzumab (Herceptin: Genentech, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.) 19, 21.

The her2 tumours are named for their status as her2+. They tend to be er–, pgr–, and lymph node–positive, with poorer grades. They may contain p53 mutations. The her2+ tumours have relatively poor prognoses and are prone to early and frequent relapse and to distant metastasis 11, 16, 22.

The normal breast–like tumours are those that do not fall into any of the other categories. They account for 6%–10% of all breast cancers 11, 16. These tumours are usually small and typically have a good prognosis 10, 11. They are more common in postmenopausal than in premenopausal women 10.

From a clinical and therapeutic point of view, tumours in the breast can be divided into three main groups:

  • Hormone receptor–positive breast tumours, which are treated with a number of hormone receptor–targeted therapies such as tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors, fulvestrant (Faslodex: AstraZeneca, London, U.K.), and ovarian suppression [oophorectomy or analogs of luteinizing-hormone releasing-hormone and gonadotropin-releasing hormone such as goserelin (Zoladex: AstraZeneca) or leuprolide (Lupron: Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, IL, U.S.A.)] with or without chemotherapy

  • her2-positive breast tumours, which are managed with her2-directed therapies such as trastuzumab (and lapatinib in some cases) with or without chemotherapy

  • Basal and triple-negative breast tumours, which are resistant to the existing er, pgr, and her2-targeted therapies because of loss of target receptors; hence, chemotherapy appears to be the only available treatment modality

2. TRIPLE-NEGATIVE AND BASAL-LIKE TUMOUR CELLS

Triple-negative breast cancer is a recent term derived from tumours that are characterized by the absence of er, pgr, and her2. Triple-negative disease is diagnosed more frequently in younger and premenopausal women 11, 2326 and is highly prevalent in African American women 27, 28. It remains unclear whether this racial association is related to germ-line genetic factors, exposure to environmental factors, or a combination of both.

Triple-negative and basal-like tumour cells proliferate at a higher rate, exhibit central necrosis with a pushing border, and are identified mostly using simple immunohistochemical staining for the expression of cytokeratins 5 and 6 (ck5/6), er, pgr, her2, and vimentin 8, 17, 29. In about 60% of cases, these tumour cells express the receptor for epidermal growth factor (egfr) 17, 3032 and may also contain mutations in the p53 gene 10, 11, 33.

If expression profiling analysis using the intrinsic gene list is considered the “gold standard” for identification, triple-negative tumours and a great preponderance of tumours overall do not express er, pgr, and her2 17, 34. However, among basal-like tumours, 5%–45% were reported to be er+, and 14% were shown to be her2+ 9. Furthermore, during investigations of the expression of basal cks and egfr in separate cohorts of triple-negative tumours, only 56%–84% expressed those markers 25, 26. In addition, patients with triple-negative tumours that express a basal-like tumour phenotype have a significantly shorter disease-free survival than do patients with triple-negative tumours lacking the expression of basal-like tumour markers 25, 26. When triple-negative and basal-like tumours were analyzed by gene expression profiling, 71% of triple-negative tumours showed a basal-like phenotype, and 77% of basal-like tumours showed a triple-negative phenotype 35. Although the terminology relating to triple-negative and basal-like tumours tends to be used interchangeably, it is not entirely interchangeable or synonymous. Caution should therefore be exercised not to equate these tumour types.

From a pathologist’s point of view, triple-negative tumours and basal-like tumours are predominantly of high histologic grade 23, 25, 26. Approximately 10% of triple-negative tumours have been shown to be of grade 1 23. In random cohort studies of 148 Nigerian patients, 66.9% were premenopausal women with a mean age of 43.8 years when diagnosed with triple-negative tumours. Overall, 87 of the patients (59%) were thought to have a basal-like tumour 36. Among triple-negative tumours, most recurrences are observed during the 1st and 3rd years after therapy. Most deaths take place in the first 5 years, even after a strict therapeutic regimen 23, 26. Additional data also suggest that, compared with control patients having non-basal-like or non-triple-negative tumours, patients with triple-negative tumours and basal-like tumours experience significantly shorter survival after the first metastatic event 18, 23, 37. Although triple-negative tumours and basal-like tumours share some characteristics, a careful analysis of microarray-based expression profiles suggests that triple-negative tumours also encompass phenotypes of normal breast–like tumours, and in most studies, normal breast–like tumours have been shown to cluster together with basal-like and her2 tumours in the er-negative arm 6, 8, 16, 22.

3. TRIPLE-NEGATIVE AND BRCA-MUTANT TUMOUR CELLS

Hereditary breast cancers account for only 5%–10% of all breast cancer cases. However, individuals carrying mutations in the BRCA gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2) have a 40%–80% chance of developing breast cancer. Thus, identification of BRCA mutations has been used as one of the strongest breast cancer predictors 3841. By contrast, the incidence of sporadic mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 are in the ranges 4%–29% and 0.6%–16% respectively 39. In nonfamilial cancer cohorts in the United States, mutation frequencies are 0.6% for BRCA1 and 0.9% for BRCA2 42. However, U.S. Ashkenazi families have much higher frequencies of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, at 28.6% and 15.6% respectively 4244.

The contribution of BRCA mutations to the development of breast cancer within any specific population depends on prevalence and penetrance power. Mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes occur with different frequencies in individuals of different ethnicities living in different geographic regions in the world. For example, 64% of high-risk families in Poland are reported to carry BRCA1 mutations (1 in 9 are recurring mutations), but rarely any BRCA2 mutations 45. In Sweden, 34% of high-risk families carry BRCA1 mutations, but only 2% carry BRCA2 mutations 46. By contrast, 32% of high-risk Sardinian families carry mutations in BRCA2, and 11%, mutations in BRCA1 47. Interestingly, dna microarray and immunohistochemical analyses revealed that 80%–90% of breast cancers in women with germ-line mutations in BRCA1 are triple-negative (er–, pgr–, her2–) 26, 4852. The extent to which the BRCA1 pathway contributes to the behavior of triple-negative cancers is an area of active research.

Among triple-negative tumours, the incidence of BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations was reported to be approximately 12.5%. In the United States, approximately 3.3% of woman with triple-negative tumours show BRCA1 mutations; however, the incidence of triple-negative breast tumours in nonfamilial BRCA mutations is not currently clear. In some triple-negative tumours of high histologic grade, brca1 protein levels have been shown to be significantly lower, suggesting that the brca1 pathway may be dysfunctional in these tumour cells 50, 52. Several lines of evidence suggest a link between basal-like breast cancer and brca1 deficiency 51. The functions of brca1 are diverse, and one is the repair of double-stranded dna breaks by the potentially error-free mechanism of homologous recombination 50. Lack of brca1 could result in dna repair by more error-prone mechanisms such as nonhomologous end-joining and single-strand annealing, resulting in genomic instability and therefore cancer predisposition 53. Most BRCA1-associated tumours are triple-negative, and the patients in which they arise have a poor outcome 54. Clustering analyses of microarray expression profiling data have shown that familial BRCA1 mutant tumours tend to fall into a basal-like category, suggesting similar carcinogenic pathways or causes in these cancer subtypes 55.

4. TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR TRIPLE-NEGATIVE TUMOURS

Patients with triple-negative breast cancer do not benefit from hormonal or trastuzumab-based therapies because of the loss of target receptors such as er, pgr, and her2. Hence, surgery and chemotherapy, individually or in combination, appear to be the only available modalities. However, some studies have identified certain receptors as targets for new therapeutic drugs—for example, cell-surface receptors such as egfr and c-Kit, both of which have been shown to play a major role in the progression of triple-negative tumours. Nielsen et al. 17 observed the expression of c-Kit in 31% of basal-like tumour cells and also in 11% of non-basal-like tumour cells. In addition, some available reports suggest that because brca1 deficient breast tumours share features and behavior associated with the basal-like tumours, the therapies that effectively target basal-like tumours should also be highly effective in the treatment of brca1-deficient breast cancer and triple-negative tumours.

Mutations in the BRCA1 gene have been demonstrated to lead to error-prone dna repair, resulting in genomic instability and thus predisposition to carcinogenesis. This phenomenon could be relevant to the control of proliferation in brca1-related, triple-negative, and basal-like tumour cells. Data from several in vitro studies have indicated that breast tumour cells with BRCA1 mutations are extremely sensitive to drugs that induce cross links (mitomycin-C and platinum) and single- and double-strand breaks (etoposide and bleomycin) in dna 5658. Furthermore, single-strand breaks in dna are repaired by the base-excision repair pathway in which poly(adp–ribose) polymerase 1 (parp1) enzyme is one of the essential components. Cells null for brca1 were shown to be incapable of repairing dna strand breaks 59, and inhibition of parp1 resulted in enhanced apoptotic processes 60, 61. Thus, brca1-null cells were reported to more sensitive to chemo- and radiotherapies. By contrast, these cells were shown to be resistant to mitotic-spindle poisons such as taxanes and vinorelbine 62. Previous observations provided strong circumstantial evidence that the brca1 and parp1 pathways could be dysfunctional in a significant subgroup of triple-negative and basal-like breast tumours and, therefore, that those pathways could be targeted for therapy 60, 63. Because ionizing radiation also induces dna strand breaks, additional local or regional radiotherapy may possibly be of particular benefit for patients with triple-negative cancer. In addition, drugs such as carboplatin, cisplatin, parp1 inhibitors, and docetaxel could be very useful in the management of patients with advanced triple-negative cancers.

Approximately 66% of breast cancer patients with triple-negative tumour cells and basal-like tumour cells have been reported to express egfr 17, 25, 64. Inhibition of egfr might be a useful therapeutic strategy. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of humanized anti-egfr monoclonal antibodies and egfr tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with triple-negative breast cancer are currently under way 65.

Numerous phase i and ii clinical trials for the treatment or management of patients with triple-negative breast tumours are under way. The strategies used in those trials are broadly divided into these five groups 14, 66:

  • Agents that damage DNA Drugs (such as cisplatinum 31, etoposide, and bleomycin) and ionizing radiation might control the proliferation of, and induce cell death in, triple-negative breast tumour cells. The high priority of these agents is based on the brca1 pathway and dna repair dysfunction seen in triple-negative breast cancer, which may confer enhanced sensitivity to agents that damage dna.

  • Agents that target EGFR Overexpression of egfr in triple-negative and basal-like tumour cells is well established 17, 25, 64. At least a couple of phase ii clinical trials are using cetuximab (antibody treatment), which targets the expression of egfr or its signalling pathways. One of the egfr-inhibitor phase ii clinical trials, by U.S. Oncology Research, is evaluating weekly gefitinib (Iressa: AstraZeneca) plus carboplatin, with or without cetuximab, in treating patients with metastatic breast cancer.

  • Agents that inhibit PARP1 Phase i clinical trials using parp1 inhibitors have been successfully completed, and phase ii studies have begun. The data from these studies have already indicated that parp1 inhibitors could protect against the nephrotoxicity of cisplatin and the cardiotoxicity of doxorubicin 67, 68, thus potentially helping to provide additional chemotherapeutic efficacy. The parp1 inhibitors effectively disarm the ability of cancer cells to repair themselves and cause the death of those cells. Importantly, parp inhibition, which kills cancer cells, spares identical normal cells that lack cancer-related alterations such as those from mutated BRCA1 and BRCA2. In combination with chemotherapy, parp1 inhibitor (BSI-201) shows promise in the treatment of triple-negative tumours not harbouring BRCA mutations.

  • Agents that inhibit c-Kit The efficacy of imatinib, a drug that inhibits c-Kit tyrosine kinase, is being evaluated in patients with triple-negative and basal-like tumours. However, the immunohistochemical detection of c-Kit overexpression does not guarantee a positive response to imatinib in patients with metastatic disease because most commercially available antibodies for c-Kit recognize total c-Kit and do not distinguish the activated or phosphorylated version, which is the actual target of imatinib.

  • Agents that inhibit second messengers (Ras, mek/erk, mammalian target of rapamycin, heat shock proteins, and anti–vascular endothelial growth factor, among others) Many components of the proliferation pathway are overexpressed or mutated in cancer cells and therefore represent potential targets.

Triple-negative cancers are reported to respond to neoadjuvant chemotherapy 9, 66, 69, but overall, survival in patients with such tumours is still poor, and management of these patients may require more aggressive intervention. The data obtained from various investigations using triple-negative tumour cells suggest that patients with these breast cancers are more likely to benefit from chemotherapeutic agents in development that use a strategy of inhibiting dna repair. Researchers are pursuing new treatments and drug combinations. A full list of clinical trials for women with triple-negative breast cancer can be found at ClinicalTrials.gov using this search locator: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/search;jsessionid=725A3C38DB5590FD2ABB39D62E9BC227?term=ER-negative%20%B1%20breast%20%B1%20cancer&submit=Search.

5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was supported in part by grant RO1 CA118089 (to KBR) from the National Institutes of Health and by the Department of Pathology, Wayne State University. The author thanks Dr. Vijaylaxmi (The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX) for helpful discussions.

6. CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES

The author has no financial conflicts of interest to disclose.

7. REFERENCES

1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet 2005;365:1687–717.
pubmed  

2. Kamangar F, Dores GM, Anderson WF. Patterns of cancer incidence, mortality, and prevalence across five continents: defining priorities to reduce cancer disparities in different geographic regions of the world. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:2137–50.
cross-ref  pubmed  

3. Konecny G, Pauletti G, Pegram M, et al. Quantitative association between her-2/neu and steroid hormone receptors in hormone receptor–positive primary breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:142–53.
cross-ref  pubmed  

4. Slamon DJ, Godolphin W, Jones LA, et al. Studies of the her-2/neu proto-oncogene in human breast and ovarian cancer. Science 1989;244:707–12.
cross-ref  pubmed  

5. Brenton JD, Carey LA, Ahmed AA, Caldas C. Molecular classification and molecular forecasting of breast cancer: ready for clinical application? J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7350–60.
cross-ref  pubmed  

6. Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000;406:747–52.
cross-ref  pubmed  

7. Reis–Filho JS, Westbury C, Pierga JY. The impact of expression profiling on prognostic and predictive testing in breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 2006;59:225–31.
cross-ref  

8. Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:10869–74.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

9. Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF, et al. Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11:5678–85.
cross-ref  pubmed  

10. Calza S, Hall P, Auer G, et al. Intrinsic molecular signature of breast cancer in a population-based cohort of 412 patients. Breast Cancer Res 2006;8:R34.
cross-ref  pubmed  

11. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, et al. Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 2006;295:2492–502.
cross-ref  pubmed  

12. Dairkee SH, Ljung BM, Smith H, Hackett A. Immunolocalization of a human basal epithelium specific keratin in benign and malignant breast disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1987;10:11–20.
cross-ref  pubmed  

13. Gusterson B. Do “basal-like” breast cancers really exist? Nat Rev Cancer 2009;9:128–34.
cross-ref  pubmed  

14. Rakha EA, Reis–Filho JS, Ellis IO. Basal-like breast cancer: a critical review. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:2568–81.
cross-ref  pubmed  

15. Abd El-Rehim DM, Pinder SE, Paish CE, et al. Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma. J Pathol 2004;203:661–71.
cross-ref  pubmed  

16. Fan C, Oh DS, Wessels L, et al. Concordance among gene-expression–based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2006;355:560–9.
cross-ref  pubmed  

17. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, et al. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:5367–74.
cross-ref  pubmed  

18. Fulford LG, Reis–Filho JS, Ryder K, et al. Basal-like grade iii invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast: patterns of metastasis and long-term survival. Breast Cancer Res 2007;9:R4.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

19. Bendell JC, Domchek SM, Burstein HJ, et al. Central nervous system metastases in women who receive trastuzumab-based therapy for metastatic breast carcinoma. Cancer 2003;97:2972–7.
cross-ref  pubmed  

20. Ding L, Ellis MJ, Li S, et al. Genome remodelling in a basal-like breast cancer metastasis and xenograft. Nature 2010;464:999–1005.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

21. Lin NU, Carey LA, Liu MC, et al. Phase ii trial of lapatinib for brain metastases in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:1993–9.
cross-ref  pubmed  

22. Hu Z, Fan C, Oh DS, et al. The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genomics 2006;7:96.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

23. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:4429–34.
cross-ref  pubmed  

24. Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M, et al. Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:5652–7.
cross-ref  pubmed  

25. Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, Lee AH, Robertson JF, Ellis IO. Prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer 2007;109:25–32.
cross-ref  

26. Tischkowitz M, Brunet JS, Bégin LR, et al. Use of immunohistochemical markers can refine prognosis in triple negative breast cancer. BMC Cancer 2007;7:134.
cross-ref  pubmed  pmc  

27. Bauer KR, Brown M, Cress RD, Parise CA, Caggiano V. Descriptive analysis of estrogen receptor (er)–negative, progesterone receptor (pr)–negative, and her2-negative invasive breast cancer, the so-called triple-negative phenotype: a population-based study from the California Cancer Registry. Cancer 2007;109:1721–8.
cross-ref  pubmed  

28. Morris GJ, Naidu S, Topham AK, et al. Differences in breast carcinoma characteristics in newly diagnosed African-American and Caucasian patients: a single-institution compilation compared with the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Cancer 2007;110:876–84.
cross-ref  pubmed  

29. Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R, et al. Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 2006;19:264–71.
cross-ref  

30. Reis–Filho JS, Milanezi F, Steele D, et al. Metaplastic breast carcinomas are basal-like tumours. Histopathology 2006;49:10–21.
cross-ref  

31. Reis–Filho JS, Tutt AN. Triple negative tumours: a critical review. Histopathology 2008;52:108–18.
cross-ref  pubmed  

32. Irvin WJ Jr, Carey LA. What is triple-negative breast cancer? Eur J Cancer 2008;44:2799–805.
cross-ref  pubmed  

33. Kim MJ, Ro JY, Ahn SH, Kim HH, Kim SB, Gong G. Clinicopathologic significance of the basal-like subtype of breast cancer: a comparison with hormone receptor and her2/neu-overexpressing phenotypes. Hum Pathol 2006;37:1217–26.
cross-ref  pubmed  

34. Jimenez RE, Wallis T, Visscher DW. Centrally necrotizing carcinomas of the breast: a distinct histologic subtype with aggressive clinical behavior. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:331–7.
cross-ref  pubmed  

35. Bertucci F, Finetti P, Cervera N, et al. How basal are triple-negative breast cancers? Int J Cancer 2008;123:236–40.
cross-ref  pubmed  

36. Olopade OI, Ikpatt FO, Dignam JJ, et al. “Intrinsic gene expression” subtypes correlated with grade and morphometric parameters reveal a high proportion of aggressive basal-like tumors among black women of African ancestry [abstract 9509]. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:. [Available online at: http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=26&abstractID=1263; cited May 29, 2011]
pubmed  

37. Harris LN, Broadwater G, Lin NU, et al. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer in relation to paclitaxel response and outcomes in women with metastatic disease: results from calgb 9342. Breast Cancer Res 2006;8:R66.
cross-ref  pubmed  

38. Easton DF, Ford D, Bishop DT. Breast and ovarian cancer incidence in BRCA1-mutation carriers. Breast Cancer Linkage Consortium. Am J Hum Genet 1995;56:265–71.
pubmed  

39. Fackenthal JD, Olopade OI. Breast cancer risk associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 in diverse populations. Nat Rev Cancer 2007;7:937–48.
cross-ref  pubmed  

40. Schubert EL, Lee MK, Mefford HC, et al. BRCA2 in American families with four or more cases of breast or ovarian cancer: recurrent and novel mutations, variable expression, penetrance, and the possibility of families whose cancer is not attributable to BRCA1 or BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet 1997;60:1031–40.
pubmed  

41. Schubert EL, Mefford HC, Dann JL, Argonza RH, Hull J, King MC. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations in Ashkenazi Jewish families with breast and ovarian cancer. Genet Test 1997;1:41–6.
pubmed  

42. Rubin SC, Blackwood MA, Bandera C, et al. BRCA1, BRCA2, and hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer gene mutations in an unselected ovarian cancer population: relationship to family history and implications for genetic testing. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;178:670–7.
cross-ref  pubmed  

43. Moslehi R, Chu W, Karlan B, et al. BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation analysis of 208 Ashkenazi Jewish women with ovarian cancer. Am J Hum Gene 2000;66:1259–72.
cross-ref  

44. Moslehi R, Russo D, Phelan C, Jack E, Antman K, Narod S. An unaffected individual from a breast/ovarian cancer family with germline mutations in both BRCA1 and BRCA2. Clin Genet 2000;57:70–3.
cross-ref  pubmed  

45. Górski B, Jakubowska A, Huzarski T, et al. A high proportion of founder BRCA1 mutations in Polish breast cancer families. Int J Cancer 2004;110:683–6.
cross-ref  pubmed  

46. Bergman A, Flodin A, Engwall Y, et al. A high frequency of germline BRCA1/2 mutations in western Sweden detected with complementary screening techniques. Fam Cancer 2005;4:89–96.
cross-ref  pubmed  

47. Palomba G, Pisano M, Cossu A, et al. Spectrum and prevalence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations in Sardinian patients with breast carcinoma through hospital-based screening. Cancer 2005;104:1172–9.
cross-ref  pubmed  

48. Breuer A, Kandel M, Fisseler–Eckhoff A, et al. BRCA1 germline mutation in a woman with metaplastic squamous cell breast cancer. Onkologie 2007;30:316–18.
cross-ref  pubmed  

49. Kandel MJ, Stadler Z, Masciari S, et al. Prevalence of BRCA1 mutations in triple negative breast cancer (bc) [abstract 508]. J Clin Oncol 2006;24:. [Available online at: http://www.asco.org/ASCOv2/Meetings/Abstracts?&vmview=abst_detail_view&confID=40&abstractID=34683; cited May 29, 2011]

50. Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A. Hallmarks of “BRCAness” in sporadic cancers. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:814–19.
cross-ref  pubmed  

51. Turner NC, Reis–Filho JS. Basal-like breast cancer and the BRCA1 phenotype. Oncogene 2006;25:5846–53.
cross-ref  pubmed  

52. Turner NC, Reis–Filho JS, Russell AM, et al. BRCA1 dysfunction in sporadic basal-like breast cancer. Oncogene 2007;26:2126–32.
cross-ref  

53. Venkitaraman AR. Cancer susceptibility and the functions of brca1 and brca2. Cell 2002;108:171–82.
cross-ref  pubmed  

54. Stoppa–Lyonnet D, Ansquer Y, Dreyfus H, et al. Familial invasive breast cancers: worse outcome related to BRCA1 mutations. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:4053–9.

55. Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J, et al. Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:8418–23.
cross-ref  pubmed  

56. Bhattacharyya A, Ear US, Koller BH, Weichselbaum RR, Bishop DK. The breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1 is required for subnuclear assembly of Rad51 and survival following treatment with the dna cross-linking agent cisplatin. J Biol Chem 2000;275:23899–903.
cross-ref  pubmed  

57. Moynahan ME, Cui TY, Jasin M. Homology-directed dna repair, mitomycin-C resistance, and chromosome stability is restored with correction of a BRCA1 mutation. Cancer Res 2001;61:4842–50.
pubmed  

58. Dawson SJ, Provenzano E, Caldas C. Triple negative breast cancers: clinical and prognostic implications. Eur J Cancer 2009;45(suppl 1):27–40.
cross-ref  pubmed  

59. Turner N, Tutt A, Ashworth A. Targeting the dna repair defect of BRCA tumours. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2005;5:388–93.
cross-ref  pubmed  

60. Farmer H, McCabe N, Lord CJ, et al. Targeting the dna repair defect in BRCA mutant cells as a therapeutic strategy. Nature 2005;434:917–21.
cross-ref  pubmed  

61. Tutt AN, Lord CJ, McCabe N, et al. Exploiting the dna repair defect in BRCA mutant cells in the design of new therapeutic strategies for cancer. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 2005;70:139–48.
cross-ref  

62. Quinn JE, Kennedy RD, Mullan PB, et al. BRCA1 functions as a differential modulator of chemotherapy-induced apoptosis. Cancer Res 2003;63:6221–8.
pubmed  

63. Bryant HE, Schultz N, Thomas HD, et al. Specific killing of BRCA2-deficient tumours with inhibitors of poly(adp–ribose) polymerase. Nature 2005;434:913–17. [Erratum in: Nature 2007;447:346]
cross-ref  pubmed  

64. Reis–Filho JS, Milanezi F, Carvalho S, et al. Metaplastic breast carcinomas exhibit egfr, but not her2, gene amplification and overexpression: immunohistochemical and chromogenic in situ hybridization analysis. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7:R1028–35.
cross-ref  

65. Carey L, Mayer E, Marcom P, et al. TBCRC 001: egfr inhibition with cetuximab in metastatic triple negative (basal-like) breast cancer [abstract 307]. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2007;106(suppl 1):S32.

66. Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC. Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol 2007;8:235–44.
cross-ref  pubmed  

67. Mason KA, Valdecanas D, Hunter NR, Milas L. INO-1001, a novel inhibitor of poly(adp–ribose) polymerase, enhances tumor response to doxorubicin. Invest New Drugs 2008;26:1–5.
cross-ref  

68. Racz I, Tory K, Gallyas F Jr, et al. BGP-15—a novel poly(adp– ribose) polymerase inhibitor—protects against nephrotoxicity of cisplatin without compromising its antitumor activity. Biochem Pharmacol 2002;63:1099–111.
cross-ref  pubmed  

69. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, et al. The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res 2007;13:2329–34.
cross-ref  pubmed  


Correspondence to: Kaladhar B. Reddy, Department of Pathology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, 540 E Canfield, Detroit, Michigan 48201 U.S.A. E-mail: kreddy@med.wayne.edu

(Return to Top)


Current Oncology, VOLUME 18, NUMBER 4, 2011



Copyright © 2014 Multimed Inc.
ISSN: 1198-0052 (Print) ISSN: 1718-7729 (Online)