Clinical Cancer Research Prevention Award Advances in Breast Cancer
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shinozaki, M.
Right arrow Articles by Taback, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shinozaki, M.
Right arrow Articles by Taback, B.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 11, 2156-2162, March 2005
© 2005 American Association for Cancer Research

Imaging, Diagnosis, Prognosis

Distinct Hypermethylation Profile of Primary Breast Cancer Is Associated with Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis

Masaru Shinozaki1, Dave S.B. Hoon1, Armando E. Giuliano2, Nora M. Hansen2, He-Jing Wang3, Roderick Turner4 and Bret Taback1,2

1 Department of Molecular Oncology; 2 Joyce Eisenberg Keefer Breast Center; Divisions of 3 Biostatistics and 4 Surgical Pathology, John Wayne Cancer Institute and Saint John's Health Center, Santa Monica, California

Requests for reprints: Dave Hoon, Department of Molecular Oncology, John Wayne Cancer Institute, 2200 Santa Monica Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90404. Phone: 310-449-5267; Fax: 310-449-5282; E-mail: hoon{at}jwci.org.


   ABSTRACT
Top
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Purpose: Gene promoter region hypermethylation is a significant event in primary breast cancer. However, its impact on tumor progression and potential predictive implications remain relatively unknown.

Experimental Design: We conducted hypermethylation profiling of 151 primary breast tumors with association to known prognostic factors in breast cancer using methylation-specific PCR for six known tumor suppressor and related genes: RASSF1A, APC, TWIST, CDH1, GSTP1, and RAR-ß2. Furthermore, correlation with sentinel lymph node (SLN) tumor status was assessed as it represents the earliest stage of metastasis that is readily detected. Hypermethylation for any one gene was identified in 147 (97%) of 151 primary breast tumors. The most frequently hypermethylated gene was RASSF1A (81%).

Results: Hypermethylation of the CDH1 was significantly associated with primary breast tumors demonstrating lymphovascular invasion (P = 0.008), infiltrating ductal histology (P = 0.03), and negative for the estrogen receptor (P = 0.005), whereas RASSF1A and RAR-ß2 gene hypermethylation were significantly more common in estrogen receptor–positive (P < 0.001) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (P < 0.001) tumors, respectively. In multivariate analysis, hypermethylation of GSTP1 and/or RAR-ß2 was significantly associated with patients having macroscopic SLN metastasis compared with those with microscopic or no sentinel node metastasis (odds ratio, 4.59; 95% confidence interval, 2.02-10.4; P < 0.001). In paired SLN metastasis, CDH1 was the most frequently methylated gene (90%) and provides evidence in patients corroborating its role in the clinical development of metastasis.

Conclusion: Hypermethylation profiling of primary breast tumors is significantly associated with known pathologic prognostic factors and may have additional clinical and pathologic utility for assessing patient prognosis and predicting early regional metastasis.

Key Words: hypermethylation • breast cancer • sentinel lymph node • metastasis


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Improved access to mammography and increased patient awareness in breast cancer screening have resulted in a dramatic increase in the detection of early breast cancers (1, 2). It is important, at the time of breast cancer diagnosis, to identify concurrent metastatic disease for accurate patient staging and therapeutic decision making. Axillary lymph node dissection has provided an invaluable approach to assess for the presence of tumor cell metastasis, particularly in early disease states where standard radiographic imaging is less sensitive. However, axillary lymph node dissection can be associated with considerable morbidity including lymphedema and reduced shoulder mobility (3, 4).

Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy provides an effective alternative approach to the identification of regional nodal metastasis, and is associated with reduced morbidity when compared with standard axillary lymph node dissection (5, 6). This procedure, although less invasive, is not entirely risk-free as it still requires an axillary incision and general anesthesia, it subjects patients to lymphatic mapping reagents, and its success is dependent on the skill of the surgeon (7, 8). Furthermore, it remains controversial whether axillary surgery offers clinically node-negative patients any survival advantage (9–11). Therefore, alternative minimally invasive methods that could identify/predict disease progression are being investigated, such as the assessment of blood and bone marrow for the presence of occult circulating tumor cells (12–14). These assays have limited sensitivity when assessing the earliest stage patients where minimal residual disease is extremely low or nonexistent. Others are investigating primary tumor gene expression profiles as predictors of clinical outcome (15, 16). However, without correlation to other known prognostic factors in breast cancer or intermediate end points, long-term clinical trials with patient outcome will be needed to validate these preliminary results. Nevertheless, to date, in clinical practice, axillary lymph node status remains the single most important prognostic factor for patients (17, 18).

Breast cancer development is a consequence of a serial accumulation of genetic alterations ultimately resulting in the ability of epithelial cells to proliferate uncontrollably, invade tissues, and avoid apoptosis. These genetic events lead to gene activation/inactivation through the mechanisms of mutation, amplification, and deletion. More recently, it has been shown that different cancers show significant CpG island hypermethylation in the promoter regions(s) of specific tumor-suppressor and related genes when compared with normal cells (19, 20). As these genes regulate normal cellular processes and their methylation in tumor tissue contributes to transcriptional silencing, it is conceivable that they may be involved with breast tumor progression (21). Currently, many of these studies remain descriptive and lack association with known clinicopathologic risk factors affiliated with breast cancer metastasis. Identifying methylation profiles in primary tumors that are associated with metastasis would not only elucidate those epigenetic events involved with disease progression but may aid in the development of a genomic prediction marker panel for patient outcome that can readily be assessed from paraffin-embedded tissue specimens. Because lymph node metastasis remains a critical benchmark in breast cancer and is often the earliest sign of tumor progression, we sought to determine whether promoter hypermethylation of a marker panel comprising six tumor suppressor and cancer-related genes implicated in early-stage regional nodal breast cancer progression: RAS association domain family protein 1A protein (RASSF1A), adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), TWIST gene a basic-helix-loop-helix family of transcription factors, E-cadherin (CDH1), glutathione S-transferase pi 1 (GSTP1), and retinoic acid–binding receptor-ß2 (RAR-ß2), was associated with the presence of SLN metastasis. To date, majority of the studies on hypermethylation of tumor-related genes in breast cancer have been descriptive and none have shown relation to prognostic factors and to early stage metastasis in a large series of patients. We showed that hypermethylation of GSTP1 and RAR-ß2 was significantly associated with prognostic factors of the primary tumor and level of disease in the SLN.


   PATIENTS AND METHODS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Patients. A total of 151 patients were identified from the Breast Cancer Database at the John Wayne Cancer Institute who underwent surgery for their primary breast cancer with SLN biopsy alone or followed by axillary lymph node dissection, if the SLN contained metastasis, from August 1992 to May 2001. Two thirds of the patients were postmenopausal and mean patient age was 55 years (range, 27-86 years) with a mean tumor size of 3.1 cm (range, 0.1-10 cm). Additional primary tumor characteristics are listed in Table 1. The study was approved by the joint Saint John's Health Center/John Wayne Cancer Institute's institutional review board with all patients providing informed written consent.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 1 Patient characteristics

 
In addition, 29 patients had readily available paraffin-embedded SLN tissue blocks containing large metastasis identified on H&E. These were evaluated in tandem with the primary tumor to determine whether gene methylation status correlated with the matched-paired SLN metastasis.

The estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) receptor status were evaluated on the primary tumor specimen by standard immunohistochemistry. ER was assessed with the anti-ER monoclonal antibody 6F11 (Ventana, Tuscon, AZ) and considered positive if ≥1% of cells showed nuclear staining. Progesterone receptor was assessed with the anti–progesterone receptor monoclonal antibody 16 (Ventana) and considered positive if ≥1% of cells stained. The HER2 receptor status was evaluated with the anti-HER2 polyclonal antibody c-erb-B2 (DAKO, Carpenteria, CA) and tumors were considered to have overexpression with a staining intensity of 3+; scores of 0 or 1 were negative and scores of 2+ were indeterminant and further evaluated with fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) by a commercial pathology service (IMPATH, Los Angeles, CA).

DNA Extraction and Methylation-Specific PCR. Paraffin-embedded primary tumor specimen blocks (and 29 paired SLNs with metastasis) were sectioned at 10 µm and deparaffinized in 100% xylene, followed by 100% ethanol incubation, and stained with H&E. Tumor tissue was microdissected compared with a similarly stained and coverslipped reference slide cut in sequence from each tissue block. The samples were incubated in buffer containing SDS-proteinase K for 48 hours at 50°C with an additional 1 µg proteinase K added twice within each 24-hour period. DNA was extracted and bisulfite modification was done using the agarose bead technique as previously described (22). Briefly, following extraction, DNA was quantified using Picogreen (Molecular Probes, Eugene, OR) and 1 µg genomic DNA was mixed with 0.3 mol/L NaOH, 2 volumes 2% LMP agarose (BioWhittaker Molecular Applications, Rockland, ME) dissolved in molecular grade water, heated at 80°C for 10 minutes, and then added to two to three drops of chilled mineral oil to create an agarose bead. Sodium bisulfite conversion of DNA suspended in the agarose bead was achieved by adding 2.5 mol/L sodium metabisulfite and 125 mmol/L hydroquinone and incubating at 50°C for 14 hours. Subsequently, desulfonation was done by removing residual mineral oil and adding 0.2 mol/L NaOH x2 for 15 minutes each, followed by neutralization with 1/5 volume 1 mol/L HCl for 5 minutes, and then the bead was washed in Tris-EDTA buffer and stored in molecular grade water at 4°C until analysis. A panel of six genes was assessed for their methylation status: RASSF1A, APC, TWIST, CDH1, GSTP1, and RAR-ß2. Methylation-specific PCR was done on each bead in a 100 µL reaction containing 200 µmol/L each of deoxynucleotide triphosphate and AmpliTaq Gold DNA polymerase (Perkin-Elmer, Norwalk, CT) and 50 pmol of each forward (F) and reverse (R) primer set for methylated (M) and unmethylated (U) sets as follows: RAR-ß2, (M) F-GAACGCGAGCGATTCGA GT and R-GACCAATCCAACCGAAACG, (U) F-GGATTGGGATGTTGAGAATGT and R-CAACCAATCCAACCAAAACAA; CDH1, (M) F-TTAGGTTAGAGGGTTAT CGCGT and R-TAACTAAAAATTCACCTACCGAC, (U) F-TAATTTTAGGTTAGA GGGTTATTGT and R-CACAACCAATCAACAACACA; APC, (M) F-TATTGCGG AGTGCGGGTC and R-TCGACGAACTCCCGACGA, (U) F-GTGTTTTATTGTGGA GTGTGGGTT and R-CCAATCACAAACTCCCAACAA; RASSF1A, (M) F-GTGTT AACGCGTTGCGTATC and R-AACCCCGCGAACTAAAAACGA, (U) F-TTTGGTT GGAGTGTGTTAATGTG and R-CAAACCCCACAAACTAAAAACAA; GSTP1, (M) F-TTCGGGGTGTAGCGGTCGTC and R-GCCCCAATACTAAATCAC GACG, (U) F-GATGTTTGGGGTGTAGTGGTTGTT and R-CCACCCCAATACTAAATCACAA CA; TWIST, (M) F-TTTCGGATGGGGTTGTTATCG and R-GACGAACGCGAAACG ATTTC, (U) F-TTGGATGGGGTTGTTATTGT and R-ACCTTCCTCCAACAAACA CA. PCR was done after optimizing annealing temperatures for each primer set to include 40 timed cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 30 seconds, annealing for 30 seconds, and extension at 72°C for 30 seconds. Post-methylation-specific PCR product analysis was done using capillary array electrophoresis (CEQ 8000XL Genetic Analysis System, Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA) as previously described (22). Briefly, each well of a 96-well microplate is loaded with 1 µL methylated and 1 µL unmethylated post-PCR product mixed with 40 µL loading buffer and 0.5 µL dye labeled size standard (Beckman Coulter). Forward methylated and unmethylated specific primers labeled with different Beckman Coulter WELLRED Phosphoramidite-linked dyes permit differentiation of the respective post-PCR amplicons during multiplex analysis (Fig. 1). Methylated/unmethylated peak patterns for each gene were compared with cell line controls as previously described (23). Those samples demonstrating peaks at the corresponding size marker only for the unmethylated DNA were considered unmethylated for the gene, whereas samples demonstrating peaks at the corresponding size marker for methylated DNA alone or in combination with peaks for unmethylated DNA were considered as positive for methylation of the target gene.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
  		Fig. 1 Representative results from capillary array electrophoresis evaluation of gene methylation status in primary breast tumors. A, two different patients' tumor: A1, methylated (M); A2, unmethylated (U) GSTP1 promoter region. B, two different patients' tumors: B1, methylated (M); B2, unmethylated (U) RAR-ß2 promoter region.

 
Sequencing Analysis. Sixteen primary breast tumor samples were randomly selected and analyzed by sequencing to validate the accuracy of the methylation-specific PCR assay for individualized genes. Briefly, PCR was done on bisulfite-modified DNA in 40 µL reactions with forward and reverse primers for specific genes as previously described (22, 23). Fifteen microliters of post-PCR products were resolved on 2% Tris-borate EDTA-agarose gels and target bands were isolated and purified using the Qiagen Gel purification kit (Qiagen Inc., Valencia, CA). Sequencing reactions were done with the dye terminator cycle sequencing kit on the CEQ 8000XL.

Statistical Analysis. Descriptive statistics, such as mean, SD, median, frequency, and percentage were used to summarize patient's characteristics and gene hypermethylation status. Student t test (for continuous variables) and {chi}2 test (for categorical variables) were used for comparing clinical factors between tumors demonstrating hypermethylation versus no hypermethylation.

A logistic regression model was developed to investigate the correlation of gene methylation status with lymph node metastasis status, whereas the effects of clinical factors on node metastasis were taken into account. First, a stepwise procedure was used to select clinical factors that significantly related with lymph node metastasis status. Tumor size and ER status were selected in the model, a stepwise procedure was used again to select genes that predict node metastasis status. The statistical analysis was done using SAS software (SAS, Cary, NC) and all tests are two-sided with significance at P ≤ 0.05. The {alpha} level was not adjusted for multiple testing.


   RESULTS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Primary Breast Tumor Hypermethylation Profiles. Promoter region CpG hypermethylation was identified in 147 (97%) of 151 primary breast tumors when evaluated for any one marker using the following panel of genes: RASSF1A, APC, TWIST, CDH1, GSTP1, and RAR-ß2. The most frequently hypermethylated gene detected was RASSF1A occurring in 122 (81%) patients' tumors; this was followed by CDH1 (53%), APC (49%), TWIST (48%), RAR-ß2 (24%), and GSTP1 (21%). Forty-five (30%) of 151 tumors showed hypermethylation for three genes, 43 (28%) tumors for two genes, 25 (17%) for four genes, 20 (13%) for one gene, 10 (7%) for five genes, and four (3%) for all six genes. In only four patient's tumors, hypermethylation was not detected for any of the six genes assessed. Sequence analysis was done on 16 randomly selected primary tumors to verify their hypermethylated or unmethylated status. In all cases, direct sequencing of the PCR product correlated with the methylation status as initially detected by methylation-specific PCR. Ten normal breast tissue samples showed no promoter hypermethylation for any of the genes assessed under the optimal conditions used for tumor assessment.

Methylation Status between Primary Tumor and Matched-Paired Sentinel Lymph Node. Among SLN metastasis, the most frequently methylated gene was CDH1 occurring in 26 (90%) patients; this was followed by RASSF1A (59%), RAR-ß2 (48%), APC (34%), TWIST (28%), and GSTP1 (24%). Correlation between primary tumor and SLN metastasis for gene methylation status (methylated/methylated and unmethylated/unmethylated) was common in most instances occurring in 90% of patients for GSTP1, 79% for TWIST, 72% for RASSF1A, 69% for APC, 66% for RAR-ß2, and 55% for CDH1 (Table 2).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 2 Methylation status of primary tumor and lymph node metastasis

 
Correlation of Primary Tumor Hypermethylation Profiles with Clinicopathologic Prognostic Parameters. The individual gene hypermethylation status for each patient's tumor was assessed to determine whether any clinical or pathologic correlation could be identified for any of the following prognostic parameters associated with breast cancer: patients' age, menopause status, tumor size, histology, degree of differentiation, DNA index, the presence of lymphovascular invasion, T stage, nodal involvement, American Joint Committee on Cancer stage, hormone receptor (ER and progesterone receptor) status, and HER2 receptor presence. GSTP1 methylation was significantly more frequent in primary breast tumors demonstrating lymph node metastasis occurring in 22 (28%) of 81 patients, compared with 10 (14%) of 70 patients without evidence of lymph node involvement (P = 0.044; Table 3). Hypermethylation of the CDH1 was more frequent in primary tumors demonstrating lymphovascular invasion, 31 (72%) of 43 patients versus 49 (48%) of 102 patient tumors without lymphovascular invasion (P = 0.008); those with an infiltrating ductal histology, 68 (58%) of 118 tumors compared with infiltrating lobular histology, 12 (36%) of 33 tumors (P = 0.03); and in ER-negative tumors, 27 (73%) of 37 patients' tumors versus 53 (47%) of 114 patients' ER-positive tumors (P = 0.005). In contrast, RASSF1A hypermethylation was more frequently associated with ER-positive tumors occurring in 99 (87%) of 114 patients versus 23 (62%) of 37 patients with ER-negative tumors (P < 0.001). RAR-ß2 hypermethylation was more common in HER2-positive than HER2-negative tumors, 15 (48%) of 31 cases versus 21 (19%) of 112 cases, respectively (P < 0.001). No clinical or pathologic correlations that included lymph node metastasis were identified for APC or TWIST hypermethylation.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 3 Analysis of gene hypermethylation and prognostic factors

 
In a similar manner, the combination of hypermethylated genes was assessed to determine whether there was any predictive correlation. The presence of hypermethylation for GSTP1 and/or RAR-ß2 was more frequently associated with the presence of lymph node metastasis and HER2 receptor–positive tumors. Thirty-six (44%) of 81 primary tumors with corresponding lymph node involvement showed hypermethylation for one or both of these markers, whereas this event was only detected in 18 (25%) of 70 primaries without lymph node metastasis (P < 0.02). Additionally, hypermethylation for either one or both of these genes was more often found in HER2-positive breast cancers than those that were HER2 negative: 19 (61%) of 31 primary tumors versus 33 (30%) of 112 primary tumors, respectively (P = 0.001).

Correlation of Primary Tumor Hypermethyation Profiles and Size of Sentinel Lymph Node Metastasis. It has been suggested that the amount of regional lymph node involvement is associated with a worse patient prognosis (24, 25). To determine whether hypermethylation profiling of the primary tumor was associated with lymph node tumor burden, patients were categorized according to the size of the SLN metastasis as accepted by the American Joint Committee on Cancer Staging Manual sixth edition (26): macro, >2.0 mm (n = -41); micro, ≤2.0 mm but >0.2 mm (n = 40); and none (n = 70), absence of tumor identification following H&E and immunohistochemistry staining. Among these three groups, there was a statistically significant association between increasing SLN tumor burden and larger primary tumor size (P < 0.015). Correlation with primary tumor hypermethylation status found a greater frequency of GSTP1 hypermethylation associated with macro-SLN metastasis, 13 (32%) of 41 patients, compared with those without tumor cells in the SLN, 10 (14%) of 70 patients (P < 0.029). RAR-ß2 hypermethylation was more common in those primary tumors having macro-SLN metastasis, 17 (42%) of 41 patients, versus micro-SLN metastasis, 6 (15%) of 40 patients, or no SLN metastasis, 13 (19%) of 70 patients (P < 0.009 for each, respectively). Similarly, the presence of either GSTP1 hypermethylation, RAR-ß2 hypermethylation, or both was more frequently observed in primary tumors having macro-SLN metastasis, 23 (56%) of 41 patients, than micro-SLN metastasis, 12 (30%) of 40 patients, or no SLN metastasis, 18 (26%) of 70 patients, P < 0.018 and 0.002, respectively (Table 4).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

  		Table 4 Correlation between gene hypermethylation and SLN histopathology status

 
Multivariate Analysis. A logistic regression model was developed to investigate the correlation of gene methylation status with SLN tumor status, whereas the effects of clinical factors on node metastasis were taken into account. Only tumor size and RAR-ß2 gene hypermethylation were significantly associated with a greater risk for a macro-SLN metastasis compared with micro-SLN or no SLN involvement (odds ratio, 1.595%; confidence interval, 1.16-1.93; P < 0.002) and 3.86 (95% confidence interval, 1.65-9.00; P < 0.002). Similarly, in multivariate analysis, the presence of either GSTP1 hypermethylation, RAR-ß2 hypermethylation, or both markers in primary tumors correlated with an increased risk of having a macroscopic SLN metastasis (odds ratio, 4.59; 95% confidence interval, 2.02-10.4; P < 0.001). Increasing primary tumor size was also associated with a greater risk for macro-SLN metastasis (odds ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval, 1.21-2.05; P < 0.001). No clinical, pathologic, or hypermethylation gene marker variables could discriminate between microscopic SLN metastasis or histologically tumor-free SLN.


   DISCUSSION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
This study provides the largest series to date with correlation to known prognostic factors in breast cancer to determine the role of gene promoter hypermethylation status as a molecular predictor of disease progression. We found GSTP1 methylation to correlate strongly with increasing tumor size and a greater likelihood of SLN metastasis. This finding is important as GSTs are a family of enzymes that detoxify hydrophobic electrophiles, which include carcinogens that have been implicated in a variety of cancers (27). Because diet has been implicated in breast cancer (28), GSTP1 loss may result in impaired cellular defenses leading to increasing genome damage and cancer progression (29). A multicenter study using large-scale populations will better identify these risks and characterize the potential impact of gene-environment interactions.

Hypermethylation of RAR-ß2 was shown to correlate more frequently with HER2-positive tumors, which is overexpressed in 25% to 30% of all breast cancers and when identified is associated with a poorer patient prognosis. Retinoids have been shown to inhibit the growth of breast cancer cell lines in culture and breast tumors in animal models (30–32). RAR-ß2 has been proposed as a tumor suppressor gene and loss of expression has been found in variety of tumors as well as premalignant lesions resulting in uncontrolled cellular proliferation (33, 34) . Detection of RAR-ß2 hypermethylation may identify additional therapeutic targets of interest in these groups of patients with more aggressive tumors. Current trials are under way to evaluate the effect of administering retinoids in patients with breast cancer (35, 36). Pretreatment assessment of RAR-ß2 methylation status may more accurately identify patients likely to respond to therapy. The correlation of RAR-ß2 with the presence of macroscopic SLN metastasis was significant. Tumor burden in the lymph nodes is a significant prognosticator of patient outcome (37). However, the clinical implication of occult tumor cells in lymph nodes remains a controversial issue (38, 39). We have shown that patients with SLN micrometastasis (≤2.0 mm but >0.2 mm) have equivalent overall survival rate as those without SLN metastasis and both groups have a better outcome than those with SLN macrometastasis (>2.0 mm; ref. 40). Genetic markers that predict for lymph node metastasis may avoid further surgery in patients with clinically insignificant disease in their axilla and better identify those more likely to benefit from the addition of systemic therapy.

We found CDH1 hypermethylation to be highly associated with ER-negative tumors and those demonstrating lymphovascular invasion. CDH1 is involved in maintaining cell-to-cell adhesion and is regarded as suppressor of cellular invasion (41). Furthermore, loss of CDH1 expression in primary tumors has been associated with decreased patient survival (42). These findings are consistent with our results demonstrating CDH1 methylation predominates in primary tumors with a more aggressive phenotype. Loss of E-cadherin protein expression is most frequent for infiltrating lobular tumor types and is often a biallelic event resulting from any combination of gene promoter hypermethylation, mutation, or allelic loss, whereas ductal histology often presents with varying levels of expression (43, 44). In our series, CDH1 methylation was more common in tumors with infiltrating ductal histology and may show a different preferential pathway for gene inactivation compared with lobular cancers. Alternatively, this may be reflective of sample selection as most of our cases were infiltrating ductal tumors, which is the most common type at diagnosis and was not a discriminating factor at the study onset.

In patients with paired primary tumors and SLNs available for methylation-specific PCR analysis, the majority showed agreement between the methylation status in the tumor and its corresponding metastasis, suggesting a predominance of epigenetic clonality among cells comprising metastasis to the SLN. We found CDH1 to be the most frequently methylated gene in SLN metastasis (frequency, 90%). Furthermore, although infrequent, when there was a lack of concordance between gene methylation of the primary tumor and its corresponding SLN metastasis, the tendency was for the primary tumor. The sole exception was for CDH1, which favored hypermethylation in the SLN metastasis. These findings provide vital clinical evidence in patients that supports in vitro and animal models implicating alterations of CDH1 in the metastatic process (45). It has been previously reported that a higher frequency of hypermethylation exists in breast cancer metastasis (46). However, correlation between gene hypermethylation in the primary tumor and the associated lymph node metastasis were limited. Because our report is the first to evaluate SLNs, which is the first site of lymphatic spread, it represents the earliest stage of regional metastasis and, therefore, may have fewer epigenetic alterations than those associated with more advanced disease. Overall, recurrence in patients with positive SLN in our experience is low and requires long-term follow-up for evaluation (40).

RASSF1A was the most frequently methylated gene detected in this study and our results are consistent with other studies (47). Together, these findings suggest a likely importance of RASSF1A gene silencing in breast cancer. Additionally, correlating gene promoter hypermethylation profiles with known pathologic prognostic factors, including SLN metastasis, provides improved understanding of the biology of breast cancer. Molecular events associated with the primary tumor that predict for metastasis and patient outcome offers the desired opportunity to avoid additional surgical interventions for staging and will prove more suitable in this new era of earlier cancer detection.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Grant support: California Breast Cancer Research Program grant 7WB-0021, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Leslie and Susan Gonda (Goldschmied) Foundation, Ben B. and Joyce E. Eisenberg Foundation (Los Angeles), and Fashion Footwear Association of New York.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Received 9/ 3/04; revised 12/20/04; accepted 12/23/04.


   REFERENCES
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 PATIENTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Cady B, Stone MD, Schuler JG, Thakur R, Wanner MA, Lavin PT. The new era in breast cancer. Invasion, size, and nodal involvement dramatically decreasing as a result of mammographic screening. Arch Surg 1996;131:301–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Miller BA, Feuer EJ, Hankey BF. Recent incidence trends for breast cancer in women and the relevance of early detection: an update. CA Cancer J Clin 1993;43:27–41.[Abstract]
  3. Ivens D, Hoe AL, Podd TJ, Hamilton CR, Taylor I, Royle GT. Assessment of morbidity from complete axillary dissection. Br J Cancer 1992;66:136–8.[Medline]
  4. Warmuth MA, Bowen G, Prosnitz LR, et al. Complications of axillary lymph node dissection for carcinoma of the breast: a report based on a patient survey. Cancer 1998;83:1362–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Giuliano AE, Haigh PI, Brennan MB, et al. Prospective observational study of sentinel lymphadenectomy without further axillary dissection in patients with sentinel node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2000;18:2553–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Giuliano AE, Kelemen PR. Sophisticated techniques detect obscure lymph node metastases in carcinoma of the breast. Cancer 1998;83:391–3.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Giuliano AE. See one, do twenty-five, teach one: the implementation of sentinel node dissection in breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol 1999;6:520–1.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Borgstein PJ, Pijpers R, Comans EF, van Diest PJ, Boom RP, Meijer S. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer: guidelines and pitfalls of lymphoscintigraphy and gamma probe detection. J Am Coll Surg 1998;186:275–83.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Fisher B, Redmond C, Fisher ER, et al. Ten-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing radical mastectomy and total mastectomy with or without radiation. N Engl J Med 1985;312:674–81.[Abstract]
  10. Cabanes PA, Salmon RJ, Vilcoq JR, et al. Value of axillary dissection in addition to lumpectomy and radiotherapy in early breast cancer. The Breast Carcinoma Collaborative Group of the Institut Curie. Lancet 1992;339:1245–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Cady B. The need to reexamine axillary lymph node dissection in invasive breast cancer. Cancer 1994;73:505–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Taback B, Chan AD, Kuo CT, et al. Detection of occult metastatic breast cancer cells in blood by a multimolecular marker assay: correlation with clinical stage of disease. Cancer Res 2001;61:8845–50.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Braun S, Pantel K, Muller P, et al. Cytokeratin-positive cells in the bone marrow and survival of patients with stage I, II, or III breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2000;342:525–33.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Stathopoulou A, Vlachonikolis I, Mavroudis D, et al. Molecular detection of cytokeratin-19-positive cells in the peripheral blood of patients with operable breast cancer: evaluation of their prognostic significance. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:3404–12.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. van 't Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002;415:530–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002;347:1999–2009.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Carter CL, Allen C, Henson DE. Relation of tumor size, lymph node status, and survival in 24,740 breast cancer cases. Cancer 1989;63:181–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  18. Jatoi I, Hilsenbeck SG, Clark GM, Osborne CK. Significance of axillary lymph node metastasis in primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:2334–40.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Baylin SB, Esteller M, Rountree MR, Bachman KE, Schuebel K, Herman JG. Aberrant patterns of DNA methylation, chromatin formation and gene expression in cancer. Hum Mol Genet 2001;10:687–92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Esteller M, Corn PG, Baylin SB, Herman JG. A gene hypermethylation profile of human cancer. Cancer Res 2001;61:3225–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Widschwendter M, Jones PA. DNA methylation and breast carcinogenesis. Oncogene 2002;21:5462–82.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Spugnardi M, Tommasi S, Dammann R, Pfeifer GP, Hoon DS. Epigenetic inactivation of RAS association domain family protein 1 (RASSF1A) in malignant cutaneous melanoma. Cancer Res 2003;63:1639–43.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Hoon DS, Spugnardi M, Kuo C, Huang SK, Morton DL, Taback B. Profiling epigenetic inactivation of tumor suppressor genes in tumors and plasma from cutaneous melanoma patients. Oncogene 2004;23:4014–22.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Rosen PP, Saigo PE, Braun DW, Weathers E, Fracchia AA, Kinne DW. Axillary micro- and macrometastases in breast cancer: prognostic significance of tumor size. Ann Surg 1981;194:585–91.[Medline]
  25. Nasser IA, Lee AK, Bosari S, Saganich R, Heatley G, Silverman ML. Occult axillary lymph node metastases in "node-negative" breast carcinoma. Hum Pathol 1993;24:950–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, Fritz AG, Balch CM, Haller DG, Morrow CS, editors. AJCC: Cancer staging manual. 6th edition New York: Springer-Verlag;2002. p. 223–40.
  27. Henderson CJ, McLaren AW, Moffat GJ, Bacon EJ, Wolf CR. Pi-class glutathione S-transferase: regulation and function. Chem Biol Interact 1998;111-2:69–82.
  28. Key TJ, Allen NE, Spencer EA, Travis RC. Nutrition and breast cancer. Breast 2003;12:412–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Nelson WG, DeWeese TL, DeMarzo AM. The diet, prostate inflammation, and the development of prostate cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev 2002;21:3–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. Lacroix A, Lippman ME. Binding of retinoids to human breast cancer cell lines and their effects on cell growth. J Clin Invest 1980;65:586–91.
  31. Fraker LD, Halter SA, Forbes JT. Growth inhibition by retinol of a human breast carcinoma cell line in vitro and in athymic mice. Cancer Res 1984;44:5757–63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  32. Gottardis MM, Lamph WW, Shalinsky DR, Wellstein A, Heyman RA. The efficacy of 9-cis retinoic acid in experimental models of cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1996;38:85–96.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Martinet N, Alla F, Farre G, et al. Retinoic acid receptor and retinoid X receptor alterations in lung cancer precursor lesions. Cancer Res 2000;60:2869–75.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  34. Sun SY, Lotan R. Retinoids and their receptors in cancer development and chemoprevention. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2002;41:41–55.[Medline]
  35. Singletary SE, Atkinson EN, Hoque A, et al. Phase II clinical trial of N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)retinamide and tamoxifen administration before definitive surgery for breast neoplasia. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:2835–42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Dragnev KH, Petty WJ, Dmitrovsky E. Retinoid targets in cancer therapy and chemoprevention. Cancer Biol Ther 2003;2:S150–6.[Medline]
  37. Kuerer HM, Newman LA, Buzdar AU, et al. Residual metastatic axillary lymph nodes following neoadjuvant chemotherapy predict disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Am J Surg 1998;176:502–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Dowlatshahi K, Fan M, Snider HC, Habib FA. Lymph node micrometastases from breast carcinoma: reviewing the dilemma. Cancer 1997;80:1188–97.[CrossRef][Medline]
  39. Cote RJ, Peterson HF, Chaiwun B, et al. Role of immunohistochemical detection of lymph-node metastases in management of breast cancer. International Breast Cancer Study Group. Lancet 1999;354:896–900.[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Hansen NM, Grube BJ, Te W, Brennan M, Turner RR, Giuliano A. Clinical significance of axillary micrometastases in breast cancer: how small is too small? San Francisco: American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2001. p. 24a.
  41. Hazan RB, Qiao R, Keren R, Badano I, Suyama K. Cadherin switch in tumor progression. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2004;1014:155–63.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Yoshida R, Kimura N, Harada Y, Ohuchi N. The loss of E-cadherin, {alpha}- and ß-catenin expression is associated with metastasis and poor prognosis in invasive breast cancer. Int J Oncol 2001;18:513–20.[Medline]
  43. Acs G, Lawton TJ, Rebbeck TR, LiVolsi VA, Zhang PJ. Differential expression of E-cadherin in lobular and ductal neoplasms of the breast and its biologic and diagnostic implications. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;115:85–98.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Droufakou S, Deshmane V, Roylance R, Hanby A, Tomlinson I, Hart IR. Multiple ways of silencing E-cadherin gene expression in lobular carcinoma of the breast. Int J Cancer 2001;92:404–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Mbalaviele G, Dunstan CR, Sasaki A, Williams PJ, Mundy GR, Yoneda T. E-cadherin expression in human breast cancer cells suppresses the development of osteolytic bone metastases in an experimental metastasis model. Cancer Res 1996;56:4063–70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  46. Mehrotra J, Vali M, McVeigh M, et al. Very high frequency of hypermethylated genes in breast cancer metastasis to the bone, brain, and lung. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:3104–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. Fackler MJ, McVeigh M, Evron E, et al. DNA methylation of RASSF1A, HIN-1, RAR-ß, Cyclin D2 and Twist in in situ and invasive lobular breast carcinoma. Int J Cancer 2003;107:970–5.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J. Mol. Diagn.Home page
A. R. Sepulveda, D. Jones, S. Ogino, W. Samowitz, M. L. Gulley, R. Edwards, V. Levenson, V. M. Pratt, B. Yang, K. Nafa, et al.
CpG Methylation Analysis--Current Status of Clinical Assays and Potential Applications in Molecular Diagnostics: A Report of the Association for Molecular Pathology
J. Mol. Diagn., July 1, 2009; 11(4): 266 - 278.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Histochem. Cytochem.Home page
D. Dietrich, R. Lesche, R. Tetzner, M. Krispin, J. Dietrich, W. Haedicke, M. Schuster, and G. Kristiansen
Analysis of DNA Methylation of Multiple Genes in Microdissected Cells From Formalin-fixed and Paraffin-embedded Tissues
J. Histochem. Cytochem., May 1, 2009; 57(5): 477 - 489.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Mol. Diagn.Home page
A. A. Melnikov, D. M. Scholtens, E. L. Wiley, S. A. Khan, and V. V. Levenson
Array-Based Multiplex Analysis of DNA Methylation in Breast Cancer Tissues
J. Mol. Diagn., January 1, 2008; 10(1): 93 - 101.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Cell Sci.Home page
H. Donninger, M. D. Vos, and G. J. Clark
The RASSF1A tumor suppressor
J. Cell Sci., September 15, 2007; 120(18): 3163 - 3172.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
T. Mori, S. R. Martinez, S. J. O'Day, D. L. Morton, N. Umetani, M. Kitago, A. Tanemura, S. L. Nguyen, A. N. Tran, H.-J. Wang, et al.
Estrogen Receptor-{alpha} Methylation Predicts Melanoma Progression.
Cancer Res., July 1, 2006; 66(13): 6692 - 6698.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JCOHome page
T. Mori, S. J. O'Day, N. Umetani, S. R. Martinez, M. Kitago, K. Koyanagi, C. Kuo, T.-L. Takeshima, R. Milford, H.-J. Wang, et al.
Predictive Utility of Circulating Methylated DNA in Serum of Melanoma Patients Receiving Biochemotherapy
J. Clin. Oncol., December 20, 2005; 23(36): 9351 - 9358.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Shinozaki, M.
Right arrow Articles by Taback, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Shinozaki, M.
Right arrow Articles by Taback, B.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online