Clinical Cancer Research CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium Tumor Immunology: New Perspectives
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 Barnes, N. L.P.
Right arrow Articles by Bundred, N. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barnes, N. L.P.
Right arrow Articles by Bundred, N. J.
Clinical Cancer Research Vol. 11, 2163-2168, March 2005
© 2005 American Association for Cancer Research

Imaging, Diagnosis, Prognosis

Absence of HER4 Expression Predicts Recurrence of Ductal Carcinoma In situ of the Breast

Nicola L.P. Barnes1, Sahar Khavari1, Gary P. Boland1, Angela Cramer3, W. Fiona Knox2 and Nigel J. Bundred1

Departments of 1 Academic Surgery and 2 Pathology, South Manchester University and 3 The Christie Hospital NHS Trust, Manchester, United Kingdom

Requests for reprints: Nigel J. Bundred, Department of Academic Surgery, Research and Education Building, 2nd Floor, South Manchester University Hospital, Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, Manchester, M23 9LT, United Kingdom. Phone: 44-161-291-5859; Fax: 44-161-291-5860; E-mail: bundredn{at}man.ac.uk.


   ABSTRACT
Top
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The type 1 tyrosine kinase receptor HER2 (c-erbB2/neu) is associated with resistance to hormone therapy and poor survival in invasive breast cancer, whereas HER4 expression is associated with endocrine responsiveness. Patterns of tyrosine kinase receptor coexpression may aid prediction of recurrence risk after surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Women who had undergone surgery for pure DCIS were studied. Out of 129 primary tumors, 39 had recurred and 90 had not recurred after 5 years of follow-up. Primary tumors were compared for HER2, HER3, and HER4, estrogen receptor, and Ki67 by immunohistochemistry. HER2 was expressed in 58%, HER3 in 49%, and HER4 in 63% of nonrecurrent DCIS, compared with HER2 expression in 82% (P = 0.008), HER3 expression in 71% (P = 0.04), and HER4 expression in 36% (P = 0.004) in DCIS that subsequently recurred. Dually expressing HER2/4 DCIS was more likely to be estrogen receptor positive than HER2-only-expressing DCIS (73% versus 53%; P = 0.05). HER2 expression was associated with a higher percentage and HER4 expression a significantly lower percentage of proliferating DCIS cells (median, 13.8% versus 8.4%; P = 0.001). Coexpression of HER2 with HER4 was associated with reduced recurrence compared with HER2-only positive DCIS (P = 0.003). This association remained significant when analyzing only high nuclear-grade DCIS (P = 0.015). Low nuclear grade, low proliferation rate and presence of HER4 expression were independent predictors of nonrecurrence. Potentially, HER4 expression may identify women who could avoid radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery for DCIS.

Key Words: HER2 • HER3 • HER4 • Breast cancer • DCIS


   INTRODUCTION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
The incidence of the preinvasive breast cancer ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by over five times because of the introduction of national screening programs in the 1980s (1), and now accounts for 25% of all screen-detected breast cancers (2). After breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy, between 12% and 20% of cases recur by 10 years (3) depending on margin status. This 6-fold increase in the number of DCIS cases necessitates accurate prediction of recurrence risk. Clinicopathologic risk factors for the recurrence of DCIS have been identified, including involved or close (<1 mm) surgical excision margins (4), younger age at diagnosis, high-nuclear-grade tumors, and the presence of comedo necrosis (3, 5–7). Less is known about the molecular biological markers that could aid prediction of prognosis.

The type 1 tyrosine kinase receptors (RTK) are a group of four growth factor receptors HER1(c-erbB1/epidermal growth factor receptor), HER2(c-erbB2/neu), HER3(c-erbB3), and HER4(c-erbB4) characterized by their homology to the avian erythroblastosis virus transforming protein (8), which have a significant influence on the prognosis of invasive breast cancer. HER2 expression is associated with a poor prognosis, early recurrence, resistance to endocrine therapy and low estrogen receptor (ER) expression (9–13), whereas HER4 expression has been associated with increased ER expression (14) and low cell proliferation rates (15). HER2 expression has been claimed to be a univariate predictor of DCIS recurrence risk (P = 0.012, log-rank) being present in ~56% of all tumors (16), but the association of HER4 to DCIS recurrence has not previously been characterized. The type 1 RTKs share a common molecular structure—an extracellular ligand binding domain that contains two cystine-rich regions, a short transmembranous domain, and an intracellular tyrosine kinase domain (8)—enabling signaling across the cell membrane. The receptors can homo- or heterodimerize for activation after either ligand binding of the extracellular domain or gene overexpression (except for HER3, which has no intrinsic kinase activity and requires heterodimerization for signaling; ref. 14). With many possible receptor combinations, there is potential activation of multiple signaling pathways, the clinical effects of which are incompletely understood. In cell line experiments, when HER2-positive cancer cells were transfected to overexpress HER4, a reduction in proliferation and an increase in apoptosis was seen (17), suggesting that HER4 produces a "braking effect" on HER2 signaling activity. The effect of RTK expression on DCIS recurrence is unclear. To determine the relationship of type 1 RTKs to ER, cell proliferation, and recurrence risk of DCIS after surgical excision we looked at primary cases of pure DCIS that had either recurred or not recurred by 5 years of follow-up.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Patient Selection. Cases were selected from a database at the University Hospital of South Manchester, composed of ~850 women diagnosed with DCIS from 1979 onward. Fifty women with subsequent recurrence were identified upon case-note review. From this, 39 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded archival blocks of the primary tumor were available for analysis; all patients had recurred within 5 years (median, 21 months; range, 10-60). Of the recurrences, 11 were invasive disease and 28 were further DCIS. These patients were matched with twice as many (100) cases of DCIS that were known not to have recurred after 5 years of follow-up. Of these, 90 blocks were available for analysis. Breast-conserving surgery had been done in 57 of the nonrecurrent and 32 of the recurrent DCIS, and mastectomy in 33 nonrecurrent and 7 of the recurrent cases. No significant differences were found in clinicopathologic variables between the initial 150 patients and the final 129 (age, tumor size, grade). Only patients with pure DCIS were studied. Ethical approval was given to study DCIS by the South Manchester University Hospital ethics board.

Immunohistochemistry. Archival blocks of formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue were selected, after confirmation that the blocks contained DCIS by an experienced breast pathologist (W.F.K). Immunohistochemical staining of HER2, ER, and Ki67 was as previously described (18). HER4 (Santa Cruz sc-283, 1:200, 1 hour, Santa Cruz, CA) staining used the same protocol as above, except for a biotinylated goat anti-rabbit secondary antibody (DAKO-432, 1:200; Ely, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom). For HER3, the slides were pressure-cooked in Tris EDTA for antigen retrieval. The primary HER3 antibody (ab8758 AbCam, 1:20) was diluted in EnVision antibody diluent and applied to the sections, which were then incubated at 4°C overnight. After washing thoroughly in Tris buffer, the sections were incubated with the EnVision secondary, staining was visualized with EnVision 3,3'-diaminobenzidine, counterstained with hematoxylin, dehydrated through graded alcohols, cleared in histoclear, and mounted as previously described (18).

Tumor nuclear grade was determined after review of the original pathology report.

Evaluation of Immunohistochemistry. Staining was assessed by light microscopy. For ER and Ki67, the percentage of positively staining nuclei were determined; at least 1,000 cells were counted for each case using a grid graticule and cell counter at x400 magnification. ER status was taken to be positive if ≥5% of cells were labeled. The membranous and cytoplasmic staining of HER2, and the membranous, cytoplasmic, and nuclear staining of HER4, were assessed semiquantitatively using the proportion of positively staining cells and degree of staining intensity compared with adjacent normal tissue; samples scored 0 to 3+ as previously described (18); with examples of representative staining shown in Fig. 1. HER3 staining was predominantly cytoplasmic and of uniform intensity throughout the specimen, and was scored 0 to 3+ by the degree of staining intensity. Scores of 2 to 3+ rated as positive for all type 1 RTK staining.



View larger version (139K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1 Immunohistochemical staining for HER2 and HER4 in DCIS. A, HER2 3+. Presence of strong cytoplasmic and membrane staining in most cells. B, HER2 2+. Cytoplasmic but no membranous staining. C, HER2 1+. Weak cytoplasmic staining only. D, HER4 3+. Strong cytoplasmic and nuclear expression.

 
Statistical Analysis. The relationship between receptor coexpression tumor size, nuclear grade, ER status, and recurrence was assessed by the {chi}2 test. Age, tumor size, Ki67, and recurrence were assessed by the Mann-Whitney U Test. The relationship between Ki67 and receptor coexpression was assessed using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Multivariate analysis was carried out using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (forward Wald), and Kaplan-Meier survival plots were generated with log-rank significance. Significance tests were two-tailed, and 5% significance level was used throughout. Analysis was carried out by using SPSS 10.0 for windows under the guidance of the Medical Statistics department, University Hospital of South Manchester.


   RESULTS
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 
Clinicopathologic Parameters. The demographics of the nonrecurrent and recurrent DCIS groups were similar with respect to age, tumor size, and use of radiotherapy. In keeping with established risk factors, women that recurred tended to have close (<1 mm) or involved surgical excision margins (P = 0.03), with higher nuclear-grade tumors (P = 0.001) that showed higher rates of proliferation (P = 0.005; Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Summary of patient characteristics

 
HER2, HER3, and HER4 Expression Frequencies. Overall, HER2 was expressed in 65% (84/129), HER3 in 56% (59/105), and HER4 in 55% (71/129) of DCIS studied. On a small proportion of blocks there was insufficient tissue available, therefore HER3 receptor status was not obtained on all DCIS studied. Of the 105 cases where expression of all three receptors was known, 4% (4/105) expressed none of the receptors, 16% (17/105) expressed HER2 alone, 5% (5/105) expressed HER3 alone, 17% (18/105) expressed HER4 alone, 18% (19/105) expressed HER2 and HER3, 8% (8/105) expressed HER2 and HER4, 8% (9/105) expressed HER3 and HER4, and 24% (25/105) expressed all three receptors.

HER2 and HER3 were expressed in a greater proportion of DCIS that subsequently recurred by 5 years than in nonrecurrent cases. HER2 was expressed in 57.8% (52/90) of the nonrecurrent tumors, compared with 82.1% (32/39) recurrent cases (P = 0.008), and HER3 in 49% (35/71) nonrecurrent, compared with 71% (24/34) in recurrent DCIS (P = 0.04). This was in contrast to the expression pattern of HER4, which showed significantly lower overall positivity in the recurrent group. Only 35.9% (14/39) of recurrent cases were HER4 positive, but this figure increased to 63.3% (57/90) expression in nonrecurrent DCIS (P = 0.004).

HER2/HER4 Coexpression. Tumors that were HER2 positive but HER4 negative showed reduced ER positivity (52.5%) compared with any other group. However, the percentage of ER positivity increased if the DCIS dually expressed HER2 and HER4 (73.2%; P = 0.05; Table 2). In addition, proliferative rate varied between the coexpression groups (P = 0.007; Table 2). HER2-positive/HER4-negative DCIS had a higher proliferation rate than HER2-negative/HER4-positive DCIS (P = 0.001; Mann-Whitney). There were no significant differences between RTK coexpression and DCIS nuclear grade (Table 2) or tumor size (data not shown).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 HER2/HER4 receptor coexpression, proliferation, grade, ER status, and recurrence status

 
Whereas 52.3% of the DCIS that developed recurrence within 5 years was HER2 positive/HER4 negative, only 5.1% expressed HER4 alone (Table 2). In contrast, only 24.5% of nonrecurrent DCIS solely expressed HER2, and a greater proportion of cases (30.0%) were HER2 negative/HER4 positive (Table 2). The associations of receptor coexpression and recurrence remained when analyzing only high-nuclear-grade DCIS (P = 0.015) or breast-conserving surgery (P = 0.001; Table 2). There was no influence of receptor coexpression on the ability to achieve clear margins (P = 0.942) and the ER status of the tumors did not influence recurrence of HER4-positive DCIS (P = 0.8; data not shown). When including HER3 coexpression, 63% of the cases that were HER2 positive/HER3 positive but HER4 negative recurred. In contrast, only 6% of the DCIS that was HER4 positive/HER2 and HER3 negative were in the recurrent group.

Recurrence-Free Survival. HER2-overexpressing DCIS had poorer cumulative 5-year disease-free survival than HER2-negative cases (P = 0.0102; Fig. 2A). In contrast, HER4-expressing tumors had a significant disease-free survival advantage (P = 0.0052; Fig. 2B). Expression of HER4 in the absence of HER2 (Fig. 2C) led to a disease-free survival advantage (P = 0.0058) over the other coexpression groupings. The recurrence pattern for HER3 expression was similar to that of HER2 (data not shown), and DCIS coexpressing HER2 and HER3 had the worst outcome (Fig. 2D).



View larger version (32K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2 Kaplan-Meier plots of cumulative local recurrence (DCIS and invasive) for the 129 patients, divided into (A) HER2 status, (B) HER4 status, (C) HER2/HER4 coexpression groups, and (D) HER2/HER3 coexpression groups. The plot generated for HER3 expression (not shown) showed the same pattern as for HER2 (A), which was the mirror image of HER4 expression (B). HER4-expressing tumors had a significant disease-free survival advantage over the other receptor combinations, with HER2-positive/HER4-negative (C) or HER2/HER3-coexpressing DCIS (D) having the poorest cumulative recurrence-free survival.

 
Multivariate Analysis. Higher nuclear grade and higher DCIS proliferation rates were both independently associated with an increased risk of recurrence, as was a lack of HER4 expression, confirming that HER4 expression predicted recurrence irrespective of nuclear grade and cell proliferation (Table 3).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Independent predictors of DCIS recurrence

 

   DISCUSSION
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
REFERENCES
 
Common clinical factors that aid prediction of recurrence risk for DCIS include high nuclear grade, high cellular proliferation rates, involved surgical excision margins, presence of comedo necrosis, and a younger age at diagnosis (3–7). In this study, the established clinicopathologic risk factors of nuclear grade, margin status, and cell proliferation were all univariate predictors of recurrence, but on multivariate analysis only nuclear grade and proliferation rate remained independent predictors, along with lack of HER4 expression.

Little has been published on the molecular biological markers that could aid prediction of prognosis in DCIS. Recent studies have looked at cell cycle regulators, such as p21, p27 and cyclin D1 (19–22), as potential biological markers, but have published conflicting results about the role and the utility of these variables as indicators of recurrence risk. Some studies reported p21 expression to be associated with advantageous tumor factors, such as low-grade and ER positivity (19), but others with adverse factors, such as high-grade, HER2 overexpression, and recurrence (21, 22). No biological markers that have direct clinical relevance to DCIS have been reported. To our knowledge, no previous studies have specifically looked at type 1 RTK coexpression and recurrence in DCIS.

We have found that in DCIS, the overall expression of type 1 RTKs is higher than in invasive cancer. HER2 is expressed in ~25%, HER3 in 20%, and HER4 in 10% of invasive breast tumors (14), compared with HER2 expression in 65%, HER3 in 56%, and HER4 in 55% of DCIS, with varying receptor co-combinations linked to changes in cell proliferation and ER expression.

The initial identification of the variation in cellular proliferation rates and ER expression levels with alterations in type 1 RTK expression was shown in HER2-overexpressing cell lines that had been transfected to overexpress HER4, in which a decrease in cell proliferation and more differentiated phenotype was seen (17). HER2 expression is linked to a poor prognosis in invasive cancer and a higher risk of recurrence in DCIS (9–12, 16, 23) . In this study, DCIS that was HER2 positive/HER4 negative had high proliferation, low ER expression, and increased chance of recurrence, whereas HER4-positive/HER2-negative DCIS had lower cell proliferation, higher ER expression, and better prognosis. On multivariate analysis, the expression of HER4 led to a low risk of recurrence [Exp(B), 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.48-0.98] regardless of HER3 and HER4 expression (HER3 expression was linked to increased risk of recurrence, HER2/HER3-expressing tumors having the greatest risk; Table 3).

It is important to note that for this study, we selected the samples to have a 2:1 ratio of nonrecurrent cases to recurrent cases, but we did not select on the basis of type 1 RTK status. The Kaplan-Meier plots for recurrence-free survival are a useful illustration of the relative chance of recurrence between the different coexpression groups, but do not reflect overall DCIS recurrence rates in our unit, which we have previously reported (4).

One mechanism that can, in part, explain the observed differences in recurrence risk between the receptor coexpression groups is the significant difference in proliferation rates; a low percentage of proliferating DCIS cells was seen in HER4-only-expressing cases (the group that also had the lowest recurrence). However, because lack of HER4 expression is an independent predictor of recurrence risk, HER4 status is an important marker in its own right.

The variation in proliferation rates seen between the coexpression groups may reflect alterations in cell signaling dependent on receptor expression. Disparate signaling between HER2- and HER4-positive DCIS may have wider downstream consequences than alterations in cellular proliferation alone because in addition to cell proliferation, another biological factor that was influenced by RTK coexpression was ER positivity. Although it is thought that HER2-overexpressing DCIS is associated with low ER positivity (16), we have shown that the ER expression in HER2-positive cases is comparable to HER2-negative DCIS if there is coexpression of HER4. ER-positive/HER2-positive tumors are associated with tamoxifen resistance (13, 24), and ER-positive MCF7 cell lines that have been transfected to stably express HER2 have a lower response rate to tamoxifen (but remain sensitive to estrogen withdrawal; ref. 25). It has previously been shown that HER2 inhibition with trastuzumab (Herceptin) can restore tamoxifen sensitivity (26), suggesting cross talk between the HER2 and ER pathways, and aromatase inhibitors increase response rate in HER2-positive, ER-positive invasive breast cancer (13). We hypothesize that the mechanism behind this may be that these responders are HER4 positive. No studies have separated response to tamoxifen in HER2-positive disease according to HER4 status, but, potentially, this may provide a guide to response if there is also cross talk between both HER2/HER4 and ER pathways. These potential changes in signaling, conferred by the varying receptor homo-/heterodimerization patterns, need further clarification, and it will be important to determine the cross-over implications from DCIS to invasive breast cancer (i.e., if HER4 expression could aid prediction of response to therapy) with tamoxifen in ER-positive/HER2-positive invasive tumors or Herceptin in the metastatic setting.

Despite the publication of randomized controlled trials (3, 5–7) that adjuvant treatment, by way of radiotherapy or endocrine therapy (in ER-positive cases), reduces DCIS recurrence, it has no clear effect on overall mortality (3, 5–7) and only benefits the minority. It will therefore be desirable to avoid overtreatment of DCIS and identify subpopulations of patients with good prognostic features that could avoid radiotherapy. Indeed, none of our patients with recurrent disease have died. HER4 expression may identify a group of patients with good prognosis who could avoid the morbidity of radiotherapy. This retrospective identification of such patient groups is a hypothesis-generating study and the evidence will need confirmation by either longer-term studies from other groups or randomized controlled trial follow-up data.

Research is now under way to develop novel drugs that block the entire type 1 RTK family, but such "pan-HER" blockade may be undesirable. Because HER4 overexpression confers a reduced risk of recurrence, it may prove more advantageous to concentrate on developing selective type 1 RTK inhibitors for future therapy, which leave HER4 signaling uninterrupted.

In conclusion, type 1 RTK coexpression aids prediction of recurrence risk in DCIS, and HER4 expression is an independent predictor of a reduced risk of recurrence. Coexpression of HER4 with HER2 reduces the risk of early DCIS recurrence compared with HER2-expressing tumors lacking HER4, and is associated with both higher ER expression and lower rates of cellular proliferation. Consideration should be given to determining HER4 expression, if HER2 status is requested after surgical excision, to refine the prediction of recurrence risk. Furthermore, HER4 positivity may identify a DCIS patient population with good prognostic features that could avoid unnecessary radiotherapy.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Grant support: Royal College of Surgeons of England research grants (N. Barnes and G. Boland).

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 8/12/04; revised 12/14/04; accepted 12/23/04.


   REFERENCES
Top
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Ernster VL, Barclay J, Kerlikowske K, Wilkie H, Ballard-Barbash R. Mortality among women with ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the population-based surveillance, epidemiology and end results program. Arch Intern Med 2000;160:953–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  2. Schwartz GF, Solin LJ, Olivotto IA, Ernster VL, Pressman PI. Consensus Conference on the Treatment of In Situ Ductal Carcinoma of the Breast, April 22-25, 1999. Cancer 2000;88:946–54.[CrossRef][Medline]
  3. Fisher ER, Dignam J, Tan-Chiu E, et al. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (NSABP) eight-year update of Protocol B-17: intraductal carcinoma. Cancer 1999;86:429–38.[CrossRef][Medline]
  4. Chan KC, Knox WF, Sinha G, et al. Extent of excision margin width required in breast conserving surgery for ductal carcinoma in situ. Cancer 2001;91:9–16.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Bijker N, Peterse JL, Duchateau L, et al. Risk factors for recurrence and metastasis after breast-conserving therapy for ductal carcinoma-in-situ: analysis of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Trial 10853. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:2263–71.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Fisher B, Dignam J, Wolmark N, et al. Tamoxifen in treatment of intraductal breast cancer: National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-24 randomised controlled trial. Lancet 1999;353:1993–2000.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Houghton J, George WD, Cuzick J, Duggan C, Fentiman IS, Spittle M. Radiotherapy and tamoxifen in women with completely excised ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand: randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;362:95–102.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Yarden Y, Sliwkowski MX. Untangling the ErbB signalling network. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 2001;2:127–37.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL. Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science 1987;235:177–82.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Kallioniemi OP, Holli K, Visakorpi T, Koivula T, Helin HH, Isola JJ. Association of c-erbB-2 protein overexpression with high rate of cell proliferation, increased risk of visceral metastasis and poor long-term survival in breast cancer. Int J Cancer 1991;49:650–5.[Medline]
  11. Seshadri R, Firgaira FA, Horsfall DJ, McCaul K, Setlur V, Kitchen P. Clinical significance of HER-2/neu oncogene amplification in primary breast cancer. The South Australian Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol 1993;11:1936–42.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Ferrero-Pous M, Hacene K, Bouchet C, Le Doussal V, Tubiana-Hulin M, Spyratos F. Relationship between c-erbB-2 and other tumor characteristics in breast cancer prognosis. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:4745–54.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Ellis MJ, Coop A, Singh B, et al. Letrozole is more effective neoadjuvant endocrine therapy than tamoxifen for ErbB-1- and/or ErbB-2-positive, estrogen receptor-positive primary breast cancer: evidence from a phase III randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:3808–16.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Witton CJ, Reeves JR, Going JJ, Cooke TG, Bartlett JM. Expression of the HER1-4 family of receptor tyrosine kinases in breast cancer. J Pathol 2003;200:290–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Tovey SM, Witton CJ, Bartlett JM, Stanton PD, Reeves JR, Cooke TG. Outcome and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER) 1-4 status in invasive breast carcinomas with proliferation indices evaluated by bromodeoxyuridine labelling. Breast Cancer Res 2004;6:R246–51.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Sposto R, Epstein MS, Silverstein MJ. Predicting local recurrence in patients with ductal carcinoma in situ. In: Silverstein M, editor. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. 2nd ed. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2002. p. 255–63.
  17. Sartor CI, Zhou H, Kozlowska E, et al. Her4 mediates ligand-dependent antiproliferative and differentiation responses in human breast cancer cells. Mol Cell Biol 2001;21:4265–75.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Boland GP, Butt IS, Prasad R, Knox WF, Bundred NJ. COX-2 expression is associated with an aggressive phenotype in ductal carcinoma in situ. Br J Cancer 2004;90:423–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Oh YL, Choi JS, Song SY, et al. Expression of p21Waf1, p27Kip1 and cyclin D1 proteins in breast ductal carcinoma in situ: relation with clinicopathologic characteristics and with p53 expression and estrogen receptor status. Pathol Int 2001;51:94–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Jirstrom K, Ringberg A, Ferno M, Anagnostaki L, Landberg G. Tissue microarray analyses of G1/S-regulatory proteins in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast indicate that low cyclin D1 is associated with local recurrence. Br J Cancer 2003;89:1920–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  21. Provenzano E, Hopper JL, Giles GG, Marr G, Venter DJ, Armes JE. Biological markers that predict clinical recurrence in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Eur J Cancer 2003;39:622–30.
  22. Lebeau A, Unholzer A, Amann G, et al. EGFR, HER-2/neu, cyclin D1, p21 and p53 in correlation to cell proliferation and steroid hormone receptor status in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003;79:187–98.[CrossRef][Medline]
  23. Eppenberger-Castori S, Kueng W, Benz C, et al. Prognostic and predictive significance of ErbB-2 breast tumor levels measured by enzyme immunoassay. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:645–56.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Dowsett M. Overexpression of HER-2 as a resistance mechanism to hormonal therapy for breast cancer. Endocr Relat Cancer 2001;8:191–5.[Abstract]
  25. Benz CC, Scott GK, Sarup JC, et al. Estrogen-dependent, tamoxifen-resistant tumorigenic growth of MCF-7 cells transfected with HER2/neu. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1993;24:85–95.
  26. Nicholson RI, Hutcheson IR, Harper ME, et al. Modulation of epidermal growth factor receptor in endocrine-resistant, estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2002;963:104–15.[Abstract/Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Mol Cancer ResHome page
C.-P. Chuu, R.-Y. Chen, J. L. Barkinge, M. F. Ciaccio, and R. B. Jones
Systems-Level Analysis of ErbB4 Signaling in Breast Cancer: A Laboratory to Clinical Perspective
Mol. Cancer Res., June 1, 2008; 6(6): 885 - 891.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Mol. Endocrinol.Home page
S.-M. Feng, C. I. Sartor, D. Hunter, H. Zhou, X. Yang, L. S. Caskey, R. Dy, R. S. Muraoka-Cook, and H. S. Earp III
The HER4 Cytoplasmic Domain, But Not Its C Terminus, Inhibits Mammary Cell Proliferation
Mol. Endocrinol., August 1, 2007; 21(8): 1861 - 1876.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
B. J. Czerniecki, R. E. Roses, and G. K. Koski
Development of Vaccines for High-Risk Ductal Carcinoma In situ of the Breast
Cancer Res., July 15, 2007; 67(14): 6531 - 6534.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JNCI J Natl Cancer InstHome page
G. Farnie, R. B. Clarke, K. Spence, N. Pinnock, K. Brennan, N. G. Anderson, and N. J. Bundred
Novel Cell Culture Technique for Primary Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Role of Notch and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Signaling Pathways
J Natl Cancer Inst, April 18, 2007; 99(8): 616 - 627.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
B. J. Czerniecki, G. K. Koski, U. Koldovsky, S. Xu, P. A. Cohen, R. Mick, H. Nisenbaum, T. Pasha, M. Xu, K. R. Fox, et al.
Targeting HER-2/neu in Early Breast Cancer Development Using Dendritic Cells with Staged Interleukin-12 Burst Secretion
Cancer Res., February 15, 2007; 67(4): 1842 - 1852.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
Y. Zhu, L. L. Sullivan, S. S. Nair, C. C. Williams, A. K. Pandey, L. Marrero, R. K. Vadlamudi, and F. E. Jones
Coregulation of Estrogen Receptor by ERBB4/HER4 Establishes a Growth-Promoting Autocrine Signal in Breast Tumor Cells
Cancer Res., August 15, 2006; 66(16): 7991 - 7998.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
A. Naresh, W. Long, G. A. Vidal, W. C. Wimley, L. Marrero, C. I. Sartor, S. Tovey, T. G. Cooke, J. M.S. Bartlett, and F. E. Jones
The ERBB4/HER4 Intracellular Domain 4ICD Is a BH3-Only Protein Promoting Apoptosis of Breast Cancer Cells.
Cancer Res., June 15, 2006; 66(12): 6412 - 6420.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
J. Edwards, P. Traynor, A. F. Munro, C. F. Pirret, B. Dunne, and J. M.S. Bartlett
The Role of HER1-HER4 and EGFRvIII in Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer
Clin. Cancer Res., January 1, 2006; 12(1): 123 - 130.
[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 Barnes, N. L.P.
Right arrow Articles by Bundred, N. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Barnes, N. L.P.
Right arrow Articles by Bundred, N. J.

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