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

Clinical Cancer Research 14, 370, January 15, 2008. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1127
© 2008 American Association for Cancer Research

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
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 Allred, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Medina, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Allred, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Medina, D.

Human Cancer Biology

Ductal Carcinoma In situ and the Emergence of Diversity during Breast Cancer Evolution

D. Craig Allred1, Yun Wu2, Sufeng Mao2, Iris D. Nagtegaal3, Sangjun Lee1, Charles M. Perou4, Syed K. Mohsin5, Peter O'Connell6, Anna Tsimelzon2 and Dan Medina3

Authors' Affiliations: 1 Department of Pathology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; 2 Breast Center and 3 Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; 4 Departments of Genetics and Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; 5 Department of Pathology, Riverside Methodist Hospital, Columbus, Ohio; and 6 Department of Human Genetics, VCU, Richmond, Virginia

Requests for reprints: D. Craig Allred, Department of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Avenue, Box 8118, St. Louis, MO 63110. Phone: 314-362-6313; Fax: 314-454-5001; Email: dcallred{at}path.wustl.edu.


    Abstract
 Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Purpose: Human invasive breast cancers (IBC) show enormous histologic and biological diversity. This study comprehensively evaluated diversity in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), the immediate precursors of IBCs.

Experimental Design: The extent of diversity for conventional histologic grade and standard prognostic biomarkers assessed by immunohistochemistry was evaluated in a series of pure DCIS (n = 200) compared with a contemporaneous series of IBCs (n = 200). A subset of the DCIS (n = 25) was evaluated by DNA microarrays for the presence of luminal, basal, and erbB2 intrinsic subtypes. The extent of diversity within individual cases of DCIS (n = 120) was determined by assessing multiple regions independently for histologic (nuclear) grade and several biomarkers by immunohistochemistry, which approximate microarrays in determining intrinsic subtypes.

Results: DCIS showed a broad distribution of conventional histologic grades and standard biomarkers ranging from well to poorly differentiated, nearly identical to IBCs. Microarrays showed the same intrinsic subtypes in DCIS as in IBCs. However, higher resolution analysis showed that multiple histologic grades, biomarker phenotypes, and intrinsic subtypes often coexist within the same DCIS, and these diverse regions probably compete for dominance. Diversity within cases of DCIS was highly correlated with mutated p53 (P = 0.0007).

Conclusions: These results support the hypothesis that poorly differentiated DCIS gradually evolve from well-differentiated DCIS by randomly acquiring genetic defects resulting in increasingly abnormal cellular features. This diversity is amplified by defects resulting in genetic instability (e.g., p53 mutation), and the alterations are propagated to IBC in a manner independent of progression to invasion.


There are many models of human breast cancer evolution. One of the most well-established models, published by Wellings and Jensen over 30 years ago, proposed that the cellular origin of most breast cancers occurs in the normal terminal duct lobular unit (TDLU) and that there is an apparently continuous but nonobligatory progression from TDLUs to cancer through a series of increasingly abnormal stages over long periods of time (1, 2), probably decades in most cases. The key stages in this progression are called hyperplastic enlarged lobular units (HELU), atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and invasive breast cancer (IBC) in today's terminology (3, 4). This model was originally based almost entirely on the evidence of gradual histologic continuity, but it has remained consistent with more recent discoveries, such as the escalating risk of developing IBC associated with the putative precursor lesions (3, 57), the shared genetic alterations between the precursors and IBC, especially when they occur in the same breasts (810), and histologic and genetic similarities with genetically engineered mouse models (1113).

HELUs and ADH, at the near end of this evolutionary spectrum, show very well-differentiated histologic and biological features (14), although the latter features have not been studied in great detail. IBCs, at the far end of the spectrum, show enormous histologic and biological diversity, ranging from very well to very poorly differentiated, based on many comprehensive studies. DCIS reside between these extremes and are usually divided into two (e.g., noncomedo versus comedo) or three (e.g., low versus intermediate versus high grade) categories reflecting variations in the degree of differentiation (1518). Thus, diversity of substantial degree seems to emerge at the stage of DCIS during breast cancer evolution, although detailed studies of DCIS are also relatively few and there are still many inconsistencies and unknowns. For example, ADH is widely regarded as the nonobligate precursor of noncomedo/low-grade DCIS, because they show similar well-differentiated features, but not of comedo/high-grade DCIS, because of their dissimilar poorly differentiated features, leading to speculation that the latter pursue a different course of evolution from occult precursors and the evolution of intermediate-grade lesions are essentially ignored.

These issues are important clinically because biological diversity in DCIS may influence the rate of progression to IBC, diversity propagated from DCIS to IBC may influence prognosis and sensitivity to specific therapies, and breast cancer prevention strategies should be based on an accurate understanding of how breast cancers evolve to be truly effective. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively characterize the histologic and biological diversity of DCIS compared with IBC to help further our understanding of DCIS and its role in breast cancer evolution.


    Materials and Methods
 Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Human tissue samples. Studies involving conventional histologic scoring and grading used available H&E-stained slides prepared from routine formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue samples of consecutive cases of pure DCIS (n = 200), IBCs (n = 200), and the DCIS component of the IBCs (n = 200) from adult female patients at University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio hospitals between 1980 and 1995 (average, 2.4 slides per case). The same cases were evaluated by immunohistochemistry on slides prepared from available formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks (1 block per case) for protein expression of standard prognostic biomarkers.

Studies involving DNA microarray analysis used 25 consecutive fresh-frozen samples of pure DCIS harvested from female breast surgeries at University of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio hospitals between 1990 and 1995 (these cases were a subset of those described above). The samples were manually dissected to obtain areas in which tumor cells comprised >75% of total cells using H&E-stained frozen sections for guidance.

Studies assessing histologic nuclear grade used available routine H&E-stained slides of consecutive clinical cases of pure DCIS (n = 120) at Baylor College of Medicine hospitals between 1996 and 2002 (average, 3.4 slides per case). A subset (n = 112) of these cases with available formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks were used in experiments assessing intrinsic subtypes by immunohistochemistry (average, 1.3 blocks per case).

The tissue harvesting and scientific studies had separate Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Board approval (protocols H-10493 and H-12585, respectively).

Conventional histologic scoring and grading. The Elston-Ellis modified Scarff-Bloom-Richardson method was used for conventional histologic scoring and grading of IBCs (19, 20). Briefly, scores from 1 to 3 were assigned to each of three histologic features, and the total histologic score (H-score) was used to determine overall grade. The features and general scoring criteria included (a) the degree (area) of tubule/gland formation in the tumor (1, >75%; 2, 10-75%; 3, <10%), (b) the degree of nuclear atypia or pleomorphism in the worst 10% of the tumor cells (1, mild; 2, moderate; 3, severe), and (c) the average mitotic count per high power field (HPF) based on counting a minimum of 10 HPFs (1, <1/HPF; 2, 1-2/HPF; 3, >2/HPF). Thus, for IBCs, H-scores ranged from 3 (the best differentiated) to 9 (the worst), and scores of 3 to 5 defined grade 1, 6 to 7 for grade 2, and 8 to 9 for grade 3.

The Elston-Ellis modified Scarff-Bloom-Richardson method was further modified for evaluating DCIS in this study by also scoring the extent (area) of central necrosis (1, <10%; 2, 10-50%; 3, >50%) because this histologic feature (i.e., "comedo" necrosis) has played such a prominent role in the historical classification of DCIS. Thus, H-scores for DCIS ranged from 4 (the best differentiated) to 12 (the worst), and H-scores of 4 to 7 defined grade 1, 8 to 9 for grade 2, and 10 to 12 for grade 3.

Histologic nuclear grading. Black's nuclear grading method as modified by Fisher (21) was used to assess diversity of histologic differentiation within individual cases of pure DCIS. All available H&E-stained slides for each case were evaluated and scored for the presence and estimated percentage of tumor cells showing grade 1 (mild), grade 2 (moderate), or grade 3 (severe) nuclear atypia involving at least 5% of total tumor cells. This strategy was chosen over the modified Elston-Ellis modified Scarff-Bloom-Richardson method used for conventional histologic grading described above because of the superior accuracy and ease of scoring nuclear grade compared with other features in regions comprising a relatively small percentage of a tumor (e.g., it is difficult to score mitotic count if the area was smaller than 10 HPFs, etc.).

Assessment of biomarkers by immunohistochemistry. Each of the 200 consecutive cases of pure DCIS, IBCs, and the DCIS component of the IBCs evaluated for conventional histologic score and grade were also evaluated by immunohistochemistry for standard prognostic biomarkers, including estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PGR), erbB2, p53, and proliferation rate (Ki67). The immunohistochemistry used routine clinically validated methodology as previously described (4, 2226). All biomarkers except Ki67 were quantified by the so-called Allred score (range, 0-8; refs. 24, 27) and "positive" was defined as scores ≥3. Ki67 was quantified by absolute counting (>500 cells per case) and reported as average percentage of positive.

Each of the 112 consecutive cases of pure DCIS evaluated for diversity of histologic nuclear grade within individual tumors were also evaluated by immunohistochemistry for a set of biomarkers previously shown to be a reasonably accurate (80-90%) surrogate strategy for identifying intrinsic subtypes as originally defined by microarray studies of IBCs at the RNA level (2830), including ER, GATA-binding protein 3 (GATA3), erbB2, cytokeratin 5/6 (CK5/6), CK18, and p53. The immunohistochemistry used routine methodology as previously described (23, 24, 2830) and was quantified by the Allred score. For the purposes of this study, positive was defined as Allred scores ≥2 (any positive cells) and negative as Allred score of 0 (entirely negative). Diversity was defined as a change from positive to negative, or the opposite, for one or more biomarkers within an individual tumor, comparing regions with different histologic nuclear grades.

Microarray analysis. Total RNA for the microarray experiments was purified from the samples using the microRNA isolation kit (Stratagene), which is based on an aqueous/organic phase separation in guanidine isothiocyanate-phenol/chloroform extraction buffer. The isolated RNAs were then purified using RNeasy cleanup kit (Qiagen). The purified total RNA was then linear amplified two rounds and converted to cDNA using Eberwine's RNA amplification method, which is based on an oligo-dT primer and T7 RNA polymerase (31, 32). The cDNA was then in vitro transcribed to biotin-labeled cRNA with the BioArray high-yield RNA transcript labeling kit (Enzo).

Gene expression was measured using U95Av2 human GeneChip oligo-based microarrays (Affymetrix). These earlier-generation microarrays contain transcripts for an estimated 63,000 probe sets interrogating ~54,000 UniGene clusters (many clusters are represented by multiple probe sets), corresponding to ~10,000 full-length annotated genes. Briefly, amplified biotinylated cRNA was further purified with the RNeasy mini kit (Qiagen) and fragmented (20 µg cRNA) in 5x fragmentation buffer (200 mmol/L Tris-acetate + 500 mmol/L KOAc + 150 mmol/L MgOAc at pH 8.1) at a 4:1 volume ratio (cRNA/buffer) for 10 min to a range of 35 to 200 bases to optimize hybridization. Fragmented cRNA (20 µg) was then mixed with hybridization controls (bioB, bioC, bioD, and cre) and hybridized to the microarrays for 16 h. After hybridization, the microarrays were washed, stained, and scanned to generate quantitative digital files.

Data analyses. dChip software7 was used to evaluate results from DNA microarray experiments. Normalization of raw data was by the invariant set normalization method, and expression was estimated by the perfect-match-only model. Analyses relevant to this study were restricted to an unsupervised hierarchical clustering using a list of 392 intrinsic genes (Supplementary Table S1) expressed in the samples. The intrinsic genes were distilled by one author (C.M.P.) from the results of previous microarray studies of IBC to optimally identify luminal, erbB2, and basal subtypes based on shared patterns of gene expression (3335).

The results of experiments assessing protein expression by immunohistochemistry for the biomarkers ER, GATA3, erbB2, CK5/6, and CK18 were also subjected to unsupervised hierarchical clustering using dChip software for the purpose of identifying luminal, basal, and intrinsic subtypes (2830).

Studies assessing diversity within individual cases of DCIS identified three categories: (a) cases showing no diversity, (b) cases showing diversity of histologic nuclear grade, and (c) cases showing diversity of both histologic nuclear grade and one or more biomarkers. The Student's t test was used to determine the significance of differences in the extent of diversity between these categories and the status of individual biomarkers.


    Results
 Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Histologic and biological diversity between cases of DCIS. The purpose of these experiments was to characterize and compare the range and distribution of histologic differentiation (H-scores) and standard prognostic biomarkers (ER, PGR, erbB2, p53, and Ki67) assessed by conventional methodologies in consecutive contemporaneous cases of pure DCIS, IBCs, and the DCIS component of the IBCs (n = 200 each; Fig. 1 ). Among the pure DCIS, there was a broad and relatively even distribution of H-scores ranging from 4 (the best differentiated) to 12 (the worst). Nearly all (>95%) cases with low H-scores (4-7) expressed high levels of ER and PGR in nearly all cells. The proportion of positive cases gradually declined thereafter to ~20% in cases with the highest H-scores, as well as the average proportion and intensity of positive cells in the cases (not shown). In contrast, alterations of erbB2 and p53 were uncommon (<10%) in DCIS with low H-scores, but gradually increased to ~60% in cases with the highest H-scores. Average proliferation rates (Ki67) also gradually increased from <5% to ~35% in direct correlation with H-scores. The distribution of H-scores and biomarkers were nearly identical in the IBCs and their DCIS component.


Figure 1
View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 1. Conventional histologic scores (H-scores) and standard prognostic biomarkers in pure DCIS, IBCs, and the DCIS component of the IBCs. Pure DCIS showed a broad and relatively even distribution of histologic scores ranging from 4 (the best differentiated) to 12 (the most poorly differentiated). Virtually, all cases with low H-scores (4-7) were strongly positive for ER and progesterone receptor. Receptor-positive cases gradually declined thereafter to a relatively small proportion (~20%) in cases with the highest H-scores. In contrast, HER2-positive and p53-positive cases (gene amplification/protein overexpression and mutation, respectively) were uncommon in cases with low H-scores (<10%) but gradually increased to a high proportion (~60%). Average proliferation rate also gradually increased from very low (<5%) to relatively high (~35%). The distributions of H-scores and biomarkers in a series of consecutive contemporaneous IBCs, as well as the DCIS component of the IBCs, were nearly identical to pure DCIS, suggesting that the diversity for these features evolves first in DCIS and is later propagated to IBC.

 
Intrinsic subtypes in DCIS. Twenty-five consecutive cases of pure DCIS were evaluated for gene expression at the RNA level by DNA microarray analysis, and the results were analyzed by unsupervised hierarchical clustering using dChip software and a list of 392 genes that define intrinsic subtypes in IBCs (Fig. 2 ). Luminal, basal, and erbB2 intrinsic subtypes were observed in DCIS at frequencies similar to previous studies of IBCs (44%, 8%, and 28%, respectively; ref. 35). A substantial (20%) proportion of DCIS did not conform to any of these subtypes (called "other/mixed" in this study), which has also been observed in up to 35% of IBCs (35). Average histologic scores/grades were much lower in luminal (5.4/1.1) and other/mixed (6.4/1.4) than erbB2 (10.0/2.4) and basal (10.0/2.5) DCIS, which has also been reported in IBCs (2830).


Figure 2
View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 2. Pure DCIS evaluated by DNA microarrays. Twenty-five consecutive cases of pure DCIS were evaluated for gene expression at the RNA level by DNA microarrays, and the results were analyzed by unsupervised hierarchical clustering using dChip software and a list of 392 genes distilled from previous studies of IBCs to optimally identify so-called luminal, erbB2, basal intrinsic subtypes. These subtypes were also observed in DCIS at similar frequencies as in IBCs (44%, 28%, and 8%, respectively). A substantial (20%) proportion of DCIS did not conform to any of these subtypes (called other/mixed in this study), which has also been observed in IBCs. Average histologic scores/grades were much lower in luminal (5.4/1.1) and other/mixed (6.4/1.4) than erbB2 (10.0/2.4) and basal (10.0/2.5) DCIS.

 
Histologic and biological diversity within cases of DCIS. Conventional methods of histologic grading, such as the Elston-Ellis modified Scarff-Bloom-Richardson method, used in studies summarized in Fig. 1 assign scores to the individual features of the grading system by following rules that have considerable leeway, and they are unable to convey the presence of internal variation. For example, the score for nuclear pleomorphism is assigned based on the area with the highest score comprising at least 10% of the tumor cells, so tumors with 15% and 100% of cells showing highly atypical nuclei would both get a score of 3 for this feature although they are very different. Similar examples can be made for the other grading features. In fact, the Elston-Ellis modified Scarff-Bloom-Richardson strategy is tacit acknowledgement of histologic diversity within breast cancers and a practical compromise to manage it in a routine clinical setting. The purpose of these experiments was to more precisely quantify the presence of histologic diversity (nuclear grade) within individual cases of DCIS and to compare certain biological characteristics of the cells associated with each grade within each case.

H&E-stained slides from 120 recent consecutive cases of pure DCIS were evaluated for the presence of cells showing different nuclear grades comprising at least 5% of total tumor cells (Fig. 3 ; Supplementary Fig. S1). No diversity of uclear grade was identified in 54.2% of the cases, including 29.2%, 22.5%, and 2.5% composed entirely of nuclear grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The remaining 45.8% of cases showed areas of diversity, including 30.0% with grades 1 and 2, 6.6% with grades 2 and 3, and 9.2% with grades 1, 2, and 3.


Figure 3
View larger version (82K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 3. Diversity of histologic nuclear grade within cases of pure DCIS. Recent consecutive cases of pure DCIS (n = 120) were evaluated for the presence of cells showing different histologic nuclear grades comprising at least 5% of total tumor cells. No diversity was identified in 54.2% of the cases, including 29.2%, 22.5%, and 2.5% composed entirely of nuclear grades 1, 2, and 3, respectively. The remaining 45.8% of cases showed areas of diversity, including 30.0% with grades 1 and 2, 6.6% with grades 2 and 3, and 9.2% with grades 1, 2, and 3.

 
A subset of the same cases with available paraffin blocks (n = 112) were further evaluated by immunohistochemistry for protein expression of several biomarkers (ER, GATA3, erbB2, CK5/6, CK18, and p53) associated with each nuclear grade within each case (Fig. 4 ; Table 1 ). No diversity of grade or biomarkers was observed in 51.8% of cases. Histologic diversity (>1 nuclear grade per case) was identified in the remaining 48.2% of cases. About one third of cases showing histologic diversity also showed biological diversity for one or more biomarkers, accounting for 13.4% of all cases. Diversity was observed with all the biomarkers, ranging from a high of 7.1% of cases for erbB2 and CK5/6 to a low of 0.9% of cases for CK18. The presence and extent of histologic and biological diversity was significantly (P = 0.007) associated with positive p53 status but not with the status of the other biomarkers (shown for ER and erbB2).


Figure 4
View larger version (74K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 4. The photomicrographs show examples of diversity in two cases. In case 115, ~60% of the tumor cells showed nuclear grade 1 histology, expressed very high levels of ER, and were negative (i.e., normal) for erbB2 and p53. The remaining 40% of the tumor cells showed nuclear grade 2 histology, expressed lower levels of ER (not counted as diversity), and were positive (amplified/overexpressed and mutated) for erbB2 and p53; erbB2 showed diversity at the protein and gene amplification levels in all four cases evaluated for both features. In case 89, the focus of DCIS shows cells with nuclear grade 1 histology at the periphery of the duct and nuclear grade 2 in the center. These areas of histologic diversity showed reciprocal phenotypes for ER and erbB2, whereas both regions were positive for p53.

 

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

 
Table 1. Histologic and biological diversity within individual cases of ductal carcinoma in situ (n = 112)

 
As expected, an unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the immunohistochemistry results segregated the DCIS into groups consistent with luminal A, luminal B, basal, and erbB2 intrinsic subtypes (Fig. 5 ). In this analysis, regions showing different nuclear grades and their associated biomarker phenotypes within individual tumors were treated as separate tumors. A large majority (73%) of cases with diversity of nuclear grade and biomarkers also showed diversity of intrinsic subtypes (>1 subtype per case) of nearly all possible combinations. It is important to keep in mind, however, that intrinsic subtypes defined by immunohistochemistry for a handful of biomarkers is only an approximation of intrinsic subtypes defined by comprehensive microarray analysis, and thus, the results in Fig. 4 may have turned out somewhat differently if the tumors had been evaluated by microarrays. Nonetheless, the immunohistochemistry results unequivocally show surprising diversity of substantial magnitude within individual tumors.


Figure 5
View larger version (25K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 5. Diversity of intrinsic subtypes within cases of pure DCIS. Recent consecutive cases of pure DCIS (n = 112) were evaluated for the presence of cells showing different histologic nuclear grades comprising at least 5% of cells within the same tumor. The cases were also evaluated by immunohistochemistry for protein expression of several biomarkers associated with each nuclear grade within each case, including ER, GATA3, erbB2, CK5/6, CK18, and p53. Assessing these particular biomarkers by immunohistochemistry has been shown to be reasonably equivalent to DNA microarrays for identifying intrinsic subtypes in IBCs. As expected, an unsupervised hierarchical clustering of the immunohistochemistry results segregated the DCIS into groups consistent with luminal A, luminal B, basal, and erbB2 intrinsic subtypes. In this analysis, regions showing different nuclear grades and their associated biomarker phenotypes within individual tumors were treated as separate tumors. A large majority (73%) of cases with diversity of nuclear grade and biomarkers also showed diversity of intrinsic subtypes (>1 subtype per case) of nearly all possible combinations (luminal A + erbB2 = 4;luminal A + basal = 1; luminal A + luminal B= 3; luminal B + erbB2 = 2; erbB2 + basal = 1).

 

    Discussion
 Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The Wellings and Jensen model proposes an apparent nonobligatory continuum of progression from TDLUs to IBCs through a series of increasingly abnormal stages over long periods of time (13). Although it is artificial to define stages in a continuum such as this, there are important general characteristics distinguishing one from another that accumulate and increase with progression. For example, the transition from TDLUs to HELUs is characterized by increased growth due to epithelial hyperplasia. Alterations of cell adhesion and polarity distinguish ADH from HELUs as the hyperplastic epithelium begins to pile up and distend acini. DCIS are characterized by further expansion of tumor volume, intraductal spread into other areas of the breast, and, most importantly, the appearance of increased histologic and biological diversity compared with earlier precursors. Invasion into surrounding stroma defines the transition of DCIS to IBC.

Although this model has been very useful, it oversimplifies a complex process, and there are still important inconsistencies and unknowns. For example, ADH as currently defined are uniformly composed of cells with very well-differentiated histologic and biological features. DCIS are more diverse than ADH and are usually divided into two (e.g., comedo versus noncomedo) or three (e.g., low versus intermediate versus high grade) categories reflecting variations in the degree of differentiation (1518). ADH is widely accepted as the nonobligate precursor of low-grade/noncomedo DCIS because they show similar well-differentiated features, but not of high-grade/comedo DCIS because of their poorly differentiated features, leading to speculation that the latter pursue a different course of evolution from occult precursors.

The results of this study show that DCIS vary on a broad continuum of differentiation, similar to IBCs and, along with other often overlooked evidence, support the hypothesis that most higher-grade DCIS gradually evolve from lower-grade DCIS and, thus, indirectly from ADH, by the random accumulation of genetic defects, which are propagated to IBC in a manner that is largely independent of progression to invasion (Fig. 6 ). This hypothesis is entirely compatible with current theories about breast cancer stem or progenitor cells, as discussed in more detail below.


Figure 6
View larger version (35K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
 
Fig. 6. Revised Wellings and Jensen model of human breast cancer evolution. The original Wellings and Jensen model proposed an apparently continuous but nonobligatory linear progression from normal TDLUs to IBC through a series of increasingly abnormal stages over long periods of time. Although it is artificial to define stages in a continuum, there are important general characteristics distinguishing one from another that accumulate and increase with progression. For example, the transition from TDLUs to HELUs is characterized by increased growth. Alterations of epithelial adhesion and polarity distinguish ADH from HELUs as the cells begin to pile up and distend acini. DCIS are characterized by expansion of tumor volume, intraductal spread into adjacent areas of the breast, and, most importantly, the appearance of enormous histologic and biological diversity. Invasion into surrounding stroma defines the transition of DCIS to IBC. The results of this study and other often overlooked evidence support the hypothesis that many higher-grade DCIS gradually evolve from lower-grade DCIS and, thus, indirectly from ADH by the stochastic accumulation of genetic defects which result in increasingly abnormal cellular morphology and function, that this diversity is greatly accelerated and magnified by defects resulting in genetic instability, and that the diversity is propagated to IBC in a manner that is largely independent of progression to invasion.

 
Epidemiologic evidence supporting this hypothesis comes from studies showing that ADH is a risk factor for developing all histologic grades and subtypes of IBCs and, thus, the biological characteristics associated with these histologic features (36). Nearly all IBCs contain a noninvasive component (Supplementary Table S2) and the histologic and biological features of cells in both components are nearly identical (Fig. 1; ref. 37). If, as we believe, DCIS are the precursor of nearly all "ductal" IBCs (which account for 85-90% of all IBCs), then ADH is probably also a risk factor for the development of DCIS independent of its histologic and biological characteristics, although we are not aware of any studies specifically addressing this issue, most likely because there are no databases to address the question.

Other supporting evidence comes from this (Fig. 1) and earlier studies (15, 3840) demonstrating that DCIS show a broad range of differentiation in terms of conventional histologic scores/grades and standard prognostic biomarkers nearly identical to IBCs, suggesting that diversity for these features evolves first in DCIS and is later propagated to IBC, which was proposed by Gupta and colleagues nearly a decade ago (37). Although these features do not seem to influence the ability of DCIS to progress to invasive disease, they are associated with the rate of progression, as shown by studies showing a much higher rate of short-term local recurrence in higher-grade DCIS compared with lower-grade lesions treated by lumpectomy, although the rates converge with longer follow-up (41). DCIS and IBCs have also been shown to be very similar at the high resolution of global gene expression assessed by microarrays and other types of high throughput technologies (4244).

The enormous range of histologic and biological diversity in DCIS (and IBCs for that matter) makes it nearly impossible to categorize them into two or three subtypes in any fundamentally meaningful way because cases exist with nearly every combination of features imaginable. This diversity also argues against the notion that ADH is a precursor of low-grade, but not high-grade, DCIS in the sense that it fails to explain the cellular origin of the majority of DCIS and because low-grade and high-grade DCIS do not really exist as distinct categories. Gradual change from well-differentiated to poorly differentiated DCIS seems more likely for the majority of cases, although some cases may bypass sequential change and evolve in a more direct or entirely different manner.

If it is true that higher-grade DCIS evolve from lower-grade DCIS, then there must be diversity within individual lesions at some point in time. A previous study by Lennington and colleagues noted the presence of multiple histologic growth patterns (e.g., cribriform, micropapillary, solid, etc.) in 46% of 100 DCIS evaluated (45). This study (Fig. 3) showed the presence of multiple histologic nuclear grades in 46% of 120 DCIS evaluated. Furthermore, nearly a third of the cases in our study showing diversity of nuclear grade also showed diversity for several important biomarkers when comparing areas of different nuclear grade within individual tumors (Table 1 and Fig. 4). The presence and magnitude of any type of diversity was highly correlated (P = 0.007) with positive immunohistochemistry staining for p53, which is a surrogate for mutation of the gene (22, 46) but not with the other biomarkers evaluated. Mutation of p53 leads to genetic instability (47), suggesting that randomly acquired defects with this outcome (and there are many possibilities) may enable and/or accelerate the development of diversity in DCIS. This argument may be somewhat semantic in the sense that acquiring genetic instability in the first place may be fundamentally responsible for the characteristics pathologists use to define DCIS. Earlier precursors, such as HELUs and ADH, show far less genetic diversity than DCIS (at least in terms of magnitude if not specific defects; refs. 3, 9, 48), and it is feasible that alterations of development and/or differentiation, perhaps adaptive in nature, are more important than heritable defects in the evolution of these lesions.

Our immunohistochemistry studies also showed the presence of multiple intrinsic subtypes within individual cases of DCIS (Fig. 5). Intratumor diversity of intrinsic subtypes has not been observed in microarray studies to date, possibly because they were based on RNA isolated from whole-tumor homogenates, which would mix and obscure underlying diversity. The presence of this diversity suggests that there is considerable plasticity during tumor progression and presumably regions with different characteristics would compete for dominance and eventually the most aggressive or poorly differentiated area would prevail. Well-differentiated DCIS may progress to more poorly differentiated DCIS by this general mechanism. The magnitude of intratumor diversity observed in this study at all levels evaluated (histologic grade, biomarkers, and intrinsic subtypes) must be the lowest possible estimate of the true diversity in DCIS, because such a small (<1%) volume of tumor was evaluated in these experiments and there is probably more than enough to account for the broad continuum of diversity observed between cases overall. It seems likely that similar intratumor diversity exists and evolves in IBCs as well.

Other evidence supporting the idea that higher-grade DCIS evolve from lower-grade DCIS comes from studies showing that diversity increases with time. For example, a diagnosis of DCIS was rare (<5%) before but common (20-30%) after the introduction of screening mammography (49, 50). On average, DCIS were larger and more poorly differentiated in the premammography era than they are today (5053), which is also true for IBCs (50, 52, 54). For example, in this study, the average conventional histologic score/grade of the series of DCIS in Fig. 1 (diagnosed between 1980 and 1995) and Fig. 3 (diagnosed between 1996 and 2002) were 8.4/2.0 and 7.2/1.6, respectively (P = 0.0003). Screening mammography became routine in our hospitals in the late 1980s, and thus, the first series contained a substantial number of cases that were not detected by mammography whereas cases in the second series nearly all were. The significant decrease in histologic score/grade observed in the second series is consistent with the idea that early detection due to screening mammography identified lower-grade tumors before they progressed to higher-grade lesions.

A similar conclusion can be drawn from studies showing that DCIS contain many of the same specific genetic defects regardless of histologic differentiation, although the absolute number of defects is higher in more poorly differentiated lesions. For example, previous studies from our laboratory (9) assessing loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in DCIS categorized into high grade and non–high grade showed similar frequencies of LOH for the majority (80%) of the 15 cancer-associated loci evaluated, but there was a higher average number of LOH in the high-grade lesions (2.4/case versus 1.8/case; P = 0.13; Supplementary Fig. S2). Studies assessing chromosomal alterations by comparative genomic hybridization have also shown that high-grade and non–high-grade DCIS have many more similarities than differences in terms of specific defects (48). One of the loci in our LOH study spanned p53 (D17/s960 at 17p13), and DCIS with LOH at this locus showed significantly higher average LOH than those without (3.0 LOH/case versus 1.6 LOH/case; P = 0.0001). This is consistent with our immunohistochemistry results showing higher diversity in DCIS with mutated p53, further supporting the idea that defects leading to genetic instability promote diversity in DCIS, which, again, is a plausible mechanism for the progression of higher from lower-grade lesions.

There are two prominent hypotheses in current thinking about breast cancer evolution: the Wellings Jensen model emphasized in this paper proposes a prolonged evolution of worsening precursor lesions through the random accumulation of genetic mutations (1, 2), whereas the other proposes that subtypes of tumors arise through the expansion of categorical stem or progenitor cells, which may then also undergo mutations (55, 56). Both theories are based on compelling and reproducible observations, and, in our opinion, they are not intrinsically incompatible. For example, perhaps cancer stem cells are created from normal stem cells which slowly acquire and accumulate random mutations, explaining the prominent intratumor diversity and decades-long premalignant evolution proposed by Wellings and Jensen. The same mutation might have different consequences depending on the stage of commitment of the stem or progenitor cell it occurs in. Mutations in an early multipotential stem cell might result in more diverse and rapidly evolving tumors than defects in a more committed progenitor cell. Alternatively, perhaps cancer stem cells can be newly created from somatic cells by mutations which reactivate genes regulating stem cell behavior (self-renewal and multipotential differentiation). Furthermore, creating cancer stem cells by mutating normal stem cells or by reactivating stem cell properties in somatic cells are not mutually exclusive possibilities, and both could help explain the enormous biological diversity observed within and between breast cancers. Some cancers may even contain multiple stem cells, contributing to intratumor diversity. Even genetically transformed somatic cells without stem cell properties may have the potential to create a mass large enough to be potentially lethal.

If it is true that most breast cancers evolve from precursors which gradually change over time, then identifying biological alterations associated with early precursors before the development of substantial diversity may reveal effective strategies for the prevention of the majority of breast cancers, independent of differentiation. Hopefully, future studies will shed light on these important issues.


    Footnotes
 
Grant support: Breast Cancer Research Foundation and NIH grant P50CA58183.

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.

Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Clinical Cancer Research Online (http://clincancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

7 http://www.dchip.org Back

Received 5/ 8/07; revised 8/16/07; accepted 9/17/07.


    References
 Top
 Abstract
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Wellings RR, Jensen HM. On the origin and progression of ductal carcinoma in the human breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 1973;50:1111–8.[Medline]
  2. Wellings SR, Jensen HM, Marcum RG. An atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst 1975;55:231–73.[Medline]
  3. Allred DC, Hilsenbeck SG, Mohsin SK. Biologic features of human premalignant breast disease. In: Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, et al., editors. Diseases of the Breast. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004. p. 512–3.
  4. Lee S, Mohsin SK, Mao S, et al. Hormones, receptors, and growth in hyperplastic enlarged lobular units: early potential precursors of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 2006;8:R6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  5. Page DL, Simpson JF. Pathology of preinvasive and excellent-prognosis breast cancer. Curr Opin Oncol 2000;12:526–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
  6. Schnitt SJ. Benign breast disease and breast cancer risk: morphology and beyond. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27:836–41.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Shaaban AM, Sloane JP, West CR, et al. Histopathologic types of benign breast lesions and the risk of breast cancer: case-control study. Am J Surg Pathol 2002;26:421–30.[CrossRef][Medline]
  8. Moinfar F, Man Y-G, Bratthauer GL, et al. Genetic abnormalities in mammary intraepithelial neoplasia-flat type ("cloning ductal carcinoma in situ"): a simulator of normal mammary epithelium. Cancer 2000;88:2072–81.[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. O'Connell P, Pekkel V, Fuqua SAW, et al. Analysis of loss of heterozygosity in 399 premalignant breast lesions at 15 genetic loci. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:697–703.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Simpson PT, Gale T, Reis-Filho JS, et al. Columnar cell lesions of the breast: the missing link in breast cancer progression? A morphological and molecular analysis. Am J Surg Pathol 2005;29:734–46.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Cardiff RD. Genetically engineered mouse models of mammary intraepithelial neoplasia. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2000;5:421–37.[CrossRef][Medline]
  12. Medina D. The preneoplasitc phenotype in murine mammary tumorigenesis. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2000;5:393–407.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Miller FR. Xenograft models of premalignant breast disease. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2000;5:379–91.[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Page DL, Dupont WD, Rogers LW, et al. Atypical hyperplastic lesions of the female breast. A long-term follow-up study. Cancer 1985;55:2698–708.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Moreno A, Lloveras B, Figueras A, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation between histologic classifications and biologic markers. Mod Pathol 1997;10:1088–92.[Medline]
  16. Scott MA, Lagios MD, Axelsson K, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: reproducibility of histological subtype analysis. Hum Pathol 1997;28:967–73.[CrossRef][Medline]
  17. Shocker BS, Jarvis C, Clarke RB, et al. Estrogen receptor-positive proliferating cells in the normal and precancerous breast. Am J Pathol 1999;155:1811–5.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Silverstein MJ, Cohlan BF, Gierson ED, et al. Duct carcinoma in situ: 227 cases without microinvasion. Eur J Cancer 1992;28:630–4.[CrossRef][Medline]
  19. Elston CW, Ellis IO. Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer: I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 1991;19:403–10.[Medline]
  20. Elston EW, Ellis IO. Method for grading breast cancer. J Clin Pathol 1993;46:189–90.[Free Full Text]
  21. Fisher ER, Gregorio RM, Fisher B. The pathology of invasive breast cancer: a syllabus derived from the findings of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project (protocol 4). Cancer 1975;36:1–85.[CrossRef][Medline]
  22. Allred DC, Clark GM, Elledge RM, et al. Accumulation of mutant p53 is associated with increased proliferation and poor clinical outcome in node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:200–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Elledge RM, Gray R, Mansour E, et al. Accumulation of p53 protein as a possible predictor of response to adjuvant combination chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, fluorouracil, and prednisone for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1254–6.[Free Full Text]
  24. Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, et al. Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1999;17:1474–81.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Love RR, Duc NB, Havighurst TC, et al. HER-2/neu overexpression and response to oophorectomy plus tamoxifen adjuvant therapy in estrogen receptor-positive premenopausal women with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:453–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Mohsin SK, Clark GM, Havighurst T, et al. Progesterone receptor by immunohistochemistry and clinical outcome in breast cancer: a validation study. Mod Pathol 2004;17:1545–54.[CrossRef][Medline]
  27. Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo MD, et al. Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis [review]. Mod Pathol 1998;11:155–68.[Medline]
  28. 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.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Livasy CA, Perou CM, Karaca G, et al. Identification of a basal-like subtype of breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol 2007;38:197–204.[CrossRef][Medline]
  30. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Eberwine J. Amplification of mRNA populations using aRNA generated from immobilized oligo(dT)-T7 primed cDNA. Biotechniques 1996;20:584–91.[Medline]
  32. Phillips J, Eberwine JH. Antisense RNA Amplification: a linear amplification method for analyzing the mRNA population from single living cells. Methods 1996;10:283–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 2000;406:747–52.[CrossRef][Medline]
  34. Sorlie 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  35. 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.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  36. Jacobs TW, Byrne C, Colditz G, et al. Pathologic features of breast cancers in women with previous benign breast disease. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;115:362–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Gupta SK, Douglas-Jones AG, Morgan JM, et al. The clinical behavior of breast carcinoma is probably determined at the preinvasive stage (ductal carcinoma in situ). Cancer 1997;80:1740–5.[CrossRef][Medline]
  38. Leong AS, Sormunen RT, Vinyuvat S, et al. Biologic markers in ductal carcinoma in situ and concurrent infiltrating carcinoma. A comparison of eight contemporary grading systems. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;115:709–18.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  39. Mack L, Kerkvliet N, Doig G, et al. Relationship of a new histological categorization of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast with size and the immunohistochemical expression of p53, c-erb B2, bcl-2, and ki-67. Hum Pathol 1997;28:974–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Ottesen GL, Christensen IJ, Larsen JK, et al. Carcinoma in situ of the breast: correlation of histopathology to immunohistochemical markers and DNA ploidy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2000;60:219–26.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Solin LJ, Kurtz J, Fourquet A, et al. Fifteen-year results of breast-conserving surgery and definitive breast irradiation for the treatment of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Clin Oncol 1996;14:754–63.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Hannemann J, Velds A, Halfwerk JB, et al. Classification of ductal carcinoma in situ by gene expression profiling. Breast Cancer Res 2006;8:R61.[CrossRef][Medline]
  43. Ma XJ, Salunga R, Tuggle JT, et al. Gene expression profiles of human breast cancer progression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:5974–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  44. Porter D, Lahti-Domenici J, Keshaviah A, et al. Molecular markers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Mol Cancer Res 2003;1:362–75.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  45. Lennington WJ, Jensen RA, Dalton LW, et al. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Heterogeneity of individual lesions. Cancer 1994;73:118–24.[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Baas IO, Mulder JW, Offerhaus GJ, et al. An evaluation of six antibodies for immunohistochemistry of mutant p53 gene product in archival colorectal neoplasms. J Pathol 1994;172:5–12.[CrossRef][Medline]
  47. Perez-Losada J, Mao JH, Balmain A. Control of genomic instability and epithelial tumor development by the p53–7/Cdc4 pathway. Cancer Res 2005;65:6488–92.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  48. Hwang ES, DeVries S, Chew KL, et al. Patterns of chromosomal alterations in breast ductal carcinoma in situ. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:5160–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  49. Ernster VL, Barclay J. Increases in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast in relation to mammography: a dilemma. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;22:151–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  50. Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL. SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975–2000. Bethesda: National Cancer Institute; 2003.
  51. Allred DC, Clark GM, Molina R, et al. Overexpression of HER-2/neu and its relationship with other prognostic factors change during the progression of in situ to invasive breast cancer. Hum Pathol 1992;23:974–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  52. American Cancer Society: Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2005–2006. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, Inc.; 2005.
  53. van de Vijver MJ, Peterse JL, Mooi WJ, et al. Neu-protein overexpression in breast cancer. Association with comedo-type ductal carcinoma in situ and limited prognostic value in stage II breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1988;319:1239–45.[Abstract]
  54. Magne N, Roillon RA, Castadot P, et al. Different clinical impact of estradiol receptor determination according to the analytical method: a study on 1940 breast cancer patients over a period of 16 consecutive years. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2006;95:179–84.[CrossRef][Medline]
  55. Dontu G, Liu S, Wicha MS. Stem cells in mammary development and carcinogenesis: implications for prevention and treatment. Stem Cell Rev 2005;1:207–13.[CrossRef][Medline]
  56. Liu S, Dontu G, Wicha MS. Mammary stem cells, self-renewal pathways, and carcinogenesis. Breast Cancer Res 2005;7:86–95.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
R. E. Roses, E. C. Paulson, A. Sharma, J. E. Schueller, H. Nisenbaum, S. Weinstein, K. R. Fox, P. J. Zhang, and B. J. Czerniecki
HER-2/neu Overexpression as a Predictor for the Transition from In situ to Invasive Breast Cancer
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2009; 18(5): 1386 - 1389.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
aacredbookHome page
A. Vincent-Salomon and O. Delattre
Role of Genetic, Genomic, and Transcriptomic Factors
Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book, April 18, 2009; 2009(1): 97 - 103.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
aacredbookHome page
P. Simpson
Linear and Nonlinear Models of Progression from In situ to Invasive Breast Cancer
Am. Assoc. Cancer Res. Educ. Book, April 18, 2009; 2009(1): 105 - 109.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
R. Natrajan, M. B. Lambros, S. M. Rodriguez-Pinilla, G. Moreno-Bueno, D. S.P. Tan, C. Marchio, R. Vatcheva, S. Rayter, B. Mahler-Araujo, L. G. Fulford, et al.
Tiling Path Genomic Profiling of Grade 3 Invasive Ductal Breast Cancers
Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2009; 15(8): 2711 - 2722.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Endocr. Rev.Home page
D. L. Kleinberg, T. L. Wood, P. A. Furth, and A. V. Lee
Growth Hormone and Insulin-Like Growth Factor-I in the Transition from Normal Mammary Development to Preneoplastic Mammary Lesions
Endocr. Rev., February 1, 2009; 30(1): 51 - 74.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
H. M. Kuerer, C. T. Albarracin, W. T. Yang, R. D. Cardiff, A. M. Brewster, W. F. Symmans, N. M. Hylton, L. P. Middleton, S. Krishnamurthy, G. H. Perkins, et al.
Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: State of the Science and Roadmap to Advance the Field
J. Clin. Oncol., January 10, 2009; 27(2): 279 - 288.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JCOHome page
C. L. Rosenberg
Polysomy 17 and HER-2 Amplification: True, True, and Unrelated
J. Clin. Oncol., October 20, 2008; 26(30): 4856 - 4858.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
CarcinogenesisHome page
L. Melchor and J. Benitez
An integrative hypothesis about the origin and development of sporadic and familial breast cancer subtypes
Carcinogenesis, August 1, 2008; 29(8): 1475 - 1482.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
K. Polyak
Is Breast Tumor Progression Really Linear?
Clin. Cancer Res., January 15, 2008; 14(2): 339 - 341.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
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 Allred, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Medina, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Allred, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Medina, D.


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