Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

AACR logo

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Log out
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Clinical Cancer Research
Clinical Cancer Research
  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
    • CME
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CCR Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • COVID-19 & Cancer Resource Center
      • Breast Cancer
      • Clinical Trials
      • Immunotherapy: Facts and Hopes
      • Editors' Picks
      • "Best of" Collection
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • Editors' Picks
    • OnlineFirst
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
    • RSS Feeds
    • My Alert Summary & Preferences
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • COVID-19
  • Webinars
  • Search More

    Advanced Search

Imaging, Diagnosis, Prognosis

Prognostic Significance of Co-expression of RON and MET Receptors in Node-Negative Breast Cancer Patients

Wen-Ying Lee, Helen H.W. Chen, Nan-Haw Chow, Wu-Chou Su, Pin-Wen Lin and How-Ran Guo
Wen-Ying Lee
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Helen H.W. Chen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nan-Haw Chow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Wu-Chou Su
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Pin-Wen Lin
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
How-Ran Guo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-1761 Published March 2005
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Purpose: RON and MET belong to a subfamily of tyrosine kinase receptors. They both can induce invasive growth, including migration, cell dissociation, and matrix invasion. Cross-linking experiments show that RON and MET form a noncovalent complex on the cell surface and cooperate in intracellular signaling. We wanted to examine the clinical significance of RON and MET expression patterns in node-negative breast cancer.

Experimental Design: We studied the protein expressions of RON and MET in five breast cancer cell lines and a homogeneous cohort of 103 T1-2N0M0 breast carcinoma patients, including 52 patients with distant metastases and 51 patients with no evidence of disease after at least a 10-year follow-up.

Results: Both HCC1937 and MDA-MB-231 cancer cell lines co-overexpressed RON and MET. The MCF-7 cell line did not express RON or MET. In multiple logistic regression analysis, RON expression (odds ratio, 2.6; P = 0.05) and MET expression (odds ratio, 4.7; P = 0.009) were independent predictors of distant relapse. RON+/MET+ and RON−/MET+ tumors resulted in a large risk increase for 10-year disease-free survival after adjusting for tumor size, histologic grade, estrogen receptor, bcl-2, HER-2/neu, and p53 status by multivariate Cox analysis (risk ratio, 5.3; P = 0.001 and risk ratio, 3.76; P = 0.005). The 10-year disease-free survival was 79.3% in patients with RON−/MET− tumors, was only 11.8% in patients with RON+/MET+ tumors, and was 43.9% and 55.6% in patients with RON−/MET+ and RON+/MET− tumors.

Conclusions: Co-expression of RON and MET seems to signify an aggressive phenotype in node-negative breast cancer patients.

  • RON
  • MET
  • node-negative breast cancer
  • Tumor Progression, Invasion, and Metastasis
  • Breast cancer

INTRODUCTION

Compared to breast cancer patients whose lymph nodes show metastasis at the time of surgery, node-negative breast cancer patients have a low risk of disease recurrence. Nevertheless, up to 30% of node-negative breast cancer patients will relapse within 10 years after surgery and eventually die of distant metastasis (1). Traditional factors, such as tumor size, histologic grade, hormone receptor status, age, and menopausal status, have been used to identify the high-risk node-negative patients who might benefit from adjuvant systemic therapy (2). Following these guidelines, >75% of patients with node-negative breast cancer will receive adjuvant systemic therapy, although only about one third will develop distant metastasis (2). Hence, adjuvant systemic therapy is not always necessary and may induce unwanted negative side effects in subgroups not at risk of developing distant metastasis. The success of adjuvant systemic therapy is based on identifying patients at risk of developing distant metastasis. Although there is abundant literature on new prognostic factors and technologies, including gene profiling, the exact application of these technologies remains to be properly defined (3).

Metastasis development is a complex process involving cell dissociation, cell migration, matrix invasion, and transport to remote sites with adhesion (4). Many genes have been implicated in the metastasis of breast cancer (5). Recently, members of the MET proto-oncogene family, a subfamily of receptor tyrosine kinases, have drawn special attention to the association between invasion and metastasis (6, 7). The MET family, including MET and RON receptors, can function as oncogenes, like most tyrosine kinases (8). MET and RON receptors binding with their ligands can induce a complex genetic program that results in invasive growth, including cell dissociation, migration, and extracellular matrix invasion (9–11). MET overexpression is associated with aggressive cases in various tumors (12–14) and with death due to metastatic disease in patients with node-negative breast carcinoma (15).

RON shares a similar structure, biochemical features, and biological properties with MET. RON receptor is a heterodimeric protein similar to MET. It has a single-chain precursor of 170 kDa and a mature heterodimeric form of 185 kDa, which is composed of a 35 kDa extracellular α chain and a 150 kDa transmembrane β chain with tyrosine kinase activity (7, 16). RON and its ligand have diverse biological effects on numerous cell types, including the inhibition of inducible nitric oxide synthase in macrophages, a role in wound healing and liver regeneration, and the proliferation and migration of keratinocytes (17–19). Recent studies have shown RON overexpression in a significant fraction of breast carcinomas (20) and colorectal adenocarcinomas (21), but not in normal breast epithelia or benign lesions (20). In vitro, RON mutations that alter catalytic properties of the RON kinase induce oncogenic and metastatic potential (22). The overexpression of human wild-type RON can cause the formation of lung tumors in transgenic mice (23). Although the RON gene is associated with the pathogenesis of cancer, the link between RON overexpression and its prognostic role in breast cancer is not clear.

Cross-linking experiments have shown that RON and MET form a noncovalent complex on the cell surface and cooperate in intracellular signaling (24). Co-expression of a kinase-inactive RON with mutant MET suppresses the transforming phenotype. A recent study (25) reported neither mutation in RON or MET genes nor co-expression of their receptor ligands in ovarian carcinoma samples or cell lines. RON and MET genes are significantly co-expressed in ovarian carcinoma, and RON and MET receptor ligands trigger ovarian cancer cell motility and invasiveness. This suggests that co-expression of these two related receptors might confer a selective advantage to ovarian carcinoma cells during either tumor onset or progression.

The aims of this study were to search the predictors for distant metastasis to provide reliable information for patient-tailored therapy strategies in node-negative breast cancer patients. We did this study to examine RON and MET expression patterns in five breast cancer cell lines and in specimens of primary breast carcinoma from T1-2N0M0 patients with at least a 10-year follow-up.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cell Lines and Culture. Five human breast cancer cell lines (HCC1395, HCC1937, MCF-7, ZR-75-1, and MDA-MB-231) were obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (Manassas, VA). HCC1395, HCC1937, and ZR-75-1 cells were grown in RPMI 1640 (Life Technologies, Grand Island, NY), whereas MCF-7 and MDA-MB231 cells were maintained in DMEM (HyClone, Logan, UT). All media were supplemented with 10% FCS, l-glutamine 2 mmol/L, penicillin (100 U/mL), and streptomycin (100 μg/mL) at 37°C in a 5% CO2-humidified atmosphere. The HCC1395, MCF-7, and ZR-75-1 cells were positive for estrogen receptor. The MCF-7 cell line expressed the wild-type p53 gene; the HCC1937 and MDA-MB-231 cell lines expressed the mutant p53 gene.

Western Blot Analysis of RON and MET. Protein extracts were prepared as previously described (26). Equal amounts of cellular protein (50 μg) were separated by SDS-PAGE and transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride membrane (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Piscataway, NJ), and probed with antibodies against RON and MET (Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Santa Cruz, CA). The antibody for RON is a rabbit polyclonal antibody raised against a peptide mapping to the COOH terminus of the human RON, and the anti-MET antibody is a rabbit polyclonal antibody raised against the peptide mapping at the COOH terminus of human c-MET p140. The targeted protein was visualized by using enhanced chemiluminescence reagents (Santa Cruz Biotechnology) and the amount was quantitated by densitometry.

Patient Population. From 1988 to 2002, we recruited, at National Cheng Kung University Hospital, a homogeneous cohort of 103 T1-2N0M0 breast cancer patients who had undergone primary surgery, and we used available paraffin blocks of their primary tumors. According to their divergent clinical behavior, these patients were divided into the metastasis group (unfavorable group) and the disease-free group (favorable group). The metastasis group (52 patients) showed distant relapse within 10 years, and had a median disease-free survival of 1.7 years (range, 0.2-8.8 years) and a median follow-up of 3.8 years (range, 0.8-13.5 years). Metastatic diseases were established by characteristic features revealed by radiography, sonography, bone scans, or pathologic evidence. The disease-free group (51 patients) showed no evidence of disease for at least 10 years and had a median disease-free survival of 12 years (range, 10.1-15.6 years). All patients had received either modified radical mastectomy (98 patients) or breast-conserving surgery with complete axillary node dissection and subsequent breast irradiation (5 patients). The median number of dissected lymph nodes was 18 (range, 12-40).

Adjuvant chemotherapy was given based on the physician's discretion and the patient's preferences, and often on risk factors, such as the size of the primary tumor, age, or menopausal status, and the patient's performance status. The adjuvant treatment for these two groups did not vary significantly. Briefly, patients with larger or higher-grade tumors received chemotherapy with either cyclophosphamide, 5-fluorouracil, and methotrexate, or doxorubicin-containing agents. Tamoxifen was given to most patients with hormone receptor–positive tumors. Since 1995, adjuvant systemic therapy has been based on the St. Gallen consensus (27). The principles of our adjuvant treatment followed the then-current consensus. Histologic slides were reviewed by a breast pathologist (W.Y. Lee) to ensure that they were adequate and representative of the actual tumor. Histologic typing and grading were according to the WHO and modified Scarff-Bloom-Richardson classifications. Patient characteristics are shown in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1

Comparison of clinicopathologic factors and biomarkers between metastasis group and disease-free group

Primary Antibodies. Polyclonal antibody to human RON (diluted 1:100) was used, as was polyclonal antibody to MET, which is specific to human c-Met. Polyclonal anti-human c-erbB-2 oncoprotein (HER-2/neu; DAKO Corporation, Carpinteria, CA; diluted 1:200) was applied. Monoclonal antibodies to p53 (clone PAb1801; Oncogene Research Products, EMD Biosciences, Inc., San Diego, CA; diluted 1:50) and bcl-2 (clone 100; BioGenex Laboratories Inc., San Ramon, CA; diluted 1:200) were also used.

Immunohistochemistry. Tissue sections were obtained from a representative formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue block of each patient's tumor. Immunohistochemical staining by the avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex method was done with an LSAB kit (DAKO). Briefly, 4-μm-thick sections were prepared and endogenous peroxidase activity was blocked with H2O2. Microwave antigen retrieval was done in 10 mmol/L citrate buffer (pH 6.0) at 750 W. The sections were incubated with primary antibodies at 4°C overnight. Antigens were detected using an LSAB kit (DAKO) and visualized using an aminoethyl carbazole substrate kit (AEC kit, Zymed Laboratories, San Francisco, CA). Finally, the sections were lightly counterstained with hematoxylin. Positive and negative controls were included in all runs. For negative controls, we omitted the primary antibodies. Positive controls consisted of breast cancer tissue known to express bcl-2, p53, and HER-2/neu. Normal breast ducts were used as an internal positive control for MET and normal renal tubules as a positive control for RON.

All slides were interpreted by two independent observers blinded to the clinical outcomes. For each case, at least 1,000 tumor cells were analyzed and the percentage of positively stained tumor cells was recorded. Cutoff points with clear precedents in the literature (e.g., for estrogen receptor, bcl-2, and p53) were used (28, 29). For HER-2/neu, a score of 2+ or 3+, as illustrated by the HercepTest kit (DAKO) scoring guidelines, was considered overexpression. To qualify for 2+ and 3+ scoring, >10% of the tumor cells had to show complete membrane staining with moderate and strong intensity. In less well-established markers (e.g., RON and MET), breakpoints that were most consistent with the literature were used (20, 30). Tumors were considered positive for RON (RON+) if >5% of the tumor cells had membranous staining and positive for MET (MET+) if >5% of the tumor cells had intense cytoplasmic or membranous reactivity.

Statistics. Associations between variables and clinical behavior were analyzed with χ2 tests or t tests. All potential predictors for metastasis were entered in multiple logistic regression analyses, both stepwise forward and stepwise backward, until all of the remaining factors were significant at P = 0.05. Disease-free survival was determined as the time from the date of surgery until the date of detection of distant metastasis or the last follow-up. Disease-free survivals were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank tests were used to test for differences in time to survival between subgroups. The Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the simultaneous effects of several possible prognostic factors, using univariate analyses followed by multivariate analyses. All statistical tests were done using STATVIEW software (v. 5.0, 1998, Abacus Concepts, Inc., Berkeley, CA) at the two-tailed significance level of P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Western Blot Analysis of RON and MET in Breast Cancer Cell Lines. RON protein was overexpressed in HCC1937, ZR-75-1, and MDA-MB-231 cell lines, and MET was overexpressed in HCC1395, HCC1937, and MDA-MB-231 cell lines (Fig. 1). Both HCC1937 and MDA-MB-231 cancer cell lines, which had p53 mutant and negative estrogen receptor, showed co-expression of RON and MET. HCC1395 and ZR-75-1 cell lines, which had positive estrogen receptor, showed no expression of either receptor. MCF-7 cell line, which had wild-type p53 and positive estrogen receptor, revealed no expression of either receptor.

Fig. 1
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 1

Expression of RON (top) and MET (bottom) in breast cancer cell lines by Western blotting. RON overexpression in HCC1937, ZR-75-1, and MDA-MB-231 cell lines. MET overexpression in HCC1395, HCC1937, and MDA-MB-231 cell lines.

Comparisons Between Metastasis Group and Disease-Free Group. No significant differences between the two groups of patients were found in age, tumor size, histologic type, histologic grade, hormone status, chemotherapy, hormone therapy, or bcl-2 or HER-2/neu expression (Table 1). Positive immunostainings of p53, RON (Fig. 2A), and MET (Fig. 2B) were present more frequently in the tumors of the metastasis group (P = 0.04, P = 0.007, and P = 0.0002, respectively).

Fig. 2
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 2

Immunohistochemical stainings for RON and MET on serial tissue sections of an invasive ductal carcinoma from metastasis group. A, carcinoma cells showing strong RON immunostaining in the cell membranes. B, MET expression in the cell membranes. Original magnification, ×200.

Multivariate Logistic Analysis. Multivariate logistic regression showed that RON expression [odds ratio (OR), 2.6; P = 0.05] and MET expression (OR, 4.7; P = 0.009) were independent predictors of distant metastasis. Other potential markers, such as tumor size, histologic grade, estrogen status, p53, bcl-2, and HER-2/neu expression, were not significant predictors.

Cox's Proportional Hazards Regression Analysis. Univariate analyses showed that p53, RON, and MET were significant prognostic factors for disease-free survival and associated with risk ratios (RR) of 1.8 (P = 0.03), 2.1 (P = 0.01), and 3.3 (P = 0.0008), respectively. In the multivariate Cox model, we included tumor size, histologic grade, estrogen receptor status, p53, bcl-2, HER-2/neu, and RON/MET expression patterns (Table 2). Patients with RON+/MET+ and RON−/MET+ tumors showed a large increase in risk for 10-year disease-free survival (RR, 5.3; P = 0.001 and RR, 3.76; P = 0.005, respectively).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 2

Multivariate Cox model for potential prognostic factors of disease-free survival

RON and MET Immunostainings and Patient Survival. The 10-year disease-free survival of all patients was 53.4% (95% confidence interval, 43.8-63.6%). The 10-year disease-free survival as a function of RON and MET expression is shown in Fig. 3. Patients with RON+ tumors had significantly worse 10-year disease-free survival than those with RON− tumors (30.3% versus 58.6%, P = 0.009). Similarly, the 10-year disease-free survival in patients with MET− tumors was 73.7% compared with 35.4% if MET expression was positive (P = 0.0004).

Fig. 3
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 3

Disease-free survival (DFS) curves in T1-2N0M0 patients with RON+ tumors and RON− tumors (A), and MET+ tumors and MET− tumors (B).

To further assess the relative importance of RON and MET expression, we combined the two biomarkers to evaluate their association with the 10-year disease-free survival (Fig. 4). The highest 10-year disease-free survival was seen in patients with RON−/MET− tumors (79.3%), and patients with RON+/MET+ tumors had the lowest 10-year disease-free survival (11.8%, P = 0.0008). The 10-year disease-free survival in patients with RON−/MET+ tumors and RON+/MET− tumors was 43.9% and 55.6%, respectively.

Fig. 4
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Fig. 4

RON/MET expression pattern and its impact on disease-free survival.

DISCUSSION

In this study, we showed that expression of RON or MET was an independent predictor for distant metastasis, and that co-expression of RON and MET correlated with the lowest 10-year disease-free survival in patients with T1-2N0M0 breast cancer. Taken together, the cooperation of RON and MET signaling events seems to confer an aggressive phenotype on breast cancer cells. Therefore, evaluation of the RON and MET expression status may be of great help in identifying a subgroup of node-negative breast cancer patients for intensive therapy.

A current hypothesis proposes that ligand-induced activation of tyrosine kinase receptors results in autophosphorylation of tyrosine residues, followed by initiation of downstream signaling molecules (31). Cross-linking experiments have also shown that both RON and MET receptors can form homodimers and heterodimers even in the absence of the respective ligand (24). Hence, it is plausible to speculate that overexpressed receptors able to induce dimerization bypass the need for the ligand. Members of the same receptor family can heterodimerize (32), and the heterodimers produce more efficient signaling, as has been described for the ErbB2/ErbB3 dimer (33). In vitro experiments have shown that concomitant activation of RON and MET might cooperate to transduce the same signals, activating the Ras and phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase pathways to mediate invasive growth (34, 35). A recent study showed that MET or RON with the Metp+1loop → Thr point mutation (2B mutation) constitutively phosphorylated signal transducers and activators of transcription 3, leading to the formation of tumors with high metastatic potential (36). Thus, it is possible that overexpression of RON and MET might be due to mutations leading to constitutive activation of RON/RON, MET/MET, or RON/MET dimers.

The conclusion of this study regarding the prognostic importance of RON and/or MET expression in a breast cancer cohort is supported by a number of in vitro experiments. In the present study, the RR of MET expression on 10-year disease-free survival was higher than that of RON expression, which is in agreement with a previous report showing that RON is a less efficient kinase than MET (9). Patients with a RON+/MET+ tumor had significantly poorer outcome than patients with either a RON+/MET− or RON−/MET+ tumor. These results are supported by findings that the heterodimers of RON and MET receptors result in a more efficient signal than that induced by the RON homodimer (9). In addition, kinase-inactive RON behaves as a dominant-negative MET effector, suppressing the transforming phenotype induced by MET receptor (24). Taken together, concomitant activation of RON and MET synergistically increases invasive growth, and inactive RON decreases the signal by the MET receptor. MET can regulate invasive growth and transformation (37), whereas RON promotes invasive growth but not transformation (9). Thus, we suggest that activated RON is involved in tumor progression rather than in the early steps of tumorigenesis.

Further support for our hypothesis comes from the finding that RON and MET were co-expressed in the HCC1937 and MDA-MB-231 cell lines, both of which had p53 mutant and negative estrogen receptor. In contrast, no expression of both receptors was shown in MCF-7 cells that carried wild-type p53 and positive estrogen receptor. Given that p53 mutation and loss of estrogen receptor are poor prognostic indicators (38), co-expression of RON and MET seems to signify an invasive phenotype for breast cancer cells.

In conclusion, our data emphasize the significance of the co-expression of RON and MET in promoting breast cancer metastasis. Co-expression of RON and MET can be used to identify a subgroup of node-negative breast cancer patients at high risk for distant metastasis and who, therefore, may benefit from intensive adjuvant chemotherapy. Furthermore, this observation has clinical significance for patient-treatment options and for the therapeutic target of drug development.

Footnotes

  • Grant support: National Science Council grants NSC91-2314-B-006-130 and NSC92-2320-B-006-072, National Cheng Kung University Hospital grant NCKUH-92-45, and Ministry of Education Program for Promoting Academic Excellence in Universities grant 91-B-FA09-1-4 Taiwan.

  • 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.

    • Accepted December 23, 2004.
    • Received August 30, 2004.
    • Revision received December 2, 2004.

References

  1. ↵
    Clark GM, McGuire W. Steroid receptors and other prognostic factors in primary breast cancer. Semin Oncol 1988;15:20–5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  2. ↵
    McGuire W, Clark GM. Prognostic factors and treatment decisions in axillary node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1992;326:1756–61.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Gelber RD, Coates AS, Thurlimann B, Senn HJ. Meeting highlights: updated international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 2003;21:3357–65.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Woodhouse EC, Chuaqui RF, Liotta LA. General mechanisms of metastasis. Cancer 1997;80:1529–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Schwirzke M, Schiemann S, Gnirke AU, Weidle UH. New genes potentially involved in breast cancer metastasis. Anticancer Res 1999;19:1801–14.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    Vande Woude GF, Jeffers M, Cortner J, Alvord G, Tsarfaty I, Resau J. Met-HGF/SF: tumorigenesis, invasion and metastasis. Ciba Found Symp 1997;212:119–30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  7. ↵
    Ronsin C, Muscatelli F, Mattei MG, Breathnach R. A novel putative receptor protein tyrosine kinase of the met family. Oncogene 1993;8:1195–202.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    Blume-Jensen P, Hunter T. Oncogenic kinase signalling. Nature 2001;411:355–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Santoro MM, Collesi C, Grisendi S, Gaudino G, Comoglio PM. Constitutive activation of the RON gene promotes invasive growth but not transformation. Mol Cell Biol 1996;16:7072–83.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    Komada M, Kitamura N. The cell dissociation and motility triggered by scatter factor/hepatocyte growth factor are mediated through the cytoplasmic domain of the c-Met receptor. Oncogene 1993;8:2381–90.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. ↵
    Rosen EM, Nigam SK, Goldberg ID. Scatter factor and the c-met receptor: a paradigm for mesenchymal/epithelial interaction. J Cell Biol 1994;127:1783–7.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    Maulik G, Shrikhande A, Kijima T, Ma PC, Morrison PT, Salgia R. Role of the hepatocyte growth factor receptor, c-Met, in oncogenesis and potential for therapeutic inhibition. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2002;13:41–59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Nakajima M, Sawada H, Yamada Y, et al. The prognostic significance of amplification and overexpression of c-met and c-erbB-2 in human gastric carcinomas. Cancer 1999;85:1894–902.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. ↵
    Wagatsuma S, Konno R, Sato S, Yajima A. Tumor angiogenesis, hepatocyte growth factor, and c-Met expression in endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 1998;82:520–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Tolgay Ocal I, Dolled-Filhart M, D'Aquila TG, Camp RL, Rimm DL. Tissue microarray-based studies of patients with lymph node negative breast carcinoma show that met expression is associated with worse outcome but is not correlated with epidermal growth factor family receptors. Cancer 2003;97:1841–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Gaudino G, Avantaggiato V, Follenzi A, Acampora D, Simeone A, Comoglio PM. The proto-oncogene RON is involved in development of epithelial, bone and neuro-endocrine tissues. Oncogene 1995;11:2627–37.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    Waltz SE, Eaton L, Toney-Earley K, et al. Ron-mediated cytoplasmic signaling is dispensable for viability but is required to limit inflammatory responses. J Clin Invest 2001;108:567–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Bezerra JA, Laney DW Jr, Degen SJ. Increased expression of mRNA for hepatocyte growth factor-like protein during liver regeneration and inflammation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1994;203:666–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Wang MH, Dlugosz AA, Sun Y, Suda T, Skeel A, Leonard EJ. Macrophage-stimulating protein induces proliferation and migration of murine keratinocytes. Exp Cell Res 1996;226:39–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Maggiora P, Marchio S, Stella MC, et al. Overexpression of the RON gene in human breast carcinoma. Oncogene 1998;6:2927–33.
  21. ↵
    Zhou YQ, He C, Chen YQ, Wang D, Wang MH. Altered expression of the RON receptor tyrosine kinase in primary human colorectal adenocarcinomas: generation of different splicing RON variants and their oncogenic potential. Oncogene 2003;22:186–97.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Santoro MM, Penengo L, Minetto M, Orecchia S, Cilli M, Gaudino G. Point mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain release the oncogenic and metastatic potential of the Ron receptor. Oncogene 1998;17:741–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Chen YQ, Zhou YQ, Fisher JH, Wang MH. Targeted expression of the receptor tyrosine kinase RON in distal lung epithelial cells results in multiple tumor formation: oncogenic potential of RON in vivo. Oncogene 2002;21:6382–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Follenzi A, Bakovic S, Gual P, Stella MC, Longati P, Comoglio PM. Cross-talk between the proto-oncogenes Met and Ron. Oncogene 2000;19:3041–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Maggiora P, Lorenzato A, Fracchioli S, et al. The RON and MET oncogenes are co-expressed in human ovarian carcinomas and cooperate in activating invasiveness. Exp Cell Res 2003;288:382–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. ↵
    Faniello MC, Bevilacqua MA, Condorelli G, et al. The B subunit of the CAAT-binding factor NFY binds the central segment of the co-activator p300. J Biol Chem 1999;274:7623–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. ↵
    Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Senn HJ, Glick JH, Gelber RD. Meeting highlights: International Consensus Panel on the Treatment of Primary Breast Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995;87:1441–5.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  28. ↵
    Doglioni C, Dei Tos AP, Laurino L, Chiarelli C, Barbareschi M, Viale G. The prevalence of BCL-2 immunoreactivity in breast carcinomas and its clinicopathological correlates, with particular reference to oestrogen receptor status. Virchows Arch 1994;424:47–51.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. ↵
    Barbareschi M, Leonardi E, Mauri FA, Serio G, Palma PD. p53 and c-erbB-2 protein expression in breast carcinomas: an immunohistochemical study including correlations with receptor status, proliferation markers, and clinical stage in human breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 1992;98:408–18.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    Ghoussoub RA, Dillon DA, D'Aquila T, Rimm EB, Fearon ER, Rimm DL. Expression of c-met is a strong independent prognostic factor in breast carcinoma. Cancer 1998;82:1513–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Longati P, Bardelli A, Ponzetto C, Naldini L, Comoglio PM. Tyrosines1234-1235 are critical for activation of the tyrosine kinase encoded by the MET proto-oncogene (HGF receptor). Oncogene 1994;9:49–57.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. ↵
    Wada T, Qian XL, Greene MI. Intermolecular association of the p185neu protein and EGF receptor modulates EGF receptor function. Cell 1990;61:1339–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Pinkas-Kramarski R, Soussan L, Waterman H, et al. Diversification of Neu differentiation factor and epidermal growth factor signaling by combinatorial receptor interactions. EMBO J 1996;15:2452–67.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. ↵
    Bardelli A, Basile ML, Audero E, et al. Concomitant activation of pathways downstream of Grb2 and PI 3-kinase is required for MET-mediated metastasis. Oncogene 1999;18:1139–46.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    Wang MH, Montero-Julian FA, Dauny I, Leonard EJ. Requirement of phosphatidylinositol-3 kinase for epithelial cell migration activated by human macrophage stimulating protein. Oncogene 1996;13:2167–75.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. ↵
    Yuan ZL, Guan YJ, Wang L, Wei W, Kane AB, Chin YE. Central role of the threonine residue within the p + 1 loop of receptor tyrosine kinase in STAT3 constitutive phosphorylation in metastatic cancer cells. Mol Cell Biol 2004;24:9390–400.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  37. ↵
    Ponzetto C, Bardelli A, Zhen Z, et al. A multifunctional docking site mediates signaling and transformation by the hepatocyte growth factor/scatter factor receptor family. Cell 1994;77:261–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. ↵
    Takahashi M, Tonoki H, Tada M, et al. Distinct prognostic values of p53 mutations and loss of estrogen receptor and their cumulative effect in primary breast cancers. Int J Cancer 2000;89:92–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Clinical Cancer Research: 11 (6)
March 2005
Volume 11, Issue 6
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Clinical Cancer Research article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Prognostic Significance of Co-expression of RON and MET Receptors in Node-Negative Breast Cancer Patients
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Clinical Cancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Clinical Cancer Research.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Prognostic Significance of Co-expression of RON and MET Receptors in Node-Negative Breast Cancer Patients
Wen-Ying Lee, Helen H.W. Chen, Nan-Haw Chow, Wu-Chou Su, Pin-Wen Lin and How-Ran Guo
Clin Cancer Res March 15 2005 (11) (6) 2222-2228; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-1761

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Prognostic Significance of Co-expression of RON and MET Receptors in Node-Negative Breast Cancer Patients
Wen-Ying Lee, Helen H.W. Chen, Nan-Haw Chow, Wu-Chou Su, Pin-Wen Lin and How-Ran Guo
Clin Cancer Res March 15 2005 (11) (6) 2222-2228; DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-1761
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • INTRODUCTION
    • MATERIALS AND METHODS
    • RESULTS
    • DISCUSSION
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • FDOPA PET Survival Predictions for Glioma
  • In vivo Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging for Monitoring the Cancer Treatment
  • Variability in Assessing Response in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Show more Imaging, Diagnosis, Prognosis
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  YouTube  RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues
  • CCR Focus Archive
  • Meeting Abstracts

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians

About Clinical Cancer Research

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2021 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Clinical Cancer Research
eISSN: 1557-3265
ISSN: 1078-0432

Advertisement