The characteristics of malignant breast tumors in hormone replacement therapy users versus nonusers

FoxF1 and FoxF2 transcription factors synergistically promote rhabdomyosarcoma carcinogenesis by repressing transcription of p21Cip1 CDK inhibitor

The role of Forkhead Box F1 (FoxF1) transcription factor in carcinogenesis is not well characterized. Depending on tissue and histological type of cancer, FoxF1 was shown to be either oncogene or tumor suppressor. Alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) is the most aggressive pediatric soft tissue sarcoma. While FoxF1 is highly expressed in alveolar RMS, the functional role of FoxF1 in RMS is unknown. The present study demonstrates that expression of FoxF1 and its closely related transcription factor FoxF2 are essential for rhabdomyosarcoma tumor growth. Depletion of FoxF1 or FoxF2 in rhabdomyosarcoma cells decreased tumor growth in orthotopic mouse models of RMS. The decreased tumorigenesis was associated with the reduced tumor cell proliferation. Cell cycle regulatory proteins Cdk2, Cdk4/6, Cyclin D1 and Cyclin E2 were decreased in FoxF1- and FoxF2-deficient RMS tumors. Depletion of either FoxF1 or FoxF2 delayed G1-S cell cycle progression, decreased levels of phosphorylated Rb and increased protein levels of the CDK inhibitors, p21^Cip1 and p27^Kip1. Depletion of both FoxF1 and FoxF2 in tumor cells completely abrogated RMS tumor growth in mice. Overexpression of either FoxF1 or FoxF2 in tumor cells was sufficient to increase carcinogenesis in orthotopic RMS mouse model. FoxF1 and FoxF2 directly bound to and repressed transcriptional activity of p21^Cip1 promoter through −556/−545 bp region, but did not affect p27^Kip1 transcription. Knockdown of p21^Cip1 restored cell cycle progression in the FoxF1- or FoxF2-deficient tumor cells. Altogether, FoxF1 and FoxF2 promoted RMS tumorigenesis by inducing tumor cell proliferation via transcriptional repression of p21^Cip1 gene promoter. Due to robust oncogenic activity in RMS tumors, FoxF1 and FoxF2 may represent promising targets for anti-tumor therapy.

Breast cancer after hormone replacement therapy--does prognosis differ in perimenopausal and postmenopausal women?

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has been associated with higher incidence of breast cancer in postmenopausal women, but it is unclear if breast cancers developing after HRT use have different prognosis. 1053 women with hormone receptor positive non-metastasized breast cancer were analyzed in a retrospective trial, stratifying by HRT use before diagnosis. Postmenopausal HRT users had significantly more early tumor stages (p<0.001). HRT in postmenopausal patients was associated with longer time to progression (TTP) (HR 0.81, 95%CI 0.55-1.19, p=0.28) and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.68, 95%CI 0.45-1.02, p=0.059). Perimenopausal HRT users showed shorter TTP and OS (HR 1.99, 95%CI 0.57-6.91, p=0.28 and HR 4.59, 95%CI 0.91-23.25, p=0.06 respectively). Higher BMI was significantly associated with poorer prognosis in perimenopausal women only (TTP: HR=1.16; OS: HR=1.31). In this retrospective analysis postmenopausal HRT users seemed to have a better breast cancer prognosis. For perimenopausal HRT users however, a trend towards worse prognosis was found.

Hormone replacement therapy (HRT), breast cancer and tumor pathology

Within an average observation period of 5-6 years, several clinical trials reported an increased risk of breast cancer due to hormone replacement therapy (HRT). However, it remains disputable, whether the increased rate of breast cancers detected within the given time frame is indeed due to newly induced tumors and thus constitutes HRT-initiated primary breast cancers. Onco-pathologically speaking it appears more likely that HRT stimulates the growth of already existing small tumor nests which - due to their small size - would otherwise go undiagnosed. The major arguments are: In summary, HRT is hence more likely to be a tumor promoter than a de novo-inducer of breast cancers.

Use of different postmenopausal hormone therapies and risk of histology- and hormone receptor-defined invasive breast cancer

PURPOSE

We previously found that the risk of invasive breast cancer varied according to the progestagen component of combined postmenopausal hormone therapy (CHT): progesterone, dydrogesterone, or other progestagens. We conducted the present study to assess how these CHTs were associated with histology- and hormone receptor-defined breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used data from the French E3N cohort study, with 80,391 postmenopausal women followed for a mean duration of 8.1 years; 2,265 histologically confirmed invasive breast cancers were identified through biennial self-administered questionnaires completed from 1990 to 2002. The relative risks (RRs) were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models.

RESULTS

Compared with postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) never-use, ever-use of estrogen+progesterone was not significantly associated with the risk of any breast cancer subtype, but increasing duration of estrogen+progesterone was associated with increasing risks of lobular (P = .06) and estrogen receptor-positive/progesterone receptor-negative (ER+/PR-; P = .02). Estrogen+dydrogesterone was associated with a significant increase in risk of lobular carcinoma (RR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.6). Estrogen+other progestagens was associated with significant increases in risk of ductal and lobular carcinomas (RR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3 to 1.8; and 2.0; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.7, respectively), of ER+/PR+ and ER+/PR- carcinomas (RR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.1; and 2.6; 95% CI, 1.9 to 3.5, respectively), but not of ER-/PR+ or ER-/PR- carcinomas (RR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.5 to 2.1; and 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.0, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The increase in risk of breast cancer observed with the use of CHTs other than estrogen+progesterone and estrogen+dydrogesterone seems to apply preferentially to ER+ carcinomas, especially those ER+/PR-, and to affect both ductal and lobular carcinomas.

A comparative study of risk factors and prognostic features between symptomatic and screen detected breast cancer

AIMS

To compare prognostic factors in screen detected breast cancer (SDBC) and symptomatically presenting breast cancer (SBC).

METHODS

Data were examined on 100 SDBC and 100 SBC. Multiple clinical patient factors were assessed including histopathological features. Using the Gail model each patient's risk of developing breast cancer was calculated and these data were examined for differences between groups.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the mean age of patient presentation or in the risk of breast cancer development between groups (2.2% vs. 2.2%, SDBC vs. SBC, actuarial risk of cancer at 5 years). SDBC patients had a significantly lower grade (1.95 vs. 2.44, SDBC vs. SBC, P<0.05), a smaller size of tumour (15.4mm vs. 29.3mm, SDBC vs. SBC, P<0.05) and a higher rate of oestrogen (94% vs. 81%, P<0.05) and progesterone (75% vs. 52%, P<0.05) receptor positivity. When compared using the Nottingham Prognostic Index, SDBC was associated with a better prognosis (r=-0.444, P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Though both groups have similar demographics and risk, SDBC patients appear to have more favourable prognostic features. This has implications for the application of systemic therapy in breast cancer and supports the observation that SDBC is a more indolent form of disease.

Response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in lobular and ductal breast carcinomas: a retrospective study on 860 patients from one institution

BACKGROUND

We compared the impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy on pathologic response and outcome in operable invasive lobular breast carcinoma (ILC) and invasive ductal breast carcinoma (IDC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We extracted from our database all patients with pure invasive lobular (n=118, 14%) or pure invasive ductal carcinomas (n=742, 86%). Their treatment included neoadjuvant chemotherapy, adapted surgery, radiotherapy and adjuvant hormonal treatment.

RESULTS

Compared with IDC, ILC presented with larger tumors (T3: 38.1% versus 21.4%, P=0.0007), more N0 nodes status (55.9% versus 43.3%, P=0.01), less inflammatory tumors (5.9% versus 11.8%, P=0.01), more hormone receptor positivity (65.5% versus 38.8%), lower histological grade (P<0.0001). Final surgery was a mastectomy in 70% of patients with ILC (34% were reoperated after initial partial mastectomy) and in 52% of IDC after 8% of reoperation (P=0.006). A pathological complete response (pCR) was achieved in 1% of ILC and 9% of IDC (P=0.002). The outcome at 60 months was significantly better for ILC, but histologic type was not an independent factor for survival in multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

ILC appeared less responsive to chemotherapy but presented a better outcome than IDC. While new information on biological features of ILC is needed, we consider that neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in hormone receptor-positive ILC may be a more adapted approach than neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Mortality following development of breast cancer while using oestrogen or oestrogen plus progestin: a computer record-linkage study

The literature on the relationship between breast cancer mortality and postmenopausal oestrogen and combined oestrogen/progestin therapy is seemingly contradictory. This study explored survival after exposure to oestrogen or oestrogen plus progestin at or in the year prior to breast cancer diagnosis. Information on patients first diagnosed with invasive breast cancer between 1993 and 1998 was linked with outpatient pharmacy data from 1992 to 2000. Patients were classified according to use of oestrogen alone or oestrogen plus progestin at or in the year prior to diagnosis. Compared to nonusers, and adjusting for age at diagnosis, race/ethnicity, tumour size and grade, oestrogen receptor status, surgery status, and chemotherapy and hormone therapy for breast cancer treatment, oestrogen plus progestin users had lower all-cause mortality (stage I hazard ratio (HR)=0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.48–0.99; stage II HR=0.53, 95% CI=0.39–0.72) and breast cancer mortality (stage I HR=0.52, 95% CI=0.26–1.04; stage II HR=0.69, 95% CI=0.48–0.98). Oestrogen users experienced little or no survival benefit for all-cause mortality (stage I HR=1.04, 95% CI=0.77–1.42; stage II HR=0.86, 95% CI=0.65–1.14) or breast cancer mortality (stage I HR=1.23, 95% CI 0.72–2.10; stage II HR=1.01, 95% CI 0.72–1.41). Our findings suggest, relative to nonusers, a lower risk of death from all causes and from breast cancer in patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer while exposed to oestrogen plus progestin, but not in patients exposed to oestrogen only.

Local biosynthesis and metabolism of oestrogens in the human breast

The origin of oestrogens at the level of the breast itself is discussed. In particular in postmenopausal women an accumulation of oestradiol at the site of breast tumours has been documented by a number of independent studies. The mechanism behind the high local oestrogens concentrations is thought to be the in situ production of these steroids by local processes with androstenedione as the main precursor. The presence of all enzymes required for this production has been demonstrated in a large proportion of breast tumours, with probably aromatase, hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase type 1 and sulfatase as the most important enzymes leading to the biologically highly active oestradiol. The individual enzymes that are relevant for the biosynthesis and the metabolism of oestrogens are discussed. The conclusion is reached that a number of these local processes may be involved in the promotion of premalignant lesions and in stimulation of growth of malignant tumours in the human breast.