Immunohistochemical evaluation of lymphovascular invasion in carcinoma breast with CD34 and D2-40 and its correlation with other prognostic markers

Predictive nomogram based on serum tumor markers and clinicopathological features for stratifying lymph node metastasis in breast cancer

BACKGROUND

This study was aimed to establish the nomogram to predict patients' axillary node status by using patients' clinicopathological and tumor characteristic factors.

METHODS

A total of 705 patients with breast cancer were enrolled in this study. All patients were randomly divided into a training group and a validation group. Univariate and multivariate ordered logistic regression were used to determine the predictive ability of each variable. A nomogram was performed based on the factors selected from logistic regression results. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis, calibration plots and decision curve analysis (DCA) were used to evaluate the discriminative ability and accuracy of the models.

RESULTS

Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that CEA, CA125, CA153, tumor size, vascular-invasion, calcification, and tumor grade were independent prognostic factors for positive ALNs. Integrating all the predictive factors, a nomogram was successfully developed and validated. The C-indexes of the nomogram for prediction of no ALN metastasis, positive ALN, and four and more ALN metastasis were 0.826, 0.706, and 0.855 in training group and 0.836, 0.731, and 0.897 in validation group. Furthermore, calibration plots and DCA demonstrated a satisfactory performance of our nomogram.

CONCLUSION

We successfully construct and validate the nomogram to predict patients' axillary node status by using patients' clinicopathological and tumor characteristic factors.

Lymphovascular invasion in breast cancer is associated with gene expression signatures of cell proliferation but not lymphangiogenesis or immune response

BACKGROUND

While the prognostic relevance of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) in breast cancer is well known, its molecular biology is poorly understood. We hypothesized that pathologically determined LVI reflects molecular features of tumors and can be discerned from their genomic and transcriptomic profiles.

METHODS

LVI status and Nottingham histological scores of primary breast tumors of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project were assessed from pathology reports; other clinical and molecular data were obtained from TCGA data portals and publications. Two independent datasets (GSE5460 and GSE7849) were combined and used for validation.

RESULTS

LVI status was determinable for 639 and 196 cases of the TCGA and validation cohorts, among whom LVI incidence was 37.8% and 37.2%, respectively. LVI was associated with high tumor Ki67 expression, advanced pathologic stage, and high Nottingham scores. LVI-positive cases had worse overall and progression-free survival regardless of cancer subtype. Surprisingly, in both cohorts, LVI was not associated with lymphangiogenesis or lymphatic vessel density as estimated from tumor expression of lymphatic endothelium-associated genes. LVI-positive tumors had higher genome copy number aberrations, aneuploidy, and homologous recombination defects, but not single-nucleotide variations or intra-tumor genome heterogeneity. Tumor immune cell composition and cytolytic activity was not associated with LVI status. On the other hand, expression of cell proliferation-related genes was significantly increased in LVI-positive tumors.

CONCLUSION

Our study suggests that breast cancer with LVI is a highly proliferative cancer, and it does not correlate with gene expression markers for lymphangiogenesis or immune response.

Immunohistochemistry for diagnosis and prognosis of breast cancer: a review

Breast cancer is the most prevalent malignant tumor and main oncologic cause of mortality in women. Although most diagnosis of breast pathology is accomplished using hematoxylin and eosin stained sections, some cases require immunohistochemistry for proper evaluation. We investigated the latter cases including distinctions between ductal and lobular carcinoma, in situ and invasive carcinoma, typical ductal hyperplasia and atypical ductal hyperplasia/ductal carcinoma in situ, papillary and spindle cell lesion assessment, metastasis evaluation, and assessment of prognostic and therapy markers. E-cadherin is used to differentiate ductal and lobular carcinoma; 34βE12, CK8, p120 catenin and β-catenin also produce consistent results. Myoepithelial cell (MEC) stains are used to evaluate in situ and invasive carcinoma; calponin, smooth muscle myosin heavy chain and p63 are sensitive/specific markers. 34βE12 and CK5/6 are positive in ductal hyperplasia, which enables its differentiation from atypical ductal hyperplasia and ductal carcinoma in situ. CK 5/6, ER and MEC markers are consistent options for evaluating papillary lesions. Spindle cell lesions can be assessed using β-catenin, SMA, CD34, p63, CKs and hormone receptors. It is important to differentiate primary carcinomas from metastases; the most commonly used markers to identify breast origin include mammaglobin, GCDFP-15, GATA3 and ER, although none of these is completely sensitive or specific. Immunohistochemistry can be used to evaluate central prognostic and predictive factors including molecular subtypes, HER2, hormone receptors, proliferation markers (Ki-67) and lymph-vascular invasion markers including ERG, CD31, CD34, factor VIII and podoplanin. Owing to the complexity of mammary lesions, diagnosis also depends on each particular situation, evaluation of cytological characteristics revealed by immunochemistry and correlation with histological findings.