Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 154, Issue 3, pp 617–621 | Cite as

The 8th international symposium on the breast: Using next-generation science to understand the normal breast and the development of breast cancer- conference report

  • Ameer GomberawallaEmail author
  • Susan Love
Brief Report

Abstract

Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation is committed to performing and advancing research that will lead to the discovery of what causes cancer to develop in the human breast. As part of this effort, the Foundation hosted the 8th International Symposium on the Breast in Santa Monica, Calif., Feb. 19 to Feb. 21, 2015. More than 120 forward-thinking clinical researchers, epidemiologists, pathologists, basic scientists, translational investigators, and breast cancer advocates from six countries attended this year’s conference, “Using Next Generation Science to Understand the Normal Breast and the Development of Cancer.” The highlights from this year’s symposium are summarized in this report.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Normal Breast Tissue Nipple Aspirate Fluid Ductal Lavage Mammary Ductoscopy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Consortium Contest

The formal proceedings were followed by presentations from the 14 teams that were formed during the Symposium to compete for pilot grants. Additionally, public presentations were done by Dr. Susan love and four other participants of the consortium. Commenting from the audience, Judith Salerno, M.D., president and CEO of Susan G. Komen, said, “I spent many years at the NIH funding safe science. It was energizing to be here and to see this research. I’m glad we could support it.”

Consortium Grant Awards

At the end of the Symposium, Dr. Susan Love Research Foundation awarded a total of $50,000 in grants funded by Susan G. Komen to support multidisciplinary consortia formed at the Symposium. Additionally, Atossa Genetics also sponsored research from this consortia. Grant recipients and their titles are listed in appendix A.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of Interest

Authors AG and SL have no conflicts of interest to report with this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Karim SA et al (2013) Dasatinib inhibits mammary tumour development in a genetically engineered mouse model. J Pathol 230(4):430–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fordyce CA et al (2012) Cell-extrinsic consequences of epithelial stress: activation of protumorigenic tissue phenotypes. Breast Cancer Res 14(6):R155PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lyons TR et al (2014) Cyclooxygenase-2-dependent lymphangiogenesis promotes nodal metastasis of postpartum breast cancer. J Clin Invest 124(9):3901–3912PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sauder CA et al (2014) Phenotypic plasticity in normal breast derived epithelial cells. BMC Cell Biol 15:20PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Degnim AC et al (2012) Histologic findings in normal breast tissues: comparison to reduction mammaplasty and benign breast disease tissues. Breast Cancer Res Treat 133(1):169–177PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Inman JL et al (2015) Mammary gland development: cell fate specification, stem cells and the microenvironment. Development 142(6):1028–1042CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Roll JD et al (2013) Dysregulation of the epigenome in triple-negative breast cancers: basal-like and claudin-low breast cancers express aberrant DNA hypermethylation. Exp Mol Pathol 95(3):276–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Balci FL, Feldman SM (2014) Exploring breast with therapeutic ductoscopy. Gland Surg 3(2):136–141PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Benam KH et al (2015) Engineered in vitro disease models. Annu Rev Pathol 10:195–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rajan SS et al (2014) Poly(ethylene glycol) (PEG)-lactic acid nanocarrier-based degradable hydrogels for restoring the vaginal microenvironment. J Control Release 194:301–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Teo WW, Sukumar S (2014) Combining the strength of genomics, nanoparticle technology, and direct intraductal delivery for breast cancer treatment. Breast Cancer Res 16(2):306PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng Q et al (2012) Amplification and high-level expression of heat shock protein 90 marks aggressive phenotypes of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 14(2):R62PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Griesinger AM, Josephson RJ, Donson AM, Mulcahy Levy JM, Amani V, Birks DK, Hoffman LM (2015) Interleukin-6/STAT3 pathway signaling drives an inflammatory phenotype in Group A ependymoma. Cancer Immunol Res 3:1165CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Baslan T et al (2015) Optimizing sparse sequencing of single cells for highly multiplex copy number profiling. Genome Res 25(5):714–724PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Urbaniak C et al (2014) Microbiota of human breast tissue. Appl Environ Microbiol 80(10):3007–3014PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xuan C et al (2014) Microbial dysbiosis is associated with human breast cancer. PLoS ONE 9(1):e83744PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pogo BG, Holland JF, Levine PH (2010) Human mammary tumor virus in inflammatory breast cancer. Cancer 116(11 Suppl):2741–2744CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maskarinec G et al (2013) Cytology in nipple aspirate fluid during a randomized soy food intervention among premenopausal women. Nutr Cancer 65(8):1116–1121CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dr. Susan Love Research FoundationSanta MonicaUSA

Personalised recommendations