Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 105, Issue 2, pp 169–175 | Cite as

Clinical and pathological correlations in male breast cancer: intratumoral aromatase expression via tissue microarray

  • Kelly Dakin Haché
  • Samantha Gray
  • Penny J. Barnes
  • Ron Dewar
  • Tallal Younis
  • Daniel RaysonEmail author
Clinical Trial

Abstract

Background

Male breast cancer (MBC) commonly expresses hormone receptors and there is anecdotal evidence of disease responsivity to aromatase inhibitors in the metastatic setting. Our objectives were to: (i) assess clinical-pathologic characteristics in a consecutive cohort of MBC (ii) evaluate intratumoral aromatase (ITA) expression via tissue microarray (TMA) and (iii) assess the prognostic impact of ITA

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted to identify all cases of MBC seen at the Nova Scotia Cancer Center between 1985 and 2005. Specimens were reviewed for standard pathologic characteristics and tumor blocks were incorporated into three TMA’s (four 1 mm cores per tumor). Immunohistochemistry (IHC) for ER, PR, Her2-neu and ITA was performed blinded to clinical outcomes. ITA staining intensity was compared to control, benign hepatic tissue and if greater than or equal to liver was scored positive and if less than liver was scored negative. The log-rank test was used for survival comparisons and Kaplan–Meyer curves were used to estimate 3- and 5-year progression-free and overall survival probabilities.

Results

Fifty-four cases were identified with a median age of 64 (31–85 years). Median tumor size was 2.6 cm (0.3–8.0 cm) and 22(41%) had nodal metastases. Forty-five cases had tissue available for IHC. Of these, 40 (89%) were ER and 33 (73%) were PR positive. Her2-neu was overexpressed in four cases (10%) and 12 (27%) were positive for ITA expression. ITA positive tumors were less likely to be grade 3, have lymphovascular invasion or nodal metastases and were more likely to be of favorable histology compared to ITA negative tumors. In univariate analysis strong (versus weak) ITA expression was associated with improved 5 year overall (92% vs. 49%, P = 0.038) but not progression-free (82% vs. 76% P = 0.44) survival rates.

Conclusions

Tumors with strong ITA expression may have a less aggressive phenotype compared to those with negative/weak ITA expression. Further investigation of ITA as a relevant prognostic factor as well as a potential therapeutic target in MBC is warranted.

Keywords

Aromatase Male breast cancer Pathologic correlates 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge Bev White for expert technical assistance.

References

  1. 1.
    Giordano SH, Buzdar AU, Hortobagyi GN (2002) Breast cancer in men. Ann Intern Med 137:678–687PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giordano SH, Cohen DS, Buzdar AU et al (2004) Breast carcinoma in men: a population-based study. Cancer 103(2):51–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Scott-Conner CE, Jochimsen PR, Menck HR et al (1999) An analysis of male and female breast cancer treatment and survival among demographically identical pairs of patients. Surgery 126:775–780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Willsher PC, Leach IH, Ellis IO et al (1997) A comparison outcome of male breast cancer with female breast cancer. Am J Surg 173:185–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hill TD, Khamis HJ, Tyczynski et al (2005) Comparison of male and female breast cancer incidence trends, tumor characteristics, and survival. Ann Epidemiol 15(10):773–780PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Joshi MG, Lee AKC, Loda M et al (1996) Male breast carcinoma: an evaluation of prognostic factors contributing to a poorer outcome. Cancer 77:490–498PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Goodman MT, Tung KH, Wilkens LR (2006) Comparative epidemiology of breast cancer among men and women in the US, 1996 to 2000. Cancer Causes Control 17(2):127–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rudlowski C, Schulten HJ, Golas MM et al (2006) Comparative genomic hybridization analysis on male breast cancer. Int J Cancer 118(10):2455–2460PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goss PE, Reid C, Pintilie M et al (1999) Male breast carcinoma: a review of 229 patients who presented to the Princess Margaret Hospital during 40 years:1955–1996. Cancer 85(3):629–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nahleh ZA (2006) Hormonal therapy for male breast cancer: a different approach for a different disease. Cancer Treat Rev 32(2):101–105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cutuli B, Lacroze M, Dilhuydy JM et al (1995) Male breast cancer: results of the treatments and prognostic factors in 397 cases. Eur J Cancer 31A:1960–1964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rayson D, Erlichman C, Suman VJ et al (1998) Molecular markers in male breast carcinoma. Cancer 83(9):1947–1955PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Muir D, Kanthan R, Kanthan SC (2003) Male versus female breast cancers. A population-based comparative immunohistochemical analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 127(1):36–41PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Riva C, Dainese E, Caprara G et al (2005) Immunohistochemical study of androgen receptors in breast carcinoma. Evidence of their frequent expression in lobular carcinoma. Virchows Arch 447(4):695–700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kwiatkowska E, Tevesiak M, Filas V et al (2003) BRCA2 mutations and androgen receptor expression as independent predictors of outcome of male breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 9(12):4452–4459PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rudlowski C, Friedrichs N, Faridi A et al (2004) Her-2/neu gene amplification and protein expression in primary male breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 84(3):215–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bloom KJ, Govil H, Gattuso P et al (2001) Status of Her-2 in male and female breast carcinomas. Am J Surg 82:389–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Early Breast Cancer Trialists’ Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) (2005) Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomized trials. Lancet 365(9472):1687–1717Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK et al (2005) Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 353:1784–1792PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Coombes RC, Hall E, Gibson LJ et al (2004) A randomized trial of exemestane after two to three years of tamoxifen therapy in postmenopausal women with primary breast cancer. N Engl J Med 350(11):1081–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Goss PE, Ingle JN, Martino S et al (2005) Randomized trial of letrozole following tamoxifen as extended adjuvant therapy in receptor-positive breast cancer: updated findings from NCIC CTG MA.17. J Natl Cancer Inst 97:1262–1271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zabolotny BP, Zalai CV, Meterissian SH (2005) Successful use of letrozole in male breast cancer: a case report and review of hormonal therapy for male breast cancer. J Surg Oncol 90(1):26–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sasano H, Kimura M, Shizawa N et al (1996) Aromatase and steroid receptors in gynecomastia and male breast cancer: an immunohistochemical study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 81(8):3063–3067PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Santner SJ, Pauley RJ, Tait L et al (1997) Aromatase activity and expression in breast cancer and benign breast tissue stromal cells. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 82:200–208PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lu Q, Nakamura J, Savinov A et al (1996) Expression of aromatase protein and messenger ribonucleic acid in tumour epithelial cells and evidence of functional significance of locally produced estrogen in human breast cancers. Endocrinology 137:3061–3068PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sasano H, Suzuki T, Nakata T et al (2006) New development in intracrinology of breast carcinoma. Breast Cancer 18(2):129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Camp RL, Charette LA, Rimm DL (2000) Validation of tissue microarray technology in breast carcinoma. Lab Invest 80(12):1943–1949PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Chakravarthy A, Kim CR (2002) Post-mastectomy radiation in male breast cancer. Radiother Oncol 65(2):99–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Macdonald G, Paltiel C, Olivotto IA et al (2005) A comparative analysis of radiotherapy use and patient outcome in males and females with breast cancer. Ann Oncol 16(9):1442–1448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kelly Dakin Haché
    • 1
  • Samantha Gray
    • 2
  • Penny J. Barnes
    • 1
  • Ron Dewar
    • 3
  • Tallal Younis
    • 2
  • Daniel Rayson
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PathologyQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreHalifaxCanada
  2. 2.Division of Medical OncologyQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreHalifaxCanada
  3. 3.Cancer Surveillance & Epidemiology UnitCancer Care Nova ScotiaHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations