Breast cancer is one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers among women, and metastasis makes it lethal. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs) that acquire an alternatively activated macrophage (M2) phenotype may promote metastasis. However, the underlying mechanisms are still elusive. Here, we examined how TAMs interact with breast cancer cells to promote metastasis. Immunohistochemistry was used to examine the expression of the M2-specific antigen CD163 in paraffin-embedded mammary carcinoma blocks to explore fusion events in breast cancer patients. U937 cells were used as a substitute for human monocytes, and these cells differentiated into M2 macrophages following phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) and M-CSF stimulation. M2 macrophages and the breast cancer cell lines MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231 fused in the presence of 50% polyethylene glycol. Hybrids were isolated by fluorescence-activated cell sorting, and the relevant cell biological properties were compared with their parental counterparts. Breast cancer stem cell (BCSC)-related markers were quantified by immunofluorescence staining, RT-PCR, quantitative RT-PCR and/or western blotting. The tumor-initiating and metastatic capacities of the hybrids and their parental counterparts were assessed in NOD/SCID mice. We found that the CD163 expression rate in breast cancer tissues varied significantly and correlated with estrogen receptor status (p<0.05). The fusion efficiency of either breast cancer cell line with M2 macrophages ranged from 1.81 to 6.47% in the presence of PEG, and no significant difference was observed between the breast cancer cell lines used (p>0.05). Characterization of the fusion hybrids revealed a more aggressive phenotype, including increased migration, invasion and tumorigenicity, but reduced proliferative ability, compared with the parental lines. The hybrids also gained a CD44+CD24−/low phenotype and over-expressed epithelial-mesenchymal transition-associated genes. These results indicate that TAMs may promote breast cancer metastasis through cell fusion, and the hybrids may gain a BCSC phenotype.
The genetic etiology of hereditary breast cancer has not been fully elucidated. Although germline mutations of high-penetrance genes such as BRCA1/2 are implicated in development of hereditary breast cancers, at least half of all breast cancer families are not linked to these genes. To identify a comprehensive spectrum of genetic factors for hereditary breast cancer in a Chinese population, we performed an analysis of germline mutations in 2,165 coding exons of 152 genes associated with hereditary cancer using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in 99 breast cancer patients from families of cancer patients regardless of cancer types. Forty-two deleterious germline mutations were identified in 21 genes of 34 patients, including 18 (18.2%) BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations, 3 (3%) TP53 mutations, 5 (5.1%) DNA mismatch repair gene mutations, 1 (1%) CDH1 mutation, 6 (6.1%) Fanconi anemia pathway gene mutations, and 9 (9.1%) mutations in other genes. Of seven patients who carried mutations in more than one gene, 4 were BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, and their average onset age was much younger than patients with only BRCA1/2 mutations. Almost all identified high-penetrance gene mutations in those families fulfill the typical phenotypes of hereditary cancer syndromes listed in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, except two TP53 and three mismatch repair gene mutations. Furthermore, functional studies of MSH3 germline mutations confirmed the association between MSH3 mutation and tumorigenesis, and segregation analysis suggested antagonism between BRCA1 and MSH3. We also identified a lot of low-penetrance gene mutations. Although the clinical significance of those newly identified low-penetrance gene mutations has not been fully appreciated yet, these new findings do provide valuable epidemiological information for the future studies. Together, these findings highlight the importance of genetic testing based on NCCN guidelines and a multi-gene analysis using NGS may be a supplement to traditional genetic counseling.
IntroductionInvestigate the patterns of mammographically detected calcifications before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) to determine their value for efficacy evaluation and surgical decision making.Methods187 patients with malignant mammographic calcifications were followed to record the appearances and changes in the calcifications and to analyze their responses to NACT.ResultsPatients with calcifications had higher rates of hormonal receptor (HR) positive tumors (74.3% versus 64.6%) and HER2 positive tumors (51.3% versus 33.4%, p = 0.004) and a similar pathologic complete response (pCR) rate compared to patients without calcifications (35.4% versus 29.8%). After NACT, the range of calcification decreased in 40% of patients, increased in 7.5% and remained stable in 52.5%; the calcification density decreased in 15% of patients, increased in 7.5% and remained stable in 77.5%; none of these change patterns were related to tumor response rate. No significant correlation was observed between the calcification appearance (morphology, distribution, range, diameter or density) and tumor subtypes or pCR rates. Among patients with malignant calcifications, 54 showed calcifications alone, 40 occurred with an architectural distortion (AD) and 93 with a mass. Calcifications were observed inside the tumor in 44% of patients and outside in 56%, with similar pCR rates and patterns of change.ConclusionsCalcification appearance did not clearly change after NACT, and calcification patterns were not related to pCR rate, suggesting that mammogram may not accurate to evaluate tumor response changes. Microcalcifications visible after NACT is essential for determining the extent of excision, patients with calcifications that occurred outside of the mass still had the opportunity for breast conservation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.