A majority of breast cancers are estrogen receptor (ER) positive and have a luminal epithelial phenotype. However, these ER+ tumors often contain heterogeneous subpopulations of ER− tumor cells. We previously identified a population of cytokeratin 5 (CK5) positive cells within ER+ and progesterone receptor positive (PR+) tumors that is both ER−PR− and CD44+, a marker of breast tumor-initiating cells (TICs). These CK5+ cells have properties of TICs in luminal tumor xenografts, and we speculated that they are more resistant to chemo- and anti-ER-targeted therapies than their ER+ neighbors. To test this, we used ER+PR+ T47D and MCF7 breast cancer cells. CK5+ cells had lower proliferative indices than CK5− cells, were less sensitive to 5-fluorouracil and docetaxel, and cultures became enriched for CK5+ cells after treatments. CK5+ cells were less prone to drug-induced apoptosis than CK5− cells. In cells treated with 17β-estradiol (E) plus anti-estrogens tamoxifen or fulvestrant, ER protein levels decreased, and CK5 protein levels increased, compared to controls treated with E alone. In ER+ tumors from patients treated with neoadjuvant endocrine therapies ER gene expression decreased, and CK5 gene expression increased in post compared to pre-treatment tumors. The number of CK5+ cells in tumors also increased in post- compared to pre-treatment tumors. We conclude that an ER−PR−CK5+ subpopulation found in many luminal tumors is resistant to standard endocrine and chemotherapies, relative to the majority ER+PR+CK5− cells. Compounds that effectively target these cells are needed to improve outcome in luminal breast cancers.

Bypassing estrogen receptor (ER) signaling during development of endocrine resistance remains the most common cause of disease progression and mortality in breast cancer patients. To date, the majority of molecular research on ER action in breast cancer has occurred in cell line models derived from late stage disease. Here we describe patient-derived ER + luminal breast tumor models for the study of intratumoral hormone and receptor action. Human breast tumor samples obtained from patients post surgery were immediately transplanted into NOD/SCID or NOD/SCID/ILIIrg−/− mice under estrogen supplementation. Five transplantable patient-derived ER + breast cancer xenografts were established, derived from both primary and metastatic cases. These were assessed for estrogen dependency, steroid receptor expression, cancer stem cell content, and endocrine therapy response. Gene expression patterns were determined in select tumors ±estrogen and ±endocrine therapy. Xenografts morphologically resembled the patient tumors of origin, and expressed similar levels of ER (5–99 %), and progesterone and androgen receptors, over multiple passages. Four of the tumor xenografts were estrogen dependent, and tamoxifen or estrogen withdrawal (EWD) treatment abrogated estrogen-dependent growth and/or tumor morphology. Analysis of the ER transcriptome in select tumors revealed notable differences in ER mechanism of action, and downstream activated signaling networks, in addition to identifying a small set of common estrogen-regulated genes. Treatment of a na¨ıve tumor with tamoxifen or EWD showed similar phenotypic responses, but relatively few similarities in estrogen-dependent transcription, and affected signaling pathways. Several core estrogen centric genes were shared with traditional cell line models. However, novel tumor-specific estrogen-regulated potential target genes, such as cancer/testis antigen 45, were uncovered. These results evoke the importance of mapping both conserved and tumor-unique ER programs in breast cancers. Furthermore, they underscore the importance of primary xenografts for improved understanding of ER+ breast cancer heterogeneity and development of personalized therapies.

Approximately 30% of patients with estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancers exhibit de novo or intrinsic resistance to endocrine therapies. The purpose of this study was to define genes that distinguish ER+ resistant from ER+ responsive tumors, prior to the start of hormone therapies. Previously untreated post-menopausal patients with ER+ breast cancers were treated for 4 months in a neoadjuvant setting with the aromatase inhibitor exemestane alone, or in combination with the antiestrogen tamoxifen. Matched pre- and post-treatment tumor samples from the same patient, were analyzed by gene expression profiling and were correlated with response to treatment. Genes associated with tumor shrinkage achieved by estrogen blockade therapy were identified, as were genes associated with resistance to treatment. Prediction Analysis of Microarrays (PAM) identified 50 genes that can predict response or intrinsic resistance to neoadjuvant endocrine therapy of ER+ tumors, 8 of which have been previously implicated as useful biomarkers in breast cancer. In summary, we identify genes associated with response to endocrine therapy that may distinguish ER+, hormone responsive breast cancers, from ER+ tumors that exhibit intrinsic or de novo resistance. We suggest that the estrogen signaling pathway is aberrant in ER+ tumors with intrinsic resistance. Lastly, the studies show upregulation of a "lipogenic pathway" in non-responsive ER+ tumors that may serve as a marker of intrinsic resistance. This pathway may represent an alternative target for therapeutic intervention.

No abstract

No abstract

Estrogens (E) and estrogen receptors (ER) are implicated in breast cancer growth and are targets of hormonal therapies. Such therapies commonly use aromatase inhibitors (AI) to block E production, or antiestrogens like tamoxifen (TAM), which targets ER. Here we compare genes in pre-and post-treatment tumor pairs of patients with ER+ tumors, that were treated preoperatively with the AI exemestane alone, or with exemestane plus TAM. The accompanying manuscript shows that tumors from patients treated with AI + TAM responded less well than tumors treated with AI alone. The present manuscript defines the E-signaling mechanisms underlying these differences, and describes genetic differences between hormone responsive versus intrinsically resistant ER+ tumors. Gene expression profiling was performed on paired tumor biopsies of individual patients before treatment, and after 4 months of treatment with AI or AI + TAM. Separately, E and TAM regulated genes were defined using a human breast cancer xenograft model. We demonstrate: (1) that AI alone alters global gene expression approximately 5 times more than AI + TAM, and is 11 times more effective in modifying expression of E regulated genes; (2) among E regulated genes, there is little overlap between AI and AI + TAM treatment groups. AI + TAM preferentially induce genes, like androgen receptors, expressing TAM "E-like" agonist activity, or genes uniquely regulated by TAM. (3) A pre-treatment 25 gene signature of ER+ tumors may predict response or intrinsic resistance to endocrine therapies. We conclude that in the presence of exemestane, the agonist properties of TAM are paradoxically exposed, diminishing the effectiveness of combination therapy.

BACKGROUND. Randomized trials provide evidence for improved outcomes with postmastectomy radiotherapy (PMRT) in high‐risk patients. It has been suggested that patients with T3N0 breast cancer represent a favorable subgroup for which PMRT renders little benefit. In the current study, the authors used a United States population database to evaluate PMRT in this subgroup. METHODS. The cause‐specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) of women with T3N0M0 breast cancer in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database after mastectomy and axillary staging from 1988 to 2002 were analyzed. Univariate analysis was performed to relate CSS with PMRT (yes vs no), tumor size (≤7 cm vs >7 cm), grade (1 vs 2 or 3), patient age (≤50 years vs >50 years), the number of lymph nodes dissected (≤13 vs >13), and the era treated (1988‐1997 vs 1998‐2002). Multivariate analyses for CSS and OS were also performed. RESULTS. In total, 1865 women met the analysis criteria for OS; CSS data were available for 98.8% of those women. Of the women who were diagnosed during the era from 1988 to 1997, 22% received PMRT, and that rate increased to 41% during the era from 1998 to 2002. The actuarial 10‐year CSS for those who received PMRT versus those who did not receive PMRT was 81.6% versus 79.8%, respectively (P = .38). PMRT was not associated with a CSS benefit in any subgroup, a finding that persisted in multivariate analyses. Women who received PMRT had an increased 10‐year OS rate (70.7% vs 58.4%; P < .001) that was confined to women aged >50 years in a subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS. This retrospective, population‐based analysis demonstrated no increase in CSS with PMRT for women with T3N0 breast cancer, lending further support to the hypothesis that T3N0 disease postmastectomy represents a favorable subset of locally advanced breast cancer. Theincreased OS associated with PMRT in the absence of improved CSS likely reflects patient selection in this nonrandomized dataset. Prospective evaluation of PMRT in this population subset is warranted. Cancer 2008. © 2008 American Cancer Society.

No abstract