BackgroundFew long noncoding RNAs (lncRNAs) that act as oncogenic genes in breast cancer have been identified.MethodsOncogenic lncRNAs associated with tumourigenesis and worse survival outcomes were examined and validated in Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), respectively. Then, the potential biological functions and expression regulation of these lncRNAs were studied via bioinformatics and genome data analysis. Moreover, progressive breast cancer subtype-specific lncRNAs were investigated via high-throughput sequencing in our cohort and TCGA validation. To elucidate the mechanisms of the regulation of these lncRNAs, genomic alterations from the TCGA, Broad, Sanger and BCCRC data, as well as epigenetic modifications from GEO data, were then applied and examined to meet this objective. Finally, cell proliferation assays, flow cytometry analyses and TUNEL assays were applied to validate the oncogenic roles of these lncRNAs in vitro.ResultsA cluster of oncogenic lncRNAs that was upregulated in breast cancer tissue and was associated with worse survival outcomes was identified. These oncogenic lncRNAs are involved in regulating immune system activation and the TGF-beta and Jak-STAT signalling pathways. Moreover, TINCR, LINC00511, and PPP1R26-AS1 were identified as subtype-specific lncRNAs associated with HER-2, triple-negative and luminal B subtypes of breast cancer, respectively. The up-regulation of these oncogenic lncRNAs is mainly caused by gene amplification in the genome in breast cancer and other solid tumours. Finally, the knockdown of TINCR, DSCAM-AS1 or HOTAIR inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, increased apoptosis and inhibited cell cycle progression in vitro.ConclusionsThese findings enhance the landscape of known oncogenic lncRNAs in breast cancer and provide insights into their roles. This understanding may potentially aid in the comprehensive management of breast cancer.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12943-017-0696-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMetaplastic breast carcinoma is a rare aggressive malignant neoplasm. The purposes of this study are to review the pathologic features and clinical outcomes of metaplastic breast carcinoma compared to invasive ductal carcinoma and to evaluate the prognosis of metaplastic breast carcinoma.MethodsThe cases of 55 patients with metaplastic breast carcinomapresenting between 1991 and 2006 were analyzed and compared to the cases of 767 age-matched patients with invasive ductal carcinoma from the same time period.ResultsThe group of patients with metaplastic breast carcinoma presented with a larger tumor size, lower lymph node involvement, higher percentage of triple-negative (estrogen receptor-, progesterone receptor- and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative) cases, and Ki-67 over-expression compared with the group of patients with invasive ductal carcinoma and triple-negative invasive ductal carcinomas. Patients in the metaplastic breast carcinoma group tended to have more local (often chest wall) recurrences (P = 0.038) and distant (often lung) metastases (P = 0.001) than those in the invasive ductal carcinomas group. The prognosis of metaplastic breast carcinoma was poorer than that of invasive ductal carcinoma and triple-negative invasive ductal carcinomas; the 5-year overall survival rate was 54.5% in metaplastic breast carcinoma versus 85.1% in invasive ductal carcinoma, and 73.3% in triple-negative invasive ductal carcinomas (P <0.001). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 45.5% in metaplastic breast carcinoma versus 71.2% in invasive ductal carcinoma, and 60.3% in triple-negative invasive ductal carcinomas (P <0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed tumor size larger than 5.0 cm, lymph node involvement and Ki-67≥14% were significantly related to 5-year overall survival (P = 0.010; P = 0.010; P = 0.035) and 5-year disease-free survival (P = 0.020; P = 0.018; P = 0.049).ConclusionsMetaplastic breast carcinoma shows a poorer prognosis than both invasive ductal carcinoma and triple-negative invasive ductal carcinomas. Tumor size larger than 5.0 cm, lymph node involvement and Ki-67 ≥14% indicate a poor prognosis in patients with metaplastic breast carcinoma.

Prospective assessment of treatments known to benefit patients in global clinical trials in specific racial groups is essential.OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of adding pertuzumab to trastuzumab and docetaxel vs placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel in Asian patients with ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial enrolled 329 women with ERBB2-positive early (T2-3, N0-1, M0) or locally advanced breast cancer (T2-3, N2 or N3, M0; T4, any N, M0) and primary tumor larger than 2 cm from March 14, 2016, to March 13, 2017. Analysis of the primary end point was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.INTERVENTIONS Before surgery, patients received 4 cycles of intravenous pertuzumab (840-mg loading dose and 420-mg maintenance doses), trastuzumab (8-mg/kg loading dose and 6-mg/kg maintenance doses), and docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 ) or intravenous placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel every 3 weeks. After surgery, patients received 3 cycles of intravenous fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide followed by 13 cycles of the same intravenous anti-ERBB2 therapy (pertuzumab and trastuzumab or placebo and trastuzumab) for up to 1 year. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was independent review committee-assessed total pathologic complete response rate. The 2-sided Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, stratified by disease category and hormone receptor status, was used to compare rates between treatment groups.RESULTS In total, 329 female patients were randomized (pertuzumab, 219; and placebo, 110; mean [SD] age, 48.8 [9.5] years). In the intention-to-treat population, total pathologic complete response rates were 39.3% (86 of 219) in the pertuzumab group and 21.8% (24 of 110) in the placebo group (difference, 17.5% [95% CI, 6.9%-28.0%]; P = .001). Of the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events, there was a higher incidence of neutropenia in the pertuzumab group (83 of 218 [38.1%] vs 36 of 110 [32.7%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 10.1% of patients (22 of 218) in the pertuzumab group and 8.2% of patients (9 of 110) in the placebo group.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Treatment with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the total pathologic complete response rate vs placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel for the neoadjuvant treatment of ERBB2-positive early or locally advanced breast cancer in Asian patients. Safety data were in line with the known pertuzumab safety profile and generally comparable between treatment groups. The PEONY trial adds to the totality of data showing the benefit of the pertuzumab regimen.