Breast cancers (BCs) of the luminal B subtype are estrogen receptor-positive (ER+), highly proliferative, resistant to standard therapies and have a poor prognosis. To better understand this subtype we compared DNA copy number aberrations (CNAs), DNA promoter methylation, gene expression profiles, and somatic mutations in nine selected genes, in 32 luminal B tumors with those observed in 156 BCs of the other molecular subtypes. Frequent CNAs included 8p11-p12 and 11q13.1-q13.2 amplifications, 7q11.22-q34, 8q21.12-q24.23, 12p12.3-p13.1, 12q13.11-q24.11, 14q21.1-q23.1, 17q11.1-q25.1, 20q11.23-q13.33 gains and 6q14.1-q24.2, 9p21.3-p24,3, 9q21.2, 18p11.31-p11.32 losses. A total of 237 and 101 luminal B-specific candidate oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) presented a deregulated expression in relation with their CNAs, including 11 genes previously reported associated with endocrine resistance. Interestingly, 88% of the potential TSGs are located within chromosome arm 6q, and seven candidate oncogenes are potential therapeutic targets. A total of 100 candidate oncogenes were validated in a public series of 5,765 BCs and the overexpression of 67 of these was associated with poor survival in luminal tumors. Twenty-four genes presented a deregulated expression in relation with a high DNA methylation level. FOXO3, PIK3CA and TP53 were the most frequent mutated genes among the nine tested. In a meta-analysis of next-generation sequencing data in 875 BCs, KCNB2 mutations were associated with luminal B cases while candidate TSGs MDN1 (6q15) and UTRN (6q24), were mutated in this subtype. In conclusion, we have reported luminal B candidate genes that may play a role in the development and/or hormone resistance of this aggressive subtype.

BackgroundInflammatory breast cancer (IBC) is the most aggressive form of locally-advanced breast cancer. Identification of new therapeutic targets is crucial. We previously reported MARCKS mRNA overexpression in IBC in the largest transcriptomics study reported to date. Here, we compared MARCKS protein expression in IBC and non-IBC samples, and searched for correlations between protein expression and clinicopathological features.ResultsTumor samples showed heterogeneity with respect to MARCKS staining: 18% were scored as MARCKS-positive (stained cells ≥ 1%) and 82% as MARCKS-negative. MARCKS expression was more frequent in IBC (36%) than in non-IBC (11%; p = 1.4E−09), independently from molecular subtypes and other clinicopathological variables. We found a positive correlation between protein and mRNA expression in the 148/502 samples previously analyzed for MARCKS mRNA expression. MARCKS protein expression was associated with other poor-prognosis features in the whole series of samples such as clinical axillary lymph node or metastatic extension, high pathological grade, ER-negativity, PR-negativity, HER2-positivity, and triple-negative and HER2+ statutes. In IBC, MARCKS expression was the sole tested variable associated with poor MFS.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed MARCKS protein expression by immunohistochemistry in 502 tumors, including 133 IBC and 369 non-IBC, from Tunisian and French patients. All samples were pre-therapeutic clinical samples. We searched for correlations between MARCKS expression and clinicopathological features including the IBC versus non-IBC phenotype and metastasis-free survival (MFS).ConclusionsMARCKS overexpression might in part explain the poor prognosis of IBC. As an oncogene associated with poor MFS, MARCKS might represent a new potential therapeutic target in IBC.