The introduction of fast digital slide scanners that provide whole slide images has led to a revival of interest in image analysis applications in pathology. Segmentation of cells and nuclei is an important first step towards automatic analysis of digitized microscopy images. We therefore developed an automated nuclei segmentation method that works with hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained breast cancer histopathology images, which represent regions of whole digital slides. The procedure can be divided into four main steps: 1) pre-processing with color unmixing and morphological operators, 2) marker-controlled watershed segmentation at multiple scales and with different markers, 3) post-processing for rejection of false regions and 4) merging of the results from multiple scales. The procedure was developed on a set of 21 breast cancer cases (subset A) and tested on a separate validation set of 18 cases (subset B). The evaluation was done in terms of both detection accuracy (sensitivity and positive predictive value) and segmentation accuracy (Dice coefficient). The mean estimated sensitivity for subset A was 0.875 (±0.092) and for subset B 0.853 (±0.077). The mean estimated positive predictive value was 0.904 (±0.075) and 0.886 (±0.069) for subsets A and B, respectively. For both subsets, the distribution of the Dice coefficients had a high peak around 0.9, with the vast majority of segmentations having values larger than 0.8.

Molecular subtyping of breast cancer by gene expression has proven its significance in females. Immunohistochemical surrogates have been used for this classification, because gene expression profiling is not yet routinely feasible. Male breast cancer is rare and large series are lacking. In this study, we used immunohistochemistry for molecular subtyping of male breast cancer. A total of 134 cases of male breast cancer were immunohistochemically stained on tissue microarrays for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), HER2 and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), as well as for CK5/6, CK14, and Ki67. HER2 was also assessed by chromogen in situ hybridization. Cases were classified as luminal A (ER+ and/or PR+, and HER2- and Ki67 low), luminal B (ER+ and/or PR+, and HER2+ or Ki67 high), HER2 driven (ER-, PR-, HER2+), basal-like (ER-, PR-, HER2-, CK5/6+ and/or CK14+ and/or EGFR+), or unclassifiable triple-negative (negative for all six markers). Luminal type A was by far the most encountered type of male breast cancers, representing 75% of the cases. Luminal type B was seen in 21% and the remaining 4% of cases were classified as basal-like (n=4) and unclassifiable triple-negative (n=1). No HER2 driven cases were identified. Patients with basal-like cancer were significantly younger (P=0.034). Luminal B type cancers showed significantly higher histological grade (P<0.001), mitotic index (P<0.001), and PR negativity (P=0.005) compared with luminal type A cancers. In conclusion, most male breast cancers are luminal A and luminal B types, whereas basal-like, unclassifiable triple-negative, and HER2 driven male breast cancers are rare. Luminal type B seem to represent a subtype with an aggressive phenotype. This distribution of molecular subtypes in male breast cancer is clearly different compared with female breast cancers, pointing to possible important differences in carcinogenesis.

Numerous studies have shown the prognostic significance of nuclear morphometry in breast cancer patients. Wide acceptance of morphometric methods has, however, been hampered by the tedious and time consuming nature of the manual segmentation of nuclei and the lack of equipment for high throughput digitization of slides. Recently, whole slide imaging became more affordable and widely available, making fully digital pathology archives feasible. In this study, we employ an automatic nuclei segmentation algorithm to extract nuclear morphometry features related to size and we analyze their prognostic value in male breast cancer. The study population comprised 101 male breast cancer patients for whom survival data was available (median follow-up of 5.7 years). Automatic segmentation was performed on digitized tissue microarray slides, and for each patient, the mean nuclear area and the standard deviation of the nuclear area were calculated. In univariate survival analysis, a significant difference was found between patients with low and high mean nuclear area (P ¼ 0.022), while nuclear atypia score did not provide prognostic value. In Cox regression, mean nuclear area had independent additional prognostic value (P ¼ 0.032) to tumor size and tubule formation. In conclusion, we present an automatic method for nuclear morphometry and its application in male breast cancer prognosis. The automatically extracted mean nuclear area proved to be a significant prognostic indicator. With the increasing availability of slide scanning equipment in pathology labs, these kinds of quantitative approaches can be easily integrated in the workflow of routine pathology practice.

Gene amplification is an important mechanism for oncogene activation, a crucial step in carcinogenesis. Compared to female breast cancer, little is known on the genetic makeup of male breast cancer, because large series are lacking. Copy number changes of 21 breast cancer related genes were studied in 110 male breast cancers using multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. A ratio of >1.3 was regarded indicative for gene copy number gain and a ratio >2.0 for gene amplification. Data were correlated with clinicopathological features, prognosis and 17 genes were compared with a group of female breast cancers. Gene copy number gain of CCND1, TRAF4, CDC6 and MTDH was seen in >40 % of the male breast cancer cases, with also frequent amplification. The number of genes with copy number gain and several single genes were associated with high grade, but only CCND1 amplification was an independent predictor of adverse survival in Cox regression (p = 0.015; hazard ratio 3.0). In unsupervised hierarchical clustering a distinctive group of male breast cancer with poor prognosis (p = 0.009; hazard ratio 3.4) was identified, characterized by frequent CCND1, MTDH, CDC6, ADAM9, TRAF4 and MYC copy number gain. Compared to female breast cancers, EGFR (p = 0.005) and CCND1 (p = 0.041) copy number gain was more often seen in male breast cancer, while copy number gain of EMSY (p = 0.004) and CPD (p = 0.001) and amplification in general was less frequent. In conclusion, several female breast cancer genes also seem to be important in male breast carcinogenesis. However, there are also clear differences in copy number changes between male and female breast cancers, pointing toward differences in carcinogenesis between male and female breast cancer and emphasizing the importance of identifying biomarkers and therapeutic agents based on research in male breast cancer. In addition CCND1 amplification seems to be an independent prognosticator in male breast cancer.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10549-012-2051-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionEpigenetic events are, along with genetic alteration, important in the development and progression of cancer. Promoter hypermethylation causes gene silencing and is thought to be an early event in carcinogenesis. The role of promoter hypermethylation in male breast cancer has not yet been studied.MethodsIn a group of 108 male breast cancers, the methylation status of 25 genes was studied using methylation-specific multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification. Methylation of more than 15% was regarded indicative for promoter hypermethylation. Methylation status was correlated with clinicopathological features, with patients' outcome and with 28 female breast cancer cases.ResultsPromoter hypermethylation of the genes MSH6, WT1, PAX5, CDH13, GATA5 and PAX6 was seen in more than 50% of the cases, but was uncommon or absent in normal male breast tissue. High overall methylation status was correlated with high grade (P = 0.003) and was an independent predictor of poor survival (P = 0.048; hazard ratio 2.5). ESR1 and GSTP1 hypermethylation were associated with high mitotic count (P = 0.037 and P = 0.002, respectively) and high grade (both P = 0.001). No correlation with survival was seen for individual genes. Compared with female breast cancers (logistic regression), promoter hypermethylation was less common in a variety of genes, particularly ESR1 (P = 0.005), BRCA1 (P = 0.010) and BRCA2 (P < 0.001). The most frequently hypermethylated genes (MSH6, CDH13, PAX5, PAX6 and WT1) were similar for male and female breast cancer.ConclusionPromoter hypermethylation is common in male breast cancer and high methylation status correlates with aggressive phenotype and poor survival. ESR1 and GSTP1 promoter hypermethylation seem to be involved in development and/or progression of high-grade male breast cancer. Although female and male breast cancer share a set of commonly methylated genes, many of the studied genes are less frequently methylated in male breast cancer, pointing towards possible differences between male and female breast carcinogenesis.

Several tissue biomarkers are associated with an aggressive phenotype in male breast cancer. PR and p53 are the most promising individual prognostic markers. On the basis of immunophenotype, four distinctive and prognostically relevant male breast cancer groups were identified, indicating that protein expression profiling may be clinically useful in male breast cancer.

Male breast cancer (MBC) is extremely rare and accounts for less than 1% of all breast malignancies. Therefore, clinical management of MBC is currently guided by research on the disease in females. In this study, DNA obtained from 45 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) MBCs with and 90 MBCs (52 FFPE and 38 fresh-frozen) without matched normal tissues was subjected to massively parallel sequencing targeting all exons of 1943 cancer-related genes. The landscape of mutations and copy number alterations was compared to that of publicly available estrogen receptor (ER)-positive female breast cancers (smFBCs) and correlated to prognosis. From the 135 MBCs, 90% showed ductal histology, 96% were ER-positive, 66% were progesterone receptor (PR)-positive, and 2% HER2-positive, resulting in 50, 46 and 4% luminal A-like, luminal B-like and basal-like cases, respectively. Five patients had Klinefelter syndrome (4%) and 11% of patients harbored pathogenic BRCA2 germline mutations. The genomic landscape of MBC to some extent recapitulated that of smFBC, with recurrent PIK3CA (36%) and GATA3 (15%) somatic mutations, and with 40% of the most frequently amplified genes overlapping between both sexes. TP53 (3%) somatic mutations were significantly less frequent in MBC compared to smFBC, whereas somatic mutations in genes regulating chromatin function and homologous recombination deficiency-related signatures were more prevalent. MDM2 amplifications were frequent (13%), correlated with protein overexpression (P = 0.001) and predicted poor outcome (P = 0.007). In conclusion, despite similarities in the genomic landscape between MBC and smFBC, MBC is a molecularly unique and heterogeneous disease requiring its own clinical trials and treatment guidelines.

Gynecomastia is the most common abnormality in the male breast and has been associated with male breast cancer, but whether there is an etiological role remains unknown. In the present study we conducted an immunohistochemical investigation to further characterize gynecomastia. A total of 46 cases of gynecomastia were immunohistochemically stained on tissue microarrays for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor, HER2, androgen receptor, cytokeratins (CK5, CK14, CK7, and CK8/18), p63, E-cadherin, BRST2, cyclin D1, Bcl-2, p53, p16, p21, and Ki67. In addition, 8 cases of male ductal carcinoma in situ and normal breast tissue obtained from autopsies (n=10) and adjacent to male breast cancer (n=5) were studied. Normal ductal male breast epithelial cells were very often ER and Bcl-2 positive (>69%), and progesterone receptor and androgen receptor expression was also common (>39%). Gynecomastia showed a consistent 3-layered pattern: 1 myoepithelial and 2 epithelial cell layers with a distinctive immunohistochemical staining pattern. The intermediate luminal layer, consisting of vertically oriented cuboidal-to-columnar cells, is hormone receptor positive and expresses Bcl-2 and cyclin D1. The inner luminal layer is composed of smaller cells expressing CK5 and often CK14 but is usually negative for hormone receptors and Bcl-2. Male ductal carcinoma in situ was consistently ER positive and CK5/CK14 negative. In conclusion, for the first time we describe the 3-layered ductal epithelium in gynecomastia, which has a distinctive immunohistochemical profile. These results indicate that different cellular compartments exist in gynecomastia, and therefore gynecomastia does not seem to be an obligate precursor lesion of male breast cancer.