Crossroads: the role of biomarkers in the management of lumps in the breast
PDF | Full Text | How to cite | Press Release | Video Interview
Metrics: PDF 80 views | Full Text 442 views | ?
Georg F. Weber1
1 University of Cincinnati Academic Health Center, Cincinnati, OH 45267, USA
|Georg F. Weber,||email:||[email protected]|
Keywords: breast cancer premalignant lesion; biomarker; biopsy; mammography
Received: February 28, 2023 Accepted: March 28, 2023 Published: April 24, 2023
Premalignant lesions in the breast pose a difficult decision-making problem, whether to treat proactively and accept the side effects or to engage in watchful waiting and possibly encounter a later diagnosis of invasive cancer. A biomarker or set of biomarkers to inform on the individual progression risk would be beneficial to the patient and cost-effective for the healthcare system. The gene products of tumor progression may be expressed in early non-cancerous (“premalignant”) lesions, where they are associated with a high probability for full transformation in breast cancers. One such molecule is the OPN splice variant-c. OPN-c is also present in a fraction of the premalignant lesions, where it reflects an elevated risk for progression to cancer within 5 years, regardless of the lesion’s subtype. This marker has the properties needed to facilitate decisions to treat at the premalignant stage.
Over almost 80 years since the development of the first effective cancer chemotherapies in 1946, disease management has undergone several historic changes . The principal philosophies of cancer care have evolved from initially increasingly aggressive treatments to more measured responses. Further, the focus has shifted to emphasize prevention and early detection, so as to avoid the still challenging treatment of an established cancer. In the development of applicable prevention and detection regimens, tumors of the breast have been at the forefront because of the accessibility of the organ to diagnostic procedures. Mammography and biopsies have become standard practice.
With these measures, a new problem has arisen. Women over the age of 40 years often have lumps in their breasts that are not cancerous at the time of biopsy (comprising atypias, hyperplasias, papillomas, radial scars, lobular carcinoma in situ, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)). These patients need to make the difficult decision whether to treat the lesions proactively and accept the substantial compromise in their quality of life (from surgery, radiation, or hormone therapy: Surgery often ensues for definitive diagnosis. Radiation may follow the surgical resection of DCIS by lumpectomy. Hormone therapy can come into play as a strategy for risk reduction if the estimated 5-year risk exceeds 1.6% in the Gail model ) or to engage in watchful waiting and risk a later diagnosis of invasive cancer (the proverbial sword of Damocles) [3–7]. Currently, two forms of assessment are available to facilitate making that choice: Each type of lesion is associated with broad-range estimates for progression risk. However, such prognostications of the likelihood for developing cancer are not very useful when they are provided in wide brackets, such as 30–50% for DCIS. Inspection of the lesion’s margins for microinvasion is informative but requires step sections through the biopsied tissue. The evaluation is tedious and prone to false negative results. Further, suboptimal breast localization during the procedure can cause compromised margins of the lesion to be missed.
Each type of lesion is associated with broad-range estimates for progression risk. However, such prognostications of the likelihood for developing cancer are not very useful when they are provided in wide brackets, such as 30–50% for DCIS.
Inspection of the lesion’s margins for microinvasion is informative but requires step sections through the biopsied tissue. The evaluation is tedious and prone to false negative results. Further, suboptimal breast localization during the procedure can cause compromised margins of the lesion to be missed.
A biomarker or set of biomarkers to inform on the individual progression risk would be beneficial to the patient and cost-effective for the healthcare system. (At 1.6 million biopsies per year in the US, the presumed overestimation of risk in 24% of patients leads to overtreatment of 384,000 patients per year at a cost of $61,000/patient. The presumed underestimation of risk in 21% of DCIS cases leads to missed intervention in 336,000 patients, who may return as stage 4 patients and require treatment at $135,000/year [8–10]). With a marker-based approach, relevant information is obtainable from one stained slide, not requiring step sections. Also, a less than perfect breast localization during biopsy is not detrimental to the analysis of tissue staining.
Biomarkers are either prognostic (inform on the natural course of the disease) or predictive (inform on prospective responses to treatment). Their application is useful only if the results are actionable in the clinic. The oncology literature is full of descriptions pertaining to biomarkers that associate with survival or grade. They have no practical bearing. Grade can be assessed by a pathologist without the use of markers, and the assignment to a high or low survival subgroup of an existing cancer very rarely changes the applied treatment regimen. By contrast, the prognostication of progression risk for an individual patient diagnosed with a premalignant lesion can be eminently meaningful, as it facilitates the decision whether (and how broadly) to treat preemptively or to engage in watchful waiting.
In this regard, OPN splice variants have proven useful. The cytokine OPN (short for the misnomer “Osteopontin”) has long been associated with the progression of several types of cancer, including those of the breast . Unfortunately, the extensive posttranslational modifications of the molecule together with its physiologic role in cellular immunity and its secretion into the breast milk for calcium binding have limited the biomarker potential of OPN in cancer, and specifically in breast cancer. The discovery that – beside the full-length form – alternatively spliced, shorter versions are produced by transformed cells  has opened the door for novel biomarker development. Most breast cancers produce the full-length form (OPN-a) together with the shortest splice variant (OPN-c). Remarkably, OPN-c is also present in a fraction of the premalignant lesions, where it reflects a high risk for progression to cancer within 5 years, regardless of the lesion’s subtype [13, 14]. With the simple immunohistochemical staining of the biopsied material, the individualized progression risk for that patient can be estimated with good sensitivity and specificity (Table 1), and it can lead to improved counseling.
Table 1: OPN splice specificity and sensitivity in premalignant lesions
|Healthy breasts, hyperplasias, papillomas, and carcinomas in situ from 434 women . |
|Papillomas from 114 women . |
Frequently, marker combinations have been found to be more informative than individual markers. In fact, panels have been developed for the evaluation of various breast conditions (Table 2), but the risk prediction for premalignant lesions has not yet been covered. There is opportunity for the development of panels that will aid women with such mammary lumps in deciding on how to proceed. The prognostication of progression risk with OPN-c may be combined with OPN exon 4 to evaluate survival prospects . The proliferation marker Ki-67 may serve as an additional readout for lesion aggressiveness . ER, PR, and HER2 inform on treatment choices if the decision is made in favor of preemptive action. Additional combinations are conceivable.
Table 2: Diagnostic devices for mammary transformation
|DCISionRT||Lesion size, patient age, IHC:HER2, PR, Ki67, COX2, |
p16/INK4A, FOXA1, SIAH2
|Calculate 10-year local recurrence risk||DCIS, decision on radiation therapy|
|Oncotype DX Test||Expression levels of 12 genes||Recurrence/progression risk||DCIS|
|Oncotype DX Test||Expression levels of 12 genes||Benefit from chemotherapy after surgery||DCIS|
|Oncotype DX Test||Expression levels of 21 genes||Recurrence risk||Early-stage (1–2) ER positive breast cancer, LN negative|
|Oncotype DX Test||Expression levels of 21 genes||Benefit from chemotherapy after surgery||Early-stage (1–2) ER positive breast cancer, LN negative|
|MammaPrint||Amsterdam 70-gene breast cancer gene signature||Benefit from chemotherapy||Early stage (1–2) breast cancer patients, tumor <5 cm|
|MammaPrint||Amsterdam 70-gene breast cancer gene signature||Metastasis risk (high/low)||Early stage (1–2) breast cancer patients, tumor <5 cm|
|Prosigna||Gene expression signature for 58 genes||Treatment decisions based on the risk of |
|Early-stage (1–2), hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer |
|Prosigna||Gene expression signature for 58 genes||Treatment decisions based on the risk of |
|Stage 2, <4 LN positive, hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer |
|EndoPredict||Lesion size, LN involvement, UBE2C, BIRC5, DHCR7, |
STC2, AZGP1, IL6ST, RBBP8, MGP, 4 control genes
|Risk for distant metastases, |
|Newly diagnosed, early-stage (1–2), ER positive, |
HER2 negative breast cancer
|Mammostrat||P53, HTF9C, CEACAM5, NDRG1, SLC7A5 (IHC)||Risk of metastasis and recurrence||Newly diagnosed, early stage breast cancer|
|BRCANext||18 genes associated with hereditary breast cancer||Consideration of prophylactic mastectomy||Suspicion of hereditary predisposition|
|LobSig||194-gene set||Outcome prediction||Invasive lobular carcinoma|
|GGI/MapQuantDx||97 genes involved in cell cycle regulation or proliferation||Prognostic marker and predictor of outcome||Tamoxifen-treated patients|
|Blueprint||80-gene signature||Breast cancer subtyping||Breast cancer|
|Breast Cancer Index Test||Molecular Grade Index, Genes: BUB1B, CENPA, NEK2, |
RACGAP1, RRM2, HoxB13, IL17BR
|5–10 Year recurrence risk, decision on extending |
|LN negative, hormone-receptor-positive, |
HER2 negative breast cancer, post-hormone treatment
|Guardant 360||Liquid biopsy, ALK, ATM, BRAF, BRAF V600E, BRAF V600K, |
BRCA1, BRCA2, CDK12, EGFR, ERBB2 (HER2), ESR1,
FGFR2, FGFR3, IDH1, KIT, KRAS, MET, MSI, NRAS,
NTRK, PDGFRA, PIK3CA, RET, ROS1
|Treatment decisions||Advanced stage|
The use of molecular markers in tissue staining, even though semi-quantitative when expressed as a pathology score, is likely more accurate than scores based on macroscopic variables, such as the Van Nuys Prognostic Index (tumor size, margin width, pathologic classification, and age). This index represents a score for predicting the risk of local recurrence in patients with DCIS [16, 17]. It has limited discrimination and its strongest component is the margin width after surgical resection. Biomarkers, by contrast, are applicable to biopsies without surgery.
Decades of cancer diagnosis and treatment have achieved substantial improvements. Yet, with every milestone of progress, new needs have surfaced. Breast care is privileged to have the availability of mammography and biopsy to assess the propensities of lumps. A meaningful next step needs to entail biomarker development, pointing the way toward either preemptive treatment or watchful waiting at the crossroad.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Author has no conflicts of interest to declare.
1. Weber GF. Molecular Therapies of Cancer. Switzerland: Springer. 2015.
2. Velentzis LS, Freeman V, Campbell D, Hughes S, Luo Q, Steinberg J, Egger S, Mann GB, Nickson C. Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tools for Stratifying Women into Risk Groups: A Systematic Review. Cancers (Basel). 2023; 15:1124. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15041124. [PubMed].
3. Lewin AA, Mercado CL. Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Lobular Neoplasia: Update and Easing of Guidelines. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020; 214:265–75. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.19.21991. [PubMed].
4. Catanzariti F, Avendano D, Cicero G, Garza-Montemayor M, Sofia C, Venanzi Rullo E, Ascenti G, Pinker-Domenig K, Marino MA. High-risk lesions of the breast: concurrent diagnostic tools and management recommendations. Insights Imaging. 2021; 12:63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-021-01005-6. [PubMed].
5. Tierney SN. Intraductal Papillomas. Surg Clin North Am. 2022; 102:965–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2022.08.011. [PubMed].
6. Shaaban AM, Hilton B, Clements K, Dodwell D, Sharma N, Kirwan C, Sawyer E, Maxwell A, Wallis M, Stobart H, Mylvaganam S, Litherland J, Brace-McDonnell S, et al. The presentation, management and outcome of patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) with microinvasion (invasion ≤1 mm in size)-results from the UK Sloane Project. Br J Cancer. 2022; 127:2125–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-01983-4. [PubMed].
7. Lilleborge M, Falk RS, Sørlie T, Ursin G, Hofvind S. Can breast cancer be stopped? Modifiable risk factors of breast cancer among women with a prior benign or premalignant lesion. Int J Cancer. 2021; 149:1247–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33680. [PubMed].
8. Blumen H, Fitch K, Polkus V. Comparison of Treatment Costs for Breast Cancer, by Tumor Stage and Type of Service. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2016; 9:23–32. [PubMed].
9. Chavez de Paz Villanueva C, Bonev V, Senthil M, Solomon N, Reeves ME, Garberoglio CA, Namm JP, Lum SS. Factors Associated With Underestimation of Invasive Cancer in Patients With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ: Precautions for Active Surveillance. JAMA Surg. 2017; 152:1007–14. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.2181. [PubMed].
10. Park KW, Kim SW, Han H, Park M, Han BK, Ko EY, Choi JS, Cho EY, Cho SY, Ko ES. Ductal carcinoma in situ: a risk prediction model for the underestimation of invasive breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2022; 8:8. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41523-021-00364-z. [PubMed].
11. Bellahcène A, Castronovo V. Increased expression of osteonectin and osteopontin, two bone matrix proteins, in human breast cancer. Am J Pathol. 1995; 146:95–100. [PubMed].
12. He B, Mirza M, Weber GF. An osteopontin splice variant induces anchorage independence in human breast cancer cells. Oncogene. 2006; 25:2192–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1209248. [PubMed].
13. Walaszek K, Lower EE, Ziolkowski P, Weber GF. Breast cancer risk in premalignant lesions: osteopontin splice variants indicate prognosis. Br J Cancer. 2018; 119:1259–66. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-018-0228-1. [PubMed].
14. Ziółkowski P, Woźniak M, Mansour A, An Y, Weber GF. Breast cancer risk in papilloma patients: Osteopontin splice variants indicate prognosis. Breast Cancer Res. 2022; 24:64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-022-01561-9. [PubMed].
15. Santisteban M, Reynolds C, Barr Fritcher EG, Frost MH, Vierkant RA, Anderson SS, Degnim AC, Visscher DW, Pankratz VS, Hartmann LC. Ki67: a time-varying biomarker of risk of breast cancer in atypical hyperplasia. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010; 121:431–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0534-7. [PubMed].
16. Di Saverio S, Catena F, Santini D, Ansaloni L, Fogacci T, Mignani S, Leone A, Gazzotti F, Gagliardi S, De Cataldis A, Taffurelli M. 259 Patients with DCIS of the breast applying USC/Van Nuys prognostic index: a retrospective review with long term follow up. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008; 109:405–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-007-9668-7. [PubMed].
17. Kunkiel M, Niwińska A. Assessment of the usefulness of prognostic Van Nuys Prognostic Index in the treatment in ductal carcinoma in situ in 15-year observation. Sci Rep. 2021; 11:22645. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02126-0. [PubMed].
18. Weber GF, Lett GS, Haubein NC. Osteopontin is a marker for cancer aggressiveness and patient survival. Br J Cancer. 2010; 103:861–69. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605834. [PubMed].
19. An Y FG, Xie C, Weber GF. Meta-analysis of Osteopontin splice variants in cancer. 2023.
20. Hartung F, Weber GF. RNA blood levels of osteopontin splice variants are cancer markers. Springerplus. 2013; 2:110. https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-110. [PubMed].
All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.