This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Roylance, R. Articles by Sheer, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Roylance, R. Articles by Sheer, D.

Comparative Genomic Hybridization of Breast Tumors Stratified by Histological Grade Reveals New Insights into the Biological Progression of Breast Cancer

Human Cytogenetics Laboratory, Imperial Cancer Research Fund, London WC2A 3PX [R. R., P. G., D. S.], and Hedley Atkins/ICRF Breast Pathology Laboratory, Guy’s Hospital, London SE1 9RT [W. H., R. L., D. B., A. H.], United Kingdom

	ABSTRACT

Top ABSTRACT Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion REFERENCES

 
How does breast cancer progress? There is evidence both to support (S. W. Duffy et al., Br. J. Cancer, 64: 1133–1138, 1991; R. Rajakariar et al., Br. J. Cancer, 71: 150–154, 1995) and refute (M. Hakama et al., Lancet, 345: 221–224, 1995; R. R. Millis et al., Eur. J. Cancer, 34: 548–553, 1998) the hypothesis of dedifferentiation; the theory that as breast cancers grow they evolve from well differentiated (grade I) to poorly differentiated (grade III) tumors. We provide evidence to support the view that the majority of grade I tumors do not progress to grade III tumors. Comparative genomic hybridization was used to screen entire genomes of a large sample (40 grade I and 50 grade III) of invasive ductal breast carcinomas, stratified by grade. We found distinct genetic differences between grade I and grade III tumors. Significantly, we found that 65% of grade I tumors lost the long arm of chromosome 16 compared with only 16% of grade III tumors. This pattern of loss leads us to conclude that the majority of grade I tumors do not progress to grade III tumors. These findings have important implications because they suggest that different breast tumor grades may have distinct molecular origins, pathogenesis, and behavior and, therefore, potentially present distinct molecular targets for research and treatment.

	Introduction

Top ABSTRACT Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion REFERENCES

 
Although considerable progress has been made in elucidating the genetic events that underlie the progression of many malignancies (1 , 2) those involved in breast cancer progression are poorly understood. Furthermore, the relationship between histological progression and genetic events in breast cancer is not well defined. Studies have begun to examine the genotype-phenotype relationship in carcinoma in situ and disease progression (3 , 4) , and in metastatic progression (5) . However, this has only been possible because there are distinct phenotypes with known biology to study. In our understanding of invasive breast cancer, there is a paucity of data relating genotype to phenotype that is compounded by the uncertainty regarding phenotypic progression.

Up to 70% of breast carcinomas are classified as ductal carcinoma of no special type. In a system originally devised by Scarff, Bloom, and Richardson, histological assessment of nuclear pleomorphism, mitotic activity, and tubule formation allows further subdivision by grade (6) . Using such a classification, grade I tumors have well differentiated attributes and grade III tumors have poorly differentiated attributes, whereas grade II tumors fall into an intermediate category. Although these phenotypic appearances provide a guide to tumor behavior (6) , they do not necessarily relate directly to biological progression. Indeed, there is considerable controversy regarding biological progression. One hypothesis suggests that as tumors grow they become dedifferentiated in terms of grade (i.e., grade I tumors become grade III tumors over time; Ref. 7 ). We set out to test the pathological hypothesis of dedifferentiation by taking a novel genetic approach. CGH² was used to screen the entire genomes of 90 invasive ductal breast carcinomas, which were stratified by grade (40 grade I and 50 grade III tumors). If dedifferentiation occurs, we expected to find genetic changes in grade I tumors that were a subset of those found in grade III tumors.

	Materials and Methods

Top ABSTRACT Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion REFERENCES

 
Patients.
Tumors and blood samples were collected from breast cancer patients treated by the Breast Group at Guy’s Hospital (London, United Kingdom) between 1988 and 1996. All information regarding the tumors was recorded by the group’s pathology laboratory. Tumors were graded using the Nottingham modified criteria of Scarff, Bloom, and Richardson (6) . Samples were reviewed by the pathologists (A. H. and R. L.) to confirm tumor grade and to determine the proportion of admixed benign cells. All grade III tumors showed at least 75% tumor cells, although some grade I tumors had more contaminating benign tissue (up to 50%). DNA was extracted from frozen tumor specimens and blood samples using a modification of a standard phenol chloroform extraction method.

CGH.
CGH was performed with minor modifications of a standard protocol (8) . Briefly, tumor and reference DNA were labeled by nick translation. Approximately 1 µg each of fluorescein-labeled tumor and Texas red-labeled reference DNA were coprecipitated in the presence of 50 µg of human Cot I DNA and resuspended in hybridization mix [50% formamide, 10% dextran sulfate, and 2 x SSC (pH 7.0)] before hybridization to denatured human metaphase chromosome spreads, prepared from phytohaemaglutinin-stimulated lymphocytes from normal individuals. After hybridization for 72 h, the slides were washed and counterstained with 4,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, which gives a banding pattern resembling G-bands. Images were captured with a cooled charge-coupled device camera attached to a Zeiss axioskop microscope and then analyzed using Quips software (Vysis, Inc., Downers Grove, IL). Between 5–10 metaphases were analyzed for each tumor. A chromosome region was considered to be lost if the mean hybridization ratio between tumor and normal was <0.85:1 or gained if the ratio was >1.15:1. These cutoff values were determined based on negative control hybridizations (with normal male versus normal female DNA), which showed the mean hybridization ratio, and its SD remained within these limits for all of the autosomes. For the X chromosome, the mean hybridization ratio was below 0.6. Negative control hybridizations were included in each batch of experiments.

	Results and Discussion

Top ABSTRACT Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion REFERENCES

 
We characterized the genetic changes in a sample of 90 invasive ductal breast carcinomas stratified by grade (40 grade I and 50 grade III carcinomas). Fig. 1 shows the gains and losses seen in all of the tumors. The different grades of breast tumor exhibited distinct genetic differences. Three grade I tumors showed no genetic changes at all, whereas all grade III tumors showed at least one change. Several genetic regions were unaffected by either gain or loss in the grade I tumors; however, no region of the genome was unaffected in the grade III tumors. The mean number of changes in grade I tumors was 5.4 (range, 0–14), compared with 13.8 (range, 1–33) in grade III tumors. The frequency of gains and losses seen in grade I and grade III breast tumors is shown in Fig. 2 . In the grade I tumors, only four regions of change were commonly seen [gains of 1q (70%), 16p (45%), and 8q (30%) and loss of 16q (65%)], whereas many regions were commonly affected in the grade III tumors. The most common regions of gain were 1q (70%), 8q (68%), 17q (46%), 20q (38%), and 16p (34%); common regions of loss were 8p (42%), 11q (42%), 13q (42%), 1p (36%), and 18q (32%). The greatest difference seen between grades was loss of 16q. Sixty-five percent of grade I tumors showed loss of the long arm of chromosome 16, whereas only 16% of grade III tumors showed this change (Fig. 2) .

View larger version (37K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Fig. 1. Chromosomal aberrations detected by CGH in breast carcinomas. Top, gains and losses of genetic material in 40 grade I breast carcinomas. Gains are represented by bars to the right of the chromosomal ideograms, and losses are represented by bars to the left; standard thresholds for gains and losses are used (see "Materials and Methods"). Each bar represents data from a single tumor; three tumors had no changes and are not represented. Bottom, data from 50 grade III breast carcinomas, represented in the same way. All tumors showed at least one change.

View larger version (26K): [in this window] [in a new window] [Download PPT slide]   Fig. 2. Frequency of chromosomal aberrations in breast carcinomas. Top, chromosomal aberrations in grade I breast carcinomas. Each bar on the X axis represents either the short arm () or long arm () of each chromosome. The size of each bar represents the percentage of tumors showing that particular aberration. Gains are represented as positive changes, and losses are represented as negative changes. Bottom, chromosomal aberrations in grade III breast carcinomas depicted in the same way. The difference between the top and bottom graphs with regard to loss of chromosome 16q is clearly apparent.

Loss of 16q clearly plays an important role in tumorigenesis, although the specific function played by deletion of this region is uncertain. Loss of heterozygosity studies of primary breast tumors have identified three minimal regions of deletion (16q22.1, 16q23.2–24.1, and 16q24.3), suggesting the presence of possible tumor suppressor genes (11) . A candidate gene for the region 16q24.3 is the cadherin gene, CDH15 (12) , although its expression in breast tissue is not yet confirmed. Within the 16q21–22.1 region there are an additional five cadherin genes (12) . Because disturbance of cell-cell interactions, in which the cadherins are involved, is necessary for invasion and metastasis of tumor cells, all of the cadherins are potential tumor suppressor genes. Of particular interest is the cadherin gene CDH1, which maps to 16q22.1. Although it lies outside the minimal area of deletion (13) , it is known to play an important role in lobular breast carcinomas (14) , whereas its role in ductal carcinomas remains to be established. Another candidate tumor suppressor gene for the region 16q22.1 is CTCF (13) , which has recently been identified and shown to encode a transcription factor with binding sites in a number of genes including MYC and the POLO-like kinase genes. It is envisaged that abnormalities of CTCF could lead to dysregulated expression of these target genes, resulting in a positive effect on cell proliferation.

Previous studies have led to the belief that loss of 16q is an early change in breast tumorigenesis. Some evidence for this is from CGH analyses, which have shown 16q loss occurs either as a sole change or in association with only a few chromosomal changes (9) . Our findings in grade I tumors confirm these earlier results by showing that loss of 16q occurs predominantly in association with gain of 1q, and in association with only a few other changes (mean number of changes, 3.9), although it was never a sole abnormality in our study. The finding of 16q loss in association with 1q gain is interesting because this is consistent with cytogenetic data that have found der(1;16)(q10;p10) unbalanced translocations in breast cancer (15) . However, the grade III tumors that showed 16q loss had a completely different pattern with many other chromosomal abnormalities present (mean number of changes, 15.5), and none with just gain of 1q, thus, suggesting that 16q loss may be an early change only in grade I tumors and that other genetic changes are important for most grade III tumors.

Gains of 8q, 17q, and 20q are changes that have been reported previously as frequent findings in breast cancer (16) . However, we found these to be frequent changes only in grade III tumors (see Fig. 2 ). In grade I tumors, gains of 17q and 20q were seen in only four tumors each. Interestingly, gains of 8q and 20q occurred predominantly in grade III tumors, which are known to have a poorer prognosis (6) , supporting previous findings correlating these changes with a shorter overall survival and more aggressive phenotype (17) . The findings in grade I tumors of predominant loss of 16q without high frequency gain of 8q and 20q are very similar to changes found in lobular breast carcinomas (18) . This leads us to speculate that at the molecular level the origins of these apparently morphologically different breast tumors may be very similar.

Our findings have important implications for the biological study of breast tumors. Most genetic studies to date have analyzed breast tumors as a homogeneous group, without specifically considering grade. As the present study shows, a prerequisite for a meaningful description of grade-specific changes is the selection of a large number of tumors for study. Grade I tumors comprise only 12% of all invasive ductal breast carcinomas (6) . Changes that are very prevalent within a subgroup may, therefore, be missed, or their significance diluted, when the whole group is considered. This may explain why previous CGH studies have found loss of 16q ranging from 24–38% in breast tumors (5 , 9 , 17) and why the importance of gains of 17q and 20q have been overestimated.

In conclusion, this study shows the use of taking a genetic approach to make inferences about the biological progression of breast cancer. By studying a large sample stratified by histological grade, our findings show that the majority of grade I tumors do not progress to grade III tumors. Breast cancer seems to show a more complex biological behavior than simple progression through histological grades. Therefore, different grades may present discrete therapeutic targets. We suggest that a complete understanding of the genetic events that underlie breast tumorigenesis requires a full appreciation of the relationship between genetic events and histological grade.

	ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 
We thank Drs. I. Tomlinson, M. Fried, and C. Dickson for helpful comments during the preparation of this manuscript.

	FOOTNOTES

 
The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

¹ To whom requests for reprints should be addressed, at Human Cytogenetics Laboratory, Imperial Cancer Research Fund, P.O Box 123, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PX, United Kingdom. Phone: 44-171-269-3220; Fax: 44-171-269-3655; E-mail: sheer{at}icrf.icnet.uk

² The abbreviation used is: CGH, comparative genomic hybridization.

Received 12/11/98. Accepted 2/15/99.

	REFERENCES

Top ABSTRACT Introduction Materials and Methods Results and Discussion REFERENCES

 

1. Heselmeyer K., Schrock E., du Manoir S., Blegen H., Shah K., Steinbeck R., Auer G., Ried T. Gain of chromosome 3q defines the transition from severe dysplasia to invasive carcinoma of the uterine cervix. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 93: 479-484, 1996.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
2. Weber R. G., Bostrom J., Wolter M., Baudis M., Collins V. P., Reifenberger G., Lichter P. Analysis of genomic alterations in benign, atypical, and anaplastic meningiomas: toward a genetic model of meningioma progression. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 94: 14719-14724, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
3. Kuukasjarvi T., Tanner M., Pennanen S., Karhu R., Kallioniemi O. P., Isola J. Genetic changes in intraductal breast cancer detected by comparative genomic hybridization. Am. J. Pathol., 150: 1465-1471, 1997.[Abstract]
4. Lu Y. J., Osin P., Lakhani S. R., Di Palma S., Gusterson B. A., Shipley J. M. Comparative genomic hybridization analysis of lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical lobular hyperplasia and potential roles for gains and losses of genetic material in breast neoplasia. Cancer Res., 58: 4721-4727, 1998.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
5. Kuukasjarvi T., Karhu R., Tanner M., Kahkonen M., Schaffer A., Nupponen N., Pennanen S., Kallioniemi A., Kallioniemi O. P., Isola J. Genetic heterogeneity and clonal evolution underlying development of asynchronous metastasis in human breast cancer. Cancer Res., 57: 1597-1604, 1997.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
6. Elston C. W., Gresham G. A., Rao G. S., Zebro T., Haybittle J. L., Houghton J., Kearney G. The Cancer Research Campaign (King’s/Cambridge) trial for early breast cancer: clinico-pathological aspects. Br. J. Cancer, 45: 655-669, 1982.[Medline]
7. Tabar L., Fagerberg G., Chen H. H., Duffy S. W., Gad A. Tumor development, histology and grade of breast cancers: prognosis and progression. Int. J. Cancer, 66: 413-419, 1996.[Medline]
8. Kallioniemi O. P., Kallioniemi A., Piper J., Isola J., Waldman F. M., Gray J. W., Pinkel D. Optimizing comparative genomic hybridization for analysis of DNA sequence copy number changes in solid tumors. Genes Chromosomes Cancer, 10: 231-243, 1994.[Medline]
9. Tirkkonen M., Tanner M., Karhu R., Kallioniemi A., Isola J., Kallioniemi O. P. Molecular cytogenetics of primary breast cancer by CGH. Genes Chromosomes Cancer, 21: 177-184, 1998.[Medline]
10. Millis R. R., Barnes D. M., Lampejo O. T., Egan M. K., Smith P. Tumor grade does not change between primary and recurrent mammary carcinoma. Eur. J. Cancer, 34: 548-553, 1998.
11. Whitmore S. A., Crawford J., Apostolou S., Eyre H., Baker E., Lower K. M., Settasatian C., Goldup S., Seshadri R., Gibson R. A., Mathew C. G., Cleton-Jansen A. M., Savoia A., Pronk J. C., Auerbach A. D., Doggett N. A., Sutherland G. R., Callen D. F. Construction of a high-resolution physical and transcription map of chromosome 16q24.3: a region of frequent loss of heterozygosity in sporadic breast-cancer. Genomics, 50: 1-8, 1998.[Medline]
12. Kremmidiotis G., Baker E., Crawford J., Eyre H. J., Nahmias J., Callen D. F. Localization of human cadherin genes to chromosome regions exhibiting cancer-related loss of heterozygosity. Genomics, 49: 467-471, 1998.[Medline]
13. Filippova G. N., Lindblom A., Meincke L. J., Klenova E. M., Neiman P. E., Collins S. J., Doggett N. A., Lobanenkov V. V. A widely expressed transcription factor with multiple DNA sequence specificity, CTCF, is localized at chromosome segment 16q22.1 within one of the smallest regions of overlap for common deletions in breast and prostate cancers. Genes Chromosomes Cancer, 22: 26-36, 1998.[Medline]
14. Berx G., Cleton-Jansen A. M., Nollet F., de Leeuw W. J., van de Vijver M. J., Cornelisse C., van Roy F. E-cadherin is a tumor/invasion suppressor gene mutated in human lobular breast cancers. EMBO J., 14: 6107-6115, 1995.[Medline]
15. Kokalj-Vokac N., Alemeida A., Gerbault-Seureau M., Malfoy B., Dutrillaux B. Two-color FISH characterization of i(1q) and der(1;16) in human breast cancer cells. Genes Chromosomes Cancer, 7: 8-14, 1993.[Medline]
16. Kallioniemi A., Kallioniemi O. P., Piper J., Tanner M., Stokke T., Chen L., Smith H. S., Pinkel D., Gray J. W., Waldman F. M. Detection and mapping of amplified DNA sequences in breast cancer by comparative genomic hybridization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 91: 2156-2160, 1994.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
17. Isola J. J., Kallioniemi O. P., Chu L. W., Fuqua S. A. W., Hilsenbeck S. G., Osborne C. K., Waldman F. M. Genetic aberrations detected by comparative genomic hybridization predict outcome in node-negative breast cancer. Am. J. Pathol., 147: 905-911, 1995.[Abstract]
18. Nishizaki T., Chew K., Chu L., Isola J., Kallioniemi A., Weidner N., Waldman F. M. Genetic alterations in lobular breast cancer by comparative genomic hybridization. Int. J. Cancer, 74: 513-517, 1997.[Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Natrajan, M. B. Lambros, S. M. Rodriguez-Pinilla, G. Moreno-Bueno, D. S.P. Tan, C. Marchio, R. Vatcheva, S. Rayter, B. Mahler-Araujo, L. G. Fulford, et al. Tiling Path Genomic Profiling of Grade 3 Invasive Ductal Breast Cancers Clin. Cancer Res., April 15, 2009; 15(8): 2711 - 2722. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. Ellsworth, A. Vertrees, B. Love, J. A. Hooke, D. L. Ellsworth, and C. D. Shriver Chromosomal Alterations Associated with the Transition from In Situ to Invasive Breast Cancer Ann. Surg. Oncol., September 1, 2008; 15(9): 2519 - 2525. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Melchor and J. Benitez An integrative hypothesis about the origin and development of sporadic and familial breast cancer subtypes Carcinogenesis, August 1, 2008; 29(8): 1475 - 1482. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E Korsching, S S Jeffrey, W Meinerz, T Decker, W Boecker, and H Buerger Basal carcinoma of the breast revisited: an old entity with new interpretations J. Clin. Pathol., May 1, 2008; 61(5): 553 - 560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Melchor, E. Honrado, J. Huang, S. Alvarez, T. L. Naylor, M. J. Garcia, A. Osorio, D. Blesa, M. R. Stratton, B. L. Weber, et al. Estrogen Receptor Status Could Modulate the Genomic Pattern in Familial and Sporadic Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2007; 13(24): 7305 - 7313. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L Da Silva, C Clarke, and S R Lakhani Demystifying basal-like breast carcinomas J. Clin. Pathol., December 1, 2007; 60(12): 1328 - 1332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. W. Jenner, P. E. Leone, B. A. Walker, F. M. Ross, D. C. Johnson, D. Gonzalez, L. Chiecchio, E. Dachs Cabanas, G. Paolo Dagrada, M. Nightingale, et al. Gene mapping and expression analysis of 16q loss of heterozygosity identifies WWOX and CYLD as being important in determining clinical outcome in multiple myeloma Blood, November 1, 2007; 110(9): 3291 - 3300. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Nakopoulou, E. G Panayotopoulou, I. Giannopoulou, I. Tsirmpa, S. Katsarou, E. Mylona, P. Alexandrou, and A. Keramopoulos Extra copies of chromosomes 16 and X in invasive breast carcinomas are related to aggressive phenotype and poor prognosis J. Clin. Pathol., July 1, 2007; 60(7): 808 - 815. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. V. Ivshina, J. George, O. Senko, B. Mow, T. C. Putti, J. Smeds, T. Lindahl, Y. Pawitan, P. Hall, H. Nordgren, et al. Genetic Reclassification of Histologic Grade Delineates New Clinical Subtypes of Breast Cancer Cancer Res., November 1, 2006; 66(21): 10292 - 10301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Dolled-Filhart, L. Ryden, M. Cregger, K. Jirstrom, M. Harigopal, R. L. Camp, and D. L. Rimm Classification of breast cancer using genetic algorithms and tissue microarrays. Clin. Cancer Res., November 1, 2006; 12(21): 6459 - 6468. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Melchor, S. Alvarez, E. Honrado, J. Palacios, A. Barroso, O. Diez, A. Osorio, and J. Benitez The Accumulation of Specific Amplifications Characterizes Two Different Genomic Pathways of Evolution of Familial Breast Tumors Clin. Cancer Res., December 15, 2005; 11(24): 8577 - 8584. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J Packeisen, K Nakachi, W Boecker, B Brandt, and H Buerger Cytogenetic differences in breast cancer samples between German and Japanese patients J. Clin. Pathol., October 1, 2005; 58(10): 1101 - 1103. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. Arnes, J.-S. Brunet, I. Stefansson, L. R. Begin, N. Wong, P. O. Chappuis, L. A. Akslen, and W. D. Foulkes Placental Cadherin and the Basal Epithelial Phenotype of BRCA1-Related Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2005; 11(11): 4003 - 4011. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. W. M. Loo, D. I. Grove, E. M. Williams, C. L. Neal, L. A. Cousens, E. L. Schubert, I. N. Holcomb, H. F. Massa, J. Glogovac, C. I. Li, et al. Array Comparative Genomic Hybridization Analysis of Genomic Alterations in Breast Cancer Subtypes Cancer Res., December 1, 2004; 64(23): 8541 - 8549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. Jones, E. Ford, C. Gillett, K. Ryder, S. Merrett, J. S. Reis-Filho, L. G. Fulford, A. Hanby, and S. R. Lakhani Molecular Cytogenetic Identification of Subgroups of Grade III Invasive Ductal Breast Carcinomas with Different Clinical Outcomes Clin. Cancer Res., September 15, 2004; 10(18): 5988 - 5997. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M Lacroix, R-A Toillon, and G Leclercq Stable 'portrait' of breast tumors during progression: data from biology, pathology and genetics Endocr. Relat. Cancer, September 1, 2004; 11(3): 497 - 522. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. S. Hwang, S. DeVries, K. L. Chew, D. H. Moore II, K. Kerlikowske, A. Thor, B.-M. Ljung, and F. M. Waldman Patterns of Chromosomal Alterations in Breast Ductal Carcinoma In situ Clin. Cancer Res., August 1, 2004; 10(15): 5160 - 5167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				Z. C. Wang, M. Lin, L.-J. Wei, C. Li, A. Miron, G. Lodeiro, L. Harris, S. Ramaswamy, D. M. Tanenbaum, M. Meyerson, et al. Loss of Heterozygosity and Its Correlation with Expression Profiles in Subclasses of Invasive Breast Cancers Cancer Res., January 1, 2004; 64(1): 64 - 71. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T J Anderson, C Davis, F E Alexander, and H M Dobson Measures of benefit for breast screening from the pathology database for Scotland, 1991-2001 J. Clin. Pathol., September 1, 2003; 56(9): 654 - 659. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. M. Sieber, K. Heinimann, P. Gorman, H. Lamlum, M. Crabtree, C. A. Simpson, D. Davies, K. Neale, S. V. Hodgson, R. R. Roylance, et al. Analysis of chromosomal instability in human colorectal adenomas with two mutational hits at APC PNAS, December 24, 2002; 99(26): 16910 - 16915. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. F. A. Wessels, T. van Welsem, A. A. M. Hart, L. J. van't Veer, M. J. T. Reinders, and P. M. Nederlof Molecular Classification of Breast Carcinomas by Comparative Genomic Hybridization: a Specific Somatic Genetic Profile for BRCA1 Tumors Cancer Res., December 1, 2002; 62(23): 7110 - 7117. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Climent, J. A. Martinez-Climent, D. Blesa, M. J. Garcia-Barchino, R. Saez, D. Sanchez-Izquierdo, P. Azagra, A. Lluch, and J. Garcia-Conde Genomic Loss of 18p Predicts an Adverse Clinical Outcome in Patients with High-Risk Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., December 1, 2002; 8(12): 3863 - 3869. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Dellas, J. Torhorst, E. Schultheiss, M. J. Mihatsch, and H. Moch DNA Sequence Losses on Chromosomes 11p and 18q Are Associated with Clinical Outcome in Lymph Node-negative Ductal Breast Cancer Clin. Cancer Res., May 1, 2002; 8(5): 1210 - 1216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G Cserni Tumour histological grade may progress between primary and recurrent invasive mammary carcinoma J. Clin. Pathol., April 1, 2002; 55(4): 293 - 297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A Martinez, R A Walker, J A Shaw, S J Dearing, E R Maher, and F Latif Chromosome 3p allele loss in early invasive breast cancer: detailed mapping and association with clinicopathological features Mol. Pathol., October 1, 2001; 54(5): 300 - 306. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. Monni, M. Bärlund, S. Mousses, J. Kononen, G. Sauter, M. Heiskanen, P. Paavola, K. Avela, Y. Chen, M. L. Bittner, et al. Comprehensive copy number and gene expression profiling of the 17q23 amplicon in human breast cancer PNAS, April 25, 2001; (2001) 91582298. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				A.-M. Cleton-Jansen, D. F. Callen, R. Seshadri, S. Goldup, B. McCallum, J. Crawford, J. A. Powell, C. Settasatian, H. van Beerendonk, E. W. Moerland, et al. Loss of Heterozygosity Mapping at Chromosome Arm 16q in 712 Breast Tumors Reveals Factors that Influence Delineation of Candidate Regions Cancer Res., February 1, 2001; 61(3): 1171 - 1177. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				I P M Tomlinson, R Roylance, and R S Houlston Two hits revisited again J. Med. Genet., February 1, 2001; 38(2): 81 - 85. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				V. L. Seewaldt, K. Mrózek, E. C. Dietze, M. Parker, and L. E. Caldwell Human Papillomavirus Type 16 E6 Inactivation of p53 in Normal Human Mammary Epithelial Cells Promotes Tamoxifen-mediated Apoptosis Cancer Res., January 1, 2001; 61(2): 616 - 624. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				E. Dublin, A. Hanby, N. K. Patel, R. Liebman, and D. Barnes Immunohistochemical Expression of uPA, uPAR, and PAI-1 in Breast Carcinoma : Fibroblastic Expression Has Strong Associations with Tumor Pathology Am. J. Pathol., October 1, 2000; 157(4): 1219 - 1227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Forozan, E. H. Mahlamäki, O. Monni, Y. Chen, R. Veldman, Y. Jiang, G. C. Gooden, S. P. Ethier, A. Kallioniemi, and O.-P. Kallioniemi Comparative Genomic Hybridization Analysis of 38 Breast Cancer Cell Lines: A Basis for Interpreting Complementary DNA Microarray Data Cancer Res., August 1, 2000; 60(16): 4519 - 4525. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				C.-Y. Shen, J.-C. Yu, Y.-L. Lo, C.-H. Kuo, C.-T. Yue, Y.-S. Jou, C.-S. Huang, J.-C. Lung, and C.-W. Wu Genome-wide Search for Loss of Heterozygosity Using Laser Capture Microdissected Tissue of Breast Carcinoma: An Implication for Mutator Phenotype and Breast Cancer Pathogenesis Cancer Res., July 1, 2000; 60(14): 3884 - 3892. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				A. J. W. Paige, K. J. Taylor, A. Stewart, J. G. Sgouros, H. Gabra, G. C. Sellar, J. F. Smyth, D. J. Porteous, and J. E. V. Watson A 700-kb Physical Map of a Region of 16q23.2 Homozygously Deleted in Multiple Cancers and Spanning the Common Fragile Site FRA16D Cancer Res., March 1, 2000; 60(6): 1690 - 1697. [Abstract] [Full Text]

				M. S. Rogers and E. E. Strehler The Tumor-sensitive Calmodulin-like Protein Is a Specific Light Chain of Human Unconventional Myosin X J. Biol. Chem., April 6, 2001; 276(15): 12182 - 12189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				O. Monni, M. Barlund, S. Mousses, J. Kononen, G. Sauter, M. Heiskanen, P. Paavola, K. Avela, Y. Chen, M. L. Bittner, et al. Comprehensive copy number and gene expression profiling of the 17q23 amplicon in human breast cancer PNAS, May 8, 2001; 98(10): 5711 - 5716. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Roylance, R. Articles by Sheer, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Roylance, R. Articles by Sheer, D.