Cancer Research SABCS EMT and Cancer Progression and Treatment
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Henderson, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, T. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Henderson, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, T. J.
[Cancer Research 66, 2250-2256, February 15, 2006]
© 2006 American Association for Cancer Research

Cell, Tumor, and Stem Cell Biology

Parathyroid Hormone–Related Protein Localization in Breast Cancers Predict Improved Prognosis

Michael A. Henderson1, Janine A. Danks2, John L. Slavin3, Graham B. Byrnes5, Peter F.M. Choong4, John B. Spillane1, John L. Hopper5 and T. John Martin2

Department of 1 Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; 2 St Vincent's Institute; Departments of 3 Pathology and 4 Orthopedic Surgery, St Vincent's Hospital, Fitzroy, Australia; and 5 Centre for Molecular, Environmental, Genetic and Analytic Epidemiology, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia

Requests for reprints: Janine A. Danks, St Vincent's Institute, 41 Victoria Parade, Fitzroy 3065, Australia. Phone: 61-3-9288-2480; Fax: 61-3-9416-2676; E-mail: jdanks{at}svi.edu.au.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
In a prospective study of 526 consecutive patients with operable breast cancer, the significance of positive parathyroid hormone–related protein (PTHrP) staining by immunohistology has been evaluated for a median of 10-year follow-up. Improved survival was observed for the 79% of tumors which stained positively for PTHrP [estimated univariate hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 0.30-0.62; P < 0.001]. Adjustments for N stage, progesterone receptor status, and log tumor size changed this estimate only slightly to 0.47 (95% CI, 0.63-0.69; P = 0.001). Patients with PTHrP-positive primary tumors were less likely to develop bone metastases (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.98; P = 0.04). PTHrP status was associated with estrogen receptor (P = 0.01), progesterone receptor (P = 0.03), and menopausal status (P = 0.006) but was not significantly associated with tumor size, vascular invasion, tumor grade, or patient age. Of 19 patients requiring surgery for bone metastases, the primary cancers were PTHrP negative in seven, all but one of whom had PTHrP-positive bone metastases. All 12 patients with PTHrP-positive primary cancers also had positive bone metastases. We conclude that increased production of PTHrP by breast cancers confers on them a less invasive phenotype, an effect distinct from the bone resorption–stimulating action that favors bone metastasis. It is likely that the latter property is influenced by factors in the bone microenvironment. (Cancer Res 2006; 66(4): 2250-6)


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Bone is by far the most common site of breast cancer metastasis and causes considerable morbidity (1). The predilection of breast cancers to grow as metastases in bone has been recognized since it was described by Paget (2). Paget's insights were based on an extensive autopsy study in women with breast cancer in which he noted the remarkable frequency of secondary deposits in bone, especially at the ends of the femora and in the skull. This led him to develop the "seed and soil" hypothesis of metastatic growth, with bone as the favorable soil for the "seed" of metastatic breast cancer cells. This hypothesis still encapsulates modern views of the metastatic process: to establish and grow in distant organs, tumor cells require specific properties that suit them to those organs (3). Bone as a target for metastasis presents a particularly harsh environment for the establishment and proliferation of cancer cells. In addition to their general invasive properties, cancer cells are required to adhere to the bone surface and to promote the formation of active osteoclasts from precursors in the host bone marrow, thereby initiating resorption and allowing the tumor to establish and expand (4–6).

The recognition that parathyroid hormone–related protein (PTHrP) was responsible for the humorally mediated hypercalcemia in many patients with malignancy (humoral hypercalcemia of malignancy) provided new insights into the skeletal complications of cancer. The hypercalcemic effect of PTHrP is derived from its parathyroid hormone–like ability to promote bone resorption and restrict calcium excretion. Subsequently, PTHrP was found by immunohistochemistry to be expressed in about two thirds of primary breast cancers (7) and plasma levels were elevated in 70% of women with breast cancer and bone metastases who were hypercalcemic (8). The finding that PTHrP was detected in 85% of breast cancer metastases to bone but only in 16% of those to other sites led to the suggestion that PTHrP production might be important in conferring on breast cancer cells the special property they require to establish and grow in bone (i.e., the ability to promote bone resorption; ref. 9). Experimental studies using a mouse model of bone metastases supported a role for PTHrP in the establishment and growth of bone metastases (6, 10–12).

This prospective study was prompted by findings, noted above (9), which implicated PTHrP in the development of bone metastases. Early results of the study suggested that patients with primary tumors that possessed detectable PTHrP had improved survival compared with those with tumors that lacked detectable PTHrP (13). By continuing the study and recruiting new patients, we have been able to test if the previous findings were replicable, and if so, by combining the data, derive enhanced precision for measuring the improved survival of patients with PTHrP-positive primary breast cancers.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
Patients. The patients were a consecutive series of 526 patients with stage I to III operable breast cancer presenting between December 1, 1989 and December 31, 1996. These consisted of the original 367 patients presenting between December 1, 1989 and December 31, 1994 who had been followed until December 31, 2000 (14). Additional data were now derived from 159 new patients presenting between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 1996, with follow-up until December 31, 2004, in addition to further follow-up of the original cohort until the same date. All patients presenting to the Breast Unit in the University of Melbourne Department of Surgery at St. Vincent's Hospital were eligible for the study. We excluded 47 patients because their tumors were purely ductal carcinoma in situ or microinvasive or the patient had a past history of other primary malignancy apart from nonmelanoma skin cancer. In addition, patients who received preoperative systemic therapy were excluded because there was not sufficient representative tissue available for analysis of PTHrP before the commencement of treatment. All patients were followed for a minimum of 8 years (to December 2004) and the median length of follow-up was 10 years. Patients were followed prospectively for the timing and site of metastases, as well as local and regional recurrences and overall survival. All treatment decisions were made at the discretion of the treating clinician(s) but the majority of patients were treated according to protocols in existence at the time of first presentation. Patients were reviewed at least twice yearly for the first 3 years and then annually. During follow-up reviews, routine scans and blood tests were not done in most cases. The diagnosis of metastasis for this study was based on pathologic confirmation, unequivocal results of investigations confirming metastasis, or, in cases where the development of metastasis could not be completely confirmed, on the results of serial investigations leading to a decision to treat. The study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of St. Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.

PTHrP immunohistochemistry. PTHrP was localized with a standard peroxidase-antiperoxidase method (14), with polyclonal rabbit antiserum raised to the human PTHrP peptide containing amino acids 1 to 14 [PTHrP(1-14)]. The antiserum specificity has been characterized (14, 15) and no cross-reactivity with parathyroid hormone was observed under any condition examined, including Western blotting. The following methods and antibody controls were used: alternating deletion of the antibody layers, preabsorption of anti-PTHrP(1-14) overnight with peptide at 4°C, application of PTHrP(1-14) at 0.5 mg/mL to the tissue sections 5 minutes before the addition of the antiserum, and replacement of the anti-PTHrP(1-14) with nonimmune rabbit serum. Each assay included a positive control (normal skin). Each tumor section was stained in duplicate, with two dilutions of antiserum, and was assessed by a panel of individuals who were unaware of the clinical details. Tumors were called positive for PTHrP when specific staining was observed in any cell that was unequivocally identified as a tumor cell. In addition, a random series of samples (8%) that had been reviewed previously by the panel were restained and evaluated as an internal control of assessment. There was 100% concordance with the original assessments. The assay was repeated if there was substantial background staining on the nonimmune control, if there was discordance between the two stained sections, or if there was a lack of agreement among panel members. In all positive tumors, a cytoplasmic pattern was found. In 20% of these tumors, some specific membrane staining was also noted.

Prognostic factors. Tumor size and lymph node status were obtained from the original pathology report but tumor grade, the presence of lymphatic and/or vascular invasion, tumor type, and estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) immunohistochemistry were all assessed by the panel. Tumors were classified according to the criteria of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (AJCC) and disease was staged according to the AJCC classification (16). Tumors were graded using the Elston-Ellis modification of the Scarff-Bloom-Richardson classification (17). ER and PR status were assessed by immunohistochemistry using a standard peroxidase-antiperoxidase technique and ER and PR monoclonal antibodies (NCL-ER-6F11 and NCL-PR; Novocastra Laboratories Ltd., Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom). Tumors were called positive if there was unequivocal nuclear staining in ≥10% of tumor cells.

Statistical methods. Frequency data were assessed by standard contingency table analysis, including Fisher's exact test, for binary or categorical variables and by the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. The strength of association between binary variables was measured by the odds ratio, with exact 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) described by Mehta (18). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were created for survival analysis and differences in survival were assessed using a Cox Proportional Hazards model (19, 20). Nested models were compared using the likelihood ratio test. The proportional hazards assumption was checked using the Gramsbsch-Therneau test (21) and data were stratified when necessary to satisfy this assumption. All reported significance levels are nominal and two sided. Following convention, tests with P < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

Time to death was analyzed by Cox proportional hazards regression and the data were divided into two parts. The initial data related to patients presenting on between December 1, 1989 and December 31, 1994, with follow-up until December 31, 2000. Observations were made on 367 patients for ~1,896 person-years, during which 73 women died of breast cancer–related causes. The subsequent data related to patients presenting between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 1996, as well as to additional follow-up of the 270 women from the initial cohort, left censored at December 31, 2000 (22). Follow-up in this subsequent group continued until December 31, 2004. Whereas some of the women observed in the initial period of the study were also observed in the subsequent period, there was no overlap in observation, so the two data sets can be considered independent. There were 429 women observed during the subsequent period, for a total of ~1,957 person-years, during which 55 breast cancer–related deaths were observed. Combining the data provided observations on 526 women for a total of 3,789 person-years with 128 breast cancer deaths.

For each set of data, a univariate analysis was used to estimate the hazard ratio for PTHrP status. PTHrP status was then included in a multivariate analysis along with age, number of positive lymph nodes, PR status, ER status, and log tumor size. Those factors judged not to contribute to the model were removed to leave a final model.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
Table 1 summarizes the clinical and pathologic characteristics of the 526 patients who had a median age of 60 years (range, 27-93 years): 72% were postmenopausal, 10% perimenopausal, and 18% premenopausal; 183 (35%) presented with AJCC stage I breast cancer, 161 (31%) with stage IIa, 71 (14%) with stage IIb, 77 (15%) with stage IIIa, and 34 (7%) with stage IIIb. The median tumor size was 27 mm (3-180 mm) and 131 patients had their tumor detected by screening mammography (most after 1992). For 92 patients, their carcinoma was not palpable and 211 (40%) had axillary lymph node metastases. Histology was invasive ductal in 87%, lobular in 7%, and 6% of tumors were classified as special types including tubular, medullary, and mucoid. Mastectomy was used as the initial definitive surgical procedure for 264 patients (50%) and breast conserving surgery for 226 (43%). The remaining patients underwent lesser procedures usually because of comorbidities or patient preference. Postoperative radiotherapy predominantly to the breast following breast conservation was employed in 216 patients (41%), adjuvant systemic chemotherapy postoperatively in 184 (35%), and postoperative Tamoxifen for 5 years was given to 295 patients (56%). Preoperative chemotherapy was used in 28 cases (5%).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Demographic details for 526 patients with stage I to III breast cancer (415 PTHrP-positive and 111 PTHrP-negative patients)

 
PTHrP staining was detected in 79% of primary tumors. The relationship between standard prognostic and demographic factors is shown in Table 1. Patients with tumors expressing PTHrP were more likely to be postmenopausal and have smaller tumors that were ER and PR positive. Tumor grade was not associated with PTHrP status but the absence of lymphatic and/or vascular space invasion positive ER status and positive PR status were all significantly associated with positive PTHrP status.

PTHrP staining and cancer survival. Analysis of the initial data had yielded a hazard ratio of 0.52 (95% CI, 0.33-0.84; P = 0.007) for patients with PTHrP-positive tumors. The corresponding hazard ratio estimate for the subsequent data was 0.37 (95% CI, 0.21-0.66; P = 0.001) and the two estimates were consistent (P = 0.4; Table 2). A multivariate model adjusting for degree of nodal involvement, log of tumor size, PR and ER status, vascular-lymphatic invasion, and age was then fitted separately to both data sets. Age, ER status, and vascular-lymphatic invasion were removed from the model without significant reduction in goodness of fit [P = 0.3 (initial data), P = 0.06 (subsequent data)]. The resulting estimates of PTHrP hazard ratio differed only slightly from the univariate results, suggesting its action is largely independent (Table 3). Estimates from the two independent data sets were again consistent, so the data were combined to improve precision.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. The persistence of the effect of PTHrP status on breast cancer survival in extended follow-up

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. The estimated hazard ratio for PTHrP status, adjusted for possible confounders

 
From the combined data, the estimated univariate hazard ratio for PTHrP staining was 0.43 (95% CI, 0.30-0.62; P < 0.001) whereas the multivariate estimate was 0.47 (95% CI, 0.32-0.69; P < 0.001). Hence, PTHrP was an independent predictor of outcome along with N stage, PR status, and log of tumor size. Again, it was found that age, ER status, and vascular-lymphatic invasion could be removed from the model (P = 0.4). These results manifest in an estimated 10-year survival of 78% (95% CI, 72-81) for patients with PTHrP-positive tumors compared with 51% for PTHrP-negative patients (95% CI, 40-61; Fig. 1A). This difference was highly statistically significant (P < 0. 001).


Figure 1
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. A, Kaplan-Meier survival curves for 526 patients with stage I to III breast cancer (415 patients with PTHrP-positive tumors and 111 with PTHrP-negative tumors). Curves shown are Kaplan-Meier curves with the 95% CIs indicated at 5, 10, and 15 years. Estimated hazard ratio for PTHrP-positive tumors was 0.43 (P < 0.001). The estimated percentage survival at 10 years for patients with PTHrP-positive tumors was 78% (95% CI, 72-81) compared with the survival of patients with PTHrP-negative tumors, 51% (95% CI, 40-61). B, Kaplan-Meier survival curves for development of bone metastases at any time for 526 patients with stage I to III breast cancer (415 patients with PTHrP-positive tumors and 111 with PTHrP-negative tumors). Kaplan-Meier curves with the 95% CIs indicated at 5, 10, and 15 years. Hazard ratio after stratification of tumor stage was estimated to be 0.63 (P = 0.04).

 
Survival data of this patient group were determined for a number of prognostic factors: N stage, tumor size, axillary lymph node status, tumor grade, lymphatic/vascular space invasion, and ER and PR status. These results are found in Supplementary data.

PTHrP staining and bone metastases. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were created for time until development of bone metastases (Fig. 1B). The fact that these curves diverge nonuniformly suggests nonapplicability of the Cox model, which seemed to result from dependence on tumor stage. After stratification of the data by stage, there was no evidence of nonproportionality (Grambsch-Therneau, P = 0.96). The estimated hazard ratio of bone metastases between patients with PTHrP-positive tumors and those with PTHrP-negative tumors, after stratification by stage, was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.41-0.98). Hence, the hazard ratio was lower in the PTHrP-positive group (P = 0.04).

The appearance of metastases in major metastatic sites (e.g. bone, liver, lung, soft tissue, central nervous system (CNS), and locoregional sites) by PTHrP status is shown in Fig. 2. More metastases were observed in patients whose cancers were PTHrP negative. This applied to bone (22% versus 10%), liver (14% versus 6%), lung (22% versus 10%), soft tissue (16% versus 6%), and locoregional failure (22% versus 10%).


Figure 2
View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 2. The development of metastases to major sites at any time (percentage), including bone, liver, lung, soft tissue, CNS, and locoregional sites, by PTHrP status of the primary tumor.

 
PTHrP staining in matched primary tumors and bone metastases. Between 1988 and 2000, 84 patients with a past history of breast cancer underwent an orthopedic procedure for management of bone metastases. For 69 (82%) of these breast cancer bone metastases, PTHrP was detected by immunohistochemistry. Among this group of patients requiring surgery for bone metastases, 19 were from the 526 patients of the prospective clinical study. Of these 19 patients, 12 patients, whose primary tumor had been PTHrP positive, had bone metastases, which were also PTHrP positive. Of the seven patients with PTHrP-negative primary tumors, all but one had developed bone metastases that were PTHrP positive.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
We have investigated the importance for breast cancer behavior of PTHrP localization by immunohistochemistry in a consecutive series of patients at a single center. Our study of 526 patients for a median observation period of 10 years extends the analysis undertaken after a median observation of 5.6 years (13), confirms its findings, and enhances the statistical significance and precision. It establishes that positive PTHrP status in the primary breast cancers is independently associated with improved survival with reduced metastases to all tissue sites including bone. At the outset of the study, we had hypothesized that PTHrP production by primary breast cancers would increase the likelihood of development of skeletal complications and especially of bone metastases. Our finding, both in the initial and subsequent analyses, that patients with PTHrP-positive primary tumors had a significantly improved prognosis for survival was therefore a surprising one. This raises the possibility of effects of PTHrP on breast cancer behavior, which are distinct from its ability to promote bone resorption. It is the latter property that best explains a role for PTHrP in bone metastasis development and growth when it complements the general invasive properties of the cancer cells by conferring on them the ability to promote osteoclast formation and bone resorption.

The first indication that bone metastasis formation might be related to production of PTHrP by breast cancers came from a retrospective analysis of primary breast cancers and metastases in bone and soft tissues (9). Experimental evidence in support of a role for PTHrP in bone metastasis formation came from studies using human cancer cells that form lytic growths in nude mouse bone after intracardiac injection (6, 10–12). For example, nude mice injected with human breast cancer cells (MDA-MB-231) developed lytic bone deposits without any change in peripheral blood levels of PTHrP or calcium, but with elevated PTHrP levels in bone marrow plasma (11). Either inactivation with a neutralizing antibody of PTHrP in MDA-MB-231 cells (11) or inhibition by drug treatment of the activity of the PTHrP gene promoter (23) greatly reduced the ability of these cells to grow in bone after intracardiac injection. Furthermore, increased tumor growth in bone was achieved even with the less invasive MCF-7 cells when they were transfected to overexpress PTHrP (24). The latter cells were used also to show that tumor-derived PTHrP promoted osteoclast formation in host bone by enhancing production of receptor activator of nuclear factor {kappa}B ligand (RANKL; ref. 12).

The foregoing experimental evidence, suggesting a role for PTHrP in cancer establishment and growth in bone, illustrates the importance of osteoclast formation and activation in the bone metastasis process. To invade and grow in bone, as in any other tissue, cancer cells need general invasive properties that equip them to break down vessel walls, degrade connective tissue, and promote angiogenesis. Specific requirements in bone are the ability to adhere to that tissue and, most importantly, to promote the formation of active osteoclasts from precursors in host bone, thereby initiating resorption and allowing the tumor to establish and expand (4–6). Relevant to this, when gene array studies have been applied to human breast cancer cells of strong and weak bone-metastasizing ability, it is noteworthy that there is a predominance of gene products that favor either promotion of osteoclast formation or the adherence of cells to bone. Examples are the appearance in gene array studies, on the one hand, of interleukin (IL)-11, matrix metalloproteinase 1 (25), and IL-8 (26) as stimulators of osteoclasts, and, on the other hand, of osteopontin, connective tissue growth factor, and CXCR4 (25, 27) as factors favoring the homing and/or adherence of cancer cells to bone. Thus, although PTHrP has been extensively investigated, it is clear that there are other breast cancer products that could profoundly influence bone metastasis establishment by promoting osteoclast formation, including prostaglandins, IL-6, IL-8 (26), and macrophage colony-stimulating factor (28).

The results described here seem to be at variance with a number of reports, including our own, suggesting that PTHrP staining in primary breast cancers is associated with the development of bone metastases (29–32). These studies can be questioned from a number of points of view, including small numbers, case selection, advanced disease, limited follow-up, and retrospective accrual. This report describes the only long-term prospective study of unselected patients. Its major finding that PTHrP-positive tumors were independently predictive of improved patient survival, with reduced metastases at all sites, including bone, by no means excludes a crucial role for PTHrP in the bone microenvironment in facilitating bone metastasis formation. An important implication of these findings is that PTHrP production by breast cancer cells confers on them a less malignant phenotype, one that is less invasive and less likely to result in metastasis formation. Thus, it suggests that PTHrP-negative breast cancers may be relatively enriched in the general invasive properties that are needed for metastasis establishment. On reaching the bone marrow and exerting these general invasive properties, the cancer cells are exposed to environmental factors through which they acquire the special properties needed to invade bone (i.e., enhanced PTHrP production leading to increased osteoclast formation and bone resorption). Only very uncommonly do patients with breast cancer have metastases surgically removed and available for study. Weigelt et al. (33) were able to study eight such patients, with matched primary cancers and metastases, all of which were to tissues other than bone. They used gene expression profiling to show that in six of these eight cases, the metastases exhibited profiles very similar to the primary tumors. We were able to study 19 matched breast primary and bone metastasis samples from patients in the present study with surgery being carried out by one of the authors (P.M.F.C.) for pathologic fracture. The finding that bone metastases were PTHrP positive in six of the seven cases, in which the primary cancers were PTHrP negative whereas positive PTHrP staining was maintained in all the matched samples, is consistent with the suggestion that PTHrP status can be changed by the bone microenvironment in ways that can favor growth in bone.

There is increasing evidence for ways in which bone-derived growth factors, especially transforming growth factor ß (TGF-ß), can influence the cancer cell phenotype to enhance its growth ~in bone (6, 10, 34). Active TGF-ß released from bone matrix during bone resorption provides a stimulus to PTHrP production by breast cancer cells. In support of this, expressing a dominant negative TGF-ß receptor in MDA-MB-231 cells led to substantially reduced tumor establishment and growth in bone after intracardiac injection of the cells into nude mice (10). A further potential contribution from TGF-ß locally comes from its ability to enhance RANKL-induced osteoclast formation (35), thereby potentiating the PTHrP effect. Furthermore, elevating the ambient calcium levels significantly enhanced PTHrP production by human breast cancer (MCF 7) cells in vitro, as well as amplified the TGF-ß-induced elevation of PTHrP (36). The cooperative effects of PTHrP and TGF-ß compose a means of amplifying local events in bone in favor of tumor growth in that site, illustrating the major influence on cancer behavior of the bone microenvironment (6).

It remains to be determined whether PTHrP might indeed confer on cancer cells a less invasive phenotype, and possible mechanisms are being explored. PTHrP is a multifunctional protein (37, 38) with biological activities ascribed to several domains of the molecule apart from the parathyroid hormone–like NH2-terminal region that mediates the bone-resorptive effect. The prospect of PTHrP being protective at one stage of cancer and having a deleterious role at another is a credible one, given that its role in bone metastasis formation is essentially to provide the specific ability to promote bone resorption, thereby complementing the general invasive properties of the cancer cells, and further, that PTHrP production can readily be enhanced by local conditions in bone. Another example of a protein with a divergent effect in cancer is TGF-ß, which acts early as a tumor suppressor by inhibiting proliferation of epithelial, endothelial, and hemopoietic cells. Refractoriness to these effects develops later and overexpression of TGF-ß leads to a microenvironment conducive to tumor growth (reviewed in refs. 39–41).

A role for PTHrP in breast cancer biology may not be surprising in view of the evidence that it is essential for formation of the mammary gland. In PTHrP–/– mice rescued by transgenic expression of PTHrP in cartilage, mammary development begins but branching morphogenesis fails (42). In both mouse and human breast, PTHrP is expressed in the epithelial cells and the receptor (PTH1R) in mesenchymal cells (38, 42, 43). A recently recognized paracrine action of PTHrP in the developing breast is its promotion of RANKL by mammary epithelial cells, a response shown also to prolactin, which might act indirectly through its induction of PTHrP. Mice rendered null for RANKL show lack of development of lobulo-alveolar structures during pregnancy despite earlier stages of mammary gland development being normal (44, 45).

Studies with primary breast cancers have identified a set of genes associated with poor prognosis (46, 47), predicting development of metastases and decreased survival. A similar genetic "signature" has been noted in MDA-MB-231 human breast cancer cells, subpopulations of which display a genetic profile predicting the site of metastases, particularly those growing in bones of the host nude mice (25, 48). Effects of the bone microenvironment on tumor cell behavior underline how important it is in clinical management to use bone-targeted drugs in ways which appropriately complement specific antitumor therapies.


   Acknowledgments
 
Grant support: National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Program (T.J. Martin and J.A. Danks), NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (J.A. Danks), NHMRC Senior Principal Research Fellowship (J.L. Hopper), NHMRC Public Health Capacity Building Grant (G.B. Byrnes), and the Thomaiiy Breast Cancer Research Fund.

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.

We thank Toni Harris for her excellent technical assistance and Martina McKinlay for her maintenance of the patient database.


   Footnotes
 
Note: Supplementary data for this article are available at Cancer Research Online (http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/).

Received 8/ 9/05. Revised 11/20/05. Accepted 12/ 5/05.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. Coleman RE, Rubens RD. The clinical course of bone metastases from breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1987;55:61–6.[Medline]
  2. Paget S. The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. Lancet 1889;1:571–3.
  3. Nicolson GL. Cancer metastases: tumour and host cell organ properties important in metastasis to specific organs. Biochim Biophys Acta 1988;948:175–224.[Medline]
  4. Mundy GR, Martin TJ. Pathophysiology of skeletal complications of cancer. In: Mundy GR, Martin TJ, editors. Handbook of experimental pharmacology. Physiology and pharmacology of bone. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 1993. Vol. 107. p. 641–67.
  5. Clohisy DR, Perkins SL, Ranmaraine ML. Review of cellular mechanisms of tumor osteolysis. Clin Orthop 2000;373:104–14.
  6. Mundy GR. Metastasis to bone: causes, consequences and therapeutic opportunities. Nat Rev Cancer 2002;2:584–93.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Southby J, Kissin MW, Danks JA, et al. Immunohistochemical localization of parathyroid hormone-related protein in human breast cancer. Cancer Res 1990;50:7710–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Grill V, Ho P, Body JJ, et al. Parathyroid hormone-related protein: elevated levels in both humoral hypercalcemia of malignancy and hypercalcemia complicating metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1991;73:1309–15.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Powell GJ, Southby J, Danks JA, et al. Localization of parathyroid hormone-related protein in breast cancer metastases: increased incidence in bone compared with other sites. Cancer Res 1991;51:3059–61.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Yin JJ, Selander K, Chirgwin JM, et al. TGF-ß signaling blockade inhibits PTHrP secretion by breast cancer cells and bone metastases development. J Clin Invest 1999;103:197–206.[Medline]
  11. Guise TA, Yin JJ, Taylor SD, et al. Evidence for a causal role of parathyroid hormone-related protein in the pathogenesis of human breast cancer-mediated osteolysis. J Clin Invest 1996;98:1544–9.[Medline]
  12. Thomas RJ, Guise TA, Yin JJ, et al. Breast cancer cells interact with osteoblasts to support osteoclast formation. Endocrinology 1999;140:4451–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  13. Henderson MA, Danks JA, Moseley JM, et al. Parathyroid hormone-related protein production by breast cancers associated with improved survival, and reduced bone metastases. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:234–7.[Free Full Text]
  14. Danks JA, Ebeling PR, Hayman J, et al. Parathyroid hormone-related protein: Immunohistochemical localization in cancers and in normal skin. J Bone Miner Res 1989;4:273–8.[Medline]
  15. Danks JA, Ebeling PR, Hayman JA, et al. Immunohistochemical localization of parathyroid hormone-related protein in parathyroid adenoma and hyperplasia. J Pathol 1990;161:27–33.[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. American Joint Commission on Cancer. In: Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming I.D, Fritz A, Balch CM, Haller DG, Morrow M, editors. AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th ed. New York (NY): Springer; 2002. p. 171–80.
  17. Elston CW. Grading of invasive carcinomas of the breast. In: Page D, Anderson T, editors. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. Edinburgh (Scotland): Churchill-Livingstone; 1987. p. 300–11.
  18. Mehta CR. The exact analysis of contingency tables in medical research. Cancer Treat Res 1995;75:177–202.[Medline]
  19. Kaplan EL, Meier P. Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. J Am Stat Assoc 1958;53:457–81.[CrossRef]
  20. Cox DR. Regression models and life tables. J R Stat Soc 1972;34:187–220.
  21. Grambsch PM, Therneau TM. Proportional hazards tests and diagnostics based on weighted residuals. Biometrika 1994;81:515–26.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Andersen PK. Testing goodness of fit of Cox's regression and life model. Biometrics 1982;38:67–77.[CrossRef]
  23. Gallwitz WE, Guise TA, Mundy GR. Guanosine nucleotides inhibit different syndromes of PTHrP excess caused by human cancers in vivo. J Clin Invest 2002;110:1559–72.[CrossRef][Medline]
  24. Guise TA, Yin JJ, Thomas RJ, et al. Parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP)-(1-139) isoform is efficiently secreted in vitro and enhances breast cancer metastasis to bone in vivo. Bone 2002;30:670–6.[Medline]
  25. Kang Y, Siegel PM, Shu W, et al. A multigenic program mediating breast cancer metastasis to bone. Cancer Cell 2003;3:537–49.[CrossRef][Medline]
  26. Bendre MS, Gaddy-Kurten D, Mon-Foote T, et al. Expression of interleukin 8 and not parathyroid hormone-related protein by human breast cancer cells correlates with bone metastasis in vivo. Cancer Res 2002;62:5571–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Muller A, Catron N, Buchanan ME, et al. Involvement of chemokine receptors in breast cancer metastasis. Nature 2001;410:50–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  28. Murray LJ, Abrams TJ, Long KR, et al. SU11248 inhibits tumor growth and CSF-1R-dependent osteolysis in an experimental breast cancer metastasis model. Clin Exp Metastasis 2003;20:757–66.[CrossRef][Medline]
  29. Kissin MW, Henderson MA, Danks JA, et al. Parathyroid hormone related protein in breast cancers of widely varying prognosis. Eur J Surg Oncol 1993;19:134–42.[Medline]
  30. Bundred NJ, Walker RA, Ratcliffe WA, et al. Parathyroid hormone related protein and skeletal morbidity in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1992;28:690–2.[CrossRef][Medline]
  31. Liapis H, Crouch EC, Grosso LE, et al. Expression of parathyroid-like protein in normal, proliferating and neoplastic breast tissue. Am J Pathol 1993;143:1169–78.[Abstract]
  32. Bouizar Z, Spyratos F, deVernejoul MC. The parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP) gene; use of downstream TATA promoter and PTHrP 1–139 coding pathways in primary breast cancers vary with occurrence of bone metastases. J Bone Miner Res 1999;14:406–14.[CrossRef][Medline]
  33. Weigelt B, Glas AM, Wessels LFA, et al. Gene expression profiles of primary breast tumors maintained in distant metastases. Proc Nat Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:15001–5.
  34. Martin TJ. Manipulating the environment for cancer cells in bone; a novel therapeutic approach. J Clin Invest 2002;110:1399–401.[CrossRef][Medline]
  35. Sells Galvin RJ, Gatlin CL, Horn JW, Fuson TR. TGF-ß enhances osteoclast differentiation in hematopoietic cell cultures stimulated with RANKL and M-CSF. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 1999;265:233–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  36. Sanders JL, Chattopadhyay N, Kifor O, et al. Extracellular calcium-sensing receptor expression and its potential role in regulating parathyroid hormone-related peptide secretion in human breast cancer cell lines. Endocrinology 2000;141:4357–64.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  37. Martin J, Moseley JM, Williams ED. Parathyroid hormone-related protein: hormone and cytokine. J Endocrinol 1997;154:S23–37.[Medline]
  38. Wysolmerski JJ, Stewart AF, Martin TJ. Physiological actions of parathyroid hormone (PTH) and PTH-related protein: epidermal, mammary, reproductive, and pancreatic tissues. In: Bilezikian JP, Raisz LG, Rodan GA, editors. Principles of bone biology. Chapter 29. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press; 2001.
  39. Siegel PM, Massague J. Cytostatic and apoptotic actions of TGFß in homeostasis and cancer. Nat Rev Cancer 2003;3:807–18.[CrossRef][Medline]
  40. Wakefield LM, Roberts AB. TGFß signalling: positive and negative effects on tumorigenesis. Curr Opin Genet Dev 2002;12:22–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
  41. Tang B, Vu M, Booker T, et al. TGFß switches from tumor suppressor to prometastatic factor in a model of breast cancer progression. J Clin Invest 2003;112:1116–24.[CrossRef][Medline]
  42. Wysolmerski JJ, Philbrick WM, Dunbar ME, et al. Rescue of the parathyroid hormone-related protein knockout mouse demonstrates that parathyroid hormone-related protein is essential for mammary gland development. Development 1998;125:1285–94.[Abstract]
  43. Wysolmerski JJ, McCaughern-Carucci JF, et al. Overexpression of parathyroid hormone-related protein or parathyroid hormone in transgenic mice impairs branching morphogenesis during mammary gland development. Development 1995;121:3539–47.[Abstract]
  44. Fata JE, Kong YY, Li J, et al. The osteoclast differentiation factor osteoprotegerin-ligand is essential for mammary gland development. Cell 2000;103:41–50.[CrossRef][Medline]
  45. Martin TJ, Gillespie MT. Receptor activator of nuclear factor kB (RANKL): another link between breast and bone. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2001;12:4–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  46. Van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van't Veer LJ, et al. A gene expression signature predicts survival in lymph node negative and positive breast cancer patients. N Eng J Med 2002;347:1999–2009.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  47. van't Veer LJ, Dai H, Van De Vijver MJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002;415:530–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
  48. Minn AJ, Kang Y, Serganova I, et al. Distinct organ-specific metastatic potential of individual breast cancer cells and primary tumors. J Clin Invest 2005;115:44–55.[CrossRef][Medline]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am. J. Physiol. Lung Cell. Mol. Physiol.Home page
R. H. Hastings, P. R. Montgrain, R. Quintana, Y. Rascon, L. J. Deftos, and E. Healy
Cell cycle actions of parathyroid hormone-related protein in non-small cell lung carcinoma
Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol, October 1, 2009; 297(4): L578 - L585.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Res.Home page
N. I. Fleming, M. K. Trivett, J. George, J. L. Slavin, W. K. Murray, J. M. Moseley, R. L. Anderson, and D. M. Thomas
Parathyroid Hormone-Related Protein Protects against Mammary Tumor Emergence and Is Associated with Monocyte Infiltration in Ductal Carcinoma In situ
Cancer Res., September 15, 2009; 69(18): 7473 - 7479.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Endocr Relat CancerHome page
L. J Suva, R. J Griffin, and I. Makhoul
Mechanisms of bone metastases of breast cancer
Endocr. Relat. Cancer, September 1, 2009; 16(3): 703 - 713.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Biol. Chem.Home page
W. J. McKinstry, G. Polekhina, H. Diefenbach-Jagger, P. W. M. Ho, K. Sato, E. Onuma, M. T. Gillespie, T. J. Martin, and M. W. Parker
Structural Basis for Antibody Discrimination between Two Hormones That Recognize the Parathyroid Hormone Receptor
J. Biol. Chem., June 5, 2009; 284(23): 15557 - 15563.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
B. N. Fink, S. E. Steck, M. S. Wolff, J. A. Britton, G. C. Kabat, M. M. Gaudet, P. E. Abrahamson, P. Bell, J. C. Schroeder, S. L. Teitelbaum, et al.
Dietary Flavonoid Intake and Breast Cancer Survival among Women on Long Island
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2007; 16(11): 2285 - 2292.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
A. G. Marguiles, V. S. Klimberg, S. Bhattacharrya, D. Gaddy, and L. J. Suva
Genomics and Proteomics of Bone Cancer.
Clin. Cancer Res., October 15, 2006; 12(20): 6217s - 6221s.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Henderson, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, T. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Henderson, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Martin, T. J.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cancer Research Clinical Cancer Research
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention Molecular Cancer Therapeutics
Molecular Cancer Research Cancer Prevention Research
Cancer Prevention Journals Portal Cancer Reviews Online
Annual Meeting Education Book Meeting Abstracts Online