Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison of cell cycle markers in well-differentiated lobular and ductal carcinomas

  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Infiltrating lobular carcinoma (ILC) and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (IDC) are similar in many respects and their histologic features occasionally overlap. Despite the many similarities, some clinical follow-up data and the patterns of metastasis suggest that ILC and IDC are biologically distinct. Unfortunately, most breast cancer research has focused almost exclusively on the ductal subtype or has not stressed the biologic or molecular genetic distinctions between breast carcinoma subtypes. Several reports have suggested the possibility that ILCs and IDCs differ with respect to expression of antigens involved in proliferation and cell cycle regulation. Therefore, we undertook an immunohistochemical evaluation of cell cycle related antigens in ILCs, including histologic variants thought to represent aggressive neoplasms, and IDCs matched for histologic grade (Modified Bloom–Richardson Grade I). We believe that different antigent expression profiles could elucidate the biological distinctiveness of breast carcinoma subtypes and possibly provide diagnostically relevant information. We studied the expression of the following antigents in 28 archived, formalin-fixed ILCs and 34 well-differentiated IDCs: estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), Her 2-neu, mib-1, cyclin D1, p27, p53, mdm-2 and bcl-2. 94% of ILCs and 100% of IDCs expressed ER; 75% of ILCs and 76% of IDCs expressed PR; 4% of ILCs and 13% of IDCs expressed c cerb B-2; ILCs and IDCs both expressed mib-1 in approximately 10% of lesional cells; 82% of ILCs and 54% of IDCs expressed cyclin D1; 90% of ILCs and 83% IDCs expressed p27 strongly; 4% of ILCs and 4% of IDCs expressed p53, 25% of ILCs and 33% of IDCs expressed mdm-2; 96% of ILCs and 100% of IDCs expressed bcl-2. None of the apparent differences were statistically significant. The ILC variants demonstrated immunophenotypes that were essentially similar to ILCs of the usual type. We conclude that ILCs and well-differentiated IDCs show similar proliferation and cell cycle control antigen profiles. Despite their unusual histologic features, most ILC variants appear to maintain a characteristic ILC immunophenotype.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Winchester DJ, Chang HR, Graves TA, Menck HR, Bland KI, Winchester, DP: A Comparative analysis of lobular and ductal carcinoma of the breast: presentation, treatment and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 186: 416–422, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sastre-Garau X, Jouve M, Asselain B, Vincent-Salomon, A, Beuzeboc P, Dorval T, Durand JC, Fourquet A, Pouillart, P: Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Clinicopathologic analysis 975 cases with reference to data on conservative therapy and metastatic patterns. Cancer 77: 113–120, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  3. Du Toit RS, Locker AP, Ellis IO, Elston CW, Nicholson RI, Robertson JF, Blamey RW: An evaluation of differences in prognosis, recurrence patterns and receptor status between invasive lobular and other invasive carcinomas of the breast. Eur J Surg Oncol 17: 251–257, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  4. Weiss MC, Fowble BL, Solin LJ, Yeh IT, Schultz DJ: Outcome of conservation therapy for invasive breast cancer by histologic subtype. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 23: 941–947, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tiokkanen S, Pylkkanen L, Joensuu H: Invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast has better short-and long-term survival than invasive ductal carcinoma. Br J Cancer 76: 1234–1240, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  6. DiCostanzo D, Rosen PP, Gareen I, Franklin S, Lesser M: Prognosis in infiltrating lobular carcinoma. An analysis of classical and variant tumors. Am J Surg Pathol 14: 12–23, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  7. Silverstein MJ, Lewinsky BS, Waisman JR, Gierson ED, Colburn WJ, Senofsky, GM Gamagami P: Infiltrating lobular carcinoma. Is it different from infiltrating duct carcinoma? Cancer 73: 1673–1677, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  8. Du Toit RS, Locker AP, Ellis IO, Elston CW, Nicholson RI, Blamey RW: Invasive lobular carcinomas of the breast - the prognosis of histopathological subtypes. Br J Cancer 60: 605–609, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dixon JM, Anderson TJ, Page DL, Lee D, Duffy, SW: Infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Histopathol 6: 149–161, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fechner RE: Histologic variants of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast. Hum Pathol 6: 373–378, 1975

    Google Scholar 

  11. Weidner N, Semple JP: Pleomorphic variant of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast. Hum Pathol 23: 1167–1171, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bentz JS, Yassa N, Clayton F: Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma of the breast: clinicopathologic features of 12 cases. Mod Pathol 11: 814–822, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  13. Raju U, Ma CK, Shaw A: Signet ring variant of lobular carcinoma of the breast; a clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical study. Mod Pathol 6: 515–520, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  14. Merino MJ, LiVolsi VA: Signet ring carcinoma of the female breast. A clinicopathologic analysis of 24 cases. Cancer 48: 1830–1837, 1981

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cserni G: Reproducibility of a diagnosis of invasive lobular carcinoma. J Surg Oncol 70: 217–221, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dixon AR, Ellis IO, Elson CW, Blamey RW: A comparison of the clinical metastatic patterns of invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas of the breast. Br J Cancer 63: 634–635, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  17. Borst MJ, Ingold JA: Metastatic patterns of invasive lobular versus invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Surgery 114: 637–641, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  18. Lamovec I, Zidar A: Association of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis in carcinoma of the breast with infiltrating lobular carcinoma. An autopsy study. Arch Pathol Lab Med 115: 507–510, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  19. Harris M, Howell A, Chrissohou M, Swindell RI, Hudson M, Sellwood RA: A comparison of the metastatic pattern of infiltrating lobular carcinoma and infiltrating duct carcinoma of the breast. Br J Cancer 50: 23–30, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lamovec J, Bracko M: Metastatic pattern of infiltrating lobular carcinoma of the breast: an autopsy study. J Surg Oncol 48: 28–33, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jain S, Fisher C, Smith P, Millis RR, Rubens RD: Patterns of metastatic breast cancer in relation to histological type. Eur J Cancer 29A: 2155–2157, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  22. Courjal F, Louason G, Speiser P, Katsaros R, Zeillinger R, Theillet C: Cyclin gene amplification and overexpression in breast and ovarian cancers: Evidence for the selection of cyclin D1 in breast and cyclin E in ovarian tumors. Int J Cancer 69: 247–253, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  23. van Diest PJ, Michalides RJAM, Jannink I, van der Valk P, Petersen HL, de Jong JS, Meijer CJL, Baak JPA: Cyclin D1 expression in invasive breast cancer. Am J Pathol 150: 705–711, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  24. World Health Organization: Histological typing of breast tumors. Tumori 68: 181–198, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sobin LH, Wittekin C (eds): TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, 5th edition. Wiley- Liss, 1997

  26. Remmele W, Schicketanz K-H: Immunohistochemical determination of estrogen and progesterone receptor content in human breast cancer. Computer-assisted image analysis (QIC score) vs. subjective grading (IRS). Path Res Pract 8: 227–245, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  27. Soslow RA, Shen P, Chung MH, Isacson C: Distinctive p53 and mdm2 immunohistochemical expression profiles suggest different pathogenetic pathways in poorly differentiated uterine carcinoma. Int J Gynecol Pathol 17: 129–134, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  28. Makkink-Nombrado SV, Baak JP, Schuurmans L, Theeuwes JW, van der Aa T: Quantitative immunohistochemistry using the CAS 200/486 image analysis system in invasive breast carcinoma: a reproducibility study. Anal Cell Pathol 8: 227–245, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  29. Blanco G, Alavaikko M, Ojala A, Collan Y, Heikkinen M, Heitanen T, Aine R, Taskinen PJ: Estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer: relationships to tumour histopathology and survival of patients. Anticancer Res 4: 383–389, 1984

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mason BH, Holdaway IM, Mullins PR, Yee LH, Kay RG: Progesterone and estrogen receptors as prognostic variables in breast cancer. Cancer Res 43: 2985–2990, 1983

    Google Scholar 

  31. Aranda FI, Laforga JB: Cellular proliferation in breast ductal infiltrating carcinoma. Correlation with clinical and histopathological variables. Pathol Res Pract 193: 683–688, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  32. Moriki T, Takahashi T, Hiroi M, Yamane T, Hara H: Histological grade in invasive ductal carcinoma of breast correlates with the proliferative activity evaluated by BrdU: an immunohistochemical study including correlations with p53, c-erbB-2 and estrogen receptor status. Pathol Int 46: 417–425, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wright C, Angus B, Nicholson S, Sainbury JR, Cairns J, Gullick WJ, Kelly P, Harris AL, Horne CH: Expression of c-erbB-2 oncoprotein: a prognostic indicator in human breast cancer. Cancer Res 49: 2087–2090, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  34. McCann AH, Dervan PA, O'Regan M, Codd MB, Gullick WJ, Tobin BM, Carney DN: Prognostic significance of c-erbB-2 and estrogen receptor status in human breast cancer. Cancer Res 51: 3296–3303, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  35. Zwijsen RM, Wientjens E, Klompmaker R, van der Sman J, Bernards: CDK-independent activation of estrogen receptor by cyclin D1. Cell 88: 405–415, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  36. Prall OWJ, Sarcevic B, Musgrove EA, Watts CKW, Sutherland RL: Estrogen-induced activation of Cdk4 and Cdk2 during G1-S phase progression is accompanied by increased cyclin D1 expression and decreased cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor association with cyclin E-Cdk2. J Biol Chem 272: 10882–10894, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  37. Shi-Yu Zhang, Caamano J, Cooper F, Guo Xu, Klein-Szanto, AJP: Immunohistochemistry of cyclin D1 in human breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 102: 695–698, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  38. McIntosh GG, Anderson JJ, Milton I, Steward M, Parr AH, Henry JA, Angus B, Lennard TWJ, Horne CHW: Determination of the prognostic value of cyclin D1 overexpression in breast cancer. Oncogene 11: 885–891, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  39. Lloyd RV, Jin L, Qian X, Kulig E: Aberrant 27kip1 expression in endocrine and other tumors. A J Pathol 150: 401–407, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wu J, Shen ZZ, Lu JS, Jiang M, Han QX, Fontana JA, Barsky SH, Shao ZM: Prognostic role of p27kip1 and apoptosis in human breast cancer. Br J Cancer 79: 1572–1578, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  41. Martinazzi M, Crivelli F, Zampatti C, Martinazzi S: Relationship between p53 expression and other prognostic factors in human breast carcinoma. An immunohistochemical study. Am J Clin Pathol 100: 213–217, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  42. Barbareschi M, Leonardi E, Mauri FA, Serio G, Dalla Dalla P: p53 and c-erbB-2 protein expression in breast carcinomas. An immunohistochemical study including correlations with receptor status, proliferation markers, and clinical stage in human breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 98: 408–418, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bhargava V, Kell DL, van de Rijn M, Warnke, RA: Bcl-2 immunoreactivity in breast carcinomas correlates with hormone receptor positivity. Am J Pathol 1145, 535–540, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  44. Binder C, Marx D, Overhoff R, Binder L, Schauer A, Hiddemann W: Bcl-2 protein expression in breast cancer in relation to established prognostic factors and other clinicopathological variables. Ann Oncol 6: 1005–1010, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  45. McCann AH, Kirley A, Carney DN, Corbally N, Magee HM, Keating G, Dervan PA: Amplification of the MDM2 gene in human breast cancer and its associated with MDM2 and p53 protein status. Br J Cancer 71: 981–985, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  46. Marchetti A, Buttitta F, Girlando S, Palma Paolo Dalla, Pellegrini S, Fina Paolo, Doglionis C, Bevilacqua G, Barbareschi M: mdm2 gene alterations and mdm2 protein expression in breast carcinomas. J Pathol 175: 31–38, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  47. De Leeuw WJ, Berx G, Vos CB, Peterse JL, Van de Vijver MJ, Litvinov S, Van Roy F, Cornelisse CJ, Cleton-Jansen AM: Simultaneous loss of e-cadherin and catenins in invasive lobular breast cancer and lobular carcinoma in situ. J Pathol 183: 404–411, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  48. Berx G, Cleton-Jansen AM, Strumane K, de Leeuw WJ, Nollet F, van Roy F, Cornelisse C: E-cadherin is inactivated in a majority of invasive human lobular breast cancers by truncation mutations throughout its extracellular domain. Oncogene 13: 1919–1925, 1996

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Soslow, R.A., Carlson, D.L., Horenstein, M.G. et al. A comparison of cell cycle markers in well-differentiated lobular and ductal carcinomas. Breast Cancer Res Treat 61, 161–170 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006479113769

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006479113769

Navigation