Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Anticancer Research
  • Other Publications
    • Anticancer Research
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Anticancer Research

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Advertisers
    • Editorial Board
  • Other Publications
    • In Vivo
    • Cancer Genomics & Proteomics
    • Cancer Diagnosis & Prognosis
  • More
    • IIAR
    • Conferences
    • 2008 Nobel Laureates
  • About Us
    • General Policy
    • Contact
  • Visit us on Facebook
  • Follow us on Linkedin
Research ArticleExperimental Studies

Differential Expression of E-Cadherin in Primary Breast Cancer and Corresponding Lymph Node Metastases

VEACESLAV FULGA, LUCIAN RUDICO, AMALIA RALUCA BALICA, ANCA MARIA CIMPEAN, LILIAN SAPTEFRATI, MADALIN-MARIUS MARGAN and MARIUS RAICA
Anticancer Research February 2015, 35 (2) 759-765;
VEACESLAV FULGA
1Department of Histology, Cytology and Embriology, Nicolae Testemitanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
LUCIAN RUDICO
1Department of Histology, Cytology and Embriology, Nicolae Testemitanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
AMALIA RALUCA BALICA
2Department of Microscopic Morphology/Histology, Angiogenesis Research Center, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
ANCA MARIA CIMPEAN
2Department of Microscopic Morphology/Histology, Angiogenesis Research Center, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: ancacimpean1972@yahoo.com
LILIAN SAPTEFRATI
1Department of Histology, Cytology and Embriology, Nicolae Testemitanu State University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Chisinau, Republic of Moldova
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MADALIN-MARIUS MARGAN
3Department XII - Obstetrics and Gynecology, Neonatology and Perinatal Care, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
MARIUS RAICA
2Department of Microscopic Morphology/Histology, Angiogenesis Research Center, Victor Babes University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Timisoara, Romania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Background/Aim: E-Cadherin is a marker with a controversial function. Its role is often interpreted in the context of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition. In ambiguous cases, it is used as a phenotypic marker of lobular subtype of breast carcinoma. It has been well-studied in primary cancer, but its expression after metastasis is not well-described. The aim of this study was to determine the evolution of E-cadherin expression in no special type (NST) primary breast carcinoma and to correlate this with that in distant, paired nodal metastases (LNM) and molecular classification. Material and Methods: We processed 88 invasive breast carcinomas of NST type and their paired LNM. The specimens were formalin-fixed and paraffin embedded. Sections were immunostained for estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (Her2), basal cytokeratin CK5, nuclear protein Ki67 and E-cadherin with a Leica Bond-Max autostainer. Results: The results obtained were grouped into four molecular subtypes: Luminal A, luminal B, HER2-overexpressing, and triple-negative/basal-like. We found that the frequency of E-cadherin expression was higher (95.45%) in primary sites than in LNM (72.73%). E-Cadherin from primary breast cancer correlated positively only with E-cadherin in LNM (p≤0.003). A single positive correlation of E-cadherin with ER (p≤0.007) LNM was found. Conclusion: E-Cadherin expression is not stable during the metastatic process. Its expression in LNM is lower than in primary sites. E-Cadherin expression in primary sites positively correlates with E-cadherin from LNM.

  • Molecular subtypes
  • breast cancer
  • invasive carcinoma NST type
  • metastasis

Despite the fact that histological types of breast cancer are very well described and a lot of markers are used, this type of cancer remains the main cause of death among women. The scientific world is continuously searching for new markers which can help predict the outcome of this disease.

One such marker is E-cadherin. It was characterized as a potent suppressor of invasion and metastasis in several studies dating back to the 1990s and reviewed by van Roy and Berx (1). It is a calcium-regulated adhesion molecule expressed in most normal epithelial tissues (2). It helps in gland formation, stratification and epithelial polarization (3). Knockout of E-cadherin has been associated with non-viability and abnormal epithelial morphogenesis (4). Selective loss of E-cadherin can cause de-differentiation and invasiveness in human carcinomas, leading this marker to be classified as a tumor suppressor (5).

In practical applications, E-cadherin is used as a phenotypic marker of the lobular subtype of cancer, where loss of hetero zygosity in chromosome region 16q22.1, the gene region encoding E-cadherin (CDH1) is frequent (6).

Although the role of E-cadherin as a tumor suppressor has been established, in recent years, alternative roles for E-cadherin in tumor progression have become apparent. The experimental and physiological observations regarding the tumor-suppressor role of E-cadherin are often interpreted in the context of the epithelial-mesenchymal transition. This important process includes changes that lead to the transient down-regulation of epithelial cell characteristics such as apical-basal polarization and organized cell-cell adhesion and the acquisition of a mesenchymal cellular phenotype, which is less adherent and more migratory (7). From this position, the presence of E-cadherin prevents cell motility, invasion, and metastasis (8). Some results also support an important role for E-cadherin in tumor intravasation, which itself is a critical step required for metastasis. Kowalski et al. hold that most breast ductal carcinomas, both primary and metastatic, consistently express E-cadherin and that it plays an important role in maintaining microemboli in inflammatory carcinoma models (9).

In order to establish better treatment, the molecular profile of breast cancer is frequently determined; molecular subclasses increase day after day (10). E-Cadherin is very well described in correlation with histological types of breast carcinoma, but its expression in combination with molecular types is not so well known. Chekhun et al. showed that the aggressiveness of clinical course and occurrence of metastasis in basal or luminal subtypes is strongly dependent on expression of this marker (11). It was demonstrated that low colony-forming activity of human breast carcinoma cells of the luminal subtype is accompanied by increased adhesive properties of these cells due to high-level E-cadherin expression in correlation with a low level of CD44 expression and absence of CD24 expression. High tumorigenicity of cells of the basal subtype is related to weakening of adhesive contacts that are caused by abnormalities of E-cadherin expression. According to Tang et al., E-cadherin is as an independent marker of the prognosis of the triple-negative subtype, which is contradictory to other recent data (12, 13).

In fact, some results revealed an unusual meaning for this marker by which E-cadherin plays a role in preventing invasion and metastasis, which is in contrast with the classical point of view. Chu et al. found that patients with basal subtype breast cancer and high E-cadherin expression had a poor clinical outcome (14). Such data suggests a new function for E-cadherin as a signaling molecule required for in vivo growth of aggressive breast cancer tumor cells that retain E-cadherin expression. It seems that because of its multiple roles in tumorigenesis and wide range of available assays, the results estimating the value of E-cadherin in patients with breast cancer remain contradictory.

The aim of this study was to determine the evolution of E-cadherin expression in no special type (NST) primary breast carcinoma and to correlate this with that of distant, paired nodal metastases in accordance with molecular classification (10).

Materials and Methods

Patients. Specimens were obtained [primary breast carcinomas and their corresponding lymph node metastases (LNM)] from 88 patients from the Oncological Institute, Republic of Moldova during 2012-2013 years. No drug therapy preceded surgery and all patients underwent radical mastectomy and lymph node dissection.

Tissue processing and immunohistochemistry.The specimens were fixed in 10% phosphate-buffered formalin for 24-48 h and paraffin embedded as standard practice. For routine histopathological assessment, 4-6 μm sections were cut and stained with hematoxylin and eosin. The sections of the primary tumors and their metastases were processed together on the same slides. Two independent histologists reviewed the cases. Discrepancies in diagnoses were solved by consensus with simultaneous viewing.

Immunohistochemical assays included the use of six monoclonal antibodies: Er/6F11, Pr16, E-cadherin /36B5, Her2/polyclonal, Ki67/K2, CK5/ XM26 (Table I). All stages of immunohisto chemistry were performed automatically using a Leica Bond-Max autostainer (Leica Microsystems GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany). Hematoxylin Mayer's, Lillie's modification (HMM500, ScyTek Laboratories, Inc.) was used for counterstaining.

Microscopic evaluation. The markers used were interpreted only in invasive areas. The ER and PR markers were scored as the percentage of nuclear positively-stained cells from at least 1,000 cells assessed. The tumor was considered ER+, or PR+, if at least 30% of tumor cells in a section exhibited nuclear staining. The mean level of each marker from LNM was compared against that of the primary tumor.

The HER2 status was interpreted in accordance with American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendations (15): 0 if no staining was observed or weak, barely perceptible membrane staining up to 10% of cells; +1 in cases of weak membranous staining of >10%; +2 in cases of incomplete, weak/moderate circumferential membranous staining >10% of tumor cells or complete circumferential intense staining <10% of cells; +3 in cases of intense, circumferential staining of >10% of tumor cells. Cases with HER2/neu of +2 and +3 were considered as positive. The positively stained cells of normal ducts served as an internal control.

The CK5 expression was interpreted as Azoulay et al. previously defined: 0: no tumor cells stained; +1: fewer than 10% of tumor cells stained; +2: 10-50% positive tumor cells; +3: >50% of tumor cells stained (16). Expression was scored as positive (>0) if any cytoplasmic or membranous staining of tumor cells were observed.

For Ki67 marker, we used a 14% threshold as a limit to define positive/negative cases. The results were then grouped into four subgroups: 1: ER+ and PR+, HER2−, CK5−, Ki67<14% as luminal A; 2: ER+ with/without PR+, HER2+, CK5− or ER+ with/without PR+, HER2−, CK5−, Ki67>14% as luminal B; 3:ER−, PR−, HER2+, CK5− as HER2− overexpressing; 4:ER−, PR−, HER2− and CK5+ as triple-negative/basal-like.

E-Cadherin reaction was evaluated using a scoring system purposed by Qureshi et al. (17) for the correlation of the percentage of positively stained cells and their staining intensity: 0: lack of staining or membrane positivity in <10% of tumor cells; 1: incomplete and weak membranous staining in >10% of tumor cells; 2: complete membranous staining, with weak or moderate intensity in >10% of tumor cells; 3: strong membranous staining in >10% of tumor cells. According to this score, the reaction was considered as negative for scores of 0 and 1, weakly positive for score 2 and strongly positive for score 3. Cytoplasmic staining was considered nonspecific and not included in the assessment. The presence of E-cadherin staining in epithelial cells of the normal ducts and acini served as an internal positive control.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table I.

Antibodies used; source, dilution, systems of detection and retrieval, and time of incubation.

Image acquisition and data processing. Slides were evaluated on a Nikon Eclipse 80i microscope with Nikon DS-Fi1 installed camera by using Nis-elements BR 2.30 imaging software (Nikon Instruments Europe BV). A Microsoft Access 2003 database (Microsoft Office 2003 SP3) was used to store and group the data.

Statistical analysis. WINSTAT 2012.1 software (R. Fitch Software, Bad Krozingen, Germany) was used for descriptive statistics, the mean and standard error of the mean determined and for all the tests a value of p≤0.05 was considered significant. Pearson's correlation was used to determine the relationship between different variables for a value of p≤0.05. The strength of the correlation was appreciated in accordance with Evans' guide (18): 0.00-0.19: very weak; 0.20-0.39: weak; 0.40-0.59: moderate; 0.60-0.79: strong; 0.80-1.0: very strong.

Ethics. The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the “Nicolae Testemitanu” State University of Medicine and Pharmacy from Chisinau, Republic of Moldova, based on patients' informed consent (approval number 21/13 from 31.03.2014).

Results

We found E-cadherin to be present in all primary tumors (95.45%), out of which 82.95% of cases exhibited a strong, grade 3 expression and 12.5% a grade 2. All negative cases (4.55%) were graded as 0.

In LNM, E-cadherin was evaluated as being positive in 72.73% of cases, of which 59.09% were estimated at grade 3 and 13.64% as grade 2. The negative cases represented 27.27%, of which 19.32% were graded as 0 and 7.95% as 1 (Figure 1 and b).

After grouping our 88 cases by hormonal profile, the luminal A subtype constituted the majority-68 cases (77.27%) in the primary sites (Figure 1a) and in 63 cases (71.59%) of LNM. Luminal B and basal-like comprised nine cases each (10.23%) in the primary tumors, and seven (7.95%) and 14 cases (15.91%) of LNM. HER2-positive profile was found in two cases (2.27%) of primary tumor and in four cases (4.55%) of LNM (Figure 1 c-f).

The analysis of E-cadherin distribution by molecular subtypes shows that the highest rate (72.73%) of E-cadherin expression was found for the luminal A profile of primary tumors (Table II). In all cases of luminal B (9 cases/10.23%), basal-like (9 cases/10.23%) and HER2+ (2 cases/2.27%) at the primary level, E-cadherin expression was positive. Only four (4.55%) luminal A cases did not express E-cadherin.

A different distribution of E-cadherin was determined in the LNM. From 63 (71.59%) luminal A cases, only 48 (54.55%) expressed this marker. E-Cadherin was positive in six cases (6.82%) of luminal B, eight (9.09%) of basal-like and two (2.27%) of HER2+ LNM.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

The E-Cadherin expression in different molecular subtypes of breast cancer, in primary tumor and its correspondent lymph node metastasis (LNM): (a)-Invasive ductal breast carcinoma of no special type, G3, Luminal A subtype. Strong (+3) E-Cadherin expression; (b)- Lymph node metastasis of the invasive ductal breast carcinoma, Luminal A subtype, stated in (a). No (0) E-Cadherin expression; (c)-Invasive ductal breast carcinoma of no special type, G3, Her2- overexpressed subtype. Strong (+3) E-Cadherin expression; (d)-Lymph node metastasis of the invasive ductal breast carcinoma, G3 stated in (c). Her2 overexpressed subtype at the level of LNM. No (0) E-Cadherin expression;(e)-Invasive ductal breast carcinoma, no special type, G2, Luminal B subtype. Strong (+3) E-Cadherin expression; (f)-Lymph node metastasis of the invasive ductal breast carcinoma, G2, showed in (e). At the level of LNM is a Her2-overexpressed subtype determined. Strong (+3) E-Cadherin expression.

The statistical analysis revealed no correlations of E-cadherin expression in primary tumor with ER, PR, HER2, CK5, Ki-67 markers or molecular subtype. In LNM, E-cadherin was positively correlated (0.26 at p≤0.0007) with ER. The E-cadherin level in primary sites was weakly (0.29) but statistically significantly (p≤0.003) correlatied with E-cadherin in LNM

Discussion

It is well-recognized that E-cadherin loss confirms invasive lobular carcinoma (17, 19, 20). The different pattern of E-cadherin expression in invasive ductal and lobular carcinomas suggests that this protein may play different roles in the development of each type of tumor. The absence of membranous E-cadherin expression in invasive lobular carcinomas may determine the morphological features such as the characteristic cellular arrangement of lobular carcinoma cells, as well as the distinct pattern of stromal invasion of invasive lobular carcinomas, typically as single cells or rows of cells (9). By comparing two sites, we determined that E-cadherin is expressed at normal levels at the distant metastatic site regardless of the level of expression at the site of primary invasive ductal carcinoma. Invasive lobular carcinomas have a different pattern of E-cadherin expression at primary and metastatic sites, which suggests a different role of E-cadherin in this form of cancer. Positive staining may not completely exclude the presence of lobular carcinoma because E-cadherin expression may be retained in a minority of cases with characteristic morphological features of lobular carcinoma. We consider that E-cadherin positivity favors ductal differentiation in ambiguous cases. In contrast, partial loss of E-cadherin expression in some poorly differentiated ductal carcinomas is not of diagnostic significance.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table II.

Molecular subtypes and E-Cadherin expression in no special type (NST) primary breast cancer and paired lymph node metastases (LNM).

The absence of E-cadherin expression is frequently described in correlation with tumor size and stage, lymph node status, tumoral recurrence, and grade of differentiation. Moreover, Goldstein considered that its lack of expression explains the distinctive growth patterns in metastases (21). Kowalski et al. consider that a reduction in E-cadherin expression is frequent in invasive ductal carcinomas that will progress and develop distant metastases (9).

By studying E-cadherin expression in primary breast tumors and their corresponding metastases to liver, lung and brain, Chao et al. showed an increased expression (62%) in the metastases compared to the primaries (22). In addition, it has been observed that metastatic foci commonly appear to be more differentiated than the corresponding primary tumor, suggesting that cancer cells may further undergo a mesenchymal to epithelial reverting transition in the secondary organ environment.

However, our results showed E-cadherin expression to be less frequent in LNM (72.73%) than in primary sites (95.45%). E-Cadherin loss in the lymph node environment supports the possibility of epithelial-mesenchymal transition in breast carcinomas metastasis. Although it was shown that abnormality of E-cadherin expression and methylation of its gene is associated with an aggressive clinical course, Hollestelle et al. concluded that loss of E-cadherin is not a necessity for epithelial-mesenchymal transition in human breast cancer (23).

The loss of E-cadherin expression has an unfavorable prognostic significance. Its absence is frequently associated with metastatic lymph node status, tumor recurrence, low grade of differentiation, and advanced stage of tumor (24). It has been demonstrated that low colony-forming activity of human breast cancer cells of the luminal subtype is accompanied by increased adhesive properties of these cells due to a high level of E-cadherin expression (11). High tumorigenicity of cells of the basal subtype is related to weakening of adhesive contacts that is caused by abnormalities of E-cadherin expression.

Recently several studies have described the possibility of a phenotype switch during the metastatic process. It is hypothesized that the molecular profile of breast canceris not stable throughout tumor progression. Moreover, Falck et al. found that when a shift in molecular subtype between primary tumor and metastatic lymph node occurs, the prognosis (for 10 years) follows the subtype from metastasis (25).

Nowadays, E-cadherin is considered to be an independent marker of triple-negative breast cancer, a molecular subtype characterized with poor prognosis and short survival (12). In our investigation the molecular subtypes of the primary sites did not correspond 100% with those of their LNM. In particular, we observed a shift from luminal to triple-negative. This transition is supported by a decrease in the E-cadherin-positive rate from 95.45% in primary tumors to 72.73% in LNM (Table II) and higher incidence of the triple-negative subtype in LNM (15.91% versus 10.23% in primary sites). However, statistically confirmed correlation between E-cadherin and the molecular subtype of primary carcinoma and LNM was not found. Our results are contradictory to certain recent data (13), which revealed statistically significant differences in E-cadherin expression by molecular subtype. Bertolo et al. found a positive correlation of E-cadherin and HER2 receptor, but in our study, E-cadherin in primary sites correlated positively only with E-cadherin in LNM (26). This contradiction may be due to the selected study material. Authors selected cases without distant metastasis at the time of primary diagnosis. In addition, we processed a higher number of cases (88 versus 60).

E-Cadherin in LNM correlated only with ER at the same site. It should be noted that despite the obtained results being statistically significant (p≤0.05), correlations were graded as weak. E-Cadherin correlation with the molecular profile in breast carcinomas needs further investigation by other groups.

Conclusion

The E-Cadherin expression changes during metastatic process. A different expression between primary tumor and metastases could have a clinical impact with important role in recurrences and tumors' molecular profile changing. This marker could also have a predictive role. Loosing E-Cadherin expression at the metastases level suggests that primary tumor is not homogenous by its cellular composition; breast carcinoma has tumor cells with different metastatic potential. This marker is not a target in personalized therapy yet, but results highlighted in the present study suggest its role in metastasis development. Low E-Cadherin expression and evidence of switch from luminal A to triple-negativ subtype in metastases, purpose idea that this marker could be involved in changing of breast carcinoma molecular subtype.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by grant UEFISCDI_IDEI 345/2011 and UEFISCDI_ Bilateral Cooperation Romania-Moldova grant 684/2013 of the Romanian Ministry of Education and Research.

  • Received September 23, 2014.
  • Revision received November 12, 2014.
  • Accepted November 17, 2014.
  • Copyright© 2015 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. John G. Delinassios), All rights reserved

References

  1. ↵
    1. van Roy F,
    2. Berx G
    : The cell-cell adhesion molecule E-cadherin. Cell Mol Life Sci 65: 3756-3788, 2008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Takeichi M
    : Cadherins: a molecular family important in selective cell-cell adhesion. Annu Rev Biochem 59: 237-252, 1990.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Bracke ME,
    2. Von Roy FM,
    3. Mareel MM
    : The Ecadherin/catenin complex in invasion and metastasis. Curr Top Microbiol Immunol 213: 123-161, 1996.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Larue L,
    2. Ohsugi M,
    3. Hirchenhain J,
    4. Kemler R
    : E-cadherin null mutant embryos fail to form a trophectoderm epithelium. PRoc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 8263-8267, 1994.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. ↵
    1. Frixen UH,
    2. Behrens J,
    3. Sachs M,
    4. Eberle G,
    5. Voss B,
    6. Warda A,
    7. Löchner D,
    8. Birchmeier W
    : E-Cadherin mediated cell-cell adhesion prevents invasiveness of human carcinoma cells. J Cell Biol 113: 173-185, 1991.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Berx G,
    2. Van Roy F
    : The E-cadherin/catenin complex: an important gatekeeper in breast cancer tumorigenesis and malignant progression. Breast Cancer Res 3: 289-293, 2001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Radisky DC
    : Epithelial-mesenchymal transition. J Cell Sci 118: 4325-4326, 2005.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Derksen PW,
    2. Braumuller TM,
    3. van der Burg E,
    4. Hornsveld M,
    5. Mesman E,
    6. Wesseling J,
    7. Krimpenfort P,
    8. Jonkers J
    : Mammary-specific inactivation of E-cadherin and p53 impairs functional gland development and leads to pleomorphic invasive lobular carcinoma in mice. Dis Model Mech 4(3): 347-358, 2011.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    1. Kowalski P,
    2. Rubin M,
    3. Kleer C
    : E-Cadherin expression in primary carcinomas of the breast and its distant metastases. Breast Cancer Res 5: R217-R222, 2003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Perou CM,
    2. Sorlie T,
    3. Eisen MB,
    4. van de Rijn M,
    5. Jeffrey SS,
    6. Rees CA,
    7. Pollack JR,
    8. Ross DT,
    9. Johnsen H,
    10. Akslen LA,
    11. Fluge O,
    12. Pergamenschikov A,
    13. Williams C,
    14. Zhu SX,
    15. Lonning PE,
    16. Borresen-Dale AL,
    17. Brown PO,
    18. Botstein D
    : Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406(6797): 747-752, 2000.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    1. Chekhun S,
    2. Bezdenezhnykh N,
    3. Shvets J,
    4. Lukianova N
    : Expression of biomarkers related to cell adhesion, metastasis and invasion of breast cancer cell lines of different molecular subtype. Exp Oncol 35(3): 174-179, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. ↵
    1. Tang D,
    2. Xu S,
    3. Zhang Q,
    4. Zhao W
    : The expression and clinical significance of the androgen receptor and E-cadherin in triple-negative breast cancer. Med Oncol 29(2): 526-533, 2012.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    1. Ionescu Popescu C,
    2. Giuşcă SE,
    3. Liliac L,
    4. Avadanei R,
    5. Ceauşu R,
    6. Cîmpean AM,
    7. Balan R,
    8. Amălinei C,
    9. Ciobanu Apostol D,
    10. Căruntu ID
    : E-Cadherin expression in molecular types of breast carcinoma. Rom J Morphol Embryol 54: 267-73, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    1. Chu K,
    2. Boley KM,
    3. Moraes R,
    4. Barsky SH,
    5. Robertson FM
    : The paradox of E-cadherin: role in response to hypoxia in the tumor microenvironment and regulation of energy metabolism. Oncotarget 4(3): 446-62, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Wolff AC,
    2. Hammond ME,
    3. Hicks DG,
    4. Dowsett M,
    5. McShane LM,
    6. Allison KH,
    7. Allred DC,
    8. Bartlett JM,
    9. Bilous M,
    10. Fitzgibbons P,
    11. Hanna W,
    12. Jenkins RB,
    13. Mangu PB,
    14. Paik S,
    15. Perez EA,
    16. PRess MF,
    17. Spears PA,
    18. Vance GH,
    19. Viale G,
    20. Hayes DF,
    21. American Society of Clinical Oncology,
    22. College of American Pathologists
    : Recommendations for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Testing in Breast Cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists Clinical Practice Guideline Update. J Clin Oncol 31(31): 3997-4013, 2013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. ↵
    1. Azoulay S,
    2. Laé M,
    3. Fréneaux P,
    4. Merle S,
    5. Al Ghuzlan A,
    6. Chnecker C,
    7. Rosty C,
    8. Klijanienko J,
    9. Sigal-Zafrani B,
    10. Salmon R,
    11. Fourquet A,
    12. Sastre-Garau X,
    13. Vincent-Salomon A
    : KIT is highly expressed in adenoid cystic carcinoma of the breast, a basal-like carcinoma associated with a favorable outcome. Mod Pathol 18: 1623-31, 2005.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Qureshi HS,
    2. Linden MD,
    3. Divine G,
    4. Raju UB
    : E-Cadherin status in breast cancer correlates with histologic type but does not correlate with established prognostic parameters. Am J Clin Pathol 125(3): 377-85, 2006.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. ↵
    1. Evans JD
    : Straightforward statistics for the behavioral sciences, Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1996.
  19. ↵
    1. Moll R,
    2. Mitze M,
    3. Frixen UH,
    4. Birchmeier W
    : Differential loss of E-cadherin expression in infiltrating ductal and lobular breast carcinomas. Am J Pathol 143: 1731-1742, 1993.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Acs G,
    2. Lawton TJ,
    3. Rebbeck TR,
    4. LiVolsi VA,
    5. Zhang PJ
    : Differential expression of E-cadherin in lobular and ductal neoplasms of the breast and its biologic and diagnostic implications. Am J Clin Pathol 115: 85-98, 2001.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. ↵
    1. Goldstein NS
    : Does the level of E-cadherin expression correlate with the primary breast carcinoma infiltration pattern and type of systemic metastasis? Am J Clin Pathol 118: 425-434, 2002.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  22. ↵
    1. Chao YL,
    2. Shepard CR,
    3. Wells A
    : Breast carcinoma cells re-express E-cadherin during mesenchymal to epithelial reverting transition. Mol Cancer 9: 179, 2010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    1. Hollestelle A,
    2. Peeters JK,
    3. Smid M,
    4. Timmermans M,
    5. Verhoog LC,
    6. Westenend PJ,
    7. Heine AA,
    8. Chan A,
    9. Sieuwerts AM,
    10. Wiemer EA,
    11. Klijn JG,
    12. van der Spek PJ,
    13. Foekens JA,
    14. Schutte M,
    15. den Bakker MA,
    16. Martens JW
    : Loss of E-cadherin is not a necessity for epithelial to mesenchymal transition in human breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 138: 47-57, 2013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Gould Rothberg BE,
    2. Bracken MB
    : E-cadherin immunohistochemical expression as a prognostic factor in infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 100(2): 139-148, 2006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Falck AK,
    2. Bendahl PO,
    3. Chebil G,
    4. Olsson H,
    5. Fernö M,
    6. Ryden L
    : Biomarker expression and St Gallen molecular subtype classification in primary tumours, synchronous lymph node metastases and asynchronous relapses in primary breast cancer patients with 10 years' follow-up. Breast cancer Res Treat 140(1): 93-104, 2013.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Bertolo C,
    2. Guerrero D,
    3. Vicente F,
    4. Cordoba A,
    5. Esteller M,
    6. Ropero S,
    7. Guillen-Grima F,
    8. Martinez-Peñuela JM,
    9. Lera JM
    : Differences and molecular immunohistochemical parameters in the subtypes of infiltrating ductal breast cancer. Am J Clin Pathol 130(3): 414-24, 2008.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Anticancer Research: 35 (2)
Anticancer Research
Vol. 35, Issue 2
February 2015
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Back Matter (PDF)
  • Ed Board (PDF)
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Anticancer Research.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Differential Expression of E-Cadherin in Primary Breast Cancer and Corresponding Lymph Node Metastases
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Anticancer Research
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Anticancer Research web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
19 + 1 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Citation Tools
Differential Expression of E-Cadherin in Primary Breast Cancer and Corresponding Lymph Node Metastases
VEACESLAV FULGA, LUCIAN RUDICO, AMALIA RALUCA BALICA, ANCA MARIA CIMPEAN, LILIAN SAPTEFRATI, MADALIN-MARIUS MARGAN, MARIUS RAICA
Anticancer Research Feb 2015, 35 (2) 759-765;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Reprints and Permissions
Share
Differential Expression of E-Cadherin in Primary Breast Cancer and Corresponding Lymph Node Metastases
VEACESLAV FULGA, LUCIAN RUDICO, AMALIA RALUCA BALICA, ANCA MARIA CIMPEAN, LILIAN SAPTEFRATI, MADALIN-MARIUS MARGAN, MARIUS RAICA
Anticancer Research Feb 2015, 35 (2) 759-765;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Acknowledgements
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Evaluation of Vascular Proliferation in Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Effect of Chloroquine on Doxorubicin-induced Apoptosis in A549 Cells
  • Effect of Aspirin on G0/G1 Cell Cycle Arrest and microRNA Signatures in Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma Cells
  • Suppression of Inflammatory Cytokine Genes Expression in Vascular Endothelial Cells by Super-low Dose Lipopolysaccharide-activated Macrophages
Show more Experimental Studies

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • Molecular subtypes
  • Breast cancer
  • invasive carcinoma NST type
  • metastasis
Anticancer Research

© 2022 Anticancer Research

Powered by HighWire