PO.CL01.21 · 临床研究
乳腺与皮肤大汗腺癌的分子生物学差异
Molecular biological differences between breast and cutaneous apocrine carcinomas
作者与单位 Authors & Affiliations
摘要 Abstract
中文摘要
背景:乳腺大汗腺癌(BAC)和皮肤大汗腺癌(CAC)均为具有大汗腺形态学特征的腺癌。BAC是一种伴有大汗腺化生的乳腺上皮腺癌,而CAC则起源于皮肤大汗腺。腋窝不仅富含大汗腺,还可包含异位乳腺组织,因此两种肿瘤均可在此发生。尽管二者的治疗方案和预后不同,但它们具有高度相似的组织学特征,且缺乏可靠的诊断标志物。我们假设转录组学分析能够阐明BAC与CAC之间的生物学差异,并为二者的鉴别提供分子层面的见解。
方法:我们利用来自ORIEN队列(乳腺癌,n = 1,797,含4例BAC;皮肤癌,n = 331,含2例CAC)和YCU(BAC,n = 5;CAC,n = 2)的临床与转录组数据。我们从临床病理特征、基因表达谱和通路分析等方面对BAC和CAC进行了比较。此外,我们基于两种肿瘤类型之间的差异表达基因(DEGs)建立了一个诊断评分。
结果:在ORIEN和YCU两个队列中,CAC的复发和生存结局均较BAC更差。在转录组学分析中,CAC显示出与细胞增殖相关的Hallmark通路(如E2F targets、G2M checkpoint以及MYC targets v1/v2)显著上调,增殖标志基因Ki67的表达水平在CAC中也更高,尽管这一差异未达到统计学显著性。与免疫应答相关的通路在CAC中同样上调;然而,各类免疫细胞的浸润水平在两组之间并未显示出明显差异。我们比较了此前报道可用于鉴别BAC与CAC的十个免疫组化标志物对应基因的表达情况(BAC阳性:adipophilin、GATA3、mammaglobin、calretinin;CAC阳性:CK5/6、podoplanin、p63、CD14、CK17和PAX5)。CK5/6和podoplanin在两个队列中均在CAC中表达更高,这与既往报道一致,尽管差异未达到统计学显著性。其余标志物在各队列之间要么未显示出一致的差异,要么呈现出与既往报道不一致的模式。随后,我们利用ORIEN队列建立了一个用于鉴别BAC与CAC的评分。为构建该评分,我们首先利用可将所有乳腺癌与所有皮肤癌区分开的DEGs构建了一个LASSO回归模型,然后基于BAC与CAC之间的DEGs添加了第二个组成部分。通过结合这两个基于DEG的组成部分,我们生成了鉴别评分。使用YCU队列进行的验证显示出100%的敏感性和特异性,能够准确鉴别BAC与CAC。
结论:与BAC相比,CAC表现出更高的细胞增殖活性和更差的预后。该转录组学评分能够准确鉴别BAC与CAC。
查看英文原文 English abstract
Background: Breast apocrine carcinoma (BAC) and cutaneous apocrine carcinoma (CAC) are both adenocarcinomas with apocrine morphology. BAC is a mammary epithelial adenocarcinoma with apocrine metaplasia, whereas CAC arises from cutaneous apocrine glands. The axilla is not only rich in apocrine glands but can also contain ectopic breast tissue, allowing both tumors to arise. Despite different treatments and prognoses, they share highly similar histologic features, and no reliable diagnostic markers exist. We hypothesized that transcriptomic analyses could clarify the biological differences between BAC and CAC and provide molecular insights for distinguishing them.
Methods: We utilized clinical and transcriptomic data from the ORIEN cohort (breast carcinoma, n = 1,797 including 4 BACs; skin cancers, n = 331 including 2 CACs) and YCU (BAC, n = 5; CAC, n = 2). We compared BAC and CAC in terms of clinicopathologic features, gene expression profiles, and pathway analyses. In addition, we developed a diagnostic score based on differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the two tumor types.
Results: In both the ORIEN and YCU cohorts, CAC showed worse recurrence and survival outcomes than BAC. In transcriptomic analyses, CAC demonstrated significant upregulation of Hallmark pathways related to cell proliferation such as E2F targets, G2M checkpoint and MYC targets v1/v2, and the expression level of Ki67, a proliferation marker gene, was also higher in CAC, although this was not statistically significant. Pathways related to immune responses were also upregulated in CAC; however, infiltration levels of individual immune cell types showed no clear differences between the two groups. We compared the expression of genes corresponding to ten immunohistochemical markers previously reported to distinguish BAC from CAC (positive in BAC: adipophilin, GATA3, mammaglobin, calretinin; positive in CAC: CK5/6, podoplanin, p63, CD14, CK17, and PAX5). CK5/6 and podoplanin showed higher expression in CAC in both cohorts, which was consistent with previous reports, although the differences did not reach statistical significance . The remaining markers showed either no consistent differences between cohorts or exhibited patterns inconsistent with previous reports. We then developed a score to distinguish BAC from CAC using the ORIEN cohort. To create this score, we first built a LASSO regression model using DEGs that separated all breast cancers from all skin cancers, then added a second component based on DEGs between BAC and CAC. By combining these two DEG-based components, we generated the distinguishing score. Validation using the YCU cohort demonstrated 100% sensitivity and specificity, accurately distinguishing BAC from CAC.
Conclusions: CAC exhibited higher cell proliferative activity and poorer prognosis compared with BAC. The transcriptomic score accurately distinguished BAC from CAC.
利益披露 Disclosure
K. Kawashima, None..
K. Chida, None..
M. Sasamoto, None..
M. Oshi, None..
A. Yamada, None..
I. Endo, None.