Eruptive Poromatosis Following Radiotherapy

BackgroundGross cystic disease fluid protein-15(GCDFP-15)/prolactin-inducible protein (PIP) is a secretory acinar glycoprotein of 14 KDa which we have recently described as significantly lower in salivary samples of patients with primary Sjögren’s syndrome (pSS) in comparison to healthy volunteers by proteomic analysis.Aims of the study(1) to validate our previous data on the decrease of GCDFP-15/PIP protein in a larger number of subjects with pSS (2) to integrate the proteomic results with complementary immunoassays in order better clarify the pathophysiological relevance of GCDFP-15/PIP in pSS exocrinopathy (3) to assess both the glandular expression of the GCDFP-15/PIP and the levels of glandular GCDFP-15/PIP mRNA in the patients’ minor salivary gland (MSG) biopsies in order to verify whether the observed reduction of GCDFP-15/PIP in saliva may be related to a decrease in the protein production.Patients and methodsA total of 123 salivary samples from patients affected by pSS, no-SS sicca syndrome and sex- age-matched healthy volunteers were analyzed by different proteomic techniques (SELDI-TOF-MS, 2DE, MALDI-TOF-MS). The expression of GCDFP-15/PIP was then validated by western blot analysis. Real Time PCR and immunohistochemistry for GCDFP-15/PIP in the minor salivary glands (MSG) biopsies were then carried out.ResultsBy using complementary proteomic analysis we found that a putative peak of 16547 m/z was among the best independent biomarkers for pSS able to discriminate between patients and healthy controls with a sensitivity of 96 % and a specificity of 70%, with a global cross validated error of 29%. We identified the peak as the GCDFP-15/PIP protein and verified that the intensity of GCDFP-15/PIP was significantly lower in pSS patients when compared to both no-SS sicca subjects and healthy controls (p<0.0001). GCDFP-15/PIP expression also correlated with both the salivary flow rate (r=0.312, p=0.023) and MSG biopsies focus score (r=−0.377, p=0.04). Finally, immunohistochemistry confirmed that GCDFP-15/PIP staining was faint in mucus acini and Real Time PCR showed that GCDFP-15/PIP mRNA was significantly lower in pSS patients when compared to both no-SS sicca subjects and healthy controls (p=0.023) thus supporting the hypothesis that the observed reduction of GCDFP-15/PIP in pSS saliva may be related to a decrease in the protein production.ConclusionIn this study by different complementary-omic techniques we confirmed the potential role of GCDFP-15/PIP as a novel biomarker for pSS. This finding might also be functionally important as GCDFP-15/PIP has previously been shown to bind to Aquaporin 5 (AQP5), a salivary gland water channel, critical to saliva formation that is known to be downregulated in pSS. It is likely that exploring the GCDFP-15/PIP/AQP5 axis will help better understand the mechanism of salivary gland dysfunction in pSS.

BackgroundGross cystic disease fluid protein-15(GCDFP-15)/prolactin-inducible protein (PIP) is a secretory acinar glycoprotein of 14KDa which has been recently described as significantly lower in salivary samples of patients with primary Sjögren’s...

Up to one-third of women aged 30-50 years have cysts in their breasts and are presumed to be at increased risk of developing breast cancer. Here we present an extensive proteomic and immunohistochemistry (IHC) study of breast apocrine cystic lesions aimed at generating specific biomarkers and elucidating the relationship, if existent, of apocrine cysts with cancer phenotype. To this end we compared the expression profiles of apocrine macrocysts obtained from mastectomies from high risk cancer patients with those of cancerous and non-malignant mammary tissue biopsies collected from the same patients. We identified two biomarkers, 15-hydroxyprostaglandin dehydrogenase and 3-hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase, that were expressed specifically by apocrine type I cysts as well as by apocrine metaplastic cells in type II microcysts, terminal ducts, and intraductal papillary lesions. No expression of these markers was observed in non-malignant terminal ductal lobular units, type II flat cysts, stroma cells, or fat tissue as judged by IHC analysis of matched non-malignant tissue samples collected from 93 high risk patients enrolled in our cancer program. IHC analysis of the corresponding 93 primary tumors indicated that most apocrine changes have little intrinsic malignant potential, although some may progress to invasive apocrine cancer. None of the apocrine lesions examined, however, seemed to be a precursor of invasive ductal carcinomas, which accounted for 81% of the tumors analyzed. Our studies also provided some insight into the origin, development, and enlargement of apocrine cysts in mammary tissue. The successful identification of differentially expressed proteins that characterize specific steps in the progression from early benign lesions to apocrine cancer opens a window of opportunity for designing and testing new approaches for pharmacological intervention, not only in a therapeutic setting but also for chemoprevention, to inhibit cyst development as both 15-hydroxyprostaglandin dehydrogenase and 3-hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA reductase are currently being targeted for chemoprevention strategies in various malignancies.

Utility of mammaglobin and gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 (GCDFP-15) in confirming a breast origin for recurrent tumors

Established histopathological criteria divide invasive breast carcinomas into defined groups. Ductal of no specific type and lobular are the two major subtypes accounting for around 75 and 15% of all cases, respectively. The remaining 10% include rarer types such as tubular, cribriform, mucinous, papillary, medullary, metaplastic, and apocrine breast carcinomas. Molecular profiling technologies, on the other hand, subdivide breast tumors into five subtypes, basal-like, luminal A, luminal B, normal breast tissue-like, and ERBB2-positive, that have different prognostic characteristics. An additional subclass termed "molecular apocrine" has recently been described, but these lesions did not exhibit all the histopathological features of classical invasive apocrine carcinomas (IACs). IACs make up 0.5-3% of the invasive ductal carcinomas, and despite the fact that they are morphologically distinct from other breast lesions, there are presently no standard molecular criteria available for their diagnosis and as a result no precise information as to their prognosis. Toward this goal our laboratories have embarked in a systematic proteomics endeavor aimed at identifying biomarkers that may characterize and subtype these lesions as well as targets that may lead to the development of novel targeted therapies and chemoprevention strategies. By comparing the protein expression profiles of apocrine macrocysts and non-malignant breast epithelial tissue we have previously reported the identification of a few proteins that are specifically expressed by benign apocrine lesions as well as by the few IACs that were available to us at the time. Here we reiterate our strategy to reveal apocrine cell markers and present novel data, based on the analysis of a considerably larger number of samples, establishing that IACs correspond to a distinct molecular subtype of breast carcinomas characterized by the expression of 15-prostaglandin dehydrogenase alone or in combination with a novel form of acyl-CoA synthetase medium-chain family member 1 (ACSM1). Moreover we show that 15-prostaglandin dehydrogenase is not expressed by other breast cancer types as determined by gel-based proteomics and immunohistochemistry analysis and that antibodies against this protein can identify IACs in an unbiased manner in a large breast cancer tissue microarray making them potentially useful as a diagnostic aid.

A comparative evaluation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and gross cystic disease fluid protein (GCDFP) as plasma markers for human breast carcinoma has been performed. Both assays appear to be useful in patients with metastatic breast carcinoma. Of 216 patients under treatment for metastatic disease, 111 (51%) had abnormal plasma levels of CEA and/or GCDFP. Abnormal plasma levels of CEA were present in 73 patients whereas abnormal GCDFP levels were present in 67. Twenty-nine patients had increased plasma levels of both markers simultaneously, 44 patients had increased CEA levels only and 38 patients had increased GCDFP levels only. Thus, of the 111 patients with elevated levels of either CEA or GCDFP, the two markers varied independently of each other in 74%. Utilizing both assays, abnormal plasma levels were present in 79% of patients with osseous metastasis, 53% of patients with visceral metastasis and 26% with soft tissue metastasis. Both assays, when performed serially in patients treated for metastatic breast carcinoma, were found to have utility in monitoring responsiveness; and increasing CEA or GCDFP plasma level indicated disease progression and a decreasing plasma level indicated regression.

Opposite effects of estrogen and the progestin R5020 on cell proliferation and GCDFP-15 expression in ZR-75-1 human breast cancer cells

Gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 (GCDFP-15) is a commonly used apocrine marker; however, its expression was recently found to decrease in infiltrating, larger, or metastasizing apocrine carcinomas of the breast. In the breast, monoclonal antibody (MAb) B72.3 has been reported to be useful as an apocrine marker although it is used for that purpose much less frequently than GCDFP-15. In the search for a more consistent apocrine marker, immunoreactivity for MAb B72.3 was examined in apocrine carcinomas at different stages and compared with GCDFP-15. 47 of 51 apocrine carcinomas (92%) and 9 of 62 ordinary carcinomas (15%) were MAb B72.3 positive, while 39 of 51 apocrine carcinomas (76%) and 13 of 62 ordinary carcinomas (21%) were GCDFP-15 positive. Thus, both sensitivity and specificity were higher for MAb B72.3. Furthermore, unlike GCDFP-15, MAb B72.3 exhibited positivity irrespective of infiltrating status, tumor size, or metastatic status. There was no correlation between MAb B72.3-immunoreactivity and GCDFP-15-expression. The combined usage of MAb B72.3 with GCDFP-15 was useful to confirm the diagnosis of apocrine carcinoma, especially for advanced tumors, with only two cases being negative for both MAb B72.3 and GCDFP-15. Whether these two cases should be differentiated from ordinary apocrine carcinomas remains to be investigated.

Analysis of biopsies from breast cancer patients demonstrated that GCDFP-15 (gross cystic disease fluid protein-15) is a specific immunocytochemical marker of primary and secondary apocrine breast tumors. The protein has an amino acid sequence identical to SABP (secretory actin-binding protein), to PIP (prolactin-inducible protein) and to gp17, a protein isolated from human seminal plasma. The latter was found to bind to CD4, a T-cell co-receptor involved in antigen recognition, thereby inhibiting the ability of the receptor to interact with the HIV-1 envelope protein gp120. We compare here the ability of independently purified GCDFP-15, SABP and gp17 and of recombinant PIP both to cross-react with a panel of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) raised against GCDFP-15 or gp17, respectively, and to bind to CD4. We show that, although the various factors share the ability to bind to the panel of antibodies used, differences in the pattern of MAb recognition can be demonstrated. By comparing the kinetic constants for binding of GCDFP-5 and gp17 to CD4 by biosensor technology, significant differences in binding affinities were observed between the 2 factors, thus reflecting structural differences. Surface plasmon resonance analysis also showed that anti-GCDFP-15 and anti-gp17 antibodies inhibit the binding of CD4 to GCDFP-15 and gp17, respectively, to different extents. Our data thus indicate that, while the various forms of the protein are encoded by the same cDNA, tissue specificities due to post-translational modifications exist. This information may be relevant for developing more sensitive and accurate tests for the use of GCDFP-15 as a diagnostic mammary tumor marker and, most importantly, raises the possibility that GCDFP-15 may constitute a breast tumor-specific antigen.

Apocrine carcinoma of the breast is typically, though not always, positive for gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 (GCDFP-15). In order to clarify the clinical significance of GCDFP-15 in apocrine carcinomas, GCDFP-15 expression was examined in apocrine carcinomas of different stages and compared with clinicopathological factors. Apocrine lesions reportedly exhibit an unusual immunohistochemical status, expressing androgen receptors (AR) instead of oestrogen receptors (ER), progesterone receptors (PR), or bcl-2. Their expression was also examined. Fifty-two apocrine carcinomas were examined immunohistochemically. Thirty-nine (75%) and 29 (56%) were positive for GCDFP-15 and AR, respectively. GCDFP-15 positivity was significantly lower in infiltrating carcinomas than intraductal carcinomas (P = 0.0111). In infiltrating carcinomas, GCDFP-15 positivity was significantly low in tumours > or = 15 mm (P = 0.0005) and node-positive tumours (P = 0.0004). Similar phenomena were observed for AR. Rare cases were positive for ER (3.8%), PR (5.8%), and bcl-2 (1.9%). GCDFP-15 positivity is transient and should not be considered a definitive marker of apocrine carcinomas. Cases which have apocrine features but lack GCDFP-15 expression should rather be considered as advanced apocrine carcinomas. ER/PR/bcl-2 negativity will sometimes be helpful to confirm the diagnosis of apocrine carcinoma, because it is more consistent than GCDFP-15/AR positivity.

Breast carcinoma often metastasizes to the gastrointestinal tract, especially the stomach, where it is frequently difficult to distinguish from a primary gastric carcinoma. To evaluate the utility of immunohistochemical stains in differentiating primary gastric carcinomas from metastatic breast carcinomas. Mucosal biopsy specimens from 47 adenocarcinomas involving the gastrointestinal tract (28 primary gastric carcinomas and 19 metastatic breast carcinomas) and 16 control cases of primary breast carcinomas without metastasis were immunohistochemically stained for estrogen receptor protein (ER), progesterone receptor protein (PR), gross cystic disease fluid protein (GCDFP), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 protein, cytokeratin (CK) 5/6, CK/7, CK/20, a panel of mucin glycoprotein antigens (MUC2, MUC3, MUC5AC, and MUC6), monoclonal antibody DAS-1, and caudal-type homeobox transcription factor CDX2 and compared between primary and metastatic adenocarcinomas. Highly significant proportions of metastatic breast carcinomas were positive for ER (72%), PR (33%), GCDFP (78%), and CK5/6 (61%) compared with primary gastric carcinomas (ER, 0%; PR, 0%; GCDFP, 0%; and CK5/6, 14%) (P < .001, P = .002, P < .001, and P = .004, respectively). Of these immunostains, ER, PR, and GCDFP were 100% specific. Primary breast tumors and their metastases showed a similar phenotypic profile. In contrast, primary gastric carcinomas showed significantly higher proportions of cases that stained with CK20 (50%), MUC2 (54%), MUC5AC (71%), MUC6 (39%), DAS-1 (43%), and CDX2 (67%) compared with metastatic breast carcinomas (CK20, 0%; MUC2, 24%; MUC5AC, 6%; MUC6, 0%; DAS-1, 0%; and CDX2, 0%) (P = .001, P = .01, P < .001, P = .02, P = .009, and P < .001, respectively). No significant differences were observed with regard to any of the other immunostains (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 protein, CK7, and MUC3) between the patient groups. Estrogen receptor protein, PR, GCDFP, CK5/6, CK20, MUC5AC, MUC6, DAS-1, and CDX2 are helpful in distinguishing primary gastric carcinomas from metastatic breast carcinomas. Of these, ER, PR, and GCDFP are highly specific for metastatic breast carcinomas, whereas CK20, DAS-1, MUC2, MUC5AC, MUC6, and CDX2 are highly specific for primary gastric carcinomas.

Introduction: Metastatic cancers are frequently detected on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) cytology, and confirmation of metastatic breast cancer often requires immunocytochemistry. Tissue provisioning for FNA specimens is important. In this study, GATA3, gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 (GCDFP15), mammaglobin (MMG), and SOX10 were performed on cell block preparations from aspirates of histologically confirmed metastatic breast cancers. The diagnostic performance of single markers and combinations of these markers were investigated with the aim to construct a tissue-efficient immunopanel. Methodology: Aspirates of metastatic breast cancer with corresponding histology and biomarker (estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), HER2 and ki67) profile were retrieved. ER, GATA3, GCDFP15, MMG and SOX10 immunostains were performed on cell block sections and their expressions were assessed and compared. Results: Immunostaining was performed on a total of 115 aspirates. GATA3 showed the highest expression, followed by MMG, GCDFP15 and SOX10. Twenty-three, five and five cases expressed GATA3, MMG and SOX10 only. The five cases expressing SOX10 only were ER negative, and SOX10 expression was negatively associated with ER (p = 0.001), MMG (p = 0.001), GCDFP15 (p = 0.010) and GATA3 (p = 0.002), whereas GATA3 expression showed positive correlation with ER positivity (p &lt; 0.001). MMG and GCDFP15 showed association with high Ki67 (p &lt; 0.05), and no correlations were found with HER2 expression. Conclusion: In this cohort, GATA3 was the most sensitive single marker. The addition of MMG and SOX10 increases the sensitivity for detection of ER positive and ER negative breast cancers, respectively. These findings support the use of a combination of GATA3/MMG/SOX10 for confirmation of metastatic breast cancer.

Morphologic differentiation of breast carcinoma from nonmammary malignancies in fluid specimens can be a diagnostic challenge. Immunocytochemistry is often employed in the differential diagnosis. In this study, we evaluated the expression of mammoglobin (MGB1) in body-cavity fluid specimens and compared its efficacy as a marker for metastatic breast carcinomas with that of gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 (GCDFP-15). Cell blocks from 40 fluid specimens were immunostained with monoclonal antibodies against MGB1 and GCDFP-15. They included 15 breast carcinomas and 25 nonmammary carcinomas (10 lungs, 10 ovaries, 3 gastrointestinal tracts, 1 kidney, and 1 urinary bladder). Positivity was defined as the presence of cytoplasmic staining in 10% or more carcinoma cells. Thirteen (87%) and seven (47%) breast carcinomas showed positive staining with MGB1 and GCDFP-15, respectively. Three (12%) nonmammary carcinomas (2 ovarian and 1 colonic) showed positive MGB1 staining; one (3%) nonmammary carcinoma demonstrated positive GCDFP-15 staining. The differences of MGB1 and GCDFP-15 staining between breast and nonmammary carcinomas were statistically significant (P < 0.05). Both MGB1 and GCDFP-15 are specific markers for metastatic breast carcinomas in cell block fluid specimens (88 vs. 96%). However, MGB1 is more sensitive than GCDFP-15 as a marker for metastatic breast carcinoma (87 vs. 46%).

Utility of GATA3, mammaglobin, GCDFP-15, and ER in the detection of intrathoracic metastatic breast carcinoma

Cytomorphologic differentiation of metastatic breast carcinoma from non breast metastases in cytological materials can be difficult. Current breast immunocytochemical markers have low sensitivities. Transcription factor GATA 3 is a promising marker for detecting breast differentiation in cytological materials. The aim of the study was to assess the diagnostic value of GATA 3 as a breast differentiation marker in metastatic cytological materials and to compare it with expression of mammaglobin and gross cystic disease fluid protein-15 (GCDFP-15). We retrospectively retrieved 133 cases of metastatic breast carcinoma from the archive the of Cytology Unit between December 2013 and June 2015. They included 77 fine needle aspiration and 56 serous effusion samples. Forty-five cytological materials from non mammary metastatic tumors were used as a control. Immunostaining was performed on cell blocks for the presence of GATA 3, mammaglobin and GCDFP-15. GATA 3 nuclear staining was detected in 82.7% of metastatic breast carcinomas, and 11.1% of metastatic non mammary adenocarcinomas (p < 0.001). GATA 3 sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy were 82.7%, 88.9%, 95.7%, 63.5% and 84.3%, respectively. Mammaglobin and GCDFP-15 staining of metastatic breast carcinoma cases was positive in 70.7% and 47.1%, respectively. GATA 3 staining was significantly higher compared with mammaglobin and GCDFP-15 (p < 0.001). GATA 3 is more sensitive marker than mammaglobin and GCDFP-15 for diagnosing metastatic breast carcinoma in cytological cell block materials. Adding mammaglobin to GATA 3 resulted in improvement in its sensitivity. GATA 3 was occasionally positive in some metastatic non mammary carcinoma that may cause misdiagnosis.