OSTEOPROTEGERIN AS A PREDICTIVE MARKER OF THE COURSE OF BREAST CANCER
https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2015-1-12-17
Abstract
Despite the considerable progress in research of breast cancer (BC), taking into consideration the division into molecular subtypes, the mechanics of metastasis development in BC patients are not definitely investigated, especially at favorable prognosis. Research of new informative diagnostic and prognostic markers represents the modern problems of BC pathology in a new way.
This paper is devoted to study of osteoprotegerin (OPG) expression levels in tumor cells in BC patients. The study covered 83 female patients with regional BC (T2–4N0–3M0), treated from 2003 to 2010. The inclusion criteria were histologically proved diagnosis of invasive BC, age over 18 y. o., ECOG 0 or 1. In order to study OPG levels, we carried out immune histochemical test, which was carried out according to standard protocol on the sections of biopsy material. The OPG antibody from GeneTex, used in the study, was rabbit polyclonal, dilution 1:1000, incubation time – 30 minutes. Vizualization system was Real EnVision, anti-rabbit (by DAKO, Denmark). Immunohistochemical staining was studied by counting of number of positive cells in reference to total number of malignant cells. Expression over 50 % of cells was regarded as high, less than 50 % – as low. Average value of OPG expression level was 49 %, median – 50 %. Minimal value – 0 %, maximum value – 90 %. The patients were divided into 2 groups according their expression levels: Group 1 – OPG (high) expression (more than median), Group 2 – OPG (low) expression (less than median). OPG (high) Group was made by 47 patients, OPG (low) Group – by 36. When analyzing clinical and pathological characteristics of BC patients, taking into consideration OPG expression, there were noticed no reliable differences with respect to availability or absence of affected regional lymph nodes, category T and Ki-67 indice. The group with positive estogen-progesteron receptors showed reliably more often the high values of OPG than the group with negative receptors (p < 0,05). When analyzing the duration till the progression and overall survival, a difference between the survival and time to progression (rise of metastases) in patients with low OPG levels and the same exponents in patients with high OPG levels was established.
About the Authors
S. I. ZabrodaRussian Federation
Competing Interests: ФГБУ «Российский научный центр радиологии и хирургических технологий» Минздрава России; Россия, 197758, Санкт-Петербург, пос. Песочный, ул. Ленинградская, 70;
E. A. Maslyukova
Russian Federation
L. I. Korytova
Russian Federation
K. M. Pozharisskiy
Russian Federation
G. A. Raskin
Russian Federation
O. V. Korytov
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
ФГБВОУ ВПО «Военно-медицинская академия им. С.М. Кирова» Министерства обороны России; Россия, 195009, Санкт-Петербург, ул. Академика Лебедева, 6
References
1. Coleman R.E. Skeletal complications of malignancy. Cancer 1997;80(8 Supple): 1588–94.
2. Bhatia P., Sanders M.M., Hansen M.F. Expression of receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB is inversely correlated with metastatic phenotype in breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 2005;11(1):162–5.
3. Stejskal D., Bartek J., Pastorkova R. et al. Osteoprotegerin, RANK, RANKL. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 2001;145(2):61–4.
4. Khosla S. Minireview: the OPG/RANKL/ RANK system. Endocrinology 2001:142(12):5050–5.
5. Murthy R.K., Morrow P.K., Theriault R.L. Bone biology and the role of the RANK ligand pathway. Oncology (Williston Park) 2009; 23(14 Suppl 5):9–15.
6. Семиглазов В.Ф. Опухоли репродуктив- ной системы. Клинические рекомендации по диагностике и лечению рака молочной железы. СПб., 2013. С. 149–50. [Semiglazov V.F. Reproductive system tumors. Clinical practice guidelines for diagnostics and treatment of breast cancer. Saint- Petersburg, 2013. Рp. 149–50. (In Russ.)].
7. Jung K., Lein M., von Hosslin K. et al. Osteoprotegerin in serum as a novel marker of bone metastatic spread in prostate cancer. Clin Chem 2001;47(11):2061–3.
8. Terpos E., Szydlo R., Apperley J.F. et al. Soluble receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand-osteoprotegerin ratio predicts survival in multiple myeloma: рroposal for a novel prognostic index. Blood 2003;102(3):1064–9.
9. Terpos E., Dimopoulos M.A. Myeloma bone disease: рathophysiology and management. Ann Oncol 2005;16(8):1223–31.
10. Fedarko N.S., Jain A., Karadag A. et al. Elevated serum bone sialoprotein and osteopontin in colon, breast, prostate and lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2000;7(12):4060–6.
11. Body J.J., Greipp P., Coleman R.E. et al. A phase I study of AMGN-0007, a recombinant osteoprotegerin construct in patients with multiple myeloma or breast cacinoma related bone metastases. Cancer Res 2003;97(3 Suppl):887–92.
12. Lara P.N., Longmate J., Stadler W. Markers of bone metabolism predict survival in hormone refractory prostate cancer (HRPC): Results from a randomized California Cancer Consortium & University of Chicago trial. J Clin Oncol 2005;23(163):4569.
13. Chen G., Sircar K., Aprikian A. et al. Expression of RANKL/RANK/OPG in primary and metastatic human prostate cancer as markers of disease stage and functional regulation. Cancer Res 2006;107(2):289–98.
14. Sasaki A., Ishikawa K., Haraguchi N. et al. Receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappaB ligand (RANKL) expression hepatocellular carcinoma with bone metastasis. Ann Surg Oncol 2007;14(3):1191–9.
15. Brown J.M., Zhang J., Keller E.T. Opg, RANKl, and RANK in cancer metastasis: expression and regulation. Cancer Treat Res 2004;118:149–72.
16. Van Poznak C., Cross S.S., Saggese M. et al. Expression of osteoprotegerin (OPG), TNF related apoptosis inducing ligand (TRAIL), and receptor activator of nuclear factor kappaB ligand (RANKL) in human breast tumours. J Clin Pathol 2006;59(1): 56–63.
Review
For citations:
Zabroda S.I., Maslyukova E.A., Korytova L.I., Pozharisskiy K.M., Raskin G.A., Korytov O.V. OSTEOPROTEGERIN AS A PREDICTIVE MARKER OF THE COURSE OF BREAST CANCER. Tumors of female reproductive system. 2015;11(1):12-17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2015-1-12-17