Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research note
  • Open Access

Cytokeratin 5/6 and cytokeratin 8/18 expression in triple negative breast cancers: clinicopathologic significance in South-Asian population

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 2,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 3Email authorView ORCID ID profile and
  • 4
BMC Research Notes201811:372

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-018-3477-4

  • Received: 2 April 2018
  • Accepted: 4 June 2018
  • Published:

Abstract

Objective

Cytokeratin 5/6 and Cytokeratin 8/18 are basal and luminal markers of breast cancer and they have pathological and prognostic significance in breast cancer. We performed Cytokeratin 5/6 and CK8/18 immunohistochemistry on 150 cases of triple negative breast cancers and association with various clinicopathological features was evaluated.

Results

Positive CK5/6 expression was noted in 8% (12 cases) of TNBC while 2.4% (4 cases) showed focal positive (< 10%) and 89.3% (134) were negative with CK5/6. Complete loss of CK8/18 expression was seen in 4.7% (7 cases) while 32.7% (49 cases) revealed focal loss of CK8/18 and 62.7% (94 cases) showed intact normal expression of CK8/18. No significant association of CK5/6 and CK8/18 with various clinicopathological parameters was observed. We found a low expression of basal cytokeratin (CK5/6) in TNBC our studied population, while loss/altered expression of CK8/18 in approximately 38% of TNBC. Although no prognostic relevance of these finding was noted in our study, however these findings are different from those reported in literature in other parts of the world. Therefore we suggest a more through immunohistochemical and genomic profiling of TNBC in our population for better understanding of this disease in this part of the world.

Keywords

  • Triple negative breast cancer
  • CK5/6
  • CK8/18
  • Basal cytokeratins
  • Luminal cytokeratins

Introduction

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous group of breast cancer accounting for 15–20% of newly diagnosed breast cancer [13]. TNBC is a clinically defined term with lack of immunohistochemistry (IHC) expression of Estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (her2neu) according to College of American Pathologist (CAP)/ASCO guidelines [4, 5]. This clinically defined subtype of breast cancer also comprise basal like molecular subtype, however triple negative and basal breast cancers are not synonymous and there is substantial overlap and heterogeneity among these two groups. For example in a study; 71% of TNBC were found to be of basal subtype and conversely 77% basal tumors were triple negative by IHC analysis [6]. However, in resource limited countries like Pakistan where molecular testing is not widely available, relying on IHC expression of cytokeratins can be considered acceptable. Basal like breast cancers usually express basal cytokeratins like CK5/6, CK14 and CK17 [7]. CK5/6 is the most useful and most important marker for the identification of basal subgroup of TNBC [8]. CK8/18 is another marker which can be called luminal marker as it represents normal luminal epithelial differentiation [8] and thus loss of CK8/18 expression in TNBC may have pathological relevance. Expression of these markers in TNBC has not been widely studied in our population, therefore in the present study we aimed to evaluate the expression of CK 5/6 and CK8/18 in TNBC in our population and their prognostic significance.

Main text

Methods

Total 150 cases of TNBC were selected from records of pathology department archives. The surgical specimens included modified radical mastectomies, simple mastectomies and wide local excisions with sentinel lymph node dissection. All patients underwent surgeries at Liaquat National hospital, Karachi from January 2008 till December 2013 over a period of 6 years. Study was approved by research and ethical review committee of the institution and informed consent was taken from all patients at the time of surgery. Hematoxylin and eosin stained slides and paraffin blocks of cases were retrieved and new sections were cut where necessary. Slides of all cases were reviewed by two senior histopathologists and pathologic characteristics like histologic type, tumor grade, T-stage, N-stage, lymphovascular invasion, necrosis, fibrosis, lymphocytic infiltration (tumor infiltrating lymphocytes), presence of insitu component, pagetoid spread and dermal lymphatic invasion were evaluated. Clinical records of all patients were also reviewed from institutional records to evaluate patient’s age, history of radiation and chemotherapy and recurrence status. Moreover, representative blocks of each case were selected and ER, PR and Her2neu immunohistochemistry were performed to reconfirm triple negative status.

ER, PR, Her2neu and Ki67 IHC were performed using DAKO antibodies as under, with EnVision™ FLEX, high pH DAKO kit according to manufacturer’s protocol.
  1. 1.

    FLEX monoclonal rabbit anti-human estrogen receptor alpha, clone EP1.

     
  2. 2.

    FLEX monoclonal mouse anti-human progesterone receptor clone PgR 636.

     
  3. 3.

    Polyclonal rabbit anti-human c-erbB-2 oncoprotein.

     
  4. 4.

    FLEX monoclonal mouse anti-human Ki67 antigen clone MIB-1.

     

Nuclear staining of ER and PR in > 1% of cancer cells was considered positive. For her2neu, cases were scored 1+, 2+ and 3+ according to CAP guidelines. For equivocal cases (2+), FISH was performed using Path Vysion Her2neu probe kit according to manufacturer’s protocols. Results were expressed as ratio of her2neu signals as compared to CEP17 signals according to ASCO/CAP guidelines.

Ki67 immunostaining was recorded as continuous variables based on proportion of positive stained cancer cells. Furthermore on the basis of Ki67 index, cases were categorized into < 15, 16–24, 25–44 and > 44% ki67 index categories.

CK5/6 IHC was performed by using FLEX Monoclonal Mouse Anti-human Cytokeratin 5/6, clone D5/16 B4 by DAKO envision method according to manufacturers protocol. Intermediate to strong cytoplasmic and membranous staining in more than 10% cells was considered positive. Weak to intermediate staining in < 10% was taken as focal positive, while no staining was considered as negative (Additional file 1: Figure S1).

CK 8/8 IHC was performed using monoclonal mouse anti-human Cytokeratin 5/6, clone D5/16 B4, according to DAKO envision method. Intermediate to strong cytoplasmic and membranous staining in more than 50% cells was considered positive. Weak to intermediate staining (cytoplasmic, with loss of membrane reactivity) in 10–50% was taken as focal positive, while no staining or weak staining in < 10% was considered as negative (Additional file 1: Figure S1).

Recurrence status and follow-up were evaluated by reviewing hospital medical record. Overall survival was taken as time from surgical excision till death or last follow-up and disease free survival was defined as time between surgical excision and local recurrence or distant metastasis, death or last follow-up.

Statistical package for social sciences (SPSS 21) was used for data compilation and analysis. Mean and standard deviation were calculated for quantitative variables. Frequency and percentage were calculated for qualitative variables. Chi square was applied to determine association. Student t test or Mann whitney test were applied to compare difference in means among groups. P value ≤ 0.05 as significant. Survival curves were plotted using Kaplan–Meier method and the significance of difference between survival curves were determined using log-rank ratio. P-value ≤ 0.05 was taken as significant.

Results

Mean age of the patients involved in the study was 48.9 years and most common age group was 31–50 years. Most of the patients presented at stage T2 with a high mean ki67 index i.e. 46.9%. 42.7% of cases had nodal metastasis. Although 84% cases were of conventional invasive ductal carcinoma, NST; however a significant proportion of cases were of metaplastic histology (9.3%). Majority cases were of high grade (86.7% grade III). Most tumors show lymphocytic infiltration and necrosis. Most of the tumors lack insitu component (61%). Local recurrence or late distant metastasis was noted in 17.8% of cases (Table 1).
Table 1

Descriptive statistics of studied population

 

n (%)

Age (years)a

48.85 ± 11.49

Age groups (years)

 ≤ 30

5 (3.3)

 31–50

84 (56)

 > 50

61 (40.7)

Tumor size (unit)a

4.01 ± 1.99

Tumor stage

 T1

26 (17.3)

 T2

79 (52.7)

 T3/T4

45 (30)

Ki67 index (%)

46.89 ± 23.88

ki67 index groups (%)

 ≤ 15

17 (11.3)

 16–24

8 (5.3)

 25–44

45 (30)

 > 44

80 (53.3)

Nodal status

 Positive

64 (42.7)

 Negative

86 (57.3)

Nodal stage

 No

88 (58.7)

 N1

30 (20)

 N2

13 (8.7)

 N3

19 (12.7)

Histological subtypes

 IDC

127 (84.7)

 Papillary

6 (4)

 Medullary

1 (0.7)

 Metaplastic

14 (9.3)

 Mixed

2 (1.3)

Tumor grade

 Grade-I

1 (0.7)

 Grade-II

19 (12.7)

 Grade-III

130 (86.7)

Lymphocytic infiltration

 Absent

15 (10)

 Moderate

110 (73.3)

 Severe

25 (16.7)

Lymphovascular invasion

 Present

36 (24)

 Absent

114 (76)

Dermal lymphatic invasion

 Present

10 (6.7)

 Absent

140 (93.3)

Type of surgery

 Modified radical mastectomy

94 (62.7)

 Simple mastectomy with sentinel lymph node dissection

42 (28)

 Wide local excision

14 (9.3)

Necrosis

 Absent

21 (14)

 Moderate

90 (60)

 Severe

39 (26)

Fibrosis

 Mild

42 (28)

 Moderate

88 (58.7)

 Severe

20 (13.3)

Insitu component

 Present

58 (38.7)

 Absent

92 (61.3)

Pagetoid spread

 Present

2 (1.3)

 Absent

148 (98.7)

Perinodal extension

 Present

30 (20)

 Absent

120 (80)

Adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 101)

 Yes

98 (97)

 No

3 (3)

Adjuvant radiotherapy (n = 101)

 Yes

69 (68.3)

 No

32 (31.7)

Reoccurrence (n = 101)

 Yes

18 (17.8)

 No

83 (82.2)

aMean ± SD

Positive (> 10%) CK5/6 expression was noted in 8% (12 cases) of TNBC while 2.4% (4 cases) showed focal positive (< 10%) and 89.3% (134) were negative with CK5/6. Complete loss of CK8/18 expression was seen in 4.7% (7 cases) while 32.7% (49 cases) revealed focal loss of CK8/18 and 62.7% (94 cases) showed intact normal expression of CK8/18. No significant association of CK5/6 and CK8/18 with various clinicopathological parameters was observed (Tables 2 and 3). Similarly no significant association of CK 5/6 and CK8/18 with recurrence status of the patients was noted (Additional file 2: Figure S2).
Table 2

Association of CK 5/6 expression with clinicopathologic features of triple negative breast cancer

 

n (%)

P-value

No loss of expression (n = 12)

Complete loss of expression (n = 4)

Focal loss of expression (n = 134)

Total (n = 150)

Age groups (years)

 ≤ 30

0 (0)

0 (0)

5 (3.7)

5 (3.3)

0.907

 31–50

8 (66.7)

2 (50)

74 (55.2)

84 (56)

 > 50

4 (33.3)

2 (50)

55 (41)

61 (40.7)

Tumor stage

 T1

1 (8.3)

0 (0)

25 (18.7)

26 (17.3)

0.690

 T2

6 (50)

2 (50)

71 (53)

79 (52.7)

 T3/T4

5 (41.7)

2 (50)

38 (28.4)

45 (30)

ki67 index groups (%)

 ≤ 15

3 (25)

1 (25)

13 (9.7)

17 (11.3)

0.272

 16–24

0 (0)

0 (0)

8 (6)

8 (5.3)

 25–44

1 (8.3)

1 (25)

43 (32.1)

45 (30)

 > 44

8 (66.7)

2 (50)

70 (52.2)

80 (53.3)

Nodal status

 Positive

4 (33.3)

2 (50)

58 (43.3)

64 (42.7)

0.763

 Negative

8 (66.7)

2 (50)

76 (56.7)

86 (57.3)

Nodal stage

 No

8 (66.7)

2 (50)

78 (58.2)

88 (58.7)

0.232

 N1

1 (8.3)

1 (25)

28 (20.9)

30 (20)

 N2

3 (25)

0 (0)

10 (7.5)

13 (8.7)

 N3

0 (0)

1 (25)

18 (13.4)

19 (12.7)

Histological subtypes

 IDC

9 (75)

4 (100)

114 (85.1)

127 (84.7)

0.419

 Papillary

0 (0)

0 (0)

6 (4.5)

6 (4)

 Medullary

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (0.7)

1 (0.7)

 Metaplastic

2 (16.7)

0 (0)

12 (9)

14 (9.3)

 Mixed

1 (8.3)

0 (0)

1 (0.7)

2 (1.3)

Tumor grade

 Grade-I

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (0.7)

1 (0.7)

1.000

 Grade-II

1 (8.3)

0 (0)

18 (13.4)

19 (12.7)

 Grade-III

11 (91.7)

4 (100)

115 (85.8)

130 (86.7)

Lymphocytic infiltration

 Absent

0 (0)

0 (0)

15 (11.2)

15 (10)

0.689

 Moderate

9 (75)

4 (100)

97 (72.4)

110 (73.3)

 Severe

3 (25)

0(0)

22 (16.4)

25 (16.7)

Lymphovascular invasion

 Present

1 (8.3)

1 (25)

34 (25.4)

36 (24)

0.466

 Absent

11 (91.7)

3 (75)

100 (74.6)

114 (76)

Dermal lymphatic invasion

 Present

1 (8.3)

1 (25)

8 (6)

10 (6.7)

0.172

 Absent

11 (91.7)

3 (75)

126 (94)

140 (93.3)

Type of surgery

 Modified radical mastectomy

10 (83.3)

2 (50)

82 (61.2)

94 (62.7)

0.522

 Simple mastectomy with sentinel lymph node dissection

2 (16.7)

2 (50)

38 (28.4)

42 (28)

 Wide local excision

0 (0)

0 (0)

14 (10.4)

14 (9.3)

Necrosis

 Absent

2 (16.7)

1 (25)

18 (13.4)

21 (14)

0.507

 Moderate

7 (58.3)

1 (25)

82 (61.2)

90 (60)

 Severe

3 (25)

2 (50)

34 (25.4)

39 (26)

Fibrosis

 Mild

4 (33.3)

0 (0)

38 (28.4)

42 (28)

0.167

 Moderate

8 (66.7)

2 (50)

78 (58.2)

88 (58.7)

 Severe

0 (0)

2 (50)

18 (13.4)

20 (13.3)

Insitu component

 Present

2 (16.7)

3 (75)

53 (39.6)

58 (38.7)

0.098

 Absent

10 (83.3)

1 (25)

81 (60.4)

92 (61.3)

Pagetoid spread

 Present

0 (0)

0 (0)

2 (1.5)

2 (1.3)

1.000

 Absent

12 (100)

4 (100)

132 (98.5)

148 (98.7)

Perinodal extension

 Present

2 (16.7)

1 (25)

27 (20.1)

30 (20)

1.000

 Absent

10 (83.3)

3 (75)

107 (79.9)

120 (80)

Chi Square test applied

P-value ≤ 0.05, considered as significant

Table 3

Association of CK 5/6 expression with clinicopathologic features of triple negative breast cancer

 

n (%)

P-value

No loss of expression (n = 94)

Complete loss of expression (n = 7)

Focal loss of expression (n = 49)

Total (n = 150)

Age groups (years)

 ≤ 30

1 (1.1)

1 (14.3)

3 (6.1)

5 (3.3)

0.061

 31–50

49 (52.1)

4 (57.1)

31 (63.3)

84 (56)

 > 50

44 (46.8)

2 (28.6)

15 (30.6)

61 (40.7)

Tumor stage

 T1

20 (21.3)

2 (28.6)

4 (8.2)

26 (17.3)

0.227

 T2

47 (50)

4 (57.1)

28 (57.1)

79 (52.7)

 T3/T4

27 (28.7)

1 (14.3)

17 (34.7)

45 (30)

ki67 index groups (%)

 ≤ 15

8 (8.5)

2 (28.6)

7 (14.3)

17 (11.3)

0.495

 16–24

6 (6.4)

0 (0)

2 (4.1)

8 (5.3)

 25–44

32 (34)

1 (14.3)

12 (24.5)

45 (30)

 > 44

48 (51.1)

4 (57.1)

28 (57.1)

80 (53.3)

Nodal status

 Positive

40 (42.6)

4 (57.1)

20 (40.8)

64 (42.7)

0.715

 Negative

54 (57.4)

3 (42.9)

29 (59.2)

86 (57.3)

Nodal stage

 No

55 (58.5)

3 (42.9)

30 (61.2)

88 (58.7)

0.152

 N1

16 (17)

3 (42.9)

11 (22.4)

30 (20)

 N2

7 (7.4)

0 (0)

6 (12.2)

13 (8.7)

 N3

16 (17)

1 (14.3)

2 (4.1)

19 (12.7)

Histological subtypes

 IDC

83 (88.3)

6 (85.7)

38 (77.6)

127 (84.7)

0.138

 Papillary

5 (5.3)

0 (0)

1 (2)

6(4)

 Medullary

1 (1.1)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (0.7)

 Metaplastic

4 (4.3)

1 (14.3)

9 (18.4)

14 (9.3)

 Mixed

1 (1.1)

0 (0)

1 (2)

2 (1.3)

Tumor grade

 Grade-I

1 (1.1)

0 (0)

0 (0)

1 (0.7)

0.437

 Grade-II

15 (16)

0 (0)

4 (8.2)

19 (12.7)

 Grade-III

78 (83)

7 (100)

45 (91.8)

130 (86.7)

Lymphocytic infiltration

 Absent

9 (9.6)

0 (0)

6 (12.2)

15 (10)

0.585

 Moderate

72 (76.6)

5 (71.4)

33 (67.3)

110 (73.3)

 Severe

13 (13.8)

2 (28.6)

10 (20.4)

25 (16.7)

Lymphovascular invasion

 Present

26 (27.7)

2 (28.6)

8 (16.3)

36 (24)

0.261

 Absent

68 (72.3)

5 (71.4)

41 (83.7)

114 (76)

Dermal lymphatic invasion

 Present

7 (7.4)

0 (0)

3 (6.1)

10 (6.7)

1.000

 Absent

87 (92.6)

7 (100)

46 (93.9)

140 (93.3)

Type of surgery

 Modified radical mastectomy

59 (62.8)

4 (57.1)

31 (63.3)

94 (62.7)

0.806

 Simple mastectomy with sentinel lymph node dissection

25 (26.6)

2 (28.6)

15 (30.6)

42 (28)

 Wide local excision

10 (10.6)

1 (14.3)

3 (6.1)

14 (9.3)

Necrosis

 Absent

14 (14.9)

1 (14.3)

6 (12.2)

21 (14)

0.459

 Moderate

58 (61.7)

5 (71.4)

27 (55.1)

90 (60)

 Severe

22 (23.4)

1 (14.3)

16 (32.7)

39 (26)

Fibrosis

 Mild

22 (23.4)

2 (28.6)

18 (36.7)

42 (28)

0.101

 Moderate

58 (61.7)

5 (71.4)

25 (51)

88 (58.7)

 Severe

14 (14.9)

0 (0)

6 (12.2)

20 (13.3)

Insitu component

 Present

42 (44.7)

3 (42.9)

13 (26.5)

58 (38.7)

0.588

 Absent

52 (55.3)

4 (57.1)

36 (73.5)

92 (61.3)

Pagetoid spread

 Present

2 (2.1)

0 (0)

0 (0)

2 (1.3)

0.078

 Absent

92 (97.9)

7 (100)

49 (100)

148 (98.7)

Perinodal extension

 Present

24 (25.5)

1 (14.3)

5 (10.2)

30 (20)

0.614

 Absent

70 (74.5)

6 (85.7)

44 (89.8)

120 (80)

Chi Square test applied

P-value ≤ 0.05, considered as significant

Discussion

In the present study we assessed expression of one basal (CK5/6) and one luminal marker (CK8/18) in TNBC in our population and found that; 8 and 2.7% of TNBC showed positive and focal positive expression of CK5/6 respectively and 4.7 and 32.7% of TNBC revealed complete loss and focal loss of CK 8/18 expression respectively. In all those cases in which focal loss CK8/18 was noted, there was loss of membrane reactivity while cytoplasmic staining was retained in few cells. However no significant association was observed between these abnormal expression patterns of cytokeratins with various clinicopathological and prognostic parameters of TNBC in our population. Breast cancer is one of the commonest malignancies in South Asian population especially in young age [911].

Gene expression profiling defines basal breast cancers as those exhibiting basal clusters of genes that include EGFR, basal cytokeratin 5/6, C–kit, proliferation cluster and low expression of Her2neu and hormone receptor related genes [1214]. However basal breast cancer is not a single entity and it includes several subtypes including two basal like subtypes (BL1 and BL2), mesenchymal, mesenchymal stem-like, immunomodulatory and luminal androgen subtypes [15]. In addition to that interferon rich and claudin-low subtypes have also been defined [16, 17]. Subtyping of basal breast cancers is not recommended by ASCO/CAP. CK 5/6 expression varies from 24 to 72% in TNBC as reported in previous studies [18, 19]. Other researchers have also proposed prognostic significance of CK 5/6 in node negative breast cancers [20]. Nielson et al. suggested that CK5/6 positive breast cancer have worse prognosis independent of tumor grade, T-stage and hormonal/Her2neu status [21]. Similarly in another study it was proposed that CK5/6 is marker of shorter disease free survival, independent of other prognostic factors of breast cancer [8]. Inanc et al. reported 50.5% expression of CK5/6 with positive correlation of CK5/6 TNBC with nodal metastasis and tumor size [22]. However, in contrast to these studies we found a low expression of CK5/6 expression in TNBC in our studied population, which may represent a different genomic profile of TNBC in our population, which needs to be explored in further studies. Prognostic role of CK5/6 has been proposed in other cancers of the body [23].

CK8/18 is a luminal cytokeratin mainly expressed in breast epithelium in a membranous and cytoplasmic pattern. Cimpean et al. defined these different patterns of CK8/18 in breast cancer; diffuse cytoplasmic, membranous and combined cytoplasmic and membranous [19].Some researchers have proposed that loss of CK8/18 expression/low CK8/18 is associated with worse prognosis and high risk of metastasis [24, 25]. However we did not find any prognostic significance of loss of CK8/18 expression with various prognostic factors and recurrence in TNBC.

We found that 32.7% of TNBC show focal loss of expression CK8/18. In all these cases there was loss of membranous reactivity of CK8/18 while cytoplasmic staining was retained in few cells. Aiad et al. in a study involving 70 cases of breast cancer found abnormal expression of CK8/18 (cytoplasmic) in 70% of Egyptian breast cancer, which suggest a lot of heterogeneity in cytokeratin expression of breast cancer in different parts of world [26].

Limitations

One of the major limitations of our study was only 2 immuno-markers were performed, therefore we suggest a more through IHC and genomic profiling of TNBC in our population for better understanding of this disease in this part of the world. One of the possible reasons of discrepancy found in the results of our study with that of the previously reported literature could be due the fact that tumors generally exhibit a lot of heterogeneity and we performed IHC stains on one representative block. On the other hand; despite standardization, sample under or over fixation and technical issues may also be responsible for these discrepancies.

Abbreviations

TNBC: 

triple negative breast cancer

IHC: 

immunohistochemistry

ER: 

estrogen receptor

PR: 

progesterone receptor

her2neu: 

human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

CAP: 

College of American Pathologist

Declarations

Authors’ contributions

AAH and SN: main author of manuscript, have made substantial contributions to conception and design of study. SKH, ZFH, MI, SMA, NF, AK and MME have been involved in requisition, analysis of the data and revision of the manuscript. All authors revise the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge all staff members of Pathology, Liaquat National Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan for their help and cooperation.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

Please contact author, Atif Ali Hashmi (doc_atif2005@yahoo.com) for data requests.

Consent to publish

Not applicable.

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Ethics committee of Liaquat National Hospital, Karachi, Pakistan approved the study. Written informed consent was obtained from the patients for the participation.

Funding

There was no funding available for this manuscript.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Liaquat National Hospital and Medical College, Karachi, Pakistan
(2)
CMH Institute of Medical Sciences, Multan, Pakistan
(3)
Kandahar University, Kandahar, Afghanistan
(4)
Brown University, Providence, RI, USA

References

  1. Swain S. Triple-negative breast cancer: metastatic risk and role of platinum agents 2008 ASCO clinical science Symposium, 2008. June 3; 2008.Google Scholar
  2. Hashmi AA, Edhi MM, Naqvi H, Khurshid A, Faridi N. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer in South Asian population by immunohistochemical profile and Her2neu gene amplification by FISH technique: association with other clinicopathologic parameters. Breast J. 2014;20(6):578–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Hashmi AA, Edhi MM, Naqvi H, Faridi N, Khurshid A, Khan M. Clinicopathologic features of triple negative breast cancers: an experience from Pakistan. Diagn Pathol. 2014;28(9):43.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:e48.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, et al. 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. 2013;31:3997.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Shah SP, Roth A, Goya R, et al. The clonal and mutational evolution spectrum of primary triple-negative breast cancers. Nature. 2012;486:395.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheang MC, Voduc D, Bajdik C, Leung S, McKinney S, Chia SK, Perou CM, Nielsen TO. Basal-like breast cancer defined by five biomarkers has superior prognostic value than triple-negative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:1368–76.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Abd El-Rehim DM, Pinder SE, Paish CE, Bell J, Blamey RW, Robertson JF, Nicholson RI, Ellis IO. Expression of luminal and basal cytokeratins in human breast carcinoma. J Pathol. 2004;203(2):661–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Haroon S, Hashmi AA, Khurshid A, Kanpurwala MA, Mujtuba S, Malik B, Faridi N. Ki67 index in breast cancer: correlation with other prognostic markers and potential in pakistani patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(7):4353–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hashmi AA, Faridi N, Khurshid A, Naqvi H, Malik B, Malik FR, Fida Z, Mujtuba S. Accuracy of frozen section analysis of sentinel lymph nodes for the detection of Asian breast cancer micrometastasis—experience from Pakistan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14(4):2657–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hashmi AA, Aijaz S, Khan SM, Mahboob R, Irfan M, Zafar NI, Nisar M, Siddiqui M, Edhi MM, Faridi N, Khan A. Prognostic parameters of luminal A and luminal B intrinsic breast cancer subtypes of Pakistani patients. World J Surg Oncol. 2018;16(1):1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R, et al. Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2006;19:264.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Carey LA, Rugo HS, Marcom IW, et al. TBCRC 001: EGFR inhibition with cetuximab added to carboplatin in metastatic triple-negative (basal-like) breast cancer (abstract 1009). J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:1009.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, et al. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:5367.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X, et al. Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest. 2011;121:2750.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Teschendorff AE, Miremadi A, Pinder SE, et al. An immune response gene expression module identifies a good prognosis subtype in estrogen receptor negative breast cancer. Genome Biol. 2007;8:R157.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Prat A, Parker JS, Karginova O, et al. Phenotypic and molecular characterization of the claudin-low intrinsic subtype of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2010;12:R68.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Ryu DW, Jung MJ, Choi WS, Lee CH. Clinical significance of morphologic characteristics in triple-negative breast cancer. J Korean Surg Soc. 2011;80(5):301–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Dogu GG, Ozkan M, Ozturk F, Dikilitas M, Er O, Ozturk A. Triple-negative breast cancer: immunohistochemical correlation with basaloid markers and prognostic value of survivin. Med Oncol. 2010;27(1):34–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. van de Rijn M, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Haas P, Kallioniemi O, Kononen J, Torhorst J, Sauter G, Zuber M, Köchli OR, Mross F, Dieterich H, Seitz R, Ross D, Botstein D, Brown P. Expression of cytokeratins 17 and 5 identifies a group of breast carcinomas with poor clinical outcome. Am J Pathol. 2002;161(6):1991–6.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K, Cheang M, Karaca G, Hu Z, Hernandez-Boussard T, Livasy C, Cowan D, Dressler L, Akslen LA, Ragaz J, Gown AM, Gilks CB, van de Rijn M, Perou CM. Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(16):5367–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Inanc M, Ozkan M, Karaca H, Berk V, Bozkurt O, Duran AO, Ozaslan E, Akgun H, Tekelioglu F, Elmali F. Cytokeratin 5/6, c-Met expressions, and PTEN loss prognostic indicators in triple-negative breast cancer. Med Oncol. 2014;31(1):801.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hashmi AA, Hussain ZF, Irfan M, Edhi MM, Kanwal S, Faridi N, Khan A. Cytokeratin 5/6 expression in bladder cancer: association with clinicopathologic parameters and prognosis. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11(1):207.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Becker M, et al. Sensitive PCR method for the detection and real-time quantification of human cells in xenotransplantation systems. Br J Cancer. 2002;87(11):1328–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600573.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Schaller G, et al. Elevated keratin 18 protein expression indicates a favorable prognosis in patients with breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 1996;2(11):1879–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Aiad HA, Samaka RM, Asaad NY, Kandil MA, Shehata MA, Miligy IM. Relationship of CK8/18 expression pattern to breast cancer immunohistochemical subtyping in Egyptian patients. Ecancermedicalscience. 2014;20(8):404.Google Scholar

Copyright

Advertisement