Open Access

Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 mRNA overexpression in peripheral blood as a useful prognostic marker in breast cancer

  • Yoshimasa Kosaka1, 4,
  • Akemi Kataoka2,
  • Hiroshi Yamaguchi2,
  • Hiroaki Ueo3,
  • Sayuri Akiyoshi1,
  • Norihiko Sengoku4,
  • Masaru Kuranami4,
  • Shinji Ohno2,
  • Masahiko Watanabe4,
  • Koshi Mimori1 and
  • Masaki Mori1Email author
Breast Cancer Research201214:R140

DOI: 10.1186/bcr3345

Received: 6 April 2012

Accepted: 3 September 2012

Published: 31 October 2012

Abstract

Introduction

Identification of useful markers associated with poor prognosis in breast cancer patients is critically needed. We previously showed that expression of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 mRNA in peripheral blood may be useful to predict distant metastasis in gastric cancer patients. However, expression of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 mRNA in peripheral blood of breast cancer patients has not yet been studied.

Methods

Real-time reverse transcriptase-PCR was used to analyze vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 mRNA expression status with respect to various clinical parameters in 515 patients with breast cancer and 25 controls.

Results

Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 mRNA in peripheral blood was higher in breast cancer patients than in controls. Increased vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 mRNA expression was associated with large tumor size, lymph node metastasis and clinical stage. Patients with high vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 mRNA expression also experienced a poorer survival rate than those with low expression levels, including those patients with triple-negative type and luminal-HER2(-) type disease.

Conclusions

Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 mRNA in peripheral blood may be useful for prediction of poor prognosis in breast cancer, especially in patients with triple-negative type and luminal-HER2(-) type disease.

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy among woman and is one of the major causes of death. During the last several decades, many studies have been conducted to identify markers that indicate breast cancer recurrence and/or prognosis, including disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs) [1, 2]. However, no precise markers for prediction of relapse-free survival (RFS) and/or overall survival (OS) in patients with breast cancer have yet been identified. Quantitative techniques, such as reverse transcriptase (RT)-PCR, are not currently performed to identify recurrence and survival factors for breast cancer in a daily procedure. Although the high sensitivity of RT-PCR can result in false positives, its power of detection is more sensitive than that of immunohistochemistry.

Recently, Kaplan et al. reported that bone marrow derived cells (BMDCs) expressing vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 (VEGFR-1) play an important role in the development of malignant metastasis [3]. These investigators showed that BMDCs form a "metastatic niche" in the lungs prior to the arrival of cancer cells, and that blockade of VEGFR-1 prevented this BMDC infiltration and metastatic niche formation. Their findings suggest that VEGFR-1-expressing cells in the bone marrow or peripheral blood may contribute to cancer metastasis and recurrence.

Our previous study demonstrated that VEGFR-1 mRNA expression in the peripheral blood of gastric cancer patients is associated with pathological stage and recurrence. However, no reports have yet evaluated the clinicopathologic significance or prognostic value of peripheral blood VEGFR-1 mRNA expression in breast cancer patients. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the expression of VEGFR-1 mRNA in the peripheral blood of >500 breast cancer patients and to define its clinicopathologic and prognostic significance with respect to recurrence and survival.

Materials and methods

Patients

This study enrolled 515 breast cancer patients with stage 0 to III disease who underwent surgery in the National Kyushu Cancer Center Hospital, Japan between 2000 and 2004. In addition, 25 patients with no history of cancer who underwent abdominal surgery between 2001 and 2004 were recruited as negative controls; this group included 16 cases of gallstones, 3 cases of common bile duct stones and 6 cases of incisional hernia that occurred following curative surgery more than five years previously. The mean postoperative period was 44.4 months (range, 4 to 86 months). Clinical stages and pathological features of primary tumors were defined according to the classification of the International Union Against Cancer [4]. Patient ages ranged from 28 to 85 years. All of the women included provided written informed consent for participation in the study, and the ethics committees of the Kyushu University and National Kyushu Cancer Center Hospital, Japan, approved the research project.

Blood sampling

Aspiration of peripheral blood was conducted under general anesthesia immediately prior to surgery. Peripheral blood was obtained through a venous catheter. The first 1 mL of peripheral blood was discarded to avoid contamination by epidermal cells. A 1 mL sample of peripheral whole blood from each patient was immediately mixed vigorously with 4 mL ISOGEN-LS (NIPPON GENE, Toyama, Japan) and stored at -80°C until RNA extraction.

Total RNA extraction and first-strand cDNA synthesis

Total RNA was extracted according to the ISOGEN-LS manufacturer's protocols. All of the clinical samples obtained from the National Kyushu Cancer Center Hospital were sent to our institute. RT reactions were performed as described previously [5, 6]. First-strand cDNA was synthesized from 2.7 µg total RNA in a 30 µL reaction mixture containing 5 µL 5X RT reaction buffer (Gibco BRL, Gaithersburg, MD, USA), 200 µM dNTPs, 100 µM solution random hexadeoxynucleotide primer mixture, 50 units RNasin (Promega, Madison, WI, USA), 2 µL 0.1 M dithiothreitol, and 100 units Moloney murine leukemia virus RT (BRL). The mixture was incubated at 37°C for 60 minutes, heated to 95°C for 10 minutes, and subsequently chilled on ice.

Quantitative RT-PCR

The following VEGFR-1 mRNA primers were used: sense primer, 5'-TCATGAATGTTTCCCTGCAA-3'; antisense primer, 5'-GGAGGTATGGTGCTTCCTGA-3'. Ribosomal protein S27a (RPS27A) was used as an internal control. The following RPS27A primers were used: sense primer, 5'-TCGTGGTGGTGCTAAGAAAA-3'; antisense primer, 5'-TCTCGACGAAGGCGACTAAT-3'. Real-time monitoring of PCR reactions was performed using the LightCycler™ system (Roche Applied Science, Indianapolis, IN, USA) and SYBR green I dye (Roche Diagnostics). Monitoring was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions, as described previously [7, 8]. In brief, a master mixture was prepared on ice, containing 500 ng cDNA of each gene, 2 µL LC DNA Master SYBR green I mix, 50 ng primers and 2.4 µL 25 mM MgCl2. The final volume was then adjusted to 20 µL with water. After the reaction mixture was loaded into the glass capillary tube, PCR was conducted under the following cycling conditions: initial denaturation at 95°C for 10 minutes, followed by 40 cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 8 sec, annealing at 68°C for 8 sec and extension at 72°C for 2 sec. After amplification, the products were subjected to a temperature gradient from 72°C to 95°C at 0.1°C/sec, under continuous fluorescence monitoring to produce a melting curve of the products.

Data analysis

Expression levels of VEGFR-1 and RPS27A mRNAs were determined by comparison with the cDNA from Human Universal Reference Total RNA (Clontech, Palo Alto, CA, USA). After proportional baseline adjustment, the fit point method was employed to determine the cycle in which the log-linear signal was first distinguishable from baseline, and then that cycle number was used as a crossing-point value. The standard curve was produced by measuring the crossing point of each standard value and plotting it against the logarithmic value of the concentrations. Concentrations were calculated by plotting their crossing points against the standard curve, and were adjusted by RPS27A content. Taking into consideration the clinical application of the current study, the 95% confidence interval (CI) was used as the upper limit of a normal case cutoff value (bone marrow, 0.12; peripheral blood, 0.059). The 95% value of a normal case according to the reference intervals of the Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute [9] was established, and the reference limit was regarded as the cutoff value. Levels higher or lower than the cutoff value were considered "positive" and "negative," respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the data were determined to evaluate the legitimacy of the cutoff value.

Statistics

For continuous variables, the data were expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The relationships between VEGFR-1 mRNA expression and clinicopathological factors were analyzed using the chi-square test and Kruskal-Wallis test. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the occurrence probability of an event, where the events included death, relapse, local recurrence and observation of distant metastasis. The generalized log-rank test was applied to compare the occurrence probability. Cox proportional-hazards models were fitted for multivariate analysis. All tests were analyzed using JMP software (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Statistical significance was determined as a P-value from two-sided tests of <0.05.

Results

Patient characteristics

Blood samples from 25 normal control cases and 515 breast cancer patients were analyzed for VEGFR-1 and RPS27A gene expression levels by quantitative real-time RT-PCR; expression levels of VEGFR-1 mRNA were corrected for those of RPS27A mRNA. An overview of patient characteristics is provided in Table 1.
Table 1

Clinicopathologic characteristics of the patients

Factors

No.

%

Patients enrolled

515

100.0

Age (mean ± SD)

55.5 ± 11.5

 

Tumor size

  

   Tis

6

1.2

   T0

3

0.6

   T1

193

37.5

   T2

272

52.8

   T3

34

6.6

   T4

7

1.3

Lymphnode metastasis

  

   negative

342

66.4

   positive

173

33.6

Lymphatic involvement

  

   negative

316

61.4

   positive

199

38.6

Vascular involvement

  

   negative

481

93.4

   positive

34

6.6

Nuclear grade

  

   I/II

346

67.2

   III

169

32.8

Hormone receptor

  

   negative

123

23.9

   positive

392

76.1

HER-2/NEU

  

   negative

319

61.9

   positive

50

9.7

   unknown

146

28.4

CEA

  

   <5.0

452

87.8

   >5.1

24

4.7

   unknown

39

7.5

Stage

  

   0

6

1.2

   I

155

30.1

   II

316

61.3

   III

38

7.4

Recurrence

  

   negative

438

85.0

   positive

77

15.0

Prognosis

  

   alive

488

94.8

   dead

27

5.2

SD, standard deviation

Expression of VEGFR-1 mRNA in peripheral blood of surgical breast cancer patients

Figure 1 shows peripheral blood VEGFR-1 mRNA levels of breast cancer patients and controls. The mean expression level of VEGFR-1 mRNA in cancer patients (0.25 ± 1.76) was significantly higher than that of the control group (0.03 ± 0.05; P <0.05). Expression levels of VEGFR-1 mRNA in stage III breast cancer patients (1.18 ± 3.97) were significantly higher than those of either stage I (0.12 ± 0.53; P <0.01) or stage II (0.12 ± 0.64; P <0.01) patients (Figure 2).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fbcr3345/MediaObjects/13058_2012_Article_3146_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

VEGFR-1 mRNA expression in peripheral blood from breast cancer patients. Expression of VEGFR-1 mRNA is significantly elevated in peripheral blood in 515 patients of breast cancer in comparison to that in 25 normal control patients.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fbcr3345/MediaObjects/13058_2012_Article_3146_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

VEGFR-1 mRNA expression in clinical stage of breast cancer patients. The higher VEGFR-1 mRNA expression was observed in patients with stage III in comparison with stage I and II patients (P <0.01, respectively).

Association between VEGFR-1 mRNA expression level and clinicopathological features

Correlations between VEGFR-1 mRNA levels and clinicopathological variables are summarized in Table 2. By the predetermined cutoff value (0.059), 49 patients (9.52%) were positive for VEGFR-1 mRNA expression. Significantly higher expression was observed in the following patient subgroups: large tumor size (P <0.05), lymph node metastasis (P <0.05), clinical stage (P <0.01), postoperative recurrence (P <0.01) and poor prognosis (P <0.0001).
Table 2

Correlation of clinicopathologic characterestics and VEGFR1 mRNA expression

 

VEGFR1mRNA in peripheral blood

 

negative

Positive

 
 

(n = 466)

(n = 49)

 

Factors

No.

%

No.

%

P

Age (mean ± SD)

55.5 ± 11.5

54.5 ± 11.5

0.66

Tumor size

     

   small (Tis to T1)

189

40.6

13

26.5

<0.05

   large (T2 to T4)

277

59.4

36

73.5

 

Lymphnode metastasis

     

   negative

316

67.8

26

53.1

<0.05

   positive

150

32.2

23

46.9

 

Lymphatic involvement

     

   negative

289

62.0

27

55.1

0.34

   positive

177

38.0

22

44.9

 

Vascular involvement

     

   negative

438

94.0

43

87.8

0.09

   positive

28

6.0

6

12.2

 

Nuclear grade

     

   I/II

311

66.7

35

71.4

0.50

   III

155

33.3

14

28.6

 

Hormone receptor

     

   negative

112

24.0

11

22.4

0.80

   positive

354

76.0

38

77.6

 

HER-2/NEU

     

   negative

301

86.0

18

94.7

0.23

   positive

49

14.0

1

5.3

 

CEA

     

   <5.0

408

94.9

44

95.7

0.82

   >5.1

22

5.1

2

4.3

 

Stage

     

   0

6

1.3

0

0.0

<0.01

   I

143

30.7

12

24.5

 

   II

290

62.2

26

53.1

 

   III

27

5.8

11

22.4

 

Recurrence

     

   negative

404

86.7

34

69.4

<0.01

   positive

62

13.3

15

30.6

 

Prognosis

     

   alive

449

96.4

39

79.6

<0.0001

   dead

17

3.6

10

20.4

 

Association between VEGFR-1 mRNA expression level and survival

At a median follow-up of 44.4 months, 76 RFS events and 27 OS events had been registered. The five-year RFS rate (69.0%) was significantly lower in VEGFR-1-positive patients than in VEGFR-1-negative patients (82.5%; P <0.05; Figure 3A). The five-year OS rate (80.5%) was also significantly lower in VEGFR-1-positive patients than in VEGFR-1-negative patients (94.4%; P <0.01; Figure 3B).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fbcr3345/MediaObjects/13058_2012_Article_3146_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Kaplan-Meier relapse free survival (A) and overall survival (B) curves. Patients in the high expression group of VEGFR-1 mRNA showed significantly high recurrence (P <0.05) and poorer prognosis (P <0.01) than those in the low-expression group (log rank test).

Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors associated with survival (Table 3). Univariate analysis identified lymph node metastasis, hormone receptor status, elevated preoperative CEA level (>5.1 ng/mL), tumor size, nuclear grade, lymphatic involvement and VEGFR-1 mRNA expression levels as adverse prognostic factors for OS (P <0.05 for each factor). Multivariate analysis also indicated that high VEGFR-1 mRNA expression was an independent factor for OS (relative risk (RR), 2.00; 95% CI, 1.19 to 3.25, P <0.01), as well as lymph node metastasis (RR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.53 to 4.96, P <0.001) and hormone receptor status (RR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.62 to 4.43, P <0.001).
Table 3

Univariate and multivariate analysis for overall survival

 

Univariate analysis

Multivariate analysis

Factors

RR

95% CI

P

RR

95% CI

P

Lymphnode metastasis (negative/positive)

2.91

1.86 to 5.03

<0.0001

2.67

1.53 to 4.96

<0.001

Hormone receptor (positive/negative)

2.37

1.61 to 3.59

<0.0001

2.65

1.62 to 4.43

0.0001

VEGFR-1 mRNA expression (negative/positive)

1.86

1.19 to 2.79

<0.01

2.00

1.19 to 3.25

<0.01

CEA (<5.0 ng/ml/ >5.1 ng/ml)

2.23

1.20 to 3.65

<0.05

1.69

0.87 to 2.95

0.11

Tumor size (small/large)

2.14

1.26 to 4.39

<0.01

1.63

0.85 to 4.13

0.16

Nuclear grade (I and II/III)

1.62

1.11 to 2.39

<0.05

1.25

0.82 to 1.89

0.29

Lymphatic involvement (negative/positive)

1.51

1.03 to 2.26

<0.05

0.99

0.62 to 1.61

0.96

Vascular involvement (negative/positive)

1.85

1.00 to 3.01

0.05

-

-

-

HER-2/NEU (negative/positive)

1.48

0.96 to 2.26

0.08

-

-

-

CI, Confidence interval; RR, Relative risk

Association between VEGFR-1 mRNA expression level and survival by subtype of breast cancer

In patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative, the five-year OS rate (57.1%) was significantly lower in VEGFR-1-positive patients (n = 12) compared to that in VEGFR-1-negative patients (n = 246; 94.2%; P <0.01; Figure 4a).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fbcr3345/MediaObjects/13058_2012_Article_3146_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4

Kaplan-Meier overall survival curves by subtype of breast cancer. (A) Hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer patients with high expression group of VEGFR-1 mRNA showed significantly poorer prognosis (P <0.01, log rank test). (B) Triple negative breast cancer patients with high expression group of VEGFR-1 mRNA showed significantly poorer prognosis (P <0.05, log rank test).

In patients with triple-negative breast cancer (that is, cancers that were estrogen receptor-negative, progesterone receptor-negative and HER2-negative), the five-year OS rate (50%) was significantly lower in VEGFR-1-positive patients (n = 6) compared to that in VEGFR-1-negative patients (n = 55; 79.9%; P <0.05; Figure 4b).

However, there was no significant difference between VEGFR-1-positive and VEGFR-1-negative in patients with HER2-positive regardless of the presence of the hormone receptor (data not shown).

Discussion

We have investigated the correlation between VEGFR-1 mRNA expression in peripheral blood of a large number of breast cancer patients and clinicopathologic factors, RFS and OS. The present results reveal that VEGFR-1 mRNA expression levels are very high in breast cancer patients and are associated with clinical stage, recurrence and prognosis. In addition, VEGFR-1 mRNA expression levels are associated with tumor size and lymph node metastasis (Table 2). These results are consistent with our previous reports, in which peripheral blood VEGFR-1 mRNA expression levels were significantly higher in gastric cancer patients compared to non-cancer patients, and VEGFR-1 mRNA expression levels were associated with clinical stage [10, 11].

In the present study, patients with VEGFR-1 mRNA overexpression experienced a higher rate of recurrence and a poorer prognosis compared to VEGFR-1-negative patients. Moreover, Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that patients with VEGFR-1 mRNA overexpression had shorter RFS and OS. Lymph node metastasis is generally the most important prognostic factor in breast cancer patients [12]. In this study, VEGFR-1 mRNA expression was shown to be associated with lymph node metastasis and to influence prognosis. In addition, multivariate analysis revealed that VEGFR-1 mRNA expression in peripheral blood was an independent prognostic factor, in addition to lymph node metastasis and hormone receptor status. We speculate that VEGFR-1 expression in the peripheral blood at the time of surgery has a higher sensitivity as a prognostic factor in breast cancer patients.

We hypothesized that the original cells expressing VEGFR-1 in breast cancer patients are monocytes, circulating endothelial cells, circulating cancer cells and hematopoietic progenitor cells (HPCs). Our previous study revealed that the original cells producing VEGFR-1 may be monocytes [10]. Jain et al. revealed that the frequency of peripheral blood VEGFR1+ HPCs in patients with breast cancer was increased prior to relapse and could be used to predict disease progression in metastatic breast cancer patients [13]. Therefore, we have been interested in changes of VEGFR-1 mRNA in the blood of breast cancer patients before recurrence.

Recently, DNA microarray profiling has identified distinct subtypes of breast cancer. Sorlie et al. categorized expression profiles into five molecular subtypes: luminal A, luminal B, HER2, normal breast-like and basal-like [14]. These breast cancer subtypes are associated with different clinical outcomes, from the relatively good prognosis of patients with luminal A tumors to the worst prognosis of those with basal-like and HER2-positive tumors [15]. Ki-67 expression is chiefly important in distinguishing between 'Luminal A' and 'Luminal B (HER2 negative)' subtypes. Chemotherapy is indicated for most patients with 'Luminal B' disease [16]. Based upon the results of this study (Figure 4a), VEGFR-1 mRNA expression in peripheral blood may be useful for choice of adjuvant chemotherapy in Luminal type (HER2 negative) breast cancer. However, further studies are needed to analyze both Ki67 and VEGFR-1 expression. Basal-like breast cancer does not express estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and HER2 (so called triple-negative breast cancer). Therefore, the only treatment available for basal-like cancer patients is systemic chemotherapy. Basal-like cancer is associated with an aggressive clinical course, distant metastasis (for example, to the brain, liver, lung and bone), and poor prognosis [17, 18]. The results of the present study indicate that patients with VEGFR-1 -positive triple-negative cancer had a particularly poor prognosis (Figure 4b). Therefore, VEGFR-1 mRNA may be a useful marker for identifying poor prognosis in patients with triple-negative cancer. For such cases, an additional course of chemotherapy or close follow-up may be recommended.

VEGFR-1 expression was not significantly different in patients who were positive for HER2. The reason may be we had unknown HER2 data with some cases. Furthermore, the group positive for VEGFR-1 was small, and the chemotherapeutic regimen (including use of trastuzumab, the anti-HER2 antibody) was different from that used today.

Recently, molecularly targeted therapies (for example, the anti-HER2 antibody trastuzumab) have played an increasingly critical role in breast cancer treatment. Sunitinib and sorafenib are tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) with novel molecular targets, including VEGFR-1. Sunitinib is a small-molecule multi-TKI that targets multiple vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs), platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), KIT and colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor [19]. In a breast cancer clinical trial, sunitinib demonstrated a benefit in 38.9% of 18 patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer [20]. In a Phase II study, sunitinib treatment resulted in a partial response in 7 of 64 patients with heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer [21]. However, a Phase III study of sunitinib combination with docetaxel improved response rate but did not prolong survival [22]. Sorafenib is a multi-kinase inhibitor that targets several receptor tyrosine kinases including, VEGFR-1, -2 and -3 and PDGFR-β, and serine threonine kinases including, Raf-1 and B-Raf, all shown to be involved in neovascularization and tumor progression [23, 24]. In a Phase II randomized trial in breast cancer patients, the addition of sorafenib to capecitabine therapy significantly improved progression-free survival compared with capecitabine alone [25]. A large Phase III trial is currently evaluating this combination in a large number of breast cancer patients. We expect that VEGFR-1 might be useful as a biomarker, considering the efficacy of the TKIs described above.

Conclusions

The evaluation of VEGFR-1 mRNA in the peripheral blood of breast cancer patients may play a very important role in the prediction of cancer metastasis and recurrence.

Abbreviations

BMDCs: 

bone marrow derived cells

CI: 

confidence interval

CTCs: 

circulating tumor cells

DTCs: 

disseminated tumor cells

HPCs: 

hematopoietic progenitor cells

OS: 

overall survival

PDGFR: 

platelet-derived growth factor receptor

RFS: 

relapse-free survival

RPS27A: 

Ribosomal protein S27a

RR: 

relative risk

RT: 

reverse transcriptase

TKIs: 

tyrosine kinase inhibitors

VEGFR-1: 

vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We thank Miss T. Shimooka, Mrs. K. Ogata, Miss M. Oda, Miss N. Kasagi and Miss Y. Nakagawa for their excellent technical assistance.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Surgery, Medical Institute of Bioregulation, Kyushu University
(2)
Department of Breast Oncology, Kyushu Cancer Center
(3)
Ueo Breast Surgical Hospital
(4)
Department of Surgery, Kitasato University School of Medicine

References

  1. Cristofanilli M, Budd GT, Ellis MJ, Stopeck A, Matera J, Miller MC, Reuben JM, Doyle GV, Allard WJ, Terstappen LW, Hayes DF: Circulating tumor cells, disease progression, and survival in metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2004, 351: 781-791. 10.1056/NEJMoa040766.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Braun S, Vogl FD, Naume B, Janni W, Osborne MP, Coombes RC, Schlimok G, Diel IJ, Gerber B, Gebauer G, Pierga JY, Marth C, Oruzio D, Wiedswang G, Solomayer EF, Kundt G, Strobl B, Fehm T, Wong GY, Bliss J, Vincent-Salomon A, Pantel K: A pooled analysis of bone marrow micrometastasis in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005, 353: 793-802. 10.1056/NEJMoa050434.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Kaplan RN, Riba RD, Zacharoulis S, Bramley AH, Vincent L, Costa C, MacDonald DD, Jin DK, Shido K, Kerns SA, Zhu Z, Hicklin D, Wu Y, Port JL, Altorki N, Port ER, Ruggero D, Shmelkov SV, Jensen KK, Rafii S, Lyden D: VEGFR1-positive haematopoietic bone marrow progenitors initiate the pre-metastatic niche. Nature. 2005, 438: 820-827. 10.1038/nature04186.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Sobin LH, Fleming ID: TNM Classification of Malignant Tumors, fifth edition (1997). Union Internationale Contre le Cancer and the American Joint Committee on Cancer. Cancer. 1997, 80: 1803-1804. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19971101)80:9<1803::AID-CNCR16>3.0.CO;2-9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Mori M, Mimori K, Inoue H, Barnard GF, Tsuji K, Nanbara S, Ueo H, Akiyoshi T: Detection of cancer micrometastases in lymph nodes by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction. Cancer Res. 1995, 55: 3417-3420.Google Scholar
  6. Masuda TA, Inoue H, Sonoda H, Mine S, Yoshikawa Y, Nakayama K, Nakayama K, Mori M: Clinical and biological significance of S-phase kinase-associated protein 2 (Skp2) gene expression in gastric carcinoma: modulation of malignant phenotype by Skp2 overexpression, possibly via p27 proteolysis. Cancer Res. 2002, 62: 3819-3825.Google Scholar
  7. Masuda TA, Inoue H, Nishida K, Sonoda H, Yoshikawa Y, Kakeji Y, Utsunomiya T, Mori M: Cyclin-dependent kinase 1 gene expression is associated with poor prognosis in gastric carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2003, 9: 5693-5698.Google Scholar
  8. Ogawa K, Utsunomiya T, Mimori K, Tanaka Y, Tanaka F, Inoue H, Murayama S, Mori M: Clinical significance of elongation factor-1 delta mRNA expression in oesophageal carcinoma. Br J Cancer. 2004, 91: 282-286.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Sasse EA: How to define and determine reference intervals in the clinical laboratory: approved guideline. 2000, NCCLS, Pennsylvania, USAGoogle Scholar
  10. Kosaka Y, Mimori K, Fukagawa T, Ishikawa K, Etoh T, Katai H, Sano T, Watanabe M, Sasako M, Mori M: Identification of the high-risk group for metastasis of gastric cancer cases by vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 overexpression in peripheral blood. Br J Cancer. 2007, 96: 1723-1728. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6603785.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Mimori K, Fukagawa T, Kosaka Y, Kita Y, Ishikawa K, Etoh T, Iinuma H, Sasako M, Mori M: Hematogenous metastasis in gastric cancer requires isolated tumor cells and expression of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1. Clin Cancer Res. 2008, 14: 2609-2616. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-4354.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Nemoto T, Vana J, Bedwani RN, Baker HW, McGregor FH, Murphy GP: Management and survival of female breast cancer: results of a national survey by the American College of Surgeons. Cancer. 1980, 45: 2917-2924. 10.1002/1097-0142(19800615)45:12<2917::AID-CNCR2820451203>3.0.CO;2-M.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Jain S, Ward MM, O'Loughlin J, Boeck M, Wiener N, Chuang E, Cigler T, Moore A, Donovan D, Lam C, Cobham MV, Schneider S, Christos P, Baergen RN, Swistel A, Lane ME, Mittal V, Rafii S, Vahdat LT: Incremental increase in VEGFR1(+) hematopoietic progenitor cells and VEGFR2(+) endothelial progenitor cells predicts relapse and lack of tumor response in breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012, 132: 235-242. 10.1007/s10549-011-1906-3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Sorlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, Hastie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Thorsen T, Quist H, Matese JC, Brown PO, Botstein D, Eystein Lonning P, Borresen-Dale AL: Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2001, 98: 10869-10874. 10.1073/pnas.191367098.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA, Dressler LG, Cowan D, Conway K, Karaca G, Troester MA, Tse CK, Edmiston S, Deming SL, Geradts J, Cheang MC, Nielsen TO, Moorman PG, Earp HS, Millikan RC: Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA. 2006, 295: 2492-2502. 10.1001/jama.295.21.2492.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Mancuso P, Burlini A, Pruneri G, Goldhirsch A, Martinelli G, Bertolini F: Resting and activated endothelial cells are increased in the peripheral blood of cancer patients. Blood. 2001, 97: 3658-3661. 10.1182/blood.V97.11.3658.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Hicks DG, Short SM, Prescott NL, Tarr SM, Coleman KA, Yoder BJ, Crowe JP, Choueiri TK, Dawson AE, Budd GT, Tubbs RR, Casey G, Weil RJ: Breast cancers with brain metastases are more likely to be estrogen receptor negative, express the basal cytokeratin CK5/6, and overexpress HER2 or EGFR. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006, 30: 1097-1104.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Rakha EA, Reis-Filho JS, Ellis IO: Basal-like breast cancer: a critical review. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26: 2568-2581. 10.1200/JCO.2007.13.1748.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Abrams TJ, Murray LJ, Pesenti E, Holway VW, Colombo T, Lee LB, Cherrington JM, Pryer NK: Preclinical evaluation of the tyrosine kinase inhibitor SU11248 as a single agent and in combination with "standard of care" therapeutic agents for the treatment of breast cancer. Mol Cancer Ther. 2003, 2: 1011-1021.Google Scholar
  20. Kozloff M, Chuang E, Starr A, Gowland PA, Cataruozolo PE, Collier M, Verkh L, Huang X, Kern KA, Miller K: An exploratory study of sunitinib plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for patients with advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2010, 21: 1436-1441. 10.1093/annonc/mdp565.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Burstein HJ, Elias AD, Rugo HS, Cobleigh MA, Wolff AC, Eisenberg PD, Lehman M, Adams BJ, Bello CL, DePrimo SE, Baum CM, Miller KD: Phase II study of sunitinib malate, an oral multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol. 2008, 26: 1810-1816. 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.5375.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Bergh J, Bondarenko IM, Lichinitser MR, Liljegren A, Greil R, Voytko NL, Makhson AN, Cortes J, Lortholary A, Bischoff J, Chan A, Delaloge S, Huang X, Kern KA, Giorgetti C: First-line treatment of advanced breast cancer with sunitinib in combination with docetaxel versus docetaxel alone: results of a prospective, randomized phase III study. J Clin Oncol. 2012, 30: 921-929. 10.1200/JCO.2011.35.7376.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilhelm SM, Carter C, Tang L, Wilkie D, McNabola A, Rong H, Chen C, Zhang X, Vincent P, McHugh M, Cao Y, Shujath J, Gawlak S, Eveleigh D, Rowley B, Liu L, Adnane L, Lynch M, Auclair D, Taylor I, Gedrich R, Voznesensky A, Riedl B, Post LE, Bollag G, Trail PA: BAY 43-9006 exhibits broad spectrum oral antitumor activity and targets the RAF/MEK/ERK pathway and receptor tyrosine kinases involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. Cancer Res. 2004, 64: 7099-7109. 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-1443.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Chang YS, Adnane J, Trail PA, Levy J, Henderson A, Xue D, Bortolon E, Ichetovkin M, Chen C, McNabola A, Wilkie D, Carter CA, Taylor IC, Lynch M, Wilhelm S: Sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) inhibits tumor growth and vascularization and induces tumor apoptosis and hypoxia in RCC xenograft models. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2007, 59: 561-574. 10.1007/s00280-006-0393-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Higgins MJ, Baselga J: Targeted therapies for breast cancer. J Clin Invest. 2011, 121: 3797-3803. 10.1172/JCI57152.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Kosaka et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.