Coexistence of HER2 over-expression and p53 protein accumulation is a strong prognostic molecular marker in breast cancer
© Yamashita et al., licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original URL. 2004
Received: 21 July 2003
Accepted: 15 October 2003
Published: 7 November 2003
Many laboratories are currently evaluating the usefulness of determination of HER2, p53, and Ki67 proliferation indices using immunohistochemical techniques in cancer. Although the available studies suggest that these factors might indeed be helpful in making treatment decisions in cancer patients, their clinical usefulness is still controversial.
Expression of HER2, p53, and Ki67 was examined by immunohistochemistry in samples of breast tissue from 506 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma, obtained between 1981 and 1999 (median follow up period 82 months), and their significance for prognosis was analyzed.
Of the 506 carcinoma tissue samples, 20.1%, 29.0%, and 53.6% were positive for HER2 over-expression, p53 protein accumulation, and Ki67 expression, respectively. Over-expression of HER2 significantly reduced disease free (P = 0.02) and overall survival (P = 0.005). Accumulation of p53 protein significantly decreased disease free (P = 0.01) and overall survival (P = 0.01). Patients with tumors that were positive for both HER2 and p53 relapsed and died within a significantly shorter period of time after surgery (P = 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively). In multivariate analysis, patients with both HER2 and p53 positive tumors had considerably decreased overall survival (P = 0.04), as did patients with larger tumor size and positive lymph node status.
The findings of the present study indicate that the coexistence of HER2 over-expression and p53 protein accumulation is a strong prognostic molecular marker in breast cancer.
KeywordsHER2 immunohistochemistry invasive ductal carcinoma p53
Prognostic biomarkers in a disease provide information regarding outcome irrespective of therapy. Candidate prognostic biomarkers in breast cancer include elevated levels of expression of proliferation indices such as Ki67 and proliferating cell nuclear antigen; expression of estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor; amplification and over-expression of HER2, cyclin D1, and c-myc; p53 nuclear protein accumulation; bcl-2 expression; and alteration in angiogenesis proteins such as vascular endothelial growth factor [1–5]. In particular, review of the literature suggests that over-expression of HER2 and p53 may have prognostic significance in breast cancer. HER2 (c-erbB2) encodes a membrane protein (p185) that is tyrosine phosphorylated after interaction with its ligands. Over-expression of HER2 occurs through either amplification of the gene or mRNA over-expression. p53 is involved in regulating cell proliferation, inducing apoptosis, and in promoting chromosomal stability. Disruption of these functions appears to play an important role in carcinogenesis. There is evidence that over-expression of HER2 and p53 is involved in breast cancer progression . This hypothesis is based on the high frequency of HER2 and p53 over-expression among invasive and noninvasive breast cancers and among benign breast diseases [7–9]. This suggests that HER2 and p53 play roles in the early stages of breast tumorigenesis.
In the present study we examined the expression of HER2, p53, and Ki67 in samples of breast tissue from 506 patients with invasive ductal carcinoma, obtained between 1981 and 1999, and analyzed their significance for prognosis. Our results indicate that the coexistence of HER2 over-expression and accumulation of p53 protein is a strong prognostic molecular marker in breast cancer.
Patients and breast cancer tissues
Clinicopathologic characteristics of patients with invasive ductal carcinoma
Value (n [%])
Age at diagnosis (years)
Age range (years)
Tumor size (cm)
Number of positive lymph nodes
Follow up (months)
Immunohistochemical analysis for estrogen receptor-α, HER2, p53, and Ki67
One 4-μm section from each submitted paraffin block was first stained with hematoxylin and eosin in order to verify that an adequate number of invasive ductal carcinoma cells were present and that quality of fixation was sufficient for immunohistochemical analysis. Serial sections (4-μm) were prepared from selected blocks and float mounted on adhesive coated glass slides for ER-α, HER2, p53, or Ki67 staining. Primary antibodies included monoclonal mouse antihuman estrogen receptor antibody (1D5; DAKO, Glostrup, Denmark) at 1 : 100 dilution for ER-α, rabbit antihuman c-erbB2 oncoprotein antibody (DAKO) at 1 : 200 dilution for HER2, monoclonal mouse antihuman p53 protein antibody (PAb1801; Novocastra, Newcastle, UK) at 1 : 50 dilution for p53, and monoclonal mouse anti-human Ki67 antibody (MIB-1; DAKO) at 1 : 100 dilution for Ki67. The DAKO EnVision system (DAKO EnVision labelled polymer, peroxidase) was used as the detection system for ER-α, HER2, and Ki67. The streptavidin-biotin system (SAB-PO kit; Nichirei Co., Inc., Tokyo, Japan) was applied for detection of the bound antibody of p53.
Immunostained slides were scored after the entire slide had been evaluated by light microscopy. The expression of ER-α was scored by assigning a proportion score and an intensity score according to Allred's procedure . Any brown nuclear staining in invasive breast epithelium was counted toward the proportion score. Tumors with scores of 3 or greater were considered to be positive for ER-α expression. HER2 immunostaining was evaluated using the same method as is employed by the HercepTest (DAKO). To determine the score of HER2 expression the membrane staining pattern was estimated and scored on a scale of 0 to 3+. Tumors with scores of 2 or greater were considered to be positive for HER2 over-expression. The expression status of p53 and Ki67 was assessed according to the estimated proportion of nuclear staining of tumor cells that were positively stained. Scoring criteria for p53 were as follows (in the form proportion of nuclear staining = score): none = 0, < 1/10 = 1, 1/10-1/2 = 2, and > 1/2 = 3. Scoring criteria for Ki67 were as follows (in the form proportion of nuclear staining = score): none = 0, < 1/100 = 1, 1/100-1/10 = 2, 1/10-1/2 = 3, and > 1/2 = 4. Tumors with a score of 1 or greater for p53 were considered to be positive for p53 protein accumulation, and tumors with a score of 2 or greater for Ki67 were considered to be positive for Ki67 expression.
The χ2 test was used to compare immunohistochemical results for molecular markers with clinicopathologic characteristics. Estimation of disease free and overall survival was performed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences between survival curves were assessed with the log-rank test. Cox's proportional hazards model was used for univariate and multivariate analyses of prognostic values.
Relationship between HER2, p53, and Ki67 expression and clinicopathologic factors
Correlation between clinicopathologic factors and molecular markers
Positive/total (n [%])
Tumor size (cm)
Number of positive lymph nodes
Correlation between HER2 over-expression, p53 protein accumulation, and Ki67 expression
Correlation between HER2, p53, and Ki67 expression
Disease free and overall survival categorized by HER2, p53, and Ki67 expression
Prognostic analysis of disease free survival
Prognostic factors in 470 invasive ductal carcinomas compared with disease free survival
RR (95% CI)
Number of positive lymph nodes
Prognostic analysis of overall survival
Prognostic factors in 470 invasive ductal carcinomas compared with overall survival
RR (95% CI)
Number of positive lymph nodes
The present study indicates that the coexistence of HER2 over-expression and p53 protein accumulation has strong prognostic significance in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast after a median follow-up period of 82 months.
HER2 encodes a 185-kDa transmembrane glycoprotein with intracellular tyrosine kinase activity that belongs to the epidermal growth factor receptor family . Although no ligand has been identified for HER2, several peptide growth factors bind to the other members of the family. Amplification or over-expression of HER2 is observed in 20–40% of human breast cancers. The prognostic significance of HER2 over-expression was first reported in 1987 . Subsequently, over 200 studies have been reported in which the role of amplification/over-expression of HER2 was investigated as a prognostic marker in breast cancer. Also, we previously reported that HER2 amplification was strongly associated with both disease free and overall survival in breast cancer . In the present study we extended our analysis of HER2 over-expression to more than 500 invasive ductal tumors, and showed that over-expression of HER2 was associated with poor prognosis.
Nearly one-third of breast cancers have mutations in the p53 gene, which are associated with high histological grade and clinical aggressiveness . Immunohistochemical assays generally detect nuclear accumulation of the protein, which is often related to conformational alterations and a prolonged half-life of the encoded protein [13, 14]. Accumulation of p53 protein was significantly associated with poor prognosis in our study and in other studies of patients with breast cancer [15, 16]. These studies suggest both a prognostic and a predictive role for p53 .
Tumors with both HER2 over-expression and p53 protein accumulation were reported in several studies, and patients with such tumors were found to have poor prognosis [17–22]; the findings reported here also indicate that both HER2 over-expression and p53 protein accumulation are associated with markedly poorer disease free and overall survival. On the other hand, some studies have shown a better prognosis in patients with breast cancers with HER2 overexpression and p53 protein accumulation . These differences may reflect the effect of various therapeutic regimens.
Most patients with early breast cancer receive adjuvant treatment, and the identification of predictive factors may help in selecting the optimal therapeutic strategy for individual patients. HER2 over-expression may be associated with reduced efficacy of adjuvant endocrine therapy with tamoxifen [24–26]. The role of p53 mutations in the efficacy of endocrine therapy is still under evaluation. On the other hand, previous data suggested that HER2 positive tumors might be resistant to adjuvant treatment with CMF [27, 28]. There is evidence that women whose tumors over-express HER2 are likely to derive greater benefit from therapy with anthracycline-containing regimens than from alkylating agents [25, 29–31]. It was also reported that patients with both HER2 and p53 positive tumors had an improved 10-year survival when treated with a high dose FAC (fluorouracil, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) regimen . The patients included in the present study were treated with tamoxifen, fluorouracil, or a CMF regimen, and anthracycline based chemotherapy was not used. Further studies are needed to determine which endocrine or chemotherapeutic agents should be used in breast cancers with different expression profiles, especially in patients with poor prognosis.
We examined the expression of HER2, p53, and Ki67 in 506 invasive ductal carcinoma tissue samples. The results indicate that the coexistence of HER2 over-expression and p53 protein accumulation is a strong prognostic molecular marker in breast cancer.
- CMF = cyclophosphamide:
methotrexate, and fluorouracil
This work was supported by Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture in Japan 13671248.
- Allred DC, Harvey JM, Berardo M, Clark GM: Prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer by immunohistochemical analysis. Mod Pathol. 1998, 11: 155-168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chang J, Powles TJ, Allred DC, Ashley SE, Clark GM, Makris A, Assersohn L, Gregory RK, Osborne CK, Dowsett M: Biologic markers as predictors of clinical outcome from systemic therapy for primary operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999, 17: 3058-3063.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Fitzgibbons PL, Page DL, Weaver D, Thor AD, Allred DC, Clark GM, Ruby SG, O'Malley F, Simpson JF, Connolly JL, Hayes DF, Edge SB, Lichter A, Schnitt SJ: Prognostic factors in breast cancer. College of American Pathologists Consensus Statement 1999. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000, 124: 966-978.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kobayashi S, Iwase H, Ito Y, Yamashita H, Iwata H, Yamashita T, Ito K, Toyama T, Nakamura T, Masaoka A: Clinical significance of bcl-2 gene expression in human breast cancer tissues. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1997, 42: 173-181. 10.1023/A:1005760013810.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yamashita H, Kobayashi S, Iwase H, Itoh Y, Kuzushima T, Iwata H, Itoh K, Naito A, Yamashita T, Masaoka A, Kimura N: Analysis of oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes in human breast cancer. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1993, 84: 871-878.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hamilton A, Piccart M: The contribution of molecular markers to the prediction of response in the treatment of breast cancer: a review of the literature on HER-2, p53 and BCL-2. Ann Oncol. 2000, 11: 647-663. 10.1023/A:1008390429428.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Iwase H, Ando Y, Ichihara S, Toyoshima S, Nakamura T, Karamatsu S, Ito Y, Yamashita H, Toyama T, Omoto Y, Fujii Y, Mitsuyama S, Kobayashi S: Immunohistochemical analysis on biological markers in ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Breast Cancer. 2001, 8: 98-104.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kobayashi S, Iwase H, Itoh Y, Fukuoka H, Yamashita H, Kuzushima T, Iwata H, Masaoka A, Kimura N: Estrogen receptor, c-erbB-2 and nm23/NDP kinase expression in the intraductal and invasive components of human breast cancers. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1992, 83: 859-865.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gusterson BA, Machin LG, Gullick WJ, Gibbs NM, Powles TJ, Price P, McKinna A, Harrison S: Immunohistochemical distribution of c-erbB-2 in infiltrating and in situ breast cancer. Int J Cancer. 1988, 42: 842-845.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Harvey JM, Clark GM, Osborne CK, Allred DC: Estrogen receptor status by immunohistochemistry is superior to the ligand-binding assay for predicting response to adjuvant endocrine therapy in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999, 17: 1474-1481.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Akiyama T, Sudo C, Ogawara H, Toyoshima K, Yamamoto T: The product of the human c-erbB-2 gene: a 185-kilodalton glycoprotein with tyrosine kinase activity. Science. 1986, 232: 1644-1646.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A, McGuire WL: Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science. 1987, 235: 177-182.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hurlimann J, Chaubert P, Benhattar J: p53 Gene alterations and p53 protein accumulation in infiltrating ductal breast carcinomas: correlation between immunohistochemical and molecular biology techniques. Mod Pathol. 1994, 7: 423-428.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kerns BJ, Jordan PA, Moore MB, Humphrey PA, Berchuck A, Kohler MF, Bast RC, Iglehart JD, Marks JR: p53 overexpression in formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue detected by immunohistochemistry. J Histochem Cytochem. 1992, 40: 1047-1051.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Allred DC, Clark GM, Elledge R, Fuqua SA, Brown RW, Chamness GC, Osborne CK, McGuire WL: Association of p53 protein expression with tumor cell proliferation rate and clinical outcome in node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993, 85: 200-206.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thor AD, Moore DH, Edgerton SM, Kawasaki ES, Reihsaus E, Lynch HT, Marcus JN, Schwartz L, Chen LC, Mayall BH, Smith HS: Accumulation of p53 tumor suppressor gene protein: an independent marker of prognosis in breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1992, 84: 845-855. 10.1093/jnci/84.11.845.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beenken SW, Grizzle WE, Crowe DR, Conner MG, Weiss HL, Sellers MT, Krontiras H, Urist MM, Bland KI: Molecular biomarkers for breast cancer prognosis: coexpression of c-erbB-2 and p53. Ann Surg. 2001, 233: 630-638. 10.1097/00000658-200105000-00006.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Rahko E, Blanco G, Soini Y, Bloigu R, Jukkola A: A mutant TP53 gene status is associated with a poor prognosis and anthra-cycline-resistance in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2003, 39: 447-453. 10.1016/S0959-8049(02)00499-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Sjogren S, Inganas M, Lindgren A, Holmberg L, Bergh J: Prognostic and predictive value of c-erbB-2 overexpression in primary breast cancer, alone and in combination with other prognostic markers. J Clin Oncol. 1998, 16: 462-469.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Marks JR, Humphrey PA, Wu K, Berry D, Bandarenko N, Kerns BJ, Iglehart JD: Overexpression of p53 and HER-2/neu proteins as prognostic markers in early stage breast cancer. Ann Surg. 1994, 219: 332-341.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Nakopoulou LL, Alexiadou A, Theodoropoulos GE, Lazaris AC, Tzonou A, Keramopoulos A: Prognostic significance of the co-expression of p53 and c-erbB-2 proteins in breast cancer. J Pathol. 1996, 179: 31-38. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9896(199605)179:1<31::AID-PATH523>3.0.CO;2-O.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tsuda H, Sakamaki C, Tsugane S, Fukutomi T, Hirohashi S: A prospective study of the significance of gene and chromosome alterations as prognostic indicators of breast cancer patients with lymph node metastases. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1998, 48: 21-32. 10.1023/A:1005977630830.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Rosen PP, Lesser ML, Arroyo CD, Cranor M, Borgen P, Norton L: p53 in node-negative breast carcinoma: an immunohistochemical study of epidemiologic risk factors, histologic features, and prognosis. J Clin Oncol. 1995, 13: 821-830.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Elledge RM, Green S, Ciocca D, Pugh R, Allred DC, Clark GM, Hill J, Ravdin P, O'Sullivan J, Martino S, Osborne CK: HER-2 expression and response to tamoxifen in estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group Study. Clin Cancer Res. 1998, 4: 7-12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yamauchi H, Stearns V, Hayes DF: When is a tumor marker ready for prime time? A case study of c-erbB-2 as a predictive factor in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2001, 19: 2334-2356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Stal O, Borg A, Ferno M, Kallstrom AC, Malmstrom P, Nordenskjold B: ErbB2 status and the benefit from two or five years of adjuvant tamoxifen in postmenopausal early stage breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2000, 11: 1545-1550. 10.1023/A:1008313310474.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Allred DC, Clark GM, Tandon AK, Molina R, Tormey DC, Osborne CK, Gilchrist KW, Mansour EG, Abeloff M, Eudey L: HER-2/neu in node-negative breast cancer: prognostic significance of overexpression influenced by the presence of in situ carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 1992, 10: 599-605.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gusterson BA, Gelber RD, Goldhirsch A, Price KN, Save-Soderborgh J, Anbazhagan R, Styles J, Rudenstam CM, Golouh R, Reed R: Prognostic importance of c-erbB-2 expression in breast cancer. International (Ludwig) Breast Cancer Study Group. J Clin Oncol. 1992, 10: 1049-1056.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Thor AD, Berry DA, Budman DR, Muss HB, Kute T, Henderson IC, Barcos M, Cirrincione C, Edgerton S, Allred C, Norton L, Liu ET: erbB-2, p53, and efficacy of adjuvant therapy in lymph node-positive breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998, 90: 1346-1360. 10.1093/jnci/90.18.1346.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Paik S, Bryant J, Park C, Fisher B, Tan-Chiu E, Hyams D, Fisher ER, Lippman ME, Wickerham DL, Wolmark N: erbB-2 and response to doxorubicin in patients with axillary lymph node-positive, hormone receptor-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998, 90: 1361-1370. 10.1093/jnci/90.18.1361.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Di Leo A, Larsimont D, Gancberg D, Jarvinen T, Beauduin M, Vindevoghel A, Michel J, Focan CH, Ries F, Gobert PH, Closon-Dejardin MT, Dolci S, Rouas G, Paesmans M, Lobelle JP, Isola J, Piccart MJ: HER-2 and topoisomerase IIalpha as predictive markers in a population of node-positive breast cancer patients randomly treated with adjuvant CMF or epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide. Ann Oncol. 2001, 12: 1081-1089. 10.1023/A:1011669223035.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar