- Oral presentation
- Published:
Lessons from TP53mutations in breast cancers: from carcinogen fingerprints to clinical correlates
Breast Cancer Research volume 2, Article number: S.21 (2000)
Full text
About 1000 mutations in breast cancers are listed in the IARC TP53 mutation database [1]. Overall, the mutation prevalence is relatively low (20-30%). Mutations are associated with most aggressive tumor types and carry a significant risk of bad prognosis and outcome in both node-positive and node-negative tumors. Among tumors expressing mutant p53, those with mutations in the L2/L3 loops of the protein (DNA-binding surface) have a poorer response to some forms of treatment than tumors with mutations at other sites [2]. It is noteworthy that p53 protein levels are elevated in more than 50% of breast cancers, suggesting that p53 function may be deregulated by mechanisms other than mutation.
The pattern of TP53 mutations shows a relatively high prevalence of insertions, deletions and nonsense mutations (altogether, 25%). The most frequent mutation type is GC to AT transitions (40%), equally affecting CpG and non-CpG sites. Cohort comparisons have shown differences in the nature, localization and frequency of mutations, but these studies need to be substantiated on larger groups [3].
Breast cancer frequently arises in Li-Fraumeni families [4]. The mutations found in this context may be considered as representative of spontaneous mutations arising in breast cancer. Comparison with sporadic cancer shows that two transversions, G to T and G to C, are not found in Li-Fraumeni breast cancer patients. These transversions represent 18% of somatic breast-cancer mutations. They show a strong strand bias and occur at sites often mutated in lung cancers from smokers (codons 157, 248, 249 and 273) or in bladder cancers from smokers and/or dye-exposed workers (codons 158 and 280). Overall, these data indicate that although most of breast cancer mutations probably have a spontaneous origin, a small proportion of mutations show signatures that suggest the involvement of exogenous carcinogens.
References
Hernandez-Boussard T, Rodriguez-Tome P, Montesano R, Hainaut P: . Hum Mutat. 1999, 14: 1-8. 10.1002/(SICI)1098-1004(1999)14:1<1::AID-HUMU1>3.3.CO;2-8.
Aas T, Børresen AL, Geisler S, Smith-Sorensen B, Johnsen H, Varhaug JE, Akslen LA, Lonning PE: . Nature Med. 1996, 2: 811-814. 10.1038/nm0796-811.
Blaszyk H, Hartmann A, Sommer SS, Kovach JS: . Hum Genet. 1996, 97: 543-547. 10.1007/s004390050090.
Ohgaki H, Hernandez T, Kleihues P, Hainaut P: . In Molecular Biology and Cancer Medicine, 2nd Edition, edited by Kurzock R and Talpaz M. Martin Dunitz. 1999, 477-492.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hainaut, P., Olivier, M. Lessons from TP53mutations in breast cancers: from carcinogen fingerprints to clinical correlates. Breast Cancer Res 2 (Suppl 1), S.21 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr140
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr140