Paradoxical relationship between chromosomal instability and survival outcome in cancer - PubMed (original) (raw)
Paradoxical relationship between chromosomal instability and survival outcome in cancer
Nicolai J Birkbak et al. Cancer Res. 2011.
Abstract
Chromosomal instability (CIN) is associated with poor prognosis in human cancer. However, in certain animal tumor models elevated CIN negatively impacts upon organism fitness, and is poorly tolerated by cancer cells. To better understand this seemingly contradictory relationship between CIN and cancer cell biological fitness and its relationship with clinical outcome, we applied the CIN70 expression signature, which correlates with DNA-based measures of structural chromosomal complexity and numerical CIN in vivo, to gene expression profiles of 2,125 breast tumors from 13 published cohorts. Tumors with extreme CIN, defined as the highest quartile CIN70 score, were predominantly of the estrogen receptor negative (ER(-)), basal-like phenotype and displayed the highest chromosomal structural complexity and chromosomal numerical instability. We found that the extreme CIN/ER(-) tumors were associated with improved prognosis relative to tumors with intermediate CIN70 scores in the third quartile. We also observed this paradoxical relationship between CIN and prognosis in ovarian, gastric, and non-small cell lung cancer, with poorest outcome in tumors with intermediate, rather than extreme, CIN70 scores. These results suggest a nonmonotonic relationship between gene signature expression and HR for survival outcome, which may explain the difficulties encountered in the identification of prognostic expression signatures in ER(-) breast cancer. Furthermore, the data are consistent with the intolerance of excessive CIN in carcinomas and provide a plausible strategy to define distinct prognostic patient cohorts with ER(-) breast cancer. Inclusion of a surrogate measurement of CIN may improve cancer risk stratification and future therapeutic approaches.
©2011 AACR
Figures
Fig. 1. CIN70 score and structural chromosomal complexity
(A) The structural chromosomal complexity score based on SNP array data is shown for each CIN70 quartile in 271 breast cancer samples. (B) Nuclear DNA content versus CIN70 quartile in 44 breast cancer samples. (C) Frequency of diploid, genomically stable (dGS); aneuploid, genomically stable (aGS); and aneuploid, genomically unstable (aGU) in each CIN70 quartile.
Fig. 2. Distribution of CIN70 scores across breast cancer subtypes
(A) Overall distribution of CIN70 scores across 2125 breast cancer patients stratified by ER and ERBB2 receptor subtype. Percentages on Y-axis denote quartile thresholds. (B) Distribution of each breast cancer subtype within each of the four CIN70 score quartiles.
Fig. 3. Survival of cancer patients stratified by CIN70 score quartile
Kaplan-Meier survival curves are presented for (A) 265 ER-/ERBB2- breast cancer patients with recurrence-free or distant metastasis-free survival, (B) 652 patients with ovarian cancer, (C) 183 patients with squamous NSCLC, (D) 197 patients with gastric cancer.
Fig. 4. Quartile hazard ratio
Forest plots showing the hazard ratio of the quartiles. The hazard ratio of each quartile is based on a summary estimate of ER-/ERBB2-breast tumours, ovarian tumours, squamous NSCLC and gastric tumours.
Similar articles
- Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.
Williams C, Brunskill S, Altman D, Briggs A, Campbell H, Clarke M, Glanville J, Gray A, Harris A, Johnston K, Lodge M. Williams C, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. doi: 10.3310/hta10340. Health Technol Assess. 2006. PMID: 16959170 - Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.
Pasquali S, Hadjinicolaou AV, Chiarion Sileni V, Rossi CR, Mocellin S. Pasquali S, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018. PMID: 29405038 Free PMC article. - Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer after primary surgery.
Bryant A, Hiu S, Kunonga PT, Gajjar K, Craig D, Vale L, Winter-Roach BA, Elattar A, Naik R. Bryant A, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Sep 26;9(9):CD015048. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015048.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022. PMID: 36161421 Free PMC article. - Prognostic factors for return to work in breast cancer survivors.
Tamminga SJ, de Wind A, Greidanus MA, Coenen P, Friberg E, Oldenburg HSA, Duijts SF, de Boer AG. Tamminga SJ, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 May 7;5(5):CD015124. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD015124.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025. PMID: 40331515 Review. - A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of paclitaxel, docetaxel, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in non-small-cell lung cancer.
Clegg A, Scott DA, Sidhu M, Hewitson P, Waugh N. Clegg A, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(32):1-195. doi: 10.3310/hta5320. Health Technol Assess. 2001. PMID: 12065068
Cited by
- In vivo overexpression of Emi1 promotes chromosome instability and tumorigenesis.
Vaidyanathan S, Cato K, Tang L, Pavey S, Haass NK, Gabrielli BG, Duijf PH. Vaidyanathan S, et al. Oncogene. 2016 Oct 13;35(41):5446-5455. doi: 10.1038/onc.2016.94. Epub 2016 Apr 11. Oncogene. 2016. PMID: 27065322 - Exploiting Chromosomal Instability of PTEN-Deficient Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cell Lines for the Sensitization against PARP1 Inhibition in a Replication-Dependent Manner.
Rieckhoff J, Meyer F, Classen S, Zielinski A, Riepen B, Wikman H, Petersen C, Rothkamm K, Borgmann K, Parplys AC. Rieckhoff J, et al. Cancers (Basel). 2020 Sep 29;12(10):2809. doi: 10.3390/cancers12102809. Cancers (Basel). 2020. PMID: 33003585 Free PMC article. - An evolutionarily conserved synthetic lethal interaction network identifies FEN1 as a broad-spectrum target for anticancer therapeutic development.
van Pel DM, Barrett IJ, Shimizu Y, Sajesh BV, Guppy BJ, Pfeifer T, McManus KJ, Hieter P. van Pel DM, et al. PLoS Genet. 2013;9(1):e1003254. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003254. Epub 2013 Jan 31. PLoS Genet. 2013. PMID: 23382697 Free PMC article. - Chromosomal Instability in Tumor Initiation and Development.
Bach DH, Zhang W, Sood AK. Bach DH, et al. Cancer Res. 2019 Aug 15;79(16):3995-4002. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-18-3235. Epub 2019 Jul 26. Cancer Res. 2019. PMID: 31350294 Free PMC article. Review. - A novel circulating tumor cell subpopulation for treatment monitoring and molecular characterization in biliary tract cancer.
Reduzzi C, Vismara M, Silvestri M, Celio L, Niger M, Peverelli G, De Braud F, Daidone MG, Cappelletti V. Reduzzi C, et al. Int J Cancer. 2020 Jun 15;146(12):3495-3503. doi: 10.1002/ijc.32822. Epub 2019 Dec 19. Int J Cancer. 2020. PMID: 31814120 Free PMC article.
References
- Carter SL, Eklund AC, Kohane IS, Harris LN, Szallasi Z. A signature of chromosomal instability inferred from gene expression profiles predicts clinical outcome in multiple human cancers. Nat Genet. 2006;38:1043–1048. - PubMed
- Walther A, Houlston R, Tomlinson I. Association between chromosomal instability and prognosis in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Gut. 2008;57:941–950. - PubMed
- Torres EM, Sokolsky T, Tucker CM, Chan LY, Boselli M, Dunham MJ, et al. Effects of aneuploidy on cellular physiology and cell division in haploid yeast. Science. 2007;317:916–924. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
- G0701935/MRC_/Medical Research Council/United Kingdom
- P50 CA089393/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- G0701935(86985)/MRC_/Medical Research Council/United Kingdom
- R03 LM009979/LM/NLM NIH HHS/United States
- R21LM008823-01A1/LM/NLM NIH HHS/United States
- R21 LM008823/LM/NLM NIH HHS/United States
- P50 CA89393/CA/NCI NIH HHS/United States
- CRUK_/Cancer Research UK/United Kingdom
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources