This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rohan, T. E. Articles by Kandel, R. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rohan, T. E. Articles by Kandel, R. A.

p53 Alterations and Protein Accumulation in Benign Breast Tissue and Breast Cancer Risk: A Cohort Study

¹ Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York and ² Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Mt. Sinai Hospital and Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Requests for reprints: Thomas E. Rohan, Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461. Phone: 718-430-3355; Fax: 718-430-8653. E-mail: rohan{at}aecom.yu.edu

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Disruption of p53 gene function seems to have a pivotal role in carcinogenesis. p53 gene changes occur before the development of breast cancer and therefore might influence breast cancer risk. We investigated the association between p53 protein accumulation and p53 mutations detected in benign breast tissue and risk of subsequent breast cancer. We conducted a case-control study nested within the cohort of 4,888 women in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study who were diagnosed with biopsy-confirmed benign breast disease during active follow-up. Cases were women with benign breast disease who subsequently developed breast cancer; five controls were matched to each case. p53 protein accumulation was assessed immunohistochemically using sections of paraffin-embedded benign breast tissue from 104 cases and 385 controls; for 82 of these cases and 327 of the controls, DNA was successfully extracted from the breast tissue for p53 gene analysis using PCR-single-strand conformation polymorphism/direct sequencing. p53 protein accumulation was associated with a 2-fold increase in risk of progression to breast cancer [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 2.16; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.08-4.30], whereas p53 nucleotide changes overall were not associated with altered risk (adjusted OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.68-2.19); those with both p53 immunopositivity and a p53 nucleotide change had an OR (95% CI) of 3.20 (1.21-8.50). Nonpolymorphic intronic changes were associated with a 2.8-fold increase in risk (OR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.09-7.41). The results of this study suggest that p53 protein accumulation and nonpolymorphic intronic changes in p53 are associated with increased risk of progression to breast cancer in women with benign breast disease. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15(7):1316–23)

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
The p53 gene product is a multifunctional transcription factor that is involved in regulating cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, facilitating DNA repair, and promoting chromosomal stability (1-3). Disruption of p53 function seems to have a pivotal role in carcinogenesis, and alterations in the p53 gene are observed in more than half of all human cancers (4). Changes in p53 might contribute to carcinogenesis by conferring a proliferative advantage to cells and/or by facilitating the accumulation of additional genetic changes, for example, by allowing aneuploidy, genetic instability, or other mutations to occur (5-8).

Mutations in the p53 gene are among the most common molecular changes detected in breast cancer (9). p53 mutations and p53 protein accumulation (possibly indicative of underlying mutations) have been detected in 13% to 70% of invasive intraductal carcinomas of the breast (9-18) and have also been detected in ductal carcinoma in situ (9, 15-17), in benign breast disease (19-23), and in normal-appearing breast tissue (23). Furthermore, loss of heterozygosity at 17p13.1 (the locus of the p53 gene; ref. 24) has been observed in normal lobules adjacent to breast cancers (25). p53 protein accumulation has also been shown immunohistochemically in the benign breast tissue of women with Li-Fraumeni syndrome (who are at high risk of developing breast cancer; ref. 26) and in the benign tissue adjacent to breast cancer in women with a cancer syndrome distinct from Li-Fraumeni syndrome (27). Overall, these observations suggest that p53 changes can occur before the development of breast cancer and indeed at the earliest detectable stages of progression (25), and they raise the possibility that such changes might be related to the risk of breast cancer development.

In a previous cohort study, we showed that p53 immunopositivity in normal or benign breast tissue was associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk of subsequent breast cancer (28). However, it has been suggested that molecular analysis of p53 should be performed in cancer-related studies rather than immunohistochemical analysis because the latter can neither identify the specific types of underlying mutations that result in immunopositivity nor detect frameshift or nonsense mutations or intronic alterations (29). Indeed, 25% to 33% of p53 mutations do not result in positive immunostaining (30-34). Hence, using immunohistochemistry alone may result in underestimation of the prevalence of p53 mutations. In contrast, however, p53 protein accumulation can occur in the absence of underlying p53 mutations (22, 23). For example, post-translational modifications of p53 (e.g., phosphorylation and acetylation) in response to cellular stress can result in its stabilization, accumulation, and activation in the nucleus (35). Given the limited concordance between the results of immunohistochemical and mutation analyses and the multiple points at which p53 function can be disrupted, assessment of the association between p53 and breast cancer risk requires studies that combine both approaches to the detection of p53 changes. Therefore, in the cohort study reported here, in which we expanded our previous nested case-control study population (28), we examined the association between p53 gene alterations and p53 protein accumulation in benign breast tissue, alone and in combination, and risk of developing subsequent breast cancer.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Study Population
The investigation was undertaken as a case-control study nested within the cohort of 4,888 women in the National Breast Screening Study (NBSS) who received a histopathologic diagnosis of benign breast disease during the active follow-up phase of the NBSS. The NBSS is a multicenter randomized controlled trial of screening for breast cancer in 89,835 Canadian women recruited between 1980 and 1985 and followed actively until 1988 (36, 37). Women were eligible to participate if they were 40 to 59 years old and had no history of breast cancer (in situ or invasive). The NBSS was approved by the appropriate ethics committees, and the study described here involved the analysis of tissue and data from that study in accord with the approved study design.

Diagnosis of Breast Disease in the NBSS
In the NBSS, when there was clinical or radiological evidence of a breast lesion, patients underwent either a fine-needle aspirate or a surgical biopsy. Each histologic diagnosis was reviewed for study purposes by a reference pathologist. The present study was restricted to subjects who had no evidence of breast cancer (in situ or invasive) on their initial surgical biopsy as determined on review by the reference pathologist. Women with a history of previous benign breast disease were not excluded from participation.

Ascertainment of Breast Cancer
Incident cases of breast cancer were ascertained by record linkage with the Canadian Cancer Registry, and a death clearance was performed by linkage to the Canadian National Mortality Database. These linkages yielded follow-up data to the end of 1993.

Definition of Case Subjects
In the nested case-control study, cases were the 155 women with a histologic diagnosis of benign breast disease made by a reference pathologist during the active follow-up phase of the NBSS who subsequently developed breast cancer [the median interval between diagnosis of benign breast disease and subsequent breast cancer was 3.6 years (5th and 95th percentiles, 0.6 and 10.7 years, respectively)]. For the purpose of this study, cancer was defined as any form of breast carcinoma; there were 135 cases with invasive carcinoma and 20 cases with ductal carcinoma in situ.

Definition and Selection of Control Subjects
Controls were women with benign breast disease who had not developed breast cancer by (but were alive at) the date of diagnosis of the corresponding case. Five controls were selected randomly (with replacement) for each case from those noncases available within strata defined by screening center, NBSS study arm, year of birth (if possible to the nearest year, and mostly within 2 years), and age at diagnosis of benign breast disease (for the latter two variables, attempts were made to match to the nearest year or age; generally, matching was accomplished to within 2 years). Hence, there was a total of 775 controls.

Questionnaire
At the time of their enrollment in the NBSS, all participants completed a questionnaire that sought identifying information as well as data on potential breast cancer risk factors, including demographic characteristics, family history of breast cancer, and menstrual and reproductive history.

Acquisition of Tissue and Histopathologic Review
For the present study, hospitals and clinics storing the paraffin-embedded blocks of benign and malignant tissue were contacted, asked to send one representative block per lesion, and to indicate the type of fixative used and whether the tissue had been frozen before fixation. Sections from the blocks received were reviewed and classified according to the criteria developed by Page and Anderson (38) and without knowledge of the case-control status of the study subjects.

p53 Immunostaining
Sections (5 µm) were cut from the paraffin blocks, mounted on aminopropyltriethoxysilane (2%; Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO)–coated slides, and deparaffinized. The sections underwent antigen retrieval (microwaved in 10 mmol/L citrate buffer (pH 6.0) for 15 minutes at a medium-high setting) and immunostaining was performed as described previously using antibody reactive with p53 (DO-7; monoclonal; dilution, 1:40; Novocastra Laboratories, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom). Positive controls were sections from a paraffin-embedded breast cancer that was known to have a p53 mutation associated with p53 protein accumulation. The negative controls consisted of replacing the primary antibody either with PBS or with mouse nonimmune serum. Immunostaining and review of the immunostained slides were done without knowledge of the case-control status of the study subjects. Any nuclear staining was considered a positive reaction and cytoplasmic staining was considered nonspecific and interpreted as negative. If only occasional cells showed immunoreactivity, then the sample was considered negative. We have reported previously that there was 93% agreement ( = 0.64) on the presence or absence of p53 immunostaining in the benign specimens re-read by the same reviewer without knowledge of the result of the first reading (28).

PCR-Single-Strand Conformation Polymorphism and Sequencing
The p53 mutation analyses were performed without knowledge of case-control status. For these analyses, 5-µm-thick sections were cut from the paraffin blocks, dewaxed, and stained briefly in hematoxylin. The breast epithelium was microdissected, collected in a microfuge tube, and digested with proteinase K [Life Technologies, Burlington, Ontario, Canada; 0.5 mg/mL in 50 mmol/L Tris-HCl (pH 8.5), 10 mmol/L EDTA, 0.5% Tween 20] for at least 48 hours at 55°C. The proteinase K was inactivated by heating to 95°C for 15 minutes. An aliquot of the digest was amplified using PCR [³³P]dATP and exon-specific primers under the conditions described previously (39). An aliquot of the reaction product was separated on an 8% nondenaturing polyacrylamide gel and processed for autoradiography. Each sample was run under two conditions (2% and 10% glycerol in the loading buffer). Potential mutations were identified as shifts in band mobility. Samples that showed an abnormal band migration in either one or both gels underwent repeat PCR-single-strand conformation polymorphism (SSCP) under the appropriate percentage of glycerol. If no shift was seen, then the sample was considered wild-type for that exon/portion of intron. If two different patterns were seen in the two PCR-SSCP gels, then another tissue section was cut, microdissected, and underwent PCR-SSCP. For the samples in which clear bands were not obtained for exons 5 and 10, the PCR was repeated using dITP instead of dGTP. For some samples, the exon 4 portion of the exons 3 to 4 partial PCR product was unreadable. For these samples, PCR and sequencing were done with primers that were specific for exon 4 only, in order to read the 3' portion of exon 4 (39).

If the band shift was confirmed, the band was excised from the SSCP gel and the DNA was eluted into water. The DNA was reamplified by PCR using the same primers and the product was run on a 2% agarose gel. The band was excised and DNA extracted using QIAquick gel extraction kit. The purified DNA was manually sequenced using the Thermosequenase radiolabeled terminator cycle sequencing kit and the sense primer. This was followed by electrophoresis on a 6%, 8.3 mol/L urea, denaturing polyacrylamide gel and autoradiography. Negative controls were included as well as DNA obtained from cell lines with known mutations in p53 where appropriate.

Statistical Analysis
Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for the risk of breast cancer associated with immunohistochemically detected p53 protein accumulation and p53 changes detected by SSCP and sequencing were estimated using conditional logistic regression models (40). p53 changes were examined overall (i.e., present/absent), according to whether they were exonic or intronic, and according to whether they were mutations or polymorphisms. Risk in association with p53 mutations was also examined after classifying them according to whether they were in conserved, structural (41), or functional (5) domains of the p53 gene, and after classification by biochemical phenotype (41). Adjusted OR estimates were obtained by including terms representing the following potential confounders in the regression models: history of breast cancer in a first-degree relative, age at menarche, age at first live birth, body mass index [weight (kg) / height (m)²], hyperplasia (ductal or lobular, with or without atypia), and menopausal status (premenopausal, perimenopausal, and postmenopausal). (Women who reported having had a menstrual period within the last year were defined as premenopausal as were those who had had a hysterectomy without bilateral oophorectomy and were <45 years old; those who had ceased having menstrual periods at least 12 months earlier without surgical intervention were defined as postmenopausal as were those who had had a bilateral oophorectomy and those who had had a hysterectomy only and were >55 years old; the remaining women were classified as perimenopausal.) All statistical tests were two-sided, and Ps < 0.05 were considered to be statistically significant.

	Results

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
Blocks or sections of paraffin-embedded benign breast tissue were obtained for 109 (70.3%) of the 155 cases and 459 (59.2%) of the 775 controls. This included 1 block for a case for whom no tissue was obtained for the corresponding controls and 50 blocks for controls for whom benign tissue was not obtained for the corresponding cases. Therefore, tissue for 108 cases and 409 matched controls was potentially available for analysis. p53 immunostaining was performed first followed by the p53 mutation analysis. For 28 subjects (4 cases, 24 controls), there was no breast epithelium in the tissue sections, rendering them unsuitable for immunohistochemical analysis. Hence, immunostaining was performed on 104 cases and 385 controls [the earlier report on p53 immunopositivity in relation to breast cancer risk (28) included 71 of these cases and 288 of the controls]. A further 22 cases and 58 controls were excluded from the mutational analyses either because DNA yield was poor or because the DNA that was extracted was too degraded to be analyzed. As a result of these exclusions, 82 cases and 327 controls yielded data on p53 mutations. Subjects for whom tissue was obtained differed little with respect to breast cancer risk factors from those for whom it was not obtained—the main differences were in age at first live birth (mean, 21.7 years for those for whom tissue was obtained versus 19.9 years for those for whom it was not) and body mass index (25.7 versus 24.8 kg/m²). In addition, only small differences were observed between subjects for whom mutational analysis was attempted and those for whom it were not (due to there being insufficient DNA, etc.), and there was no difference between these two groups with respect to their distributions by p53 immunopositivity (data not shown).

p53 immunopositivity in benign breast tissue was associated with a 2-fold increase in the risk of subsequent breast cancer (Table 1 ), whereas the presence of any type of p53 nucleotide change in the benign tissue was not associated with altered risk. When immunoreactivity and nucleotide changes were examined jointly, however, those subjects with both p53 immunopositivity and a p53 nucleotide change (all changes combined) had a 3-fold increase in breast cancer risk.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 
In the prospective study reported here, in which we enlarged our previous nested case-control study (28), we observed that p53 immunopositivity in normal or benign breast tissue was associated with a 2-fold increase in the risk of subsequent breast cancer. This estimate, although slightly lower than the one that we reported earlier, was more precise. In the current study, we also used DNA extracted from breast tissue to determine whether there were p53 gene changes. Overall, individuals with any p53 nucleotide change (exonic or intronic) were not at altered risk of breast cancer. However, mutations in the untranslated regions of the p53 gene (exons 2 and 11) were associated with a 5.7-fold increase in breast cancer risk (of borderline statistical significance), and nonpolymorphic intronic changes were associated with a statistically significant 2.8-fold increase in risk. In contrast, mutations in conserved domains of the p53 gene, and in domains defined structurally, functionally, or biochemically, were not associated with altered risk. Similarly, breast cancer risk was unaltered in association with polymorphisms, nonpolymorphic exonic changes, exonic changes yielding amino acid changes, silent mutations, missense mutations, nonsense mutations, transitions, or transversions. Examination of risk in association with combined levels of p53 immunopositivity and p53 nucleotide changes revealed that individuals who were positive for both had a 3-fold increase in breast cancer risk.

There have been three previous follow-up studies of p53 protein accumulation in benign breast tissue in relation to risk of subsequent breast cancer: one showed no association between p53 protein accumulation and risk of breast cancer (20); another (42) suggested that p53, when evaluated as part of a group of biomarkers, might be associated with risk; and in a previous study based on a subset of the subjects included in the present report, we showed that p53 protein accumulation in benign breast tissue was associated with a 2.5-fold increase in the risk of subsequent breast cancer (28). However, the first two of these studies were small and adjusted for confounding either incompletely (42) or not at all (20). Furthermore, all of these studies used immunohistochemistry to detect p53 protein accumulation, which may have resulted in underascertainment of p53 changes.

We are not aware of any previous prospective studies of p53 mutations in relation to breast cancer risk. In the present study, risk was increased noticeably in association with mutations in the untranslated regions of the p53 gene and in association with nonpolymorphic intronic changes. However, only the latter of these associations was statistically significant, and given the many associations that were examined, it is conceivable that it represents a chance finding. Nevertheless, there is increasing evidence that changes in noncoding DNA may affect disease susceptibility (43). In particular, cis-acting regulatory sequences (i.e., those portions of noncoding DNA that bind to transcription factors that activate or repress gene expression) seem to play a critical role in transcriptional regulation. In addition, p53 intronic changes have been detected by others in a variety of tumors, such as malignant pheochromocytomas (44) and the blast phase of chronic myeloid leukemia (45). In some tumors, intronic p53 mutations have been shown to alter cell functions, such as apoptosis and proliferation (46), and have been associated with stabilization of the p53 protein (44). Alterations in introns may affect gene splicing by introducing cryptic splicing sites, resulting in exon skipping, and they may also affect transcription, because it has been shown that transcriptional regulatory elements can be found near exon/intron boundaries (46). In the absence of functional studies, it is not possible to know whether the changes that we observed had an effect on the p53 protein product.

The combination of positive p53 immunostaining and the presence of p53 gene alterations was associated with an even greater risk of developing breast cancer than the presence of either alone. This combination may identify a group of individuals with changes that have substantial functional consequences. The relatively small study size precluded examination of specific p53 changes in combination with p53 immunostaining, but we are currently conducting a much larger cohort study in which such analyses should be possible.

Several limitations of this study have been discussed previously (28). In brief, although paraffin-embedded blocks of benign breast tissue were not obtained for all subjects, it is unlikely that tissue availability was related to p53 status; differential bias in the assessment of p53 status seems unlikely given that the assays were done without knowledge of the case-control status of the study participants; factors, such as fixative type and duration, limited sensitivity of the antibody, and, for a few subjects, access to slides only rather than tissue blocks, are most likely to have induced false-negative immunohistochemical results distributed nondifferentially between cases and controls with consequent biasing of point estimates toward the null; and the study was relatively small, which compromised its statistical power to detect small effects.

In addition to these issues, the limitations of the tissue samples and of PCR-SSCP and sequencing need to be addressed. With respect to the former, for some samples, it was not possible to sequence all of the exons because of the DNA degradation that results from formalin fixation and paraffin embedding. Furthermore, it is possible that too few cells had gene changes, which therefore could not be detected because most cells were wild-type. In this regard, it is of note that subjects who had positive immunostaining for p53 most commonly showed protein accumulation in <10% of cells. With respect to the latter, SSCP was a commonly used method to screen for genetic alterations when this study was initiated (47). Compared with direct sequencing, it is less labor intensive (48), but it can miss mutations. For example, it may miss cytosine-to-thymidine changes because they do not result in easily detectable conformational changes (49). The sensitivity of SSCP for detecting mutations can be as low as 62% in DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue (50), so it is possible that by using this method we underestimated the gene changes, with consequent biasing of the OR estimates toward the null. We attempted to improve the sensitivity by varying the gel conditions, but the number of variations that can be used is tempered by the need to conserve DNA, a problem when small samples of tissue are being analyzed, as was the case in this study. Direct sequencing only detects mutations when 20% of cells have the gene change, which also may have contributed to underestimation of the p53 changes. However, we did repeat PCR and SSCP on 20 subjects who were negative for p53 mutations on first assessment and they all remained negative on repeat analysis. To minimize the number of false positives, each SSCP analysis that showed an abnormal band migration was confirmed by repeating the analysis using product from a different PCR. Nevertheless, the possibility of false positives cannot be excluded.

In conclusion, the results of this study suggest that p53 changes (e.g., p53 immunopositivity and nonpolymorphic intronic changes) detected in normal or benign breast tissue are associated with increased risk of subsequent breast cancer. Future studies should be large (which would allow assessment of effect modification by factors, such as menopausal status), should assess both p53 immunopositivity and mutation status, and should use state-of-the-art methods for p53 mutation detection. Although the present report involved the use of paraffin-embedded breast tissue, the analyses described herein can also be done on tissue obtained from needle biopsies and on cells obtained from fine-needle aspirates of the breast, both of which are done increasingly commonly nowadays (42, 51-53). If confirmed, the findings reported here might facilitate the development of new approaches both to the detection of women at increased risk of breast cancer and to their clinical management [e.g., by enabling chemoprevention or therapy to restore p53 function (54) to be targeted to specific subgroups of women].

	Acknowledgments

 
We thank Taj Bhardwaj for his excellent technical assistance.

	Footnotes

 
Grant support: U.S. Army Materiel Research grant DAMD 17-99-1-9310.

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

Note: R. Hartwick is deceased.

Received 3/12/06; revised 4/26/06; accepted 5/12/06.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Materials and Methods Results Discussion References

 

1. Levine AJ. p53, the cellular gatekeeper for growth and division. Cell 1997;88:323–31.[CrossRef][Medline]
2. Vogelstein B, Lane D, Levine AJ. Surfing the p53 network. Nature 2000;408:307–10.[CrossRef][Medline]
3. Levine AJ, Finlay CA, Hinds PW. p53 is a tumour suppressor gene. Cell 2004;S116:S67–9.[CrossRef][Medline]
4. Lane DP, Fischer PM. Turning the key on p53. Nature 2004;427:789–90.[CrossRef][Medline]
5. Hainaut P, Hollstein M. p53 and human cancer: the first ten thousand mutations. Adv Cancer Res 2000;77:81–137.[Medline]
6. Hussain SP, Harris CC. Molecular epidemiology of human cancer: contribution of mutation spectra studies of tumor suppressor genes. Cancer Res 1998;58:4023–37.[Free Full Text]
7. Wang XW, Harris CC. p53 tumor-suppressor gene: clues to molecular carcinogenesis. J Cell Physiol 1997;173:247–55.[CrossRef][Medline]
8. Kawashima K, Mihara K, Usuki H, Shimizu N, Namba M. Transfected mutant p53 gene increases X-ray-induced cell killing and mutation in human fibroblasts immortalized with 4-nitroquinoline 1-oxide but does not induce neoplastic transformation of the cells. Int J Cancer 1995;61:76–9.[Medline]
9. Done SJ, Eskandarian S, Bull S, Redston M, Andrulis IL. p53 missense mutations in microdissected high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:700–4.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Tripathy D, Benz C. Activated oncogenes and putative tumor suppressor genes involved in human breast cancer. In: Oncogenes and tumor suppressor genes in human malignancies. Norwell (MA): Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1993. p. 15–60.
11. van de Vijver MJ. Molecular genetic changes in human breast cancer. In: Vande Woude GF, editor. Advances in cancer research. Vol. 61. New York: Academic Press; 1993.p. 25–56.
12. Levine AJ, Momand J, Finlay CA. The p53 tumour suppressor gene. Nature 1991;351:453–6.[CrossRef][Medline]
13. Hartmann A, Blaszyk H, Kovach JS, Sommer SS. The molecular epidemiology of p53 gene mutations in human breast cancer. Trends Genet 1997;13:27–33.[CrossRef][Medline]
14. Done SJ, Arneson NCR, Ozcelik H, Redston M, Andrulis IL. p53 mutations in mammary ductal carcinoma in situ but not in epithelial hyperplasias. Cancer Res 1998;58:785–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. O'Malley FP, Vnencak-Jones CL, Dupont WD, Parl F, Manning S, Page DL. p53 mutations are confined to the comedo type ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Immunohistochemical and sequencing data. Lab Invest 1994;71:67–72.[Medline]
16. Rajan PB, Scott DJ, Perry RH, Griffith CDM. p53 protein expression in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997;42:283–90.[CrossRef][Medline]
17. Bartek J, Bartkova J, Vojtesek B, et al. Pattern of expression of the p53 tumor suppressor gene in human breast tissues and tumors in situ and in vitro. Int J Cancer 1990;46:839–44.[Medline]
18. Poller DN, Roberts EC, Bell JA, Elston CW, Blamey RW, Ellis IO. p53 protein expression in mammary ductal carcinoma in situ: relationship to immunohistochemical expression of estrogen receptor and c-erbB-2 protein. Hum Pathol 1993;24:463–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
19. Schmitt FC, Leal C, Lopes C. p53 protein expression and nuclear DNA content in breast intraductal proliferations. J Pathol 1995;176:233–41.[CrossRef][Medline]
20. Younes M, Lebovitz RM, Bommer KE, et al. p53 protein accumulation in benign breast biopsy specimens. Hum Pathol 1995;26:155–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
21. Lisboa BW, Vogtländer S, Gilster T, Riethdorf L, Mild-Langosch K, Löning T. Molecular and immunohistochemical analysis of p53 mutations in scrapings and tissue from preinvasive and invasive breast cancer. Virchows Arch 1997;431:375–81.[CrossRef][Medline]
22. Millikan R, Hulka B, Thor A, et al. p53 mutations in benign breast tissue. J Clin Oncol 1995;13:2293–300.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
23. Kandel RA, Li S-Q, Ozcelik H, Rohan TE. p53 protein accumulation and mutations in normal and benign breast tissue. Int J Cancer 2000;87:73–8.[CrossRef][Medline]
24. Guimaraes DP, Hainaut P. TP53: a key gene in human cancer. Biochimie 2002;84:83–93.[Medline]
25. Deng G, Lu Y, Zlotnikov G, Thor AD, Smith HS. Loss of heterozygosity in normal tissue adjacent to breast carcinomas. Science 1996;274:2057–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
26. Thor AD, Moore DH, Edgerton SM, et al. Accumulation of p53 tumor suppressor gene protein: an independent marker of prognosis in breast cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992;84:845–55.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
27. Barnes DM, Hanby AM, Gillett CE, et al. Abnormal expression of wild type p53 protein in normal cells of a cancer family patient. Lancet 1992;340:259–63.[CrossRef][Medline]
28. Rohan TE, Hartwick W, Miller AB, Kandel RA. Immunohistochemical detection of c-erbB-2 and p53 in benign breast disease and breast cancer risk. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998;90:1262–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
29. Soussi T, Beroud C. Assessing TP53 status in human tumours to evaluate clinical outcome. Nat Rev Cancer 2001;1:233–40.[CrossRef][Medline]
30. Dunn JM, Hastrich DJ, Newcomb P, Webb JC, Maitland NJ, Farndon JR. Correlation between p53 mutations and antibody staining in breast carcinoma. Br J Surg 1993;80:1410–2.[Medline]
31. Jacquemier J, Moles JP, Penault-Llorca F, et al. p53 immunohistochemical analysis in breast cancer with four monoclonal antibodies: comparison of staining and PCR-SSCP results. Br J Cancer 1994;69:846–52.[Medline]
32. Sjögren S, Inganäs M, Norberg T, et al. The p53 gene in breast cancer: prognostic value of complementary DNA sequencing versus immunohistochemistry. J Natl Cancer Int 1996;88:173–82.
33. Visscher DW, Sarkar FH, Shimoyama RK, Crissman JD. Correlation between p53 immunostaining patterns and gene sequence mutations in breast carcinoma. Diagn Mol Pathol 1996;5:187–93.[CrossRef][Medline]
34. Borresen-Dale AL. TP53 and breast cancer. Hum Mutat 2003;21:292–300.[CrossRef][Medline]
35. Bode AM, Dong Z. Post-translational modification of p53 in tumorigenesis. Nat Rev Cancer 2004;4:793–805.[CrossRef][Medline]
36. Miller AB, Howe GR, Wall C. The national study of breast cancer screening: protocol for a Canadian randomized controlled trial of screening for breast cancer in women. Clin Invest Med 1981;4:227–58.[Medline]
37. Miller AB, Baines CJ, To T, Wall C. Canadian National Breast Screening Study. I. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40 to 49 years. II. Breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50 to 59 years. CMAJ 1992;147:1459–88.[Abstract]
38. Page DL, Anderson TJ. Diagnostic histopathology of the breast. New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1987.
39. Cooper M, Li SQ, Bhardwaj T, Rohan T, Kandel RA. Evaluation of oligonucleotide arrays for sequencing of the p53 gene in DNA from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded breast cancer specimens. Clin Chem 2004;50:500–8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
40. Breslow NE, Day NE. Statistical methods in cancer research. Vol I. Lyon: IARC Scientific Publications No. 32; 1980.
41. Alsner J, Yilmaz M, Guldberg P, Hansen LL, Overgaard J. Heterogeneity in the clinical phenotype of TP53 mutations in breast cancer patients. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:3923–31.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Fabian CJ, Kamel S, Zalles C, Kimler BF. Identification of a chemoprevention cohort from a population of women at high risk for breast cancer. J Cell Biochem 1996;25:112–22.[CrossRef]
43. Castillo-Davis CI. The evolution of noncoding DNA: how much junk, how much func? Trends Genet 2005;21:533–6.[Medline]
44. Yoshimoto T, Naruse M, Zeng Z, et al. The relatively high frequency of p53 gene mutations in multiple and malignant phaechromocytomas. J Endocrinol 1998;159:247–55.[Abstract]
45. Peller S, Yona R, Kopilova Y, et al. Molecular alterations in the TP53 gene of peripheral blood cells of patients with chronic myeloid leukaemia. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 1998;21:2–7.[CrossRef][Medline]
46. Lehman TA, Haffty BG, Carbone CJ, et al. Elevated frequency and functional activity of a specific germ-line p53 intron mutation in familial breast cancer. Cancer Res 2000;60:1062–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47. Orita M, Iwahana H, Kanazawa H, Hayashi K, Sekiya T. Detection of polymorphisms of human DNA by gel electrophore strand conformation polymorphisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1989;86:2766–70.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
48. Kutach LS, Bolshakov S, Ananthaswamy HN. Detection of mutations and polymorphisms in the p53 tumor suppressor gene by single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis. Electrophoresis 1999;20:1204–10.[CrossRef][Medline]
49. LiuQ, Sommer SS. Parameters affecting the sensitivities of dideoxy fingerprinting and SSCP. PCR Methods Appl 1994;4:97–108.[Medline]
50. Tolbert DM, Noffsinger AE, Miller MA, et al. p53 immunoreactivity and single-strand conformational polymorphism analysis often fail to predict p53 mutational status. Mod Pathol 1999;12:54–60.[Medline]
51. Sato T, Yuyama Y, Watabe K, et al. Detection of p53 gene mutations in fine-needle aspiration biopsied breast cancer specimens: correlations with nuclear p53 accumulations and tumor DNA aneuploidy patterns. Cancer Lett 1997;115:47–55.[Medline]
52. Gudlaugsdottir S, Sigurdardottir V, Snorradottir M, Jonasson J, Ogmundsdottir H, Eyfjord JE. p53 mutations analysis in benign and malignant breast lesions: using needle rinses from fine-needle aspirations. Diagn Cytopathol 2000;22:268–74.[CrossRef][Medline]
53. Pollett A, Bédard Y, Li S-Q, Rohan T, Kandel R. Correlation between p53 mutations in Thin-Prep^R processed fine needle breast aspirates with surgically resected breast cancers. Mod Pathol 2000;13:1173–9.[Medline]
54. Yee KS, Vousden KH. Complicating the complexity of p53. Carcinogenesis 2005;26:1317–22.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. W. Lampe, Y. Nishino, R. M. Ray, C. Wu, W. Li, M.-G. Lin, D. L. Gao, Y. Hu, J. Shannon, H. Stalsberg, et al. Plasma Isoflavones and Fibrocystic Breast Conditions and Breast Cancer Among Women in Shanghai, China Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2007; 16(12): 2579 - 2586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rohan, T. E. Articles by Kandel, R. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rohan, T. E. Articles by Kandel, R. A.