Skip to main content
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • OnlineFirst
    • Editors' Picks
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
  • AACR Publications
    • Blood Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Discovery
    • Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
    • Cancer Immunology Research
    • Cancer Prevention Research
    • Cancer Research
    • Clinical Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Research
    • Molecular Cancer Therapeutics

User menu

  • Register
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • About
    • The Journal
    • AACR Journals
    • Subscriptions
    • Permissions and Reprints
    • Reviewing
  • Articles
    • OnlineFirst
    • Current Issue
    • Past Issues
    • CEBP Focus Archive
    • Meeting Abstracts
    • Collections
      • Disparities Collection
      • Editors' Picks
  • For Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Author Services
    • Best of: Author Profiles
    • Submit
  • Alerts
    • Table of Contents
    • OnlineFirst
    • Editors' Picks
    • Citation
    • Author/Keyword
  • News
    • Cancer Discovery News
Research Articles

Spontaneous Mammary Intraepithelial Lesions in Dogs—A Model of Breast Cancer

Elisabetta Antuofermo, Margaret A. Miller, Salvatore Pirino, Jun Xie, Sunil Badve and Sulma I. Mohammed
Elisabetta Antuofermo
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Margaret A. Miller
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Salvatore Pirino
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jun Xie
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sunil Badve
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sulma I. Mohammed
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0932 Published November 2007
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Mammary intraepithelial lesions (IEL) are nowadays frequently diagnosed as a result of the success of mammographic screening, education programs, and awareness by women. Establishment of an animal model for these lesions to test treatment or preventive modalities is a prerequisite for human clinical trials. A model for spontaneous IELs, especially for estrogen receptor (ER)-negative lesions, does not exist. This study describes the histologic and immunohistochemical similarity between human and canine mammary IELs. Mammary tumors from 200 dogs were classified and histologic sections of the excisional specimens were evaluated for IELs. IELs, found in specimens from 60 dogs, were categorized as adenosis, sclerosing adenosis, intraductal papilloma, sclerosing papilloma, ductal hyperplasia, atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS; high, intermediate, and low grade). Most proliferative IELs without atypia were associated with benign tumors, whereas IELs with atypia (ADH and DCIS) were generally associated with mammary cancer. ER-α expression was significantly low or absent in most ADH and DCIS lesions as well as in their associated tumors. Ki67 expression was significantly higher in high-grade DCIS than in hyperplasia or low-grade DCIS. Two thirds of high-grade DCIS lesions were positive for HER-2. Canine mammary IELs were strikingly similar to those of the human breast. The frequency of IELs in the dog, their association with spontaneous mammary cancer, their pattern of ER-α and HER-2 expression, and their histologic resemblance to human IELs may make the dog an ideal model to study human ER-negative (both HER-2 positive and negative) breast cancer progression as well as prevention and treatment. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16(11):2247–56)

  • breast cancer
  • canine
  • dog
  • histology
  • mammary intraepithelial lesions

Introduction

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in women (1). Breast intraepithelial lesions (IEL), such as usual hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and carcinoma in situ, are frequently diagnosed nowadays due to the success of mammographic screening, education programs, and awareness by women. These lesions are recognized as risk factors for invasive cancer and their presence affects patient management decisions (2, 3). Alarmingly, about a half million cases of breast IELs are diagnosed every year (4). Surgery, plus tamoxifen therapy, is recommended for women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS); however, a “wait and watch” approach is usually recommended for lower-grade lesions and for lobular carcinoma in situ. Therefore, these precancerous lesions are proposed targets for development of new chemotherapeutic or preventive agents and as end points for clinical trials (5, 6). Establishing an animal model of spontaneous mammary IELs is paramount for testing new treatment and preventive modalities before human clinical trials.

Unlike laboratory rodents, dogs share a common environment with people and, therefore, may be exposed to some of the same carcinogens (7). They also are more outbred than laboratory rodents, yet certain breeds are at increased risk for developing mammary tumors (7). Because dogs have a shorter life span than people, it is possible to study mammary IELs and invasive tumors that develop after a few years instead of decades. Importantly, dogs with mammary adenocarcinoma are appropriate subjects for the study of breast cancer because the mammary gland is the most common site of neoplasia in female dogs (8, 9) and dysplasias develop before tumors in canine mammary tissue (10-13).

Estimates of annual incidence of canine mammary neoplasia depend on the population studied and vary widely from 198 (14) or 205 per 100,000 dogs (15) to 111 per 10,000 female dogs between 3 and 10 years of age (16). Prepubertal or pubertal ovariohysterectomy is more commonly practiced now that veterinarians and pet owners are keenly aware of the predilection of the unspayed female dog for mammary tumors and has resulted in significant reduction in the incidence of canine mammary tumors in the United States. In countries where ovariohysterectomy is less routine, mammary tumors are more common (17). One of four non-ovariohysterectomized female dogs over 4 years of age is expected to develop mammary neoplasia (18). Thirty percent to 50% of canine mammary tumors are malignant and 50% to 75% of these recur or metastasize within 1 to 2 years (7, 10, 17, 18).

The risk of canine mammary neoplasia is affected by exposure to estrogen in early mammary development. Ovariohysterectomy before the first, second, or third estrous cycle reduces the relative risk of developing mammary tumors to 0.5%, 8%, or 26%, respectively (19). Ovariohysterectomy later in life had no significant effect on risk of developing mammary tumors in that study (19). These data not only implicate ovarian hormones in the development of mammary tumors in dogs but also suggest that the hormonal effect is exerted in the first years of life and that continuous hormonal influence is unnecessary. However, results of a more recent study (20) suggest that ovariohysterectomy is an effective adjunct to tumor removal in dogs with mammary carcinoma. Interestingly, dogs in that study that were spayed <2 years before excision of the mammary carcinoma survived longer than those that were spayed >2 years before surgery for the mammary carcinoma. As in humans, advancing age, progesterone treatment, obesity in early life, and diet also increased the risk of mammary tumors in the dog (21).

A genetic alteration commonly found in human breast cancer is amplification of HER-2 genes (22). HER-2 protein expression has been used to predict patient response to treatment. Expression of HER-2/neu (c-erbB-2) in canine mammary carcinoma is similar to that in human breast carcinoma, suggesting a possible role in carcinogenesis and value as a prognostic indicator (23, 24).

A model of spontaneous mammary IELs with pathologic similarity to those in humans is needed. This study was designed to determine the prevalence of IELs in mastectomy specimens from dogs with palpable mammary tumors; to correlate the type of IEL with the type of mammary tumor; to determine the expression of ER-α, progesterone, HER-2, and Ki67 in IELs by immunohistochemistry; and to compare canine mammary IELs with those in the human breast.

Materials and Methods

Pathology Evaluation

Formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens of 212 mammary tumors from 200 female dogs were retrieved from the archives of the Purdue University Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratory and Veterinary Teaching Hospital (West Lafayette, IN) and the Institute of General Pathology and Anatomical Pathology, Sassari University (Sardinia, Italy). Tumors were classified according to WHO Histological Classification of Mammary Tumors of the Dogs and Cats by two veterinary pathologists (E. Antuofermo and M.A. Miller; ref. 11), and adjacent mammary tissue was evaluated for the presence of IELs.

Mammary IELs were classified (25) in consultation with a pathologist (S. Badve) and compared with human mammary IELs in biopsy specimens submitted to the Department of Pathology, Indiana University School of Medicine. Adenosis was diagnosed when proliferation of epithelial and myoepithelial cells resulted in expansion of mammary lobules with an increased number of ductules and acini. Nuclear atypia was not obvious and mitotic figures were generally absent. Sclerosing adenosis was diagnosed when adenosis was associated with fibrosis and distortion of the lobular architecture. Intraductal papilloma was distinguished from ductal hyperplasia by its solitary nature. These lesions consisted of papillary fronds arising from a segment of the ductal lining and projecting into the ductal lumen. Papillomas had proliferation of ductal epithelium and myoepithelium without pleomorphism or nuclear atypia. When stromal fibrosis was prominent, these were classified as sclerosing papillomas.

Usual ductal hyperplasia was diagnosed when ductal epithelial cellularity was increased without atypia. Affected ducts were partially filled by a mixed population of epithelial and myoepithelial cells; irregularly shaped fenestrations were lined by epithelial cells without polarity. Cords of epithelial cells sometimes bridged the ductal lumina. Epithelial cells often seemed to overlap because cytoplasmic boundaries were indistinct and nuclei were often oriented in a “streaming” fashion with the long axes of cells parallel to fenestrations.

Atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH) was diagnosed when some but not all features of DCIS were identified (26). ADH was distinguished from low- or intermediate-grade DCIS by the rudimentary and irregular shape of fenestrations and by the lack of polarity of the proliferative epithelial cells such that they were generally oriented with their long axes parallel to the fenestrations. In lesions with low-grade cellular atypia, size of the proliferation was also considered as recommended by Schnitt et al. (27). Whereas high-grade cellular atypia always warranted the classification of high-grade DCIS, if features of low- or intermediate-grade DCIS were observed, but did not involve more than one duct cross-section, the IEL was classified as ADH.

DCIS was diagnosed when ductal epithelial proliferation fully involved at least two ductal cross-sections, when the proliferation was of one cell type (epithelial) with cellular and architectural atypia, such as formation of discrete cribriform spaces lined by polarized epithelial cells. DCIS was further subdivided into low grade (monomorphic cells, no increase in nuclear size; diffuse, fine chromatin, few prominent nucleoli or mitotic figures), intermediate grade (features intermediate between low and high grade), and high grade (pleomorphic cells, nuclear diameter >2.5 that of normal ductal epithelial cells, vesicular chromatin, prominent or multiple nucleoli, and mitotic figures). Patterns observed in DCIS included cribriform, papillary, micropapillary, solid, and solid with comedo-type necrosis. The cribriform pattern was common with low-grade DCIS, whereas solid, especially solid with comedo necrosis, was a feature of high-grade DCIS.

Canine mammary IELs were categorized according to the relative risk of developing invasive mammary carcinoma ascribed to their human counterparts (25). The invasive canine mammary carcinomas were not graded because a grading system that correlates strongly with biological behavior or prognosis has not been established for mammary tumors in dogs. However, multiple studies have shown that overall survival is longest in complex carcinomas, intermediate in simple carcinomas, and shortest in sarcomas (10, 11). Within the group of simple carcinomas, aggressiveness increases from tubulopapillary carcinoma to solid carcinoma to anaplastic carcinoma (10, 11).

Immunohistochemistry

Immunohistochemistry was done according to the standard avidin-biotin-peroxidase complex method. Briefly, histologic sections (5 μm) with IELs and adjacent neoplastic and nonneoplastic mammary tissue were cut from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues and mounted on positively charged Superfrost slides (Fisher Scientific). Tissue sections were deparaffinized and rehydrated in graded ethanol. Antigens were retrieved by steaming in 0.01 mol/L citrate buffer (pH 6.0) in a water bath at 95°C temperature for 10 min. Tissues were then blocked for endogenous peroxidase in 3% hydrogen peroxide in methanol and for nonspecific binding in TBS containing 0.3% Triton X-100, 0.2% saponin, and 0.5% blocking agent (NEN Life). Tissues were incubated overnight at 4°C in the following antisera: ER-α monoclonal mouse anti-human antibody clone CC4-6 (28-30) at 1:25 dilution, progesterone receptor (PR) NCL-PGR antibody clone 1A6 (29, 30) at 1:40 dilution (Novocastra Ltd.), Ki67 monoclonal mouse anti-human antibody clone 7B11 (31) at 1:100 dilution (Zymed Laboratories), and HER-2/neu polyclonal rabbit anti-human antibody (23, 24) at 1:100 dilution (DakoCytomation) followed by biotinylated horse anti-mouse or goat anti-rabbit secondary antibodies (Vector Laboratories). The chromogen was 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (Vector Laboratories). Sections were counterstained in hematoxylin (Richard Allen Scientific) and then coverslipped in 50:50 xylene/Permount (Fisher Scientific). Negative control slides were treated either with no serum or with isotype-matched IgG serum. The positive controls consisted of sections from human breast carcinoma known to overexpress ER, PR, and HER-2/neu receptors and Ki67 nuclear antigen (DakoCytomation). Some IELs could not be evaluated immunohistochemically because insufficient lesional tissue remained in the paraffin blocks.

All slides were reviewed independently by two authors (E. Antuofermo and S.I. Mohammed) and questionable cases were reviewed simultaneously to reach consensus. Nuclear staining was scored for expression of ER, PR, and Ki67. ER, PR, and Ki67 expression in IELs and tumor tissues was analyzed and reported as the percentage of epithelial cells with positive staining. The intensity of ER, PR, and Ki67 immunostaining was graded on a scale of 0 to 3 where 0 = no staining, 1 = weak staining, 2 = moderate staining, and 3 = strong staining. The expression of HER-2 was defined as cell membrane staining of epithelial cells and scored according to the HercepTest kit guide; scores of 0 or 1+ were considered negative for HER-2 expression, 2+ was weak-positive, and 3+ was strong-positive complete membrane staining in >10% of the epithelial cells.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was done using Student's t test, Tukey standardized test, and one-way ANOVA test. Statistical Analysis System software (SAS) was used for the statistical analysis. P < 0.05 was considered significant in all analyses.

Results

Ninety-three benign and 119 malignant mammary tumors were found in excisional specimens from the 200 dogs in this study. Nonneoplastic mammary parenchyma was included in most mastectomy specimens and was histologically similar to nonneoplastic human mammary tissue (Fig. 1A and B ). Intralobular ductules and interlobular ducts were lined by a single layer of columnar cells supported by a row of myoepithelial cells. Mammary IELs were detected in excisional specimens from 60 (30%) of the 200 dogs. These canine mammary IELs resembled their human counterparts histologically and are listed in order of increasing relative risk (as ascribed to human IELs; ref. 25) in Table 1 . An IEL unassociated with increased risk of invasive carcinoma in humans, adenosis, was found in four dogs and associated with benign tumors. Low-risk IELs included 2 cases of sclerosing adenosis, 3 of intraductal papilloma, 3 of sclerosing papilloma, and 10 of usual (without atypia) ductal hyperplasia. All dogs with intraductal papilloma and 8 of 10 dogs with ductal hyperplasia had benign mammary tumors; however, 2 of 10 dogs with ductal hyperplasia and 3 of 3 dogs with sclerosing papilloma had malignant tumors. Canine (Fig. 1C) and human (Fig. 1D) ductal hyperplasia were histologically similar.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

IELs in canine and human mammary biopsies. Canine (A, C, and E) and human (B, D, and F) mammary biopsies with nonneoplastic gland (A and B), usual ductal hyperplasia (C and D), and ADH (E and F). H&E stain. Magnification, ×200.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Type of mammary IELs and their associated tumors

Figure 1E and F depicts micropapillary fronds of ADH in the canine and human mammary gland, respectively. Five of six (83%) dogs with ADH had malignant mammary tumors.

Of the 32 dogs with DCIS, 29 (91%) had malignant mammary tumors. Figure 2A and B depicts low-grade DCIS with cribriform pattern in a dog and woman, respectively. Four of six dogs (67%) with low-grade DCIS had malignant tumors. Figure 2C and D depicts intermediate-grade DCIS with papillary pattern in a dog and woman, respectively. Proliferative epithelial cells that lined papillary fronds were more pleomorphic and had larger nuclei than those of low-grade DCIS. Nine of 10 dogs (90%) with intermediate-grade DCIS had malignant tumors. Figure 2E and F depicts high-grade DCIS with solid pattern and comedo necrosis in a dog and woman, respectively. Epithelial cells were nonoverlapping with vesicular nuclei and prominent nucleoli. All 16 dogs (100%) with high-grade DCIS had malignant tumors.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Canine (A, C, and E) and human (B, D, and F) mammary biopsies with DCIS: low (A and B), intermediate (C and D), and high grade (E and F). H&E stain. Magnification, ×200.

We have not followed these 200 dogs to document the behavior of IELs. However, to correlate the IEL grade with the invasiveness of the mammary tumors, we evaluated each mastectomy specimen for evidence of lymphatic or nodal invasion by tumor cells. Lymphatic involvement was found in 0 of 22 tumor specimens associated with low-risk IELs (see Table 1), 1 of 6 specimens with ADH, 1 of 6 specimens with low-grade DCIS, 0 of 10 specimens with intermediate-grade DCIS, and 8 of 16 specimens with high-grade DCIS.

Expression of ERs in IELs

In nonneoplastic canine mammary tissue, 80% to 100% of epithelial cells had strong ER immunoreactivity. Positive immunoreactivity to ER was also noted in 10 of 10 (100%) lesions of ductal hyperplasia, 1 of 5 (20%) ADH, 0 of 6 low-grade DCIS, 5 of 6 (83%) intermediate-grade DCIS, and 1 of 11 (9%) high-grade DCIS. The percentage of ER-positive cells in ductal hyperplasia lesions ranged from 50% to 90%, whereas the percentage of ER-positive cells in DCIS ranged from 0% in low-grade to 0% to 5% in high-grade lesions (Fig. 3A1-E1 ). Only one high-grade DCIS lesion had ER expression in 90% of the cells. This decrease in the percentage of ER immunoreactivity as the IEL lesion increased in grade was significant (P < 0.0001). The ER immunoreactivity of benign and malignant mammary tumors was similar to that of their associated IELs and immunoreactivity for ER was significantly decreased (P < 0.0009), with 90% to 95% cells showing no staining as the tumor increased in architectural or cytologic atypia.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

Expression of ER, Ki67, and HER-2 proteins in IELs in canine mammary tissues. A1 to E1, ER. A2 to E2, Ki67. A3 to E3, HER-2. A1 to A3. Nonneoplastic mammary gland. B1 to B3. Usual ductal hyperplasia. C1 to C3. ADH. D1 to D3. Low-grade DCIS. E1 to E3. High-grade DCIS. Very strong nuclear staining is observed for ER in nonneoplastic mammary tissue (A1) and usual ductal hyperplasia (B1), whereas very weak nuclear staining is observed in ADH (C1) and low-grade (D1) and high-grade (E1) DCIS. In contrast, staining intensity for Ki67 is opposite to that of ER, weak nuclear staining is seen in nonneoplastic (A2) and usual hyperplasia (B2), whereas strong nuclear staining is seen in basilar cells of low-grade DCIS (D2) and in all cells in high-grade DCIS (E2). Similarly, strong membranous staining of HER-2 is not seen with nonneoplastic (A3) or usual ductal hyperplasia (B3), is weak in atypical hyperplasia (C3), but is clearly seen in high-grade DCIS (E3). Immunohistochemistry. Magnifications, ×200 (ER and Ki67) and ×400 (HER-2).

Expression of PRs in IELs

PR staining varied among IELs and their associated tumors and did not correlate with the type of lesion or risk for malignancy.

Expression of Ki67 Nuclear Antigen in IELs

Nonneoplastic mammary tissue had immunoreactivity for Ki67 in a few cells (Fig. 3A2). All IELs except low-grade DCIS were somewhat immunoreactive to Ki67 (Fig. 3A2-E2). The percent positive epithelial cells ranged from 1 to 10 in ductal hyperplasia; in all other IELs, there was a trend for increased numbers of positive cells as the lesion increased in grade, with the highest range of Ki67-positive cells in high-grade DCIS. Similarly, all IEL-associated tumors were immunoreactive for Ki67 with increasing positive cells (10-90%; P < 0.0041) in more histologically aggressive tumors.

Expression of HER-2 in IELs

A few HER-2 positive cells (10-20%) with 2+ staining intensity were seen in 9 of 10 ductal hyperplasias and 2 of 6 ADH lesions, whereas all cells in low-grade DCIS were negative. HER-2 staining was weakly positive (2+) in 8 of 11 high-grade DCIS, with 50% to 90% of the epithelial cells showing membranous staining (Fig. 3A3-E3). On the other hand, 3 of 11 DCIS scored 0 and were negative for HER-2. HER-2 expression in adjacent mammary tumors was similar to that in the IEL with which they were spatially associated.

Discussion

In 30% (60 of 200) of dogs with palpable mammary tumors, archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues contained IELs in mammary tissue adjacent to the tumors. Because the histologic sections were prepared from mastectomy or lumpectomy specimens solely for diagnostic purposes and included minimal nonneoplastic tissue, the prevalence of IELs may have been underestimated by this retrospective study. Of these IELs, 39 (65%) were associated with malignant mammary tumors. DCIS was the most common mammary IEL, accounting for 32 cases, of which 29 (90%) were associated with malignant tumors. DCIS is also the most frequently diagnosed IEL in human mammary biopsy specimens and is usually heralded by the mammographic detection of calcifications (25). In the dogs in this study, microscopic calcifications were observed in only 4 of 32 cases. This difference could reflect interspecies variation or only the difference in sampling techniques. The canine mammary specimens were collected because of the presence of a palpable mammary mass and only examined retrospectively for IELs. Peritumoral areas were not specifically sampled. It is possible that sampling of peritumoral areas and specimen radiographs will increase the detection of IELs.

ADH and sclerosing papilloma were detected less commonly than DCIS. These lesions were usually associated with malignant tumors, whereas usual ductal hyperplasia, adenosis, sclerosing adenosis, and (nonsclerosing) papilloma were usually associated with benign mammary tumors.

Complex (both epithelial and myoepithelial) carcinomas and simple (almost always epithelial) carcinomas are common malignant mammary tumors in dogs (10, 11). Sarcomas and carcinosarcomas are relatively rare (10, 11). Sarcomas were not observed in association with canine mammary IELs. The malignant tumors associated with IELs included complex carcinoma, several types of simple carcinoma (tubulopapillary, solid, and anaplastic), and carcinosarcoma.

Because IELs are considered a risk factor for invasive cancer, an AACR task force has recommended accelerated development of chemotherapeutic modalities to treat, prevent, or delay their formation (5). However, because the current standard therapy for DCIS is complete excision, either by lumpectomy or mastectomy, phase III trials with eradication of DCIS as an end point are not feasible (5). Furthermore, few breast IELs progress to cancer, a process that can take 2 decades or more (5, 6). Thus, studies to examine progression and invasion of these lesions in humans are not feasible and development and evaluation of noninvasive therapy for breast IELs require an animal model.

Mouse models of human breast cancer include xenografts; tumors induced by chemicals, radiation, or mouse mammary tumor virus; and genetically engineered mice (32). Spontaneous mammary tumors are rare in mice (32). Most mouse mammary tumors are histologically distinct, although some genetically engineered mouse mammary tumors resemble human breast cancers (33); mammary IELs have not been well characterized in genetically engineered mouse models (34).

As in humans and in contrast to mice and rats, spontaneous mammary tumors are the most common neoplasm of female dogs (10, 11). Spontaneous mammary IELs are common in dogs well before the age of onset of palpable mammary tumors. Warner (13) found that none of 16 sexually intact female beagles <2 years of age had mammary dysplasias, whereas 7 of 11 females 2 to 3 years of age and 10 of 12 females 3 to 4 years of age had numerous “dysplasias,” detected by dissecting microscopic examination of whole-mount mammary specimens; unfortunately, the histologic appearance of these dysplasias was not described. Gilbertson et al. (12) analyzed 232 mastectomy specimens from dogs with benign or malignant epithelial tumors for ductal epithelial changes, which were categorized as normotypic and normoplastic epithelium, normotypic and hyperplastic epithelium, moderately atypical epithelial proliferation, markedly atypical epithelial proliferation, and severely atypical epithelial proliferation limited to the boundaries of the duct (in situ carcinoma). They identified precancerous atypical and noninvasive malignant neoplasms in 50 of 74 mastectomy specimens from dogs with malignant epithelial tumors that had morphologic features that would be considered precursor lesions in women. Additionally, it was noted that nuclear differentiation was a prognostically significant variable in predicting the development of de novo or recurrent invasive carcinoma within 2 years. Although the precancerous ductal proliferative lesions were not associated with increased incidence of malignancy in the first 2 years, dogs that were followed longer than 2 years had 9-fold increase in risk of invasive cancer (12). Although these earlier studies do not provide direct evidence that canine mammary IELs progress to invasive carcinoma, they have shown that IELs develop at an earlier age than mammary tumors in dogs and that the degree of nuclear atypia in canine IELs correlates with the risk of developing invasive carcinoma. In the study reported here, the fact that IELs of higher grade were more commonly adjacent to malignant mammary tumors supports their value as prognostic indicators.

There is considerable disagreement among pathologists on the classification of human breast IELs (4, 25, 27, 35-39). There is even less consensus in veterinary medicine, and although mammary IELs have been reported (10-13), and veterinary pathologists have attempted to classify canine mammary tumors according to criteria used for human mammary tumors as much as possible (10, 11), IELs have not been compared directly with human IELs. The current study documents the similarity between human and canine spontaneous mammary IELs and supports use of the dog as a model of spontaneous mammary carcinogenesis. One limitation of previous and the current study is the lack of data on the biological properties of canine mammary IELs. Despite their histologic and immunohistochemical similarity, we do not know whether canine mammary IELs have the same biological behavior or prognostic value as their human counterparts. Future transplantation studies or therapeutic/chemopreventive trials could assess their biological potential (40).

ER and PR expression in breast epithelial cells is considered a marker for risk of developing breast cancer and for preventive intervention (41-43); HER-2 is a prognostic marker (44-46). Therefore, in this study, we have evaluated the expression of ER, PR, and HER-2 in adjacent nonneoplastic canine mammary tissue, IELs, and tumors by immunohistochemistry. In addition, we measured Ki67 by immunohistochemistry because, in human breast cancer, expression of ER is usually inversely related to the proliferation index of the tumor (47, 48). ER expression in nonneoplastic mammary tissues and in IELs varied in the proportion of positive cells and intensity of immunoreactivity. Adjacent nonneoplastic mammary tissue was positive for ER with strong immunoreactivity in >70% of cells. This prominent ER expression in nonneoplastic tissue adjacent to a mammary tumor or IEL could represent a precancerous change (49). However, the expression of ER protein decreased as the IELs increased in grade. Most ductal hyperplasia specimens expressed ER protein, whereas high-grade DCIS was almost always negative for ER protein. Similar results have been reported in normal, dysplastic, and tumor from canine mammary gland (50, 51) and some human breast cancers (52, 53). Most human breast cancers are ER positive and ER expression usually increases with progression from normal to DCIS to invasive carcinoma. However, ∼30% of human breast cancers do not express ER. Precursor lesions for ER-negative breast cancers have not yet been identified. Canine mammary IELs could be a model for ER-negative tumors.

Previous studies established the association between tumor growth fractions measured by Ki67 index as a prognostic indicator (47). In humans, Ki67 expression is associated with increased tumor grade, decreased overall survival rates, and poor response to hormonal therapy. In this study, the expression of Ki67 and ER was inversely associated in that highly proliferative lesions tended to lose ER expression. Similar findings were reported in canine mammary dysplasias and tumors (54).

Lesions with increased Ki67 expression, although ER negative, were usually HER-2 positive. HER-2 protein overexpression is an important prognostic marker as well as a target for molecular-directed therapy. Fifteen percent to 25% of human breast cancers (55, 56) and 17% of canine mammary carcinomas (24) overexpress HER-2 protein. The distribution of expression of HER-2 in canine IELs was similar to that reported in various human IELs (57). HER-2 expression was significant in proliferative lesions with high risk.

Sexually intact dogs with mammary tumors are often ovariohysterectomized at the time of mastectomy. Although prepubertal or pubertal oophorectomy markedly reduces the risk of developing mammary carcinoma (19), there is less evidence of preventive or therapeutic effect of oophorectomy in middle-aged or older dogs. However, late oophorectomy may reduce the risk of developing benign mammary tumors (10). This differing effect of oophorectomy may reflect the low prevalence of ER expression in canine mammary carcinomas in comparison with that in benign canine mammary tumors. In women with BRCA mutations, postpubertal oophorectomy significantly decreased the risk of developing breast cancer in the subsequent 15 years, particularly if done before 40 years of age (58). The canine BRCA1 gene has 84% homology with the human gene, but its role in mammary cancer has not been determined (59).

Few studies have examined the efficacy of tamoxifen in canine mammary carcinoma. Twenty-three dogs with mammary tumors that were treated by surgery and ovariohysterectomy were additionally treated empirically (ER status of those tumors was unknown) with tamoxifen (60). Pet owner compliance was poor probably because of undesirable estrogenic effects of tamoxifen in the dogs and no conclusions were drawn by these authors about the efficacy of tamoxifen.

With routine mammography, detection of noninvasive IELs, such as usual hyperplasia, atypical hyperplasia, and DCIS, is much more frequent. However, management of these lesions is a problem. Although not all invasive cancers are preceded by DCIS and not all DCIS lead to invasive cancer, there is a real chance that invasive cancer may develop in a patient with DCIS despite surgical excision. From our experience, which is supported by preliminary data from our ongoing studies of mammary IELs in healthy dogs without palpable tumors, a good fraction of dogs will have ER-negative and HER-2 positive IELs and another fraction will have ER-negative, PR-negative, and HER-2 negative IELs. Animal models of spontaneous precursor lesions for ER-negative and HER-2-positive and for triple-negative breast cancer are needed for chemopreventive trials.

Our goal is to evaluate the dog as a model for human breast DCIS and other IELs. When fully characterized, this model could be examined to answer important questions in human as well as comparative medicine. Preliminary studies reported here show that the canine mammary gland bears significant similarity to the human breast. Canine IELs are morphologically identical to their human counterparts and may undergo calcifications akin to human lesions. Additional studies are being done to analyze the frequency of microcalcifications in canine mammary glands and whether these can be used to detect and follow IELs and provide a model for testing noninvasive modalities for the treatment of DCIS.

Footnotes

  • Grant support: Department of Defense grant W81XWH-04-1-0196.

  • 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: S. Badve and S.I. Mohammed contributed equally to this work.

    • Accepted August 2, 2007.
    • Received November 2, 2006.
    • Revision received June 19, 2007.

References

  1. ↵
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cancer statistics, 2007. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:43–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    Page DL, Dupont WD. Anatomic markers of human premalignancy and risk of breast cancer. Cancer 1990;66:1326–35.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Skinner KA, Silverstein MJ. The management of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Endocr Relat Cancer 2001;8:33–45.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  4. ↵
    Silverstein MJ. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Annu Rev Med 2000;51:17–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    O'Shaughnessy JA, Kelloff GJ, Gordon GB, et al. Treatment and prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia: an important target for accelerated new agent development. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:314–46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    Lippman SM, Hong WK. Cancer prevention by delay. Commentary re: JA O'Shaughnessy et al. Treatment and prevention of intraepithelial neoplasia: an important target for accelerated new agent development. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:314–46. Clin Cancer Res 2002;2:305–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    Knapp DW, Waters DJ. Naturally occurring cancer in pet dogs: important models for developing improved cancer therapy for humans. Mol Med Today 1997;3:8–11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. ↵
    Vail DM, MacEwen EG. Spontaneously occurring tumors of companion animals as models for human cancer. Cancer Invest 2000;18:781–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Owen LN. A comparative study of canine and human breast cancer. Invest Cell Pathol 1979;2:257–75.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    Misdorp W. Tumors of the mammary gland. In: Meuten DJ, editor. Tumors in domestic animals. Ames (IA): Iowa State Press; 2002. p. 575–606.
  11. ↵
    Misdorp W, Else RW, Hellmén E, Lipscomb TP. Histological classification of mammary tumors of the dog and the cat. 2nd series. Vol. VII. Washington (DC): Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and World Health Organization; 1999. p. 11–25.
  12. ↵
    Gilbertson SR, Kurzman ID, Zachrau RE, Hurvitz AI, Black MM. Canine mammary epithelial neoplasms: biologic implication of morphologic characteristics assessed in 232 dogs. Vet Pathol 1983;20:127–42.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. ↵
    Warner MR. Age incidence and site distribution of mammary dysplasias in young beagle bitches. J Natl Cancer Inst 1976;57:57–61.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. ↵
    Schneider R. Comparison of age, sex and incidence rates in human and canine breast cancer. Cancer 1970;26:419–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Dobson JM, Samuel S, Milstein H, Rogers K, Wood JL. Canine neoplasia in the UK: estimates of incidence rates from a population of insured dogs. J Small Anim Pract 2002;43:240–6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    Egenvall A, Bonnett BN, Ohagen P, Olson P, Hedhammar A, von Euler H. Incidence of and survival after mammary tumors in a population of over 80,000 insured female dogs in Sweden from 1995 to 2002. Prev Vet Med 2005;69:109–27.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    Sorenmo K. Canine mammary gland tumors. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 2003;33:573–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    Dorn CR, Taylor DO, Frye FL, Hibbard HH. Survey of animal neoplasms in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California. I. Methodology and description of cases. J Natl Cancer Inst 1968;40:295–305.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    Schneider R, Dorn CR, Taylor DO. Factors influencing canine mammary cancer development and postsurgical survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 1969;43:1249–61.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    Sorenmo KU, Shofer FS, Goldschmidt MH. Effect of spaying and timing of spaying on survival of dogs with mammary carcinoma. J Vet intern Med 2000;14:266–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Perez Alenza MD, Pena L, del Castillo N, Nieto AI. Factors influencing the incidence and prognosis of canine mammary tumours. J Small Anim Pract 2000;41:287–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Ross JS, Fletcher JA. The HER-2/neu oncogene: prognostic factor, predictive factor and target for therapy. Semin Cancer Biol 1999;9:125–38.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Rungsipipat A, Tateyama S, Yamaguchi R, Uchida K, Miyoshi N, Hayashi T. Immunohistochemical analysis of c-yes and c-erbB-2 oncogene products and p53 tumor suppressor protein in canine mammary tumors. J Vet Med Sci 1999;61:27–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Martin de las Mulas J, Ordas J, Millan Y, Fernandez-Soria V, Ramon y Cajal S. Oncogene HER-2 in canine mammary gland carcinomas: an immunohistochemical and chromogenic in situ hybridization study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2003;80:363–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Rosen PP. Rosen's breast pathology. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001.
  26. ↵
    Ely KA, Carter BA, Jensen RA, Simpson JF, Page DL. Core biopsy of the breast with atypical ductal hyperplasia: a probabilistic approach to reporting. Am J Surg Pathol 2001;25:1017–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Schnitt SJ, Connolly JL, Tavassoli FA, et al. Interobserver reproducibility in the diagnosis of ductal proliferative breast lesions using standardized criteria. Am J Surg Pathol 1992;16:1133–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Nieto A, Pena L, Perez-Alenza MD, Sanchez MA, Flores JM, Castano M. Immunohistologic detection of estrogen receptor α in canine mammary tumors: clinical and pathologic associations and prognostic significance. Vet Pathol 2000;37:239–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    de Las Mulas JM, Millan Y, Dios R. A prospective analysis of immunohistochemically determined estrogen receptor α and progesterone receptor expression and host and tumor factors as predictors of disease-free period in mammary tumors of the dog. Vet Pathol 2005;42:200–12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. ↵
    Mandara MT, Ricci G, Rinaldi L, Sarli G, Vitellozzi G. Immunohistochemical identification and image analysis quantification of oestrogen and progesterone receptors in canine and feline meningioma. J Comp Pathol 2002;127:214–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    Pena LL, Nieto AI, Perez-Alenza D, Cuesta P, Castano M. Immunohistochemical detection of Ki-67 and PCNA in canine mammary tumors: relationship to clinical and pathologic variables. J Vet Diagn Invest 1998;10:237–46.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    Wagner KU. Models of breast cancer: quo vadis, animal modeling? Breast Cancer Res 2004;6:31–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    Cardiff RD. Validity of mouse mammary tumour models for human breast cancer: comparative pathology. Microsc Res Tech 2001;52:224–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. ↵
    Cardiff RD, Moghanaki D, Jensen RA. Genetically engineered mouse models of mammary intraepithelial neoplasia. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2000;5:421–37.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. ↵
    Koerner FC. Epithelial proliferations of ductal type. Semin Diagn Pathol 2004;21:10–7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  36. Pinder SE, Ellis IO. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH)—current definitions and classification. Breast Cancer Res 2003;5:254–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. Van de Vijver MJ, Peterse H. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: pathological diagnosis-problems with existing classifications. Breast Cancer Res 2003;5:269–76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. Badve S. The diagnosis and management of pre-invasive breast disease: another point of view. Breast Cancer Res 2004;6:1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. ↵
    Rosai J. Borderline epithelial lesions of the breast. Am J Surg Pathol 1991;15:209–21.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. ↵
    Cardiff RD, Anver MR, Boivin GP, et al. Precancer in mice: animal models used to understand, prevent and treat human precancers. Toxicol Pathol 2006;34:699–707.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. ↵
    Gann PH, Geiger AS, Helenowski IB, Vonesh EF, Chatterton RT. Estrogen and progesterone levels in nipple aspirate fluid of healthy premenopausal women: relationship to steroid precursors and response proteins. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:39–44.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  42. Khan SA, Bhandare D, Chatterton RT. The local hormonal environment and related biomarkers in the normal breast. Endocr Relat Cancer 2005;12:497–510.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  43. ↵
    Fabian CJ, Kimler BF, Mayo MS, Khan SA. Breast-tissue sampling for risk assessment and prevention. Endocr Relat Cancer 2005;12:185–213.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. ↵
    Ferretti G, Felici A, Papaldo P, Fabi A, Cognetti F. HER2/neu role in breast cancer: from a prognostic foe to a predictive friend. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2007;19:56–62.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  45. Aubele M, Auer G, Walch AK, et al. PTK (protein tyrosine kinase)-6 and HER2 and 4, but not HER1 and 3 predict long-term survival in breast carcinomas. Br J Cancer 2007;96:801–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  46. ↵
    Piccart M, Lohrisch C, Di Leo A, Larsimont D. The predictive value of HER2 in breast cancer. Oncology 2001;61 Suppl 2:73–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. ↵
    Shoker BS, Jarvis C, Clarke RB, et al. Estrogen receptor-positive proliferating cells in the normal and precancerous breast. Am J Pathol 1999;155:1811–5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  48. ↵
    Shoker BS, Jarvis C, Sibson DR, Walker C, Sloane JP. Oestrogen receptor expression in the normal and pre-cancerous breast. J Pathol 1999;188:237–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  49. ↵
    Rutteman GR, Misdorp W, Blankenstein MA, van den Brom WE. Oestrogen (ER) and progestin receptors (PR) in mammary tissue of the female dog: different receptor profile in non-malignant and malignant states. Br J Cancer 1988;58:594–9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  50. ↵
    Inaba T, Takahashi N, Matsuda H, Imori T. Estrogen and progesterone receptors and progesterone metabolism in canine mammary tumours. Nippon Juigaku Zasshi 1984;46:797–803.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  51. ↵
    Tang P, Wang X, Schiffhauer L, et al. Expression patterns of ER-α, PR, HER-2/neu, and EGFR in different cell origin subtypes of high grade and non-high grade ductal carcinoma in situ. Ann Clin Lab Sci 2006;36:137–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  52. ↵
    Leal CB, Schmitt FC, Bento MJ, Maia NC, Lopes CS. Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast. Histologic categorization and its relationship to ploidy and immunohistochemical expression of hormone receptors, p53, and c-erbB-2 protein. Cancer 1995;75:2123–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  53. ↵
    Ravaioli A, Bagli L, Zucchini A, Monti F. Prognosis and prediction of response in breast cancer: the current role of the main biological markers. Cell Prolif 1998;31:113–26.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. ↵
    Yang WY, Liu CH, Chang CJ, Lee CC, Chang KJ, Lin CT. Proliferative activity, apoptosis and expression of oestrogen receptor and Bcl-2 oncoprotein in canine mammary gland tumours. J Comp Pathol 2006;134:70–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  55. ↵
    Badache A, Goncalves A. The ErbB2 signaling network as a target for breast cancer therapy. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 2006;11:13–25.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  56. ↵
    Pupa SM, Tagliabue E, Menard S, Anichini A. HER-2: a biomarker at the crossroads of breast cancer immunotherapy and molecular medicine. J Cell Physiol 2005;205:10–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. ↵
    Mylonas I, Makovitzky J, Jeschke U, Briese V, Friese K, Gerber B. Expression of Her2/neu, steroid receptors (ER and PR), Ki67 and p53 in invasive mammary ductal carcinoma associated with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) versus invasive breast cancer alone. Anticancer Res 2005;25:1719–23.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  58. ↵
    Eisen A, Lubinski J, Klijn J, et al. Breast cancer risk following bilateral oophorectomy in BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: an international case-control study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:7491–6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  59. ↵
    Szabo CI, Wagner LA, Francisco LV, et al. Human, canine and murine BRCA1 genes: sequence comparison among species. Hum Mol Genet 1996;5:1289–98.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. ↵
    Morris JS, Dobson JM, Bostok DE. Use of tamoxifen in the control of canine mammary neoplasia. Vet Rec 1993;133:539–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention: 16 (11)
November 2007
Volume 16, Issue 11
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)

Sign up for alerts

View this article with LENS

Open full page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for sharing this Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Spontaneous Mammary Intraepithelial Lesions in Dogs—A Model of Breast Cancer
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention.
Citation Tools
Spontaneous Mammary Intraepithelial Lesions in Dogs—A Model of Breast Cancer
Elisabetta Antuofermo, Margaret A. Miller, Salvatore Pirino, Jun Xie, Sunil Badve and Sulma I. Mohammed
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev November 1 2007 (16) (11) 2247-2256; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0932

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Spontaneous Mammary Intraepithelial Lesions in Dogs—A Model of Breast Cancer
Elisabetta Antuofermo, Margaret A. Miller, Salvatore Pirino, Jun Xie, Sunil Badve and Sulma I. Mohammed
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev November 1 2007 (16) (11) 2247-2256; DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0932
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Introduction
    • Materials and Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Advertisement

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Associations of Tobacco and Alcohol with SINT Risk in Utah
  • A Prognostic ATG-Based Scoring System in Ovarian Cancer
  • Antiparietal Cell Antibody and Esophageal and Gastric Cancer
Show more Research Articles
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Feedback
  • Privacy Policy
Facebook   Twitter   LinkedIn   YouTube   RSS

Articles

  • Online First
  • Current Issue
  • Past Issues

Info for

  • Authors
  • Subscribers
  • Advertisers
  • Librarians
  • Reviewers

About Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Permissions
  • Submit a Manuscript
AACR logo

Copyright © 2019 by the American Association for Cancer Research.

Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
eISSN: 1538-7755
ISSN: 1055-9965

Advertisement