Abstract
Purpose
In daily practice, a contralateral breast cancer (CBC) is usually considered as a new independent tumor despite the indications of several studies showing that the second neoplasia may be a metastatic spread of the primary tumor. Recognition of clonal masses in the context of multiple synchronous or metachronous tumors is crucial for correct prognosis, therapeutic choice, and patient management. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing shows high informative potential in the diagnosis of synchronous neoplasms, based on the fact that somatic mtDNA mutations are non-recurrent events, whereas tumors sharing them have a common origin. We here applied this technique to reveal clonality of the CBC with respect to the first tumor.
Methods
We analyzed 30 sample pairs of primary breast cancers and synchronous or metachronous CBCs with detailed clinical information available and compared standard clinico-pathological criteria with mtDNA sequencing to reveal the metastatic nature of CBCs.
Results
MtDNA analysis was informative in 23% of the cases, for which it confirmed a clonal origin of the second tumor. In addition, it allowed to solve two ambiguous cases where histopathological criteria had failed to be conclusive and to suggest a clonal origin for two additional cases that had been classified as independent by pathologists.
Conclusion
Overall, the mtDNA-based classification showed a more accurate predictive power than standard histopathology in identifying cases of metastatic rather than bilateral breast cancers in our cohort, suggesting that mtDNA sequencing may be a more precise and easy-to-use method to be introduced in daily routine to support and improve histopathological diagnoses.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Patients who experienced a breast neoplasia have a higher risk of developing a contralateral breast cancer (CBC) during their lifetime (Chen et al. 1999; Peralta et al. 2000; Goldstein et al. 2003; Raymond and Hogue 2006; Hartman et al. 2007). The risk of CBC after the first diagnosis ranges from 0.7 to 1.8% per year (Peralta et al. 2000) and is two- to sixfold higher than the risk of developing a first primary breast cancer for women in the general population (Chen et al. 1999). This estimate approaches 3% in BRCA1/2 germline mutation carriers (Imyanitov and Kuligina 2020). CBC can be categorized as synchronous or metachronous based on the time window between the first and secondary breast cancer development (Imyanitov and Kuligina 2020). There are no uniform clinical criteria that allow discriminating between bilateral CBC (bilCBC) and metastatic cancer spread to CBC (metCBC). In addition, some of the criteria used have relevant critical issues and can, therefore, not be considered fully reliable (de Dueñas et al. 2014; Schrijver et al. 2018). Furthermore, metCBC is associated to a higher risk of diffuse metastasis and, subsequently, to a poorer survival, whereas a new primary carcinoma is characterized by its own patho-biological features, and a better survival (Haffty et al. 1996; Elkhuizen et al. 1998; Huang et al. 2002). Currently, it is suggested the following pathological features be used to define a second CBC as independent or suspected metastasis of the primary: (1) different/identical histotype/histological grading; (2) presence/absence of an in situ component; and (3) different/identical bioprofiles. When such criteria are inconclusive (4) the presence/absence of distant metastasis; (5) the time interval between primary and second tumor and (6) the stage (UICC/AJCC Stage 3) of the primary must be taken into consideration (Chaudary et al. 1984; Chen et al. 1999; Intra et al. 2004; Komoike et al. 2005). Upon application of these parameters, it is evident that the great majority of cases shares different clinical and histologic patterns between bilateral tumors, suggesting an independent clonal origin (Dawson et al. 1991). In contrast, a plethora of studies in the past two decades pointed to the existence of a common clonal origin for a subgroup of these carcinomas. Different techniques have been used to demonstrate this assertion, starting with genetic approaches such as X-chromosome inactivation (Noguchi et al. 1994; Shibata et al. 1996; Banelli et al. 2010), TP53 mutations (Janschek et al. 2001), allele imbalance (AI) (Imyanitov et al. 2002; Schlechter et al. 2004), microsatellite size alterations (Saad et al. 2008), loss of heterozygosity (LOH) (Schlechter et al. 2004; Saad et al. 2008), comparative genomic hybridization (CGH) (Teixeira et al. 2004; Brommesson et al. 2008), and DNA methylation profile (Huang et al. 2015). Recently, a clonal relationship between paired CBC and primary breast cancer was determined in a subset of cases using massively parallel sequencing assay (Begg et al. 2018), whole exome and genome sequencing (WES and WGS) (Bao et al. 2015; Klevebring et al. 2015; Alkner et al. 2015) and multi-omics approaches (Biermann et al. 2018). Despite the existence of such an abundant literature, today’s practice is to consider bilateral tumors as two independent entities. In this context, valid, rapid and low-cost approaches for discrimination between a clonal and a new primary lesion are still lacking. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing was reported as an informative approach to define clonality in simultaneously detected gynecological neoplasia (Guerra et al. 2011, 2014; Girolimetti et al. 2017; Perrone et al. 2018a). Due to its tendency to accumulate non-recurrent mutations in cancer cells (Iommarini et al. 2013; Perrone et al. 2018b), high mtDNA variability has been validated by our group as a tool to identify clonal, metastatic masses. Indeed, mtDNA mutations are considered as common somatic events in cancer tissues (Ju et al. 2014), therefore, the use of a random tumor-specific mtDNA mutation carried by two different cancer lesions of the same patient as a marker of clonality is a robust approach. This is mainly due to the lack of hotspot mutations in mtDNA (Liu et al. 2012; Iommarini et al. 2013), whereby the presence of the same tumor-specific mutation in two primary independent neoplasms is virtually impossible. Here, we apply mtDNA sequencing on a cohort of 30 pairs of breast cancer samples to compare its predictive accuracy against standard histopathological criteria used in the daily practice and retrieve the subset of CBC that ought to be classified as metastasis of the primary breast cancer.
Materials and methods
Case series
This study was conducted within the frame of the BIL-BREAST 390/2019/Sper/AOUBo study, approved by the local ethical committee (Comitato Etico di Area Vasta Emilia Centro). Internal review board protocols were followed for collection of samples. The study was performed on 30 patients with synchronous or metachronous bilCBC after collection of informed consent obtained in compliance with the Helsinki Declaration. The mean (± standard deviation) age of patients was 63.9 ± 14.1 years (range from 32 to 88 years), median 63.5 years; all cases were diagnosed at the S. Orsola Hospital, Bologna. An alpha-numeric code (from C1 to C30) was assigned to the cases to maintain anonymity. None of the patients enrolled in this study presented metastatic disease (pM0) at diagnosis. Tumors were considered metachronous when at the time of diagnosis there was an interval of more than 6 months between the first and second tumor. For each tumor, the age of the patient at diagnosis, WHO histological type and grade, presence/absence of an in situ component, pTNM-AJCC stage, immunohistochemical bioprofile (ER, PR, Ki-67 and Her2) were recorded (Table 1). The clinical indication of possible contralateral metastasis was evaluated according to the following parameters: Invasive Lobular Carcinoma (ILC) or Special Type vs Invasive Carcinoma No Special Type (IC NST); presence/absence of an in situ component, Stage 3 at onset in one of the two single contralateral tumors or in the first tumor if metachronous; and bioprofile (RO and Her2 + status). When several indicative and contradictory clinical factors were present, the case was considered clinically non-informative.
Tumors specimens
All cases were blindly reviewed by two expert pathologists (DS and ADL) with respect to the original diagnosis. For each patient involved in the study, formalin-fixed/paraffin-embedded primary tumors and synchronous or metachronous bilCBC, as well as non-tumor tissue samples were available. To compare the accuracy between a molecular method such as mtDNA sequencing and standard histopathological examination with the aid of immunohistochemical (IHC) analysis, samples from the same paraffin blocks were used. Tissue sections were collected, made anonymous, coded, and sent in a blinded manner for the two parallel investigations. Clinico-pathological classification was based on IHC analysis of the pathologists review and interpretation of morphologic features (on haematoxylin and eosin-stained slides). The two pathologists compiled the classification in bilCBC or metCBC after consensus review of each case. Any discrepancies were resolved by joint viewing at a multi-head microscope.
MtDNA sequencing
To identify the part of the tissue with a higher percentage of tumor cells, haematoxylin and eosin sections were used. Specific areas of paired tumors and non-tumor tissue were marked on the stained slides. Based on this first analysis, 10 slides of 10-µm sections were prepared from each paraffin tissue block. Five unstained slides were used to harvest the selected area of the tissue using a microscope-guided dissection with a scalpel. Total DNA was extracted with the ReliaPrep™ FFPE gDNA Miniprep System (Promega) according to the manufacturer’s protocols. 10 ng of total DNA was used for mtDNA amplification of 46 contiguous segment using a set of 46 primer pairs as previously described (Girolimetti et al. 2017). KAPA2G Fast PCR Kit (Sigma Aldrich) was used for PCR amplification in a 9700 thermal cycler. The 46 purified PCR products were used for direct sequencing with BigDye kit version 1.1 (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and the sequences were run in an ABI 3730 Genetic Analyzer (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Electropherograms were aligned with rCRS mitochondrial reference sequence using SeqScape version 2.5 software (Applied Biosystems). Detected mtDNA tumor-specific mutations were validated using a second PCR reaction. Furthermore, the same mtDNA variant of interest was confirmed using a second independent extraction of DNA of the same sample from the remaining slides to exclude DNA contamination or sample mix-up. The sequencing of matched unaffected tissues is required to ascertain the tumor-specific origin of mtDNA mutations.
MtDNA variants analysis
To annotate mitochondrial variants, FASTA files from primary breast cancer and CBC of each patient involved in the study were used as input for MToolBox (Calabrese et al. 2014). The pipeline includes a prioritization of the variants based on the pathogenicity of the mutated allele, the nucleotide variability of each variant site, and amino acid variability (Santorsola et al. 2016). Selected variants where then analyzed using HmtVar (https://www.hmtvar.uniba.it) (Preste et al. 2019). Nucleotide site-specific variability was estimated using HmtVar or MToolBox. Allele frequency (AF) and disease score (DS) were reported from HmtVar (Preste et al. 2019). The pathogenicity of a mutation was established using two different criteria, for non-synonymous variants a DS equal or greater than 0.43 and an AF equal or lower than 0.003264 (DS ≥ 0.43 and AF ≤ 0.003264), for tRNA variants a DS equal or greater than 0.35 and an AF equal or lower than 0.005020 (DS ≥ 0.35 and AF ≤ 0.005020) as previously reported (Preste et al. 2019). Sequences of C1–C30 samples, both primary breast cancers and CBCs, were deposited in the public database (GenBank Accession Numbers MW172442 to MW172501).
Results
Clinico-pathological classification of contralateral cases and clonality prediction
Of the 30 patients enrolled in the study, 11 (36.7%) cases were diagnosed with synchronous and 19 (63.3%) cases with metachronous breast cancer. The mean ± S.D. of the time interval between the two metachronous neoplasms was 58.3 ± 38.2 (median 60 months; range 10–133 months). The distribution of the clinico-pathologic parameters considered for the clonal classification of our cases was as follows: histological classification showed 21/30 (70%) cases as bilateral IC NST; in 9/30 (30%) cases, one of the two was an ILC. In synchronous cases, the in situ component was completely absent in 4/11 (36.4%), was present in 1 of paired tumors in 5/11 (45.5%) and in both neoplasias in 2/11 (18.1%) cases, respectively. Seven of 19 (36.8%) metachronous cases presented an in situ component in the second tumor. 7/11 (63.6%) synchronous cases and 4/19 (21.1%) metachronous cases were Stage 3 tumors. For the evaluation of the IHC profile, we considered all ER + /PR + cases as Luminal-like (Lum) without any distinction between subtype A and B. Positive HER2 cases were classified as HER2 if ER-/PR- or Lum-H if ER + and/or PR + . Following these indications, 9/11 (81.8%) synchronous cases had both tumors with the same bioprofile (8 Lum/Lum, 1 TN/TN), and 2/11 (18.2%) had a different bioprofile (1 Lum-H/Lum, 1 TN/Lum). Metachronous cases had 13/19 (68.4%) tumors with the same bioprofile (12 Lum/Lum, 1 Lum-H/Lum-H), while 6/19 (31.6%) were different (3 Lum/Lum-H, 2 TN/Lum-H, and 1 Lum/H) (Table 1).
Overall, therefore, based on clinico-pathologic parameters, the paired neoplasms (bilCBC vs metCBC) were classified as follows: 17/30 (56.7%) cases as independent primary bilCBC tumors; 6/30 (20.0%) cases as metCBC; 7/30 (23.3%) cases as non-informative (N.I.) because lacking specific indications (4 cases), or with informative but contradictory parameters (Dis/N.I.) (3 cases) (Table 1). In particular: 4/11 (36.4%) synchronous and 13/19 (68.4%) metachronous cases were defined as bilCBC; 3/11 (27.2%) synchronous and 3/19 (15.8%) metachronous cases were labeled as clonal metCBC; in 4/11 synchronous (36.4%) and in 3/19 (15.8%) metachronous cases clinico-pathologic parameters were non-informative.
Mitochondrial DNA sequencing reveals a subset of metCBCs
MtDNA sequencing performed on the 60 samples revealed a total of 36 tumor-specific mutations, i.e. a variant that was not present in the matched non-tumor tissue, in 20/30 (66.6%) cases, with samples harboring up to 3 different ones (Table 2). Nine of such mutations were shown to occur in both paired tumors of 7/30 (23.3%) patients (Table 2), which constituted the set of informative changes that were indicative of a metastatic spread of the primary cancer.
We found, in both tumor masses, the m.1982G > A/(MT-RNR1) in C5 (Fig. 1a), the m.14207G > A/(MT-ND6) in C8 (Fig. 1b), the m.16078A > G/(MT-DLoop) in C9 (Fig. 1c), the m.9591G > A/(MT-COIII) in C13 (Fig. 1d), the m.3849G > A/(MT-ND1) in C19 (Fig. 1e), the m.2492 G > A/(MT-RNR2) (Fig. 1f) and the m.13633G > A/(MT-ND5) (Fig. 1g) in C27, the m.1641G > A/(MT-V) (Fig. 1h) and the m.3146G > A/(MT-RNR2) (Fig. 1i) in C30, nearly all of which were detected as heteroplasmic, likely due to an inevitable contamination with non-neoplastic cells of the tumor microenvironment. In the cases that harbored somatic changes in one sample exclusively, we may not rule out that the CBC was a result of a metastatic event, as mtDNA mutations may have occurred after the metastatic spread, or disappeared before, or metastases may have generated starting from non-mutated clones. In such cases, mtDNA was, therefore, not informative.
The informative potential of the two methods for the identification of metCBC resulted to be similar. Indeed, clinico-pathological parameters were informative in 6/30—20% (C13, C15, C19, C21, C28, C30) of cases, while mtDNA analysis in 7/30—23.3% (C5, C8, C9, C13, C19, C27, C30). However, some cases were classified differently by the two methodologies: mtDNA sequencing suggested a clonal origin of CBCs for cases C5 and C9, in contrast with the independent clinico-pathological diagnosis that defined these tumors as bilCBCs. The application of other molecular techniques could be useful to clarify whether mtDNA sequencing or pathological diagnosis was correct, although it is highly unlikely that the same mitochondrial mutation may have occurred independently in primary breast cancer and CBC. In cases C13, C19 and C30, mtDNA analysis was in agreement with clinico-pathological classification, confirming the identification of metCBCs. In cases C8 and C27, where clinico-pathological criteria failed to be conclusive, the presence of the same tumor-specific mtDNA mutations in primary breast cancer and CBC allows to define the masses as metCBC.
Discussion
Although evidences for tumor clonality should be taken into consideration in the choice of treatment, in daily practice a CBC is considered as a new primary tumor, independent of the first breast cancer and to date no molecular methods are associated with routine iagnostic testing. A substantial literature in the past two decades points to the existence of a percentage of CBCs that are not a second primary but a clonal spread of the first neoplasia. However, patients diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer have a worse prognosis and a different treatment regimen compared to patients with localized disease. The use of pathological parameters is currently the gold standard method to reach a conclusion, but some inherent ambiguities regarding histotype and/or IHC bioprofiles (de Dueñas et al. 2014; Schrijver et al. 2018), tumor heterogeneity or evolution of metastases can complicate the analysis, justifying the implementation of adjuvant molecular techniques in the diagnostic routine.
In the search for clonality, there is no consensus on what is the biological phenomenon to take into consideration, and consequently which type of molecular data need be analyzed to gain the most informative results. Although the literature of the past years lists different molecular techniques, the majority of studies suggested the existence of a subset of cases (from 12 to 39%) in which CBCs resulted to have a metastatic origin. In recent years, WES and WGS have been applied to demonstrate the metastatic nature of recurrent tumors in a wide range of solid cancers, including breast cancer, through the detection of nuclear tumor-specific mutations (Ding et al. 2012, 2013; Haffner et al. 2013; Van Allen et al. 2014). These expensive techniques, particularly cumbersome in their data analysis, yielded indications for clonality in 10–22% of cases, according to whether cohorts of only metachronous, or both synchronous and metachronous tumors were investigated (Klevebring et al. 2015; Alkner et al. 2015; Biermann et al. 2018). Albeit ours was a pilot study, and the cohort relatively limited in size, mtDNA displayed a higher informative potential, reaching 26% within the metachronous-only cohort. Additional advantages of mtDNA sequencing are the need for small amount of DNA and the relative low cost, as well as the standardized protocol, which make this a robust method and a valid approach to infer clonality in clinically ambiguous cases. Furthermore, in genetic studies, the variants to consider to assess clonality need to be non-recurrent mutations in oncogenes to avoid hotspots. Concerning the somatic mtDNA variants, a large fraction reported in the databases such as HmtDB (Clima et al. 2017) and HmtVar (Preste et al. 2019) shows NV and allele frequencies from very low to zero, which implies that two independent masses diagnosed in a single patient may not acquire the same tumor-specific mtDNA mutation by chance. Interestingly, indeed, somatic mutations were shown to be maintained in metachronous tumors even when the time gap between the primary and the second neoplasia was large, such as in cases C5 and C9 (60–86 months, respectively). Such long interval may have caused clinico-pathological parameters to change, whereby the pathologists diagnosis differed from what the mtDNA indicated, suggesting caution must be used in classifying bilCBC based on the time interval between neoplasms.
In our cohort, using mtDNA sequencing, we have found 7/30 patients, diagnosed with two independent CBCs, to be affected by metastatic cancers, accounting for a relevant number of cases that may benefit from a proper diagnosis. In all informative cases, however, we observed the lack of mutations in the primary tumor exclusively, even when multiple changes occurred in the same patient. Conversely, additional mutations to the informative ones, whenever detected, were found in CBCs. This finding suggests that the latter mutations arose subsequently to metastatic spread, on the same mtDNA molecule where the co-occurring somatic variants were mapped. In cases presenting two informative changes, the latter were maintained in the contralateral neoplasia, suggesting they were on the same mtDNA molecule, further reinforcing the clonal origin of the secondary mass, as the probability of the occurrence of two identical somatic mutations is nearly null. Interestingly, 9/30 (30%) cases harbored mutations predicted to be pathogenic (Preste et al. 2019), the majority of which (60%) occurring exclusively in the CBC and only one variant belonging to the informative group of variants, i.e. those present in both paired tumors. Pathogenic mutations were of the missense type, rather than nonsense or frameshift, and 67% of them mapped in Complex I (CI) genes. As missense mutations in CI may cause reactive oxygen species (ROS) overproduction, and ROS were extensively shown to contribute to tumorigenesis (Sabharwal and Schumacker 2014; Moloney and Cotter 2018), this may be suggestive that accumulation of pathogenic mtDNA mutations may be favored in these cancers. Interestingly, only one of the informative mutations was pathogenic, suggesting that their functional relevance in the progression from primary to metastasis may be scarce, and these may well be bystander events that are carried forward during the cancer mass evolution.
It is worth noting that more than 1/3 of the mutations found (13/37) mapped within ribosomal RNA genes, RNR1 and RNR2, prevalently in the latter. For these mutations, a prediction of pathogenicity is not feasible, although their very low variability values are suggestive that they may be functionally relevant. In most cases, rRNA genes mutations contribute to a slow down of the mitochondrially encoded protein synthesis, which may in turn favor a slower replacement of dysfunctional respiratory complex subunits (Porcelli et al. 2016). On one hand, this process may constitute a vicious circle leading to an increase in ROS production, whereas on the other it may promote a pro-tumorigenic Warburg effect by keeping down oxidative phosphorylation. Although this remains to be proven, this may be particularly relevant in those cases harboring CI mutations along with rRNA somatic changes (Table 2).
In conclusion, the application of molecular techniques such as mtDNA analysis allowed the identification of a subset of patients with metastatic CBC. Compared with the use of current standard clinico-pathological classification of CBCs, mtDNA reveals a clonal origin in two cases of CBCs in disagreement with the clinico-pathological diagnosis, and increase the informative potential in cases where histopathological criteria fail to be conclusive. These findings have relevant implications in patient management. The presence of clonal tumors implies a worse prognosis, and distinguishing between a bilCBC and a metCBC is pivotal in determining the most appropriate therapeutic options. As the biology of metastatic cancers is being unraveled, the choice and interpretation of clinico-pathological markers will also require revision and will call for adjuvant molecular techniques easy to implement in diagnostic routines. MtDNA may find its place in such practices, as we previously demonstrated in gynecological malignancies (Guerra et al. 2011, 2014; Girolimetti et al. 2017; Perrone et al. 2018a).
Data availability
Mitochondrial DNA sequences were deposited in the public database GenBank (Accession numbers: MW172442 to MW172501).
References
Alkner S, Tang M-HE, Brueffer C et al (2015) Contralateral breast cancer can represent a metastatic spread of the first primary tumor: determination of clonal relationship between contralateral breast cancers using next-generation whole genome sequencing. Breast Cancer Res 17:102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-015-0608-x
Banelli B, Casciano I, Di Vinci A et al (2010) Pathological and molecular characteristics distinguishing contralateral metastatic from new primary breast cancer. Ann Oncol 21:1237–1242. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdp470
Bao L, Messer K, Schwab R et al (2015) Mutational Profiling Can Establish Clonal or Independent Origin in Synchronous Bilateral Breast and Other Tumors. PLoS ONE 10:e0142487. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0142487
Begg CB, Ostrovnaya I, Geyer FC et al (2018) Contralateral breast cancers: Independent cancers or metastases? Int J Cancer 142:347–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.31051
Biermann J, Parris TZ, Nemes S et al (2018) Clonal relatedness in tumour pairs of breast cancer patients. Breast Cancer Res 20:96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-018-1022-y
Brommesson S, Jönsson G, Strand C et al (2008) Tiling array-CGH for the assessment of genomic similarities among synchronous unilateral and bilateral invasive breast cancer tumor pairs. BMC Clin Pathol 8:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6890-8-6
Chaudary MA, Millis RR, Hoskins EO et al (1984) Bilateral primary breast cancer: a prospective study of disease incidence. Br J Surg 71:711–714
Chen Y, Thompson W, Semenciw R, Mao Y (1999) Epidemiology of contralateral breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 8:855–861
Clima R, Preste R, Calabrese C et al (2017) HmtDB 2016: data update, a better performing query system and human mitochondrial DNA haplogroup predictor. Nucleic Acids Res 45:D698–D706. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkw1066
Dawson PJ, Maloney T, Gimotty P et al (1991) Bilateral breast cancer: one disease or two? Breast Cancer Res Treat 19:233–244
de Dueñas EM, Hernández AL, Zotano ÁG et al (2014) Prospective evaluation of the conversion rate in the receptor status between primary breast cancer and metastasis: results from the GEICAM 2009–03 ConvertHER study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 143:507–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-013-2825-2
Ding L, Ley TJ, Larson DE et al (2012) Clonal evolution in relapsed acute myeloid leukaemia revealed by whole-genome sequencing. Nature 481:506–510. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10738
Ding Y, Leng J, Fan F et al (2013) The role of mitochondrial DNA mutations in hearing loss. Biochem Genet 51:588–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10528-013-9589-6
Elkhuizen PH, van de Vijver MJ, Hermans J et al (1998) Local recurrence after breast-conserving therapy for invasive breast cancer: high incidence in young patients and association with poor survival. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 40:859–867
Girolimetti G, De Iaco P, Procaccini M et al (2017) Mitochondrial DNA sequencing demonstrates clonality of peritoneal implants of borderline ovarian tumors. Mol Cancer 16:47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-017-0614-y
Goldstein NS, Kestin L, Vicini F (2003) Factors associated with ipsilateral breast failure and distant metastases in patients with invasive breast carcinoma treated with breast-conserving therapy. A clinicopathologic study of 607 neoplasms from 583 patients. Am J Clin Pathol 120:500–527. https://doi.org/10.1309/8941-VDAJ-MKY2-GCLX
Guerra F, Kurelac I, Magini P et al (2011) Mitochondrial DNA genotyping reveals synchronous nature of simultaneously detected endometrial and ovarian cancers. Gynecol Oncol 122:457–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.04.036
Guerra F, Girolimetti G, Perrone AM et al (2014) Mitochondrial DNA genotyping efficiently reveals clonality of synchronous endometrial and ovarian cancers. Mod Pathol 27:1412–1420. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2014.39
Haffner MC, Mosbruger T, Esopi DM et al (2013) Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Invest 123:4918–4922. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI70354
Haffty BG, Reiss M, Beinfield M et al (1996) Ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence as a predictor of distant disease: implications for systemic therapy at the time of local relapse. J Clin Oncol 14:52–57. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.1.52
Hartman M, Czene K, Reilly M et al (2007) Incidence and prognosis of synchronous and metachronous bilateral breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:4210–4216. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.10.5056
Huang E, Buchholz TA, Meric F et al (2002) Classifying local disease recurrences after breast conservation therapy based on location and histology: new primary tumors have more favorable outcomes than true local disease recurrences. Cancer 95:2059–2067. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.10952
Huang KT, Mikeska T, Li J et al (2015) Assessment of DNA methylation profiling and copy number variation as indications of clonal relationship in ipsilateral and contralateral breast cancers to distinguish recurrent breast cancer from a second primary tumour. BMC Cancer 15:669. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1676-0
Imyanitov EN, Kuligina ES (2020) Systemic investigations into the molecular features of bilateral breast cancer for diagnostic purposes. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 20:41–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2020.1705157
Imyanitov EN, Suspitsin EN, Grigoriev MY et al (2002) Concordance of allelic imbalance profiles in synchronous and metachronous bilateral breast carcinomas. Int J Cancer 100:557–564. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.10530
Intra M, Rotmensz N, Viale G et al (2004) Clinicopathologic characteristics of 143 patients with synchronous bilateral invasive breast carcinomas treated in a single institution. Cancer 101:905–912. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20452
Iommarini L, Calvaruso MA, Kurelac I et al (2013) Complex I impairment in mitochondrial diseases and cancer: parallel roads leading to different outcomes. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 45:47–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2012.05.016
Janschek E, Kandioler-Eckersberger D, Ludwig C et al (2001) Contralateral breast cancer: molecular differentiation between metastasis and second primary cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 67:1–8
Ju YS, Alexandrov LB, Gerstung M et al (2014) Origins and functional consequences of somatic mitochondrial DNA mutations in human cancer. Elife. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02935
Klevebring D, Lindberg J, Rockberg J et al (2015) Exome sequencing of contralateral breast cancer identifies metastatic disease. Breast Cancer Res Treat 151:319–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-015-3403-6
Komoike Y, Akiyama F, Iino Y et al (2005) Analysis of ipsilateral breast tumor recurrences after breast-conserving treatment based on the classification of true recurrences and new primary tumors. Breast Cancer 12:104–111
Liu J, Wang L-D, Sun Y-B et al (2012) Deciphering the signature of selective constraints on cancerous mitochondrial genome. Mol Biol Evol 29:1255–1261. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msr290
Moloney JN, Cotter TG (2018) ROS signalling in the biology of cancer. Semin Cell Dev Biol 80:50–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.05.023
Noguchi S, Motomura K, Inaji H et al (1994) Differentiation of primary and secondary breast cancer with clonal analysis. Surgery 115:458–462
Peralta EA, Ellenhorn JD, Wagman LD et al (2000) Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy improves the outcome of selected patients undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer. Am J Surg 180:439–445
Perrone AM, Girolimetti G, Cima S et al (2018a) Pathological and molecular diagnosis of bilateral inguinal lymph nodes metastases from low-grade endometrial adenocarcinoma: a case report with review of the literature. BMC Cancer 18:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3944-7
Perrone AM, Girolimetti G, Procaccini M et al (2018b) Potential for mitochondrial DNA sequencing in the differential diagnosis of gynaecological malignancies. Int J Mol Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19072048
Porcelli AM, Calvaruso MA, Iommarini L et al (2016) A unique combination of rare mitochondrial ribosomal RNA variants affects the kinetics of complex I assembly. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 75:117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2016.04.007
Preste R, Vitale O, Clima R et al (2019) HmtVar: a new resource for human mitochondrial variations and pathogenicity data. Nucleic Acids Res 47:D1202–D1210. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gky1024
Raymond JS, Hogue CJR (2006) Multiple primary tumours in women following breast cancer, 1973–2000. Br J Cancer 94:1745–1750. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6603172
Saad RS, Denning KL, Finkelstein SD et al (2008) Diagnostic and prognostic utility of molecular markers in synchronous bilateral breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 21:1200–1207. https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.2008.35
Sabharwal SS, Schumacker PT (2014) Mitochondrial ROS in cancer: initiators, amplifiers or an Achilles’ heel? Nat Rev Cancer 14:709–721. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc3803
Santorsola M, Calabrese C, Girolimetti G et al (2016) A multi-parametric workflow for the prioritization of mitochondrial DNA variants of clinical interest. Hum Genet 135:121–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00439-015-1615-9
Schlechter BL, Yang Q, Larson PS et al (2004) Quantitative DNA fingerprinting may distinguish new primary breast cancer from disease recurrence. J Clin Oncol 22:1830–1838. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.05.123
Schrijver WAME, Suijkerbuijk KPM, van Gils CH et al (2018) Receptor conversion in distant breast cancer metastases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JNCI J Nat Cancer Inst 110:568–580. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx273
Shibata A, Tsai YC, Press MF et al (1996) Clonal analysis of bilateral breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2:743–748
Teixeira MR, Ribeiro FR, Torres L et al (2004) Assessment of clonal relationships in ipsilateral and bilateral multiple breast carcinomas by comparative genomic hybridisation and hierarchical clustering analysis. Br J Cancer 91:775–782. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602021
Van Allen EM, Foye A, Wagle N et al (2014) Successful whole-exome sequencing from a prostate cancer bone metastasis biopsy. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 17:23–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2013.37
Funding
Open access funding provided by Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. This work was supported partly by Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC) Grant AMICO-IG22921, and by the Italian Ministry of Health Grant GR-2013-02356666 to G. Gasparre. G. Girolimetti is supported by a Fondazione Umberto Veronesi post-doctoral fellowship.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CC, GGas, and DS conceived the study. GGas and GGir contributed to the design of the experiments. GGir, LM, LBA and MM carried out the experiments. CC, ADL, SZ, MT and DS contributed to samples and clinical information collection. GGas, GGir, CC and DS drafted the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethics approval
This study was conducted within the frame of the BIL-BREAST 390/2019/Sper/AOUBo study, approved by the local ethical committee (Comitato Etico di Area Vasta Emilia Centro). All the procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Consent to participate
Consent to participate was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Girolimetti, G., Marchio, L., De Leo, A. et al. Mitochondrial DNA analysis efficiently contributes to the identification of metastatic contralateral breast cancers. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 147, 507–516 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03459-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03459-5