Abstract
On 8 December 2022 the organizing committee of the European Network for Breast Development and Cancer labs (ENBDC) held its fifth annual Think Tank meeting in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Here, we embraced the opportunity to look back to identify the most prominent breakthroughs of the past ten years and to reflect on the main challenges that lie ahead for our field in the years to come. The outcomes of these discussions are presented in this position paper, in the hope that it will serve as a summary of the current state of affairs in mammary gland biology and breast cancer research for early career researchers and other newcomers in the field, and as inspiration for scientists and clinicians to move the field forward.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
The mammary gland is an intricate organ responsible for lactation and nurturing of newborn mammalian offspring. However, it is also particularly susceptible to carcinogenesis and breast cancer continues to be one of the most prevalent and challenging health concerns worldwide, affecting millions of women. The last decade has yielded many new insights into the complex mechanisms underlying normal mammary gland development and breast tumorigenesis, but an even greater number of questions remain to be resolved.
For example, breast cancer incidence is affected by genetic factors as well as a range of non-genetic factors including steroid hormones, which are essential regulators of normal mammary gland development and physiology [1]. However, the relationship between hormones and breast cancer is complex and not fully understood. Excessive exposure to ovarian hormones has been associated with increased risk of developing breast cancer. In postmenopausal women, circulating estrogen levels have been linked to an increased risk of breast cancer [2] and to a less aggressive tumor phenotype [3]. Other members of the family of nuclear steroid hormone receptors, namely receptors for progesterone, glucocorticoids and androgens have also been implicated in breast cancer development and progression [4,5,6,7,8]. Patients with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (comprising > 70% of all cases) have a better prognosis than those with hormone receptor-negative tumors. On the other hand, hormone-dependent breast cancer results in a greater risk for long-term relapse that can sometimes occur decades after initial diagnosis [9].
Hence, it is clear that more research is needed to further our understanding of breast tissue in the healthy and diseased setting, specifically concerning (i) the molecular mechanisms underlying hormone receptor signaling and (crosstalk with) local, paracrine signaling pathways, (ii) the response of the different mammary epithelial and stromal cell types to these long-range and short-range signals at different developmental timepoints and menopausal stages, (iii) the impact of (epi) genetic heterogeneity on cell identity, lineage fidelity and plasticity, (iv) the response to treatment and the development of resistance, (v) the mechanisms underlying breast cancer dormancy, metastasis, and relapse, and finally (vi) the impact of lifestyle factors.
Five breakthroughs of the past decade
The 13 ENBDC committee members quickly reached a consensus on the greatest breakthroughs of the last decade. While some implicit bias cannot be excluded, there was unanimous agreement that the development and application of new technologies, in combination with key biological and clinical research questions, were the driving force behind new biomedical insights in most of these cases. Below, we highlight these breakthroughs, in no particular order.
Lineage tracing
While the 2000s saw the identification of the mammary stem cells, or more precisely the mammary repopulating units (often abbreviated as MRUs), as a subset of basal cells able to regenerate the entire mammary gland upon transplantation at limiting dilution [10, 11], the next decade challenged and changed our view of what defines a stem cell thanks to in situ lineage tracing experiments carried out in genetically engineered mouse models (GEMMs). The initial promise of these studies was that it would allow us to finally define the cellular hierarchy in the mammary epithelium. While tracing experiments have certainly begun to reveal some of the underlying principles and general rules for how the tissue is organized, especially when combined with mathematical modeling [12], they have first and foremost revealed considerable complexity and plasticity.
Inducible lineage tracing was late to arrive on the mammary gland scene as similar setups had been used successfully in the field of skin development and intestinal homeostasis for quite some time. Here, the fact that tamoxifen is typically used to induce Cre/lox mediated recombination of a reporter allele (which forms the basis for most lineage tracing studies to date) deserves special mention. After all, tamoxifen is an estrogen receptor (ER) antagonist that has been shown to affect stem cell content in the human breast [13]. High doses of tamoxifen also delay mammary gland growth during puberty, meaning that care should be taken when designing, executing and interpreting these experiments [14, 15].
The first lineage tracing studies in mice [15,16,17,18,19] were of a qualitative nature, using specific promoters to label defined populations of cells. Some of these were lineage markers (for instance Krt14 and Krt8 for basal and luminal cells, respectively). Others were designed to label a specific population of stem cells (e.g. WNT-responsive stem cells marked by Axin2CreERT2) or other cell subsets (e.g. specific luminal progenitors with Notch2CreERT2 or Notch3CreERT2). It was not until later that the studies became more quantitative, thanks to the use of multicolor reporter alleles, doxycycline-inducible models and the inclusion of statistical modeling [20, 21].
Collectively, the high number of lineage tracing studies performed to date provide strong evidence that under homeostatic conditions, the basal and luminal epithelial layers of the postnatal mouse mammary gland are maintained by unipotent progenitors, although rare bipotent Procr expressing progenitor cells have been reported [22]. Cells expressing PROCR or part of a mouse-derived Procr gene signature have also been identified in the human breast [23, 24], but if and how they contribute to tissue homeostasis remains unknown. Unipotency has also been shown for the ERα-positive (ER+) and -negative (ER−) luminal subsets, which represent two independent and self-sustained lineages [25, 26]. Of note, unbiased or neutral lineage tracing studies that allow either the use of low levels of tamoxifen (in combination with a ‘generic’ driver such as Rosa26CreERT2) or that bypass the use of a chemical inducer altogether, by using sporadic slippage in the Rosa26[CA]30 model, have since confirmed these findings [21, 27, 28].
Several observations are seemingly at odds with this strict separation of basal and luminal progenitors, such as the finding that mammary epithelial cells harbor tremendous plasticity and that bipotency can be reactivated under certain circumstances. For example, transplantation unlocks a regenerative potential in unipotent basal and luminal cells that does not appear to be used under normal physiological conditions, when it is apparently kept in check by cell-to-cell communication between the basal and luminal compartments [17, 26, 29, 30]. Similarly, oncogenic mutations, activation of “stemness” pathways or paracrine signaling from senescent cells can induce features of multipotency in both basal and luminal cells [31,32,33]. Each of these facultative behaviors may reflect (partial) dedifferentiation to an embryonic state, as the fetal mammary anlage is formed by multipotent precursors. Lineage restriction converts these multipotent cells into unipotent progenitors during later stages of embryonic development [34], but how multipotency is restricted or induced in each of these settings remains poorly understood.
If and how these findings translate to the human breast remains to be determined. Here too, there is some evidence of region-specific, multipotent progenitors [35], but for obvious reasons the options for in situ lineage tracing in humans are limited. Some efforts have been made using sporadic mutations in the mitochondrial genome to identify rare clonal events [36], but these studies are far from painting a comprehensive picture. Plasticity has also been observed in human breast cancer stem cells (CSCs), enabling them to transition between epithelial-like and mesenchymal-like states regulated by tumor cell-intrinsic mechanisms [37], the tumor microenvironment [38] or a hypoxic niche [39]. These transitions may reflect the CSC behavior, as observed by elegant intravital lineage tracing experiments in unperturbed mouse mammary tumors [40].
Taken together, as in most other tissues [41,42,43], mammary stem and progenitor cell behavior can vary depending on the cell state as well as the spatial, environmental and temporal context. Unfortunately, the in situ visualization of homeostatic cell turnover as well as early, oncogene-induced changes in cell behavior are impeded by the rare nature of these events. Moreover, most clonal tracing analyses have been limited to the static analysis of fixed tissues with a single endpoint analysis per animal and therefore, the dynamic changes in developmental cell state and facultative or oncogene-induced cell plasticity remain poorly understood. Thus, a need remains for real-time, unbiased in vivo lineage tracing experiments to reveal how tracked cells maintain or alter their fate, position and behavior. Ongoing developments in intravital imaging and the use of explant cultures in combination with time-lapse microscopy promise increased temporal resolution. Combining these approaches with unbiased marking of individual cells using unique, heritable barcodes, will allow the simultaneous attribution of clonal fate and gene expression in a time-resolved manner [44].
Single cell analyses
While tracing experiments essentially collapse a continuum of cell states into a binary event (i.e. a cell either recombines a reporter allele or not), single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) data have revealed more continuous lineage differentiation trajectories and more complexity than previously appreciated. Of course, this particular breakthrough is not unique or specific for breast (cancer) research. Most biologists have become familiar with t-SNE and UMAP plots for dimensionality reduction, allowing cells to be grouped according to their gene expression profiles. Other single cell omics (ATACseq, ChIPseq, etc.) and multiomics technologies (to obtain simultaneous RNA expression and epigenetic information from the same individual cell) will provide further insight into cell state and cell fate decision making [45, 46].
After publication of the first comprehensive scRNAseq studies of the mouse mammary gland in 2017 [47, 48], the field has expanded rapidly. As a result, we now have access to combined single-cell gene expression and chromatin accessibility profiles of basal and luminal mouse mammary epithelial lineages [49,50,51], human lactating epithelial cells [52, 53], normal and (pre-)cancerous human breast cells [23, 54], as well as fibroblasts and immune cells in the breast tumor microenvironment [55,56,57]. Single-cell sequencing also yielded an unprecedented view of the cellular heterogeneity underlying metastasis and resistance to treatment [58, 59]. Interestingly, computational analysis of scRNAseq data has also suggested the presence of bipotent progenitors in the human breast [60], although this still awaits experimental validation.
At present, lineage trajectories inferred from single-cell sequencing data have the downside of losing spatial information as, inevitably, tissue dissociation is necessary to obtain single cell suspensions for these molecular analyses. Ideally, one would be able to overlay the transcriptomic profile with the physical location of a cell. Given that mammary gland branching morphogenesis is non-stereotypic and human ductolobular morphology is diverse, this will likely have to wait until spatial transcriptomics becomes feasible at subcellular resolution.
In mouse mammary tumor models, scRNAseq and scATACseq can be combined with the aforementioned barcode-based lineage tracing to assess clonal dynamics, tumor heterogeneity, clonal competition, as well as to provide insights into the cell of origin and oncogene-induced plasticity. In human cancer, single cell sequencing studies are currently the best way to infer the hierarchical organization and clonal history of tumors, based on the accumulation of mutations in different tumor cell clones [61]. However, these approaches indirectly infer clonality using algorithms affected by clone size, copy number variations, sequencing coverage, biopsy sample and low tumor purity. Thus, at present these methods are useful for comprehending the molecular landscape of breast cancer, but they largely lack lineage information. Moreover, inferring the age of a clone by its mutational repertoire may be complicated by the highly heterogeneous nature and genomic instability of different tumor cells [62,63,64,65].
So far, many of these single-cell studies remain largely descriptive and have yielded limited novel insights. While the Human Breast Atlas aims to arrive at an integrated picture [66], there is certainly room for the larger community of breast (cancer) researchers to join forces. Ultimately, multidisciplinary approaches are needed to develop best practices and to interpret the vast amount of multimodal data. Only then will we be able to increase our understanding and functional interpretation of the spatiotemporal dynamics and complexity of the (tumor) tissue with the promise of improving breast cancer treatment.
New models
The 2010s also saw new experimental models being developed, although these have yet to reach their full potential. Probably the greatest progress was seen in the area of breast cancer patient-derived xenografts (PDX) or orthotopic xenografts (PDOX). These new models of breast cancer are closer to patients’ tumors, remain genetically stable over multiple generations, represent many of the human breast cancer subtypes, can give rise to patient derived xenograft organoids (PDXO) and, in many senses, are thus superior to existing cell line models [67,68,69,70,71].
The original moonshot was that these PDX platforms would allow co-clinical trials in which every breast cancer patient would get their own PDX ‘avatar’. This approach might not be achievable for everyone in the long term, due to low take rates and growth rates of some breast cancer subtypes, but a repertoire of different tumor subtypes capturing sufficient diversity of the tumors encountered in the clinic is within reach. Indeed, the concerted efforts of different academic consortia such as the National Cancer Institute (NCI) PDXNet, EurOPDX and the International Breast Cancer PDX consortium have resulted in a (still growing) collection of over 500 stably transplantable PDX models representing all three clinical subtypes of breast cancer (ER + , HER2 + , and "triple-negative" (TNBC) breast cancer) [67, 68]. Many of these models have also been characterized for genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic features, metastatic behavior, and treatment response to a variety of standard of care and experimental treatments. The establishment of these models in breast cancer, particularly for the more indolent hormone receptor positive breast tumors has not been an easy task. Improved immunodeficient mouse strains and transplantation conditions (i.e. intraductal injection of tumor cells) have resulted in increased take rates of ER + breast cancers [72]. Organoid and PDX models produced by academic groups are available to the breast cancer research community (although national legislation may restrict their export) and can be identified online through the patient-derived cancer model finder [73] and the EurOPDX platform (https://www.europdx.eu). In the UK, the Breast Cancer Now tissue bank provides researchers access to primary cells and tissues [74].
The PDX models have been used to study tumor biology, test novel (combination) treatments, identify and validate response biomarkers, and uncover resistance mechanisms, to the point that they have become essential platforms for advancing precision oncology [75]. However, PDX models lack a functional immune system, and even though tumors can be xenografted into humanized mice, they do not fully recapitulate human immunity – thus limiting their application in immune-oncology research [76].
Complementary to PDX models, GEMMs have remained a valuable tool to study mammary gland development and cancer. However, a clear need was stated to expand the (preclinical) model space, given the difficulties for translating discoveries made in GEMMs (including the lineage tracing studies) to the human setting. This may be, in part, due to differences in mammary biology between mice and humans. Additionally, some of the most widely used GEMMs, such as the MMTV-Wnt1 or the MMTV-PyMT models, develop mammary tumors that have no direct human counterpart. To illustrate: MMTV-PyMT mice develop hormone receptor-negative papillary carcinomas that are rare in humans [77, 78]. Yet it has been mouse models on which we largely base our understanding of the stem and progenitor cell hierarchy and the cells of origin for breast cancer – and it is from these models that we infer how the human breast tissue develops and behaves.
We still lack a robust and tractable system in which we can experimentally manipulate and study healthy human breast cells in a 3D tissue context. Mouse organoid cultures have been around for decades and as such pre-date the organoid revolution of the past decade [79, 80]. Typically, these mammary organoid cultures were transient and short lived [81,82,83], but new protocols allow long-term expansion [84] and advanced control over complex branching morphogenesis and lactogenic differentiation [85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93]. In the wake of the global organoid revolution, healthy human breast organoid cultures (started from reduction mammoplasties) did follow suit [94,95,96]. However, virtually everyone who has ever tried these cultures, agrees that there is room for significant improvements. For example, the fact that most protocols require the addition of more than 10 different growth factors, makes regular passaging far from simple and also bears the risk of activating signaling pathways that may not be physiological and can bias results. Also, for some of these growth factors, there is little to no understanding of the target cell type and/or the mechanistic effect of the targeted signaling pathway on cell behavior and identity. Moreover, unlike cultures from inbred mouse strains, human breast organoid cultures show considerable variation from donor to donor and even within-donor variation, depending on the vial that is thawed. Efforts to improve these culture protocols are warranted since there is much to gain in the ease with which primary human breast organoids can be used for genetic and pharmacological manipulation. In fact, improvement of organoid technology is likely the only viable option to delineate the dynamics of cell–cell interactions in human breast tissue.
Tumor heterogeneity
The concept of breast cancer heterogeneity in itself is not new [97], but these days we get to witness this diversity in unprecedented detail. The first reports on the genomic landscape of human breast cancers illustrated the considerable heterogeneity in individual tumors. The identification of the intrinsic molecular breast cancer subtypes (HER2 + , luminal A, luminal B, basal-like and normal-like) based on gene expression patterns [98, 99] and the prognostic gene signatures that separated low from high-risk breast cancers [100,101,102] initiated an era of high-throughput studies on the molecular profiles of breast cancers. The METABRIC study [103] profiled nearly 2000 human breast cancers and used combined clustering of DNA copy-number variation and transcriptomics to identify 10 new subgroups (or integrated clusters) that only partially overlapped with the previously identified intrinsic subtypes [98, 99]. This rich data source, and others that followed [104,105,106,107,108], are far from being exhausted and can be expected to be a source for hypothesis generation for years to come.
The association of distinct molecular breast cancer subtypes with clinical outcomes [99, 101] provided new opportunities for tumor classification and prognostic tools. The use of such data has now been incorporated into clinical decision-making. In multiple countries, gene expression-based assays such as Prosigna (which uses the 50 genes known as the PAM50 classifier [100, 109], Blueprint (based on an 80-gene signature [110]), Oncotype DX (a qRT-PCR based assay that uses 16 prognostic and 5 reference genes [111]) and Mammaprint (a customized microarray based on a 70-gene signature [101, 112, 113]), are being used to help decide if adjuvant treatments are needed to reduce risk of recurrence after surgery.
Effective treatment is complicated by the fact that tumor heterogeneity does not only occur between patients, but also within a given patient, between primary and metastatic lesions [114], and even within a single lesion [115]. Tumor heterogeneity also evolves during disease progression and treatment [116,117,118]. As such, heterogeneity affects breast cancer treatment at multiple levels: it complicates diagnosis, makes it hard to identify effective treatment, and it defies therapy, thus leading to resistance [119].
New drugs have entered the clinic
While the last decade did not see new miracle treatments, multiple new drug development initiatives made their way to clinical care. This is a major improvement after the introduction of endocrine therapy more than 45 years ago, when tamoxifen was approved in the United States for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Since then, it has been the first-line endocrine agent for the treatment of ER + breast cancer, contributing to a dramatic reduction in breast cancer mortality [120]. However, a meta-analysis involving almost 63,000 women showed that after 5 years of adjuvant endocrine therapy, breast cancer recurrences continued to appear, with risk increasing over 40% in some cases during a 5–20 year follow-up [9]. This highlights the need for improved therapies that prevent or reduce the development of resistance to current forms of treatment, with the development and use of aromatase inhibitors addressing this concern to some extent [121,122,123].
While endocrine therapy or anti-HER2 treatment offers specific, guided treatment for a group of patients, patients with TNBC (lacking ER, PR and HER2 expression) still receive (neo) adjuvant chemotherapy. And while this approach is effective in eradicating the primary tumor, it is accompanied by high toxicity, and distant recurrences still arise [124]. Some argued that the introduction of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, which are now also increasingly used for the treatment of BRCA-deficient tumors [125], should be considered a breakthrough. Others held the opinion that PARP inhibitors should still be considered a low-dose chemotherapy, as their working mechanisms are not that different from classical topoisomerase inhibitors [126].
It should be noted that other new treatments, including BCL-2 homology domain 3 (BH3) mimetics, or Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) and AKT Serine/Threonine Kinase (AKT) inhibitors, have also been successfully introduced – and these are all examples of targeted therapies that are rationally designed and aimed at specific molecular nodes in the tumor. Cyclin dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors, which are now regarded as standard of care for first line advanced ER + /HER2- breast cancer are a good example [127]. At the same time, it should not come as a surprise that, here too, intrinsic and acquired resistance to treatment is being encountered [128].
Stimulation of anti-tumor immunity via immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) such as anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-CTLA-4 has proven successful for several tumor types, but results in breast cancer are still modest. Nevertheless, immune checkpoint therapy is bringing hope for some TNBC patients, as shown by the phase III IMpassion130 and phase IIb ALICE trials, but only in combination with a cytotoxic chemotherapy [129,130,131]. Delineating why some TNBC patients respond and others do not is thus warranted and may lead to improved predictive biomarkers for patient selection. Several combination therapies have been reported to boost the response of TNBC to ICI in preclinical models, but they still require clinical validation [132].
Other developments lie in more refined methods of treating HER2-positive and HER2-low tumors, using bispecific antibodies or antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) that deliver a chemotherapy payload, such as trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-Dxd) [133,134,135]. ADCs also hold promise for TNBC [136]. For example, the trophoblast cell surface antigen 2 (TOP2)-directed ADCs Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) and Datopotamab deruxtecan (Dato-DXd) have shown strong and durable responses in patients with metastatic TNBC, resulting in regulatory approval of SG [137]. Other ADCs are likely to follow soon for use in the adjuvant and neo-adjuvant setting in all sub-types of breast cancer.
Five challenges for the next decade
As usual, with every new breakthrough or insight, new challenges arise. Inspired by the theme of the 2022 Amsterdam Light Festival (‘Imagine Beyond’, Fig. 1) we also reflected on the main challenges that lie ahead for our field in the years to come. We identified the following areas in which new discoveries, technological improvements and translational efforts are direly needed.
Models, assays and platforms
Although this challenge is certainly not unique to mammary gland biology research, the need for faithful models is a key demand for breast cancer. This is due to its notorious complexity resulting from both the inter-tumor and intra-tumor heterogeneity already mentioned above. Patient stratification will become more important as more refined and targeted therapies become available. The lack of realistic models is also a challenge for pre-clinical research and the development of these new treatments. Presently, only about 5% of the anti-cancer agents that undergo preclinical testing are ultimately approved. Many new drugs fail on the way to the market because pre-clinical assays are often a gross misrepresentation of human tumor physiology. Current drug discovery pipelines are still based on simplified tumor cell cultures and animal models, with simplicity, robustness and speed typically trumping relevant complexity and heterogeneity. The time is right to address this gap. So how can and should we account for this in our diagnostic and testing platforms?
We have learnt about the importance of 3D cultures of human breast tissue, both for studying healthy breast and breast cancer biology [94,95,96]. However, those with hands-on experience agree on the unwieldiness and shortcomings of the current experimental systems. First, the breast (cancer) organoid culture medium is very rich, and yet, the most common ER + tumors often do not grow well under these conditions. Why? Second, possible interactions with inhibitors in the medium need to be carefully considered both when performing drug screens in tumor cultures and when investigating normal breast biology in reduction mammoplasty cultures. The effects of an experimental treatment can be smaller than the inter-donor variation, especially at the transcriptomic level. Other aspects that need to be considered are microenvironment components, including stromal cells, and the extracellular matrix, in addition to the influence of stiffness and other mechanical signals [138]. In the tumor context, alterations in regulatory crosstalk between tumor cells and the tumor microenvironment, with an emphasis on tumor immune surveillance, are especially worthy of attention. In summary, improved human models of normal breast biology and breast cancer are required to develop and select effective treatments for patients, to validate new drugs and to explore the physiology of normal developmental stages in order to improve cancer prevention measures.
At present, the main challenges to improve 3D human breast organoid cultures will be to understand the role of individual growth factors and different extracellular matrix components. In each of these cases, the specific goal should be to maintain cell identity, hormone responsiveness and 3D tissue architecture and function. In addition, can we define more specific culture media for different breast cancer subtypes? Can we generate new cell lines representing all stages and subtypes? As a start, an international effort to generate several normal human breast cell lineages has recently been initiated via the ENBDC. Also, can we develop more long-term faithful (tissue-slice) explant cultures, and use advanced microfluidics for controlled and better engineered microenvironments? Can we use induced pluripotent stem cells as a starting point to understand and then control differentiation and lineage identity of human epithelial and stromal mammary gland cell types? And, when we also consider further improvement of our in vivo models, can we faithfully recapitulate tumor immunity in humanized PDX mice? Development of these new technologies requires significant innovation and multidisciplinary efforts. To arrive at a mechanistic understanding of the processes involved at the molecular and cellular level, the downstream analyses should ideally incorporate artificial intelligence and mathematical modelling to integrate multimodal data and to improve algorithms that extract and combine information from different sources and across different scales to reveal both the governing principles of breast (cancer) biology and grasp the variability that is present in the human population.
Minimal residual disease and dormancy
Minimal residual disease (MRD) is defined as a reservoir of resistant cells that manage to evade cancer therapy and persist in the tissue for a longer time period before they progress to form a recurrent tumor [139]. Cancer cells can escape dormancy even up to decades after the initial treatment [140]. As such, it is estimated that MRD is the reason behind many incurable relapses, including the aforementioned recurrence of disease after a seemingly complete response to endocrine therapy in ER + patients [9]. The phenomenon of MRD is understudied – and for very obvious reasons: MRD is not accessible for direct functional analysis in patients due to the small number of these cells and the current lack of any clear markers to identify them within the patient tissue.
Due to the cryptic nature of MRD in patients, animal models that faithfully recapitulate human tumorigenesis and permit the study of MRD are the current method of choice to understand mechanisms of recurrence [141]. To follow therapy outcome and tumor regression longitudinally, organoid culture techniques—used in conjunction with GEMMs—have opened up multi-omic analysis avenues for characterizing MRD. The identified molecular hallmarks of MRD could be verified in mouse models and patient samples obtained after neo-adjuvant therapy [142].
From these analyses it has become clear that tumor cell plasticity, rather than specific genetic mutations, define the nature of MRD. This is perhaps not unexpected given the prominent role that non-genetic variation and adaptability play in all aspects of development and disease. It does underscore, however, that to understand tumor cell behavior and oncogenic memory we need to consider various layers of regulation, necessitating the need for more data – from genome-wide DNA methylation analyses to metabolomics.
Of note, while all sparse, remaining dormant tumor cells can be considered MRD, not all MRD cells are necessarily dormant. In fact, some are actively growing and in this case, the immune system seems capable of capturing and killing them [143]. As such, dormancy may be apparent at either the tumor or the cellular level: In tumor mass dormancy, cancer cell proliferation is offset by cell death due to immune surveillance and/or insufficient vascularization without a net increase in tumor cell number [23, 52,53,54]. True cellular dormancy, on the other hand, occurs when disseminated cells (i.e., cells that have reached a metastatic site) are arrested in the G0 phase of the cell cycle and resistant to host defenses and therapy. Thus, an interplay between reversible quiescence and immune evasion might contribute to MRD surveillance and tumor relapse.
It is important to realize that the same molecular and cellular properties thought to underlie MRD and dormancy can be applied to the concept of cancer stem cells (CSCs). While their role and identity also still remain poorly understood [144, 145], cells with properties of stem cells can resist current forms of therapy, including radiation [146], chemotherapy [147] and hormone therapy [148], facilitating development of tumor recurrence. While it is currently unclear how far MRD and dormancy should be interpreted in this context, as always it is important to let biological understanding and not semantics drive the discussion. In either case, we need a better grasp of oncogenic memory as pertains to the distinct signaling and metabolic states detected in both treatment refractory cells and the initial tumor [149].
What will it take to identify and target these persisting cells? If we cannot eradicate them, can we at least make sure they maintain a state of dormancy? For this, we need to understand what and where these cells are and which mechanisms allow some cells to persist after treatment. Clearly, there are multiple cellular control mechanisms that we do not understand – and therefore our analyses should include all of them; from small RNA species to different posttranslational modifications on histones and signaling proteins. How important is the local niche in the different metastatic sites? Which signals determine if these persisting cells continue to lie dormant or become active again, thus tipping the balance to overt metastasis? What determines the switch between invasive and non-invasive proliferative states? What are the influences of life-style factors in these processes? Answering these and related questions will probably require a combination of organoids from GEMMs and patient organoids that include stromal components (i.e. fibroblasts and immune cells) for mechanistic analyses and serial passaging or transplantation to monitor the tumor initiating capacity typically associated with cancer stem cell identity. In addition, there is a need for longitudinal monitoring of treatment impact in breast cancer patients (for example by measuring cell free tumor DNA), as well as better access to patient material at different stages post therapy including post mortem samples to get insight into MRD – which also requires more sensitive probes and biomarkers to capture tumor cell shedding and monitor MRD.
Breast cancer as a systemic disease
As is the case with other cancers, breast cancer patients ultimately do not succumb to the primary tumor, but to the burden of distant metastases. For this reason, breast cancer should be seen as a systemic disease. In addition, metastatic niches (in the case of breast cancer these are bone, brain, lung and liver) differ considerably in stiffness and local signaling factors. Here too, the aforementioned intra- and inter-tumor heterogeneity influences seeding and colonization at distant sites. It is a relatively recent insight that the tumor microenvironment, at either the primary or the metastatic site, as well as feed-forward loops between metastatic cancer cells and their microenvironment, also open up opportunities for therapy, including that of tumors that are resistant to immunotherapy [150,151,152].
One challenging insight is the finding that metastasis can be an early event [153, 154], as recently shown by the identification of mutations in the sodium channel NALCN that promote epithelial cell shedding independently of oncogenic transformation [155]. Early dissemination of disease, as individual (or clusters of) circulating tumor cells, has been detected in the bloodstream and linked to metastatic potential [156]. Of note, increased shedding of tumor cells was recently shown to occur during sleep, with timing of intravasation affecting the metastatic potential of the circulating tumor cells [157]. Systemic signals, including steroid hormone and growth factor signaling, were implied to affect the dynamics of metastasis. This situation could have major implications for clinical treatment regimens, as critical and specific events in tumor biology (such as tumor cell shedding and invasion) should ideally be targeted and treated when they occur.
There are obvious challenges in studying these systemic aspects of breast cancer. First, how do we incorporate them in our experimental models? The circadian rhythm and other aspects of physiology – such as aging, diet, stress and inflammation – can be included as experimental variables in in vivo models – and probably should. At the same time, one might wonder how well these models currently recapitulate human physiology. As just one example, it has been notoriously difficult to model ER + breast cancer in GEMMs, which is why some labs are now – also aided by the developments in genome editing technology – switching to rats [158, 159].
At present, the best we can aim for with our existing human organoid models is to include stromal cell components to model different microenvironments. Other variables are not so easy to implement. For the time being, animal studies are therefore unlikely to be phased out in their entirety. In fact, transgenic mini pigs were also mentioned as a relevant translational model with unmet potential – and many related models could be used and adopted if we broaden our perspective.
In the end, the best model system may be an actual human. Probing individual patients will require more sophisticated liquid biopsy sampling methods and novel biomarkers. With new digital technologies, smart wearables, and a population willing to contribute to citizen science, we are likely to gather more detailed and more diverse metadata related to overall physiology and lifestyle of the general population, as well as the breast cancer-patient population specifically. Ultimately, we might be able to correlate these epidemiological data to breast cancer risk and progression. Proving causality and mechanism, on the other hand, will require an understanding of how these factors interact with a person’s individual (epi)genomic make-up and biochemistry, including hormone biosynthesis pathways. Here, we are challenged with linking these macro-level observations to the as of yet incompletely understood molecular information contained in SNPs and expression quantitative trait loci [160,161,162,163,164,165]. We are also still in the dark as to if and how the human breast microbiome impacts on the onset and progression of breast cancer [166, 167]. Only once we understand how the interplay between environmental or lifestyle factors and the (epi)genome influence individual breast cancer risk and development, we might truly enter the realm of breast cancer prevention.
Prevention and early detection
As the saying goes, “prevention is better than cure”. This definitely holds true for cancer, and is the main reason for offering breast cancer screening in high income countries to detect abnormalities as early as possible. The implementation of such nation-wide screening protocols is at least partially responsible for the rise in breast cancer incidence, as it allows early lesions to be detected before they become palpable. While this allows quick and immediate clinical intervention, the question is whether all of these lesions would have progressed to malignant disease. Provided we live sufficiently long, multiple neoplastic lesions will naturally appear in the body as we age [168]. On the other end of the scale, some tumors can escape detection even with these screening protocols in place. Examples are rapidly growing interval breast cancers or tumors that develop in young women who are not yet eligible for screening. So, what determines if and how a tumor develops? Is it the order and the nature of the oncogenic events? The cells of origin? Tumor cell plasticity and/or heterogeneity? The tumor micro- and macroenvironment? Does mild, non-neutral competition play a role in allowing pre-cancerous cells to slowly but surely take over an entire field [169]? If so, what is keeping these cells in check at that stage?
Then there is the very basic question whether all breast cancers arise from luminal cells. No consensus has yet been reached here, although it was widely acknowledged that the luminal progenitor has been crystallizing as the main cell of origin in mouse models of breast cancer. Of note, expressing the PIK3CA oncogene in either basal or luminal cells induced plasticity [32, 33]. The fact that lineage conversion is also known to occur in the presence of epigenetic driver mutations [170], suggests that loss of lineage fidelity may be a prominent step in breast oncogenesis – although it remains to be determined if it necessarily needs to be an early or late event. In either case, it is clear that hybrid cell states exist in breast tumors. We should also consider that even our experimental procedures, such as tissue digestion and cell dissociation, may induce changes in cell state.
Assuming that most human tumors arise from a luminal progenitor, what is the relative contribution of myoepithelial and stromal cells in keeping these cells in check and preventing invasion? In humans, microglandular adenosis has been found to be a non-obligate precursor of TNBC [171]. These rare, preneoplastic lesions have typically lost the myoepithelial cell layer, but still contain a basement membrane. Few ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions will transition to invasive breast cancer, and there is still much debate around which criteria should be used to assess the risk for disease progression. At present, some high-risk lesions are still scored as low risk and vice versa, resulting in either under- or overtreatment. Especially for low-risk TNBC, the possibilities for de-escalating chemotherapy should be further studied [172].
Many of these questions warrant a broader societal and political debate, as the classical pathological pipeline is likely to persist. Typically, diagnostics and clinical practice are robust and conservative. Although molecular subtyping assays are increasingly used, and their clinical efficacy is demonstrated through results from multi-year prospective clinical trials such as TAILORx [173], RASTER [174] and MINDACT [175], transcription-based profiling has not become mainstream. The information provided by more traditional means of tumor evaluation (i.e. immunohistochemical and pathological classification) still forms the main basis for selecting therapy in many countries, with the risk of both overtreating and undertreating a subset of breast cancer patients [176, 177]. Challenges therefore remain in not only our understanding of the link (or lack thereof) between defined histological and specific molecular subtypes, but also in making sure that state-of-the-art screening and clinical decision making becomes available across the globe to people of all cultures and backgrounds. In the long term, this will not only improve the quality of life for individual patients, but may also prove to be the most cost-effective [178]. In the end, the added value that will ultimately drive implementation of these new findings is likely to be of economical nature, as observed for the introduction of HPV vaccination in both high- and low-income countries [179,180,181].
As both the general public and breast cancer patients become more empowered, there will also be a growing role for patient advocates in raising awareness. One example is that a growing number of women know to ask for alternatives to mammographic screening once they become aware that they have dense breasts, in which cancerous lesions are much more difficult to detect. In general, we need to understand more about the biology of breast density, as there is clearly more to the story than difficulties in detection alone [175]. As an obvious aside, there is room for improvement in breast cancer screening methods to begin with: X-ray mammography is effective, but many women will welcome improvements (or alternatives such as tomography or MRI) that make the experience slightly less unpleasant [182].
Building bridges to cross the divide
While in-depth domain-specific knowledge will continue to be the foundation for future progress, we need to exchange information and collaborate across disciplines in order to flourish. Experimental biologists need to talk to bioinformaticians and computational biologists to make smart use of the vast amount of data that is already publicly available, with a growing need to integrate different data modalities from different platforms. Academic scientists need to meet clinicians, mouse biologists need to talk to those studying the human tissue and basic researchers need to interact with those translating findings to the clinic. This is already becoming increasingly common in many research environments and several European institutes have shared their experiences on how such interactions can be improved [183]. At the same time, these types of multidisciplinary efforts are still not the norm.
For example, the finding that ER + stem cells were found to exist using in vivo lineage tracing experiments in mice, fascinates at least some human biologists since this could provide a possible explanation for the large over-representation of ER + tumors in women. Specifically, long-lived cells are required to accumulate all of the mutations needed to transform a cell. The in vivo lineage tracing studies show that, at least in the mouse, such long-lived, lineage-restricted ER + stem cells really do exist. Virtually all human ER + tumors contain a specific chromosomal rearrangement (der(1;16) or trisomy 1q), caused by recombination between repeats at the centromeres of chromosomes 1 and 16 [184]. If this translocation, possibly induced as a result of hypomethylation of the pericentromeric satellite repeat regions [185], were to bias the lineage to produce more lineage-restricted ER + cells, we would have a plausible explanation for the formation of ER + tumors in humans. Attempts to produce ER + tumors in the mouse by expressing mutant PIK3CA specifically in lineage-traced luminal cells did not produce the human pattern of mainly ER + tumors, but mice do not, and indeed never could, model the der(1;16) translocation because of the different structure of their chromosomes.
We also have lots of work to do when it comes to standardizing (and redefining) our nomenclature. This is especially true now that the developmental complexity of the mouse mammary gland and the human breast are being resolved at single cell resolution [66]. Here, we need to integrate this information with our existing categorizations of different cell populations, which are largely based on FACS sorting and immunohistochemistry. In addition, there is also much to be gained in our understanding of if and how the histopathological definitions and immunohistochemical subtyping (i.e. ‘standard’ staining for ER, PR, HER2 and KI67, sometimes supplemented with KRT5/KRT6 and/or EGFR) relate to the different molecular categorizations. A basic researcher, familiar with molecular subtyping, will likely close Rosen’s Breast Pathology [186] feeling overwhelmed and confused by more than 1300 pages of detailed histology. At the same time, they may still occasionally mix up the terms TNBC and basal-like breast cancer, while clinicians are well aware that at least five different subtypes of TNBC exist, each with distinct histological features and opportunities for treatment [187, 188].
Even the simple terms ‘basal’ and ‘luminal’ can be ground for confusion [189]: Histologically, they can refer to the outer (i.e. stroma adjacent) and inner (i.e. lumen adjacent) layers of the mammary gland epithelium, respectively. Often, the word ‘basal’ is used interchangeably with ‘myoepithelial’ – but while all myoepithelial cells are basal, not all basal cells are necessarily myoepithelial. In a human tumor context, however, the term ‘basal-like’ does not reflect the location or for that matter the cell of origin of the tumor (human basal-like breast cancers certainly are not myoepitheliomas). Rather, basal-like breast tumors are classified as such because they (also) express genes that are typically active in basal, rather than luminal mammary epithelial cells (e.g. KRT5 and KRT17) [99]. The terminology of ‘basal’ (i.e. typically expressed by basal cells in stratified epithelia) and ‘luminal’ (i.e. typically associated with simple epithelia) keratins goes back multiple decades [190]. Of note, while many GEMMs use basal (Krt14 or Krt5) and luminal (Krt8) promoters to specifically mark the respective outer and inner layers of the mammary epithelium, keratin staining in the human breast is not sufficient to distinguish basal and luminal cells and additional staining with a specific basal marker such as TP63 and a luminal marker such as MUC1 should be included [191, 192].
Summary and outlook
Ultimately, all of the aspects discussed above need to be combined if we are to build a platform for clinical decision making based on which we can link the tumor genotype and/or phenotype to a specific response to treatment – and offer the appropriate treatment to that specific patient in turn. As an integral and essential part of this, it also remains critical that we continue to invest in studying normal mammary gland biology, both in humans and in other species, as this will be our ‘ground truth’ when it comes to understanding the wiring of gene regulation, cell–cell interactions, basic principles of branching morphogenesis, the cellular mechanisms driving mammary morphogenesis, and the biochemical and metabolic activity of cells along the different lineage differentiation trajectories and in different regions of the tissue. Here, we are about to enter an exciting era as spatial transcriptomics and proteomics are reaching subcellular resolution. In parallel, new high-resolution imaging techniques allow visualization of cellular behaviors at an unprecedented detail under physiological conditions [193]. As such multi-scale, systems-level analyses truly are on the horizon. Finally, where possible, the effects of reproductive history and current reproductive status should be included as they impact on every aspect of breast biology, including the crosstalk between the epithelium and the stroma.
On a day-to-day basis, it can be difficult to see and appreciate the advances being made. Reading the literature on the history of mammary gland biology research ([194, 195] and other reviews or books), or watching interviews with key figures in mammary gland biology and cancer research (https://enbdc.org/interviews/) may help appreciate the tremendous progress made over the years. As the evening fell over Amsterdam, an atmosphere of hope and excitement penetrated our discussions as we pondered the possibilities of using RNAs in a treatment, or anti-inflammatory cytokines in a prevention setting. We also marveled at the recent developments in biotechnology and protein structure predictions, opening up the possibility of developing breast cancer vaccines against neo-antigens. It was also felt, however, that there are distinct difficulties in getting new concepts into treatments or tested in clinical trials. Basic scientists may focus on rapid dissemination and not care about the protection of intellectual property, but it is important if they aspire to bringing their findings to the market. At present, most drug development efforts and clinical trials are run by companies. Clearly, big pharma has its own agenda, which includes the tendency to drop any further investment in drugs once the license expires and with little interest in testing known active drugs in new clinical trial settings (e.g. on different patient groups after improved stratification or in combinatorial treatment regimens based on new molecular insights). This begs the question if we should not uproot the system. Here, individual scientists need a larger infrastructure and support from national funding bodies to reduce barriers. One exciting example is the Cancer Research Horizons initiative, backed by Cancer Research UK, which brings together scientists and other partners in an effort to speed up and increase the translation from bench to bedside. This has already resulted in more than 60 spin out companies and 11 new drugs that have been brought to the market [196].
If these developments show anything, it is that it is key to remain open minded and to continue to promote discovery and push dissemination of novel ideas. Whatever happens in our area of research, much of it will continue to be driven by new technologies and experimental approaches. This piece would therefore not be complete without a plea for sufficient funding for basic scientific research as this is what ultimately drives innovation. Evidently, this should happen in parallel to promoting interactions between basic and translational scientists, clinicians, drug developers and patient advocates. As the ENBDC, we will continue to do our part.
References
Rosen JM, Roarty K. Paracrine signaling in mammary gland development: what can we learn about intratumoral heterogeneity? Breast Cancer Research. 2014;16:202.
Brown SB, Hankinson SE. Endogenous estrogens and the risk of breast, endometrial, and ovarian cancers. Steroids. 2015;99:8–10.
Schneider J, Martín-Gutiérrez S, Tresguerres JA, García-Velasco JA. Circulating estradiol defines the tumor phenotype in menopausal breast cancer patients. Maturitas. 2009;64:43–5.
Obradović MMS, Hamelin B, Manevski N, Couto JP, Sethi A, Coissieux MM, et al. Glucocorticoids promote breast cancer metastasis. Nature. 2019;567:540–4.
Giulianelli S, Lamb CA, Lanari C. Progesterone receptors in normal breast development and breast cancer. Essays in Biochemistry. 2021;65:951–69.
Michmerhuizen AR, Spratt DE, Pierce LJ, Speers CW. ARe we there yet? Understanding androgen receptor signaling in breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer. 2020;6:47.
Noureddine LM, Trédan O, Hussein N, Badran B, Le Romancer M, Poulard C. Glucocorticoid Receptor: A Multifaceted Actor in Breast Cancer. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021;22:4446.
Font-Díaz J, Jiménez-Panizo A, Caelles C, Vivanco M dM, Pérez P, Aranda A, et al. Nuclear receptors: Lipid and hormone sensors with essential roles in the control of cancer development. Semin Cancer Biol. 2021;73:58–75.
Pan H, Gray R, Braybrooke J, Davies C, Taylor C, McGale P, et al. 20-Year Risks of Breast-Cancer Recurrence after Stopping Endocrine Therapy at 5 Years. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2017;377:1836–46.
Shackleton M, Vaillant F, Simpson KJ, Stingl J, Smyth GK, Asselin-Labat ML, et al. Generation of a functional mammary gland from a single stem cell. Nature. 2006;439:84–8.
Stingl J, Eirew P, Ricketson I, Shackleton M, Vaillant F, Choi D, et al. Purification and unique properties of mammary epithelial stem cells. Nature. 2006;439:993–7.
Hannezo E, Scheele CLGJ, Moad M, Drogo N, Heer R, Sampogna RV, et al. A Unifying Theory of Branching Morphogenesis. Cell. 2017;171:242-255.e27.
Simões BM, Piva M, Iriondo O, Comaills V, López-Ruiz JA, Zabalza I, et al. Effects of estrogen on the proportion of stem cells in the breast. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2011;129:23–35.
Shehata M, van Amerongen R, Zeeman AL, Giraddi RR, Stingl J. The influence of tamoxifen on normal mouse mammary gland homeostasis. Breast Cancer Research. 2014;16:411.
Rios AC, Fu NY, Lindeman GJ, Visvader JE. In situ identification of bipotent stem cells in the mammary gland. Nature. 2014;506:322–7.
Van Keymeulen A, Rocha AS, Ousset M, Beck B, Bouvencourt G, Rock J, et al. Distinct stem cells contribute to mammary gland development and maintenance. Nature. 2011;479:189–93.
van Amerongen R, Bowman AN, Nusse R. Developmental stage and time dictate the fate of Wnt/beta-catenin-responsive stem cells in the mammary gland. Cell Stem Cell. 2012;11:387–400.
Šale S, Lafkas D, Artavanis-Tsakonas S. Notch2 genetic fate mapping reveals two previously unrecognized mammary epithelial lineages. Nature Cell Biology. 2013;15:451–60.
Lafkas D, Rodilla V, Huyghe M, Mourao L, Kiaris H, Fre S. Notch3 marks clonogenic mammary luminal progenitor cells in vivo. The Journal of Cell Biology. 2013;203:47–56.
Wuidart A, Ousset M, Rulands S, Simons BD, Van Keymeulen A, Blanpain C. Quantitative lineage tracing strategies to resolve multipotency in tissue-specific stem cells. Genes & Development. 2016;30:1261–77.
Scheele CLGJ, Hannezo E, Muraro MJ, Zomer A, Langedijk NSM, Van Oudenaarden A, et al. Identity and dynamics of mammary stem cells during branching morphogenesis. Nature. 2017;542:313–7.
Wang D, Cai C, Dong X, Yu QC, Zhang XO, Yang L, et al. Identification of multipotent mammary stemcells by protein C receptor expression. Nature. 2015;517:81–4.
Nguyen QH, Pervolarakis N, Blake K, Ma D, Davis RT, James N, et al. Profiling human breast epithelial cells using single cell RNA sequencing identifies cell diversity. Nature Communications. 2018;9:2028.
Kumar B, Prasad M, Bhat-Nakshatri P, Anjanappa M, Kalra M, Marino N, et al. Normal Breast-Derived Epithelial Cells with Luminal and Intrinsic Subtype-Enriched Gene Expression Document Interindividual Differences in Their Differentiation Cascade. Cancer Research. 2018;78:5107–23.
Wang C, Christin JR, Oktay MH, Guo W. Lineage-Biased Stem Cells Maintain Estrogen-Receptor-Positive and -Negative Mouse Mammary Luminal Lineages. Cell Reports. 2017;18:2825–35.
Van Keymeulen A, Fioramonti M, Centonze A, Bouvencourt G, Achouri Y, Blanpain C. Lineage-Restricted Mammary Stem Cells Sustain the Development, Homeostasis, and Regeneration of the Estrogen Receptor Positive Lineage. Cell Reports. 2017;20:1525–32.
Lloyd-Lewis B, Davis FM, Harris OB, Hitchcock JR, Watson CJ. Neutral lineage tracing of proliferative embryonic and adult mammary stem/progenitor cells. Development. 2018;145:dev164079.
Davis FM, Lloyd-Lewis B, Harris OB, Kozar S, Winton DJ, Muresan L, et al. Single-cell lineage tracing in the mammary gland reveals stochastic clonal dispersion of stem/progenitor cell progeny. Nature Communications. 2016;7:13053.
Rodilla V, Dasti A, Huyghe M, Lafkas D, Laurent C, Reyal F, et al. Luminal progenitors restrict their lineage potential during mammary gland development. PLoS Biology. 2015;13.
Centonze A, Lin S, Tika E, Sifrim A, Fioramonti M, Malfait M, et al. Heterotypic cell–cell communication regulates glandular stem cell multipotency. Nature. 2020;584(7822):608–13.
Benítez S, Cordero A, Santamaría PG, Redondo-Pedraza J, Rocha AS, Collado-Solé A, et al. RANK links senescence to stemness in the mammary epithelia, delaying tumor onset but increasing tumor aggressiveness. Developmental Cell. 2021;56:1727-1741.e7.
Koren S, Reavie L, Couto JP, De Silva D, Stadler MB, Roloff T, et al. PIK3CAH1047R induces multipotency and multi-lineage mammary tumours. Nature. 2015;525:114–8.
Van Keymeulen A, Lee MY, Ousset M, Brohée S, Rorive S, Giraddi RR, et al. Reactivation of multipotency by oncogenic PIK3CA induces breast tumour heterogeneity. Nature. 2015;525:119–23.
Lilja AM, Rodilla V, Huyghe M, Hannezo E, Landragin C, Renaud O, et al. Clonal analysis of Notch1-expressing cells reveals the existence of unipotent stem cells that retain long-term plasticity in the embryonic mammary gland. Nature Cell Biology. 2018;20:677–87.
Fridriksdottir AJ, Villadsen R, Morsing M, Klitgaard MC, Kim J, Petersen OW, et al. Proof of region-specific multipotent progenitors in human breast epithelia. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2017;114:E10102–11.
Cereser B, Jansen M, Austin E, Elia G, McFarlane T, van Deurzen CHM, et al. Analysis of clonal expansions through the normal and premalignant human breast epithelium reveals the presence of luminal stem cells. The Journal of Pathology. 2018;244:61–70.
Palafox M, Ferrer I, Pellegrini P, Vila S, Hernandez-Ortega S, Urruticoechea A, et al. RANK induces epithelial-mesenchymal transition and stemness in human mammary epithelial cells and promotes tumorigenesis and metastasis. Cancer Research. 2012;72:2879–88.
Liu S, Cong Y, Wang D, Sun Y, Deng L, Liu Y, et al. Breast cancer stem cells transition between epithelial and mesenchymal states reflective of their normal counterparts. Stem Cell Rep. 2014;2:78–91.
Iriondo O, Rábano M, Domenici G, Carlevaris O, López-Ruiz JA, Zabalza I, et al. Distinct breast cancer stem/progenitor cell populations require either HIF1α or loss of PHD3 to expand under hypoxic conditions. Oncotarget. 2015;6:31721–39.
Zomer A, Ellenbroek SIJ, Ritsma L, Beerling E, Vrisekoop N, Van Rheenen J. Intravital imaging of cancer stem cell plasticity in mammary tumors. Stem Cells. 2013;31:602–6.
Dekoninck S, Blanpain C. Stem cell dynamics, migration and plasticity during wound healing. Nature Cell Biology. 2019;21:18–24.
Meyer AR, Brown ME, McGrath PS, Dempsey PJ. Injury-Induced Cellular Plasticity Drives Intestinal Regeneration. Cellular and Molecular Gastroenterology and Hepatology. 2022;13:843–56.
Wang ZA, Toivanen R, Bergren SK, Chambon P, Shen MM. Luminal cells are favored as the cell of origin for prostate cancer. Cell Reports. 2014;8:1339–46.
Urbanus J, Cosgrove J, Beltman J, Elhanati Y, Moral R de A, Conrad C, et al. DRAG in situ barcoding reveals an increased number of HSPCs contributing to myelopoiesis with age. bioRxiv; 2022. 2022.12.06.519273. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.12.06.519273v1. [cited 2023 Jan 29].
Kong S, Li R, Tian Y, Zhang Y, Lu Y, Ou Q, et al. Single-cell omics: A new direction for functional genetic research in human diseases and animal models. Frontiers in Genetics. 2022;13:1100016.
Haghverdi L, Ludwig LS. Single-cell multi-omics and lineage tracing to dissect cell fate decision-making. Stem Cell Reports. 2023;18:13–25.
Bach K, Pensa S, Grzelak M, Hadfield J, Adams DJ, Marioni JC, et al. Differentiation dynamics of mammary epithelial cells revealed by single-cell RNA sequencing. Nature Communications. 2017;8:2128.
Pal B, Chen Y, Vaillant F, Jamieson P, Gordon L, Rios AC, et al. Construction of developmental lineage relationships in the mouse mammary gland by single-cell RNA profiling. Nature Communications. 2017;8:1627.
Dravis C, Chung CY, Lytle NK, Herrera-Valdez J, Luna G, Trejo CL, et al. Epigenetic and Transcriptomic Profiling of Mammary Gland Development and Tumor Models Disclose Regulators of Cell State Plasticity. Cancer Cell. 2018;34:466-482.e6.
Chung CY, Ma Z, Dravis C, Preissl S, Poirion O, Luna G, et al. Single-Cell Chromatin Analysis of Mammary Gland Development Reveals Cell-State Transcriptional Regulators and Lineage Relationships. Cell Reports. 2019;29:495-510.e6.
Giraddi RR, Chung C-Y, Heinz RE, Perou CM, Wahl GM, Spike BT. Single-Cell Transcriptomes Distinguish Stem Cell State Changes and Lineage Specification Programs in Early Mammary Gland Development. Cell Reports. 2018;24:1653-1666.e7.
Nyquist SK, Gao P, Haining TKJ, Retchin MR, Golan Y, Drake RS, et al. Cellular and transcriptional diversity over the course of human lactation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022;119.
Twigger A-J, Engelbrecht LK, Bach K, Schultz-Pernice I, Pensa S, Stenning J, et al. Transcriptional changes in the mammary gland during lactation revealed by single cell sequencing of cells from human milk. Nature Communications. 2022;13:562.
Pal B, Chen Y, Vaillant F, Capaldo BD, Joyce R, Song X, et al. A single-cell RNA expression atlas of normal, preneoplastic and tumorigenic states in the human breast. The EMBO Journal. 2021;40.
Costa A, Kieffer Y, Scholer-Dahirel A, Pelon F, Bourachot B, Cardon M, et al. Fibroblast Heterogeneity and Immunosuppressive Environment in Human Breast Cancer. Cancer Cell. 2018;33:463-479.e10.
Zhang Y, Chen H, Mo H, Hu X, Gao R, Zhao Y, et al. Single-cell analyses reveal key immune cell subsets associated with response to PD-L1 blockade in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer Cell. 2021;39:1578-1593.e8.
Azizi E, Carr AJ, Plitas G, Cornish AE, Konopacki C, Prabhakaran S, et al. Single-Cell Map of Diverse Immune Phenotypes in the Breast Tumor Microenvironment. Cell. 2018;174:1293-1308.e36.
Davis RT, Blake K, Ma D, Gabra MBI, Hernandez GA, Phung AT, et al. Transcriptional diversity and bioenergetic shift in human breast cancer metastasis revealed by single-cell RNA sequencing. Nature Cell Biology. 2020;22:310–20.
Kim C, Gao R, Sei E, Brandt R, Hartman J, Hatschek T, et al. Chemoresistance Evolution in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Delineated by Single-Cell Sequencing. Cell. 2018;173:879-893.e13.
Chen W, Morabito SJ, Kessenbrock K, Enver T, Meyer KB, Teschendorff AE. Single-cell landscape in mammary epithelium reveals bipotent-like cells associated with breast cancer risk and outcome. Commun Biol. 2019;2:306.
Rozenblatt-Rosen O, Regev A, Oberdoerffer P, Nawy T, Hupalowska A, Rood JE, et al. The Human Tumor Atlas Network: Charting Tumor Transitions across Space and Time at Single-Cell Resolution. Cell. 2020;181:236–49.
Gillis S, Roth A. PyClone-VI: scalable inference of clonal population structures using whole genome data. BMC Bioinformatics. 2020;21:571.
Lähnemann D, Köster J, Szczurek E, McCarthy DJ, Hicks SC, Robinson MD, et al. Eleven grand challenges in single-cell data science. Genome Biology. 2020;21:31.
Navin NE. The first five years of single-cell cancer genomics and beyond. Genome Research. 2015;25:1499–507.
Gray GK, Li CM-C, Rosenbluth JM, Selfors LM, Girnius N, Lin J-R, et al. A human breast atlas integrating single-cell proteomics and transcriptomics. Dev Cell. 2022;57:1400–1420.e7.
van Amerongen R. Behind the Scenes of the Human Breast Cell Atlas Project. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia. 2021;26:67–70.
Dobrolecki LE, Airhart SD, Alferez DG, Aparicio S, Behbod F, Bentires-Alj M, et al. Patient-derived xenograft (PDX) models in basic and translational breast cancer research. Cancer Metastasis Reviews. 2016;35:547–73.
Guillen KP, Fujita M, Butterfield AJ, Scherer SD, Bailey MH, Chu Z, et al. A human breast cancer-derived xenograft and organoid platform for drug discovery and precision oncology. Nat Cancer. 2022;3:232–50.
Woo XY, Giordano J, Srivastava A, Zhao Z-M, Lloyd MW, de Bruijn R, et al. Conservation of copy number profiles during engraftment and passaging of patient-derived cancer xenografts. Nature Genetics. 2021;53:86–99.
Byrne AT, Alférez DG, Amant F, Annibali D, Arribas J, Biankin AV, et al. Interrogating open issues in cancer precision medicine with patient-derived xenografts. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2017;17:254–68.
Hidalgo M, Amant F, Biankin AV, Budinská E, Byrne AT, Caldas C, et al. Patient-derived xenograft models: an emerging platform for translational cancer research. Cancer Discovery. 2014;4:998–1013.
Fiche M, Scabia V, Aouad P, Battista L, Treboux A, Stravodimou A, et al. Intraductal patient-derived xenografts of estrogen receptor α-positive breast cancer recapitulate the histopathological spectrum and metastatic potential of human lesions. The Journal of Pathology. 2019;247:287–92.
PDCM Finder - The open global research platform for Patient Derived Cancer Models. Available from: https://www.cancermodels.org/. [cited 2023 Feb 5].
Breast Cancer Now Tissue Bank [Internet]. Breast Cancer Now. 2020. Available from: https://breastcancernow.org/breast-cancer-research/breast-cancer-now-tissue-bank. [cited 2023 Feb 5].
Zanella ER, Grassi E, Trusolino L. Towards precision oncology with patient-derived xenografts. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. 2022;19:719–32.
Stripecke R, Münz C, Schuringa JJ, Bissig K-D, Soper B, Meeham T, et al. Innovations, challenges, and minimal information for standardization of humanized mice. EMBO Molecular Medicine. 2020;12.
Pfefferle AD, Herschkowitz JI, Usary J, Harrell JC, Spike BT, Adams JR, et al. Transcriptomic classification of genetically engineered mouse models of breast cancer identifies human subtype counterparts. Genome Biology. 2013;14:R125.
Cardiff RD, Wellings SR. The comparative pathology of human and mouse mammary glands. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia. 1999;4:105–22.
Bartfeld S. Realizing the potential of organoids—an interview with Hans Clevers. Journal of Molecular Medicine. 2021;99:443–7.
Simian M, Bissell MJ. Organoids: A historical perspective of thinking in three dimensions. The Journal of Cell Biology. 2016;216:31–40.
Fata JE, Mori H, Ewald AJ, Zhang H, Yao E, Werb Z, et al. The MAPKERK-1,2 pathway integrates distinct and antagonistic signals from TGFα and FGF7 in morphogenesis of mouse mammary epithelium. Developmental Biology. 2007;306:193–207.
Ewald AJ. Isolation of mouse mammary organoids for long-term time-lapse imaging. Cold Spring Harbor Protocols. 2013;8:130–3.
Ewald AJ, Brenot A, Duong M, Chan BS, Werb Z. Collective Epithelial Migration and Cell Rearrangements Drive Mammary Branching Morphogenesis. Developmental Cell. 2008;14:570–81.
Jardé T, Lloyd-Lewis B, Thomas M, Kendrick H, Melchor L, Bougaret L, et al. Wnt and Neuregulin1/ErbB signalling extends 3D culture of hormone responsive mammary organoids. Nat Commun. 2016;7:13207
Wang J, Song W, Yang R, Li C, Wu T, Dong XB, et al. Endothelial Wnts control mammary epithelial patterning via fibroblast signaling. Cell Reports. 2021;34.
Yip HYK, Papa A. Generation and functional characterization of murine mammary organoids. STAR Protocols. 2021;2.
Cui J, Guo W. Establishment and long-term culture of mouse mammary stem cell organoids and breast tumor organoids. STAR Protoc. 2021;2.
Wrenn ED, Moore BM, Greenwood E, McBirney M, Cheung KJ. Optimal, Large-Scale Propagation of Mouse Mammary Tumor Organoids. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia. 2020;25:337–50.
Jamieson PR, Dekkers JF, Rios AC, Fu NY, Lindeman GJ, Visvader JE. Derivation of a robust mouse mammary organoid system for studying tissue dynamics. Development. 2017;144:1065–71.
Caruso M, Huang S, Mourao L, Scheele CLGJ. A Mammary Organoid Model to Study Branching Morphogenesis. Frontiers in Physiology. 2022;13. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2022.826107. [cited 2023 Feb 5].
Sahu S, Albaugh ME, Martin BK, Patel NL, Riffle L, Mackem S, et al. Growth factor dependency in mammary organoids regulates ductal morphogenesis during organ regeneration. Scientific Reports. 2022;12:7200.
Sumbal J, Chiche A, Charifou E, Koledova Z, Li H. Primary Mammary Organoid Model of Lactation and Involution. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 2020;8. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcell.2020.00068. [cited 2023 Feb 5].
Charifou E, Sumbal J, Koledova Z, Li H, Chiche A. A Robust Mammary Organoid System to Model Lactation and Involution-like Processes. Bio Protoc. 2021;11.
Rosenbluth JM, Schackmann RCJ, Gray GK, Selfors LM, Li CM-C, Boedicker M, et al. Organoid cultures from normal and cancer-prone human breast tissues preserve complex epithelial lineages. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1711.
Sachs N, de Ligt J, Kopper O, Gogola E, Bounova G, Weeber F, et al. A Living Biobank of Breast Cancer Organoids Captures Disease Heterogeneity. Cell. 2018;172:373-386.e10.
Dekkers JF, van Vliet EJ, Sachs N, Rosenbluth JM, Kopper O, Rebel HG, et al. Long-term culture, genetic manipulation and xenotransplantation of human normal and breast cancer organoids. Nature Protocols. 2021;16:1936–65.
Symmans WF, Liu J, Knowles DM, Inghirami G. Breast cancer heterogeneity: evaluation of clonality in primary and metastatic lesions. Human Pathology. 1995;26:210–6.
Perou CM, Sørlie T, Eisen MB, van de Rijn M, Jeffrey SS, Rees CA, et al. Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2000;406:747–52.
Sørlie T, Perou CM, Tibshirani R, Aas T, Geisler S, Johnsen H, et al. Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:10869–74.
Parker JS, Mullins M, Cheang MCU, Leung S, Voduc D, Vickery T, et al. Supervised risk predictor of breast cancer based on intrinsic subtypes. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009;27:1160–7.
van ’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AAM, Mao M, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature. 2002;415:530–6.
van de Vijver MJ, He YD, van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, Hart AAM, Voskuil DW, et al. A gene-expression signature as a predictor of survival in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:1999–2009.
Curtis C, Shah SP, Chin SF, Turashvili G, Rueda OM, Dunning MJ, et al. The genomic and transcriptomic architecture of 2,000 breast tumours reveals novel subgroups. Nature. 2012;486:346–52.
Nik-Zainal S, Davies H, Staaf J, Ramakrishna M, Glodzik D, Zou X, et al. Landscape of somatic mutations in 560 breast cancer whole-genome sequences. Nature. 2016;534:47–54.
Degasperi A, Zou X, Amarante TD, Martinez-Martinez A, Koh GCC, Dias JML, et al. Substitution mutational signatures in whole-genome-sequenced cancers in the UK population. Science. 2022;376:science.abl9283.
Stephens PJ, Tarpey PS, Davies H, Van Loo P, Greenman C, Wedge DC, et al. The landscape of cancer genes and mutational processes in breast cancer. Nature. 2012;486:400–4.
Network CGA. Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature. 2012;490:61–70.
Ciriello G, Gatza ML, Beck AH, Wilkerson MD, Rhie SK, Pastore A, et al. Comprehensive Molecular Portraits of Invasive Lobular Breast Cancer. Cell. 2015;163:506–19.
Wallden B, Storhoff J, Nielsen T, Dowidar N, Schaper C, Ferree S, et al. Development and verification of the PAM50-based Prosigna breast cancer gene signature assay. BMC Medical Genomics. 2015;8:54.
Krijgsman O, Roepman P, Zwart W, Carroll JS, Tian S, De Snoo FA, et al. A diagnostic gene profile for molecular subtyping of breast cancer associated with treatment response. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment. 2012;133:37–47.
Paik S, Shak S, Tang G, Kim C, Baker J, Cronin M, et al. A Multigene Assay to Predict Recurrence of Tamoxifen-Treated, Node-Negative Breast Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2004;351:2817–26.
Tian S, Roepman P, van’t Veer LJ, Bernards R, de Snoo F, Glas AM. Biological functions of the genes in the mammaprint breast cancer profile reflect the hallmarks of cancer. Biomarker Insights. 2010;2010:129–38.
Cardoso F, van’t Veer LJ, Bogaerts J, Slaets L, Viale G, Delaloge S, et al. 70-Gene Signature as an Aid to Treatment Decisions in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016;375:717–29.
Ng CKY, Bidard F-C, Piscuoglio S, Geyer FC, Lim RS, de Bruijn I, et al. Genetic Heterogeneity in Therapy-Naïve Synchronous Primary Breast Cancers and Their Metastases. Clinical Cancer Research. 2017;23:4402–15.
Casasent AK, Schalck A, Gao R, Sei E, Long A, Pangburn W, et al. Multiclonal Invasion in Breast Tumors Identified by Topographic Single Cell Sequencing. Cell. 2018;172:205-217.e12.
Funnell T, O’Flanagan CH, Williams MJ, McPherson A, McKinney S, Kabeer F, et al. Single-cell genomic variation induced by mutational processes in cancer. Nature. 2022;612:106–15.
Lomakin A, Svedlund J, Strell C, Gataric M, Shmatko A, Rukhovich G, et al. Spatial genomics maps the structure, nature and evolution of cancer clones. Nature. 2022;611:594–602.
Griffiths JI, Chen J, Cosgrove PA, O’Dea A, Sharma P, Ma C, et al. Serial single-cell genomics reveals convergent subclonal evolution of resistance as early-stage breast cancer patients progress on endocrine plus CDK4/6 therapy. Nat Cancer. 2021;2:658–71.
Koren S, Bentires-Alj M. Breast Tumor Heterogeneity: Source of Fitness Hurdle for Therapy. Molecular Cell. 2015;60:537–46.
Ali S, Coombes RC. Endocrine-responsive breast cancer and strategies for combating resistance. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2002;2:101–12.
Garcia-Martinez L, Zhang Y, Nakata Y, Chan HL, Morey L. Epigenetic mechanisms in breast cancer therapy and resistance. Nature Communications. 2021;12:1786.
Bradley R, Braybrooke J, Gray R, Hills RK, Liu Z, Pan H, et al. Aromatase inhibitors versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive early-stage breast cancer treated with ovarian suppression: a patient-level meta-analysis of 7030 women from four randomised trials. The lancet Oncology. 2022;23:382–92.
Howell A. Tamoxifen resistance and adjuvant hormone therapy. Breast Cancer Research. 2005;7:S19.
Yin L, Duan J-J, Bian X-W, Yu S-C. Triple-negative breast cancer molecular subtyping and treatment progress. Breast Cancer Research. 2020;22:61.
Mateo J, Lord CJ, Serra V, Tutt A, Balmaña J, Castroviejo-Bermejo M, et al. A decade of clinical development of PARP inhibitors in perspective. Annals of Oncology. 2019;30:1437–47.
Pommier Y, O’Connor MJ, de Bono J. Laying a trap to kill cancer cells: PARP inhibitors and their mechanisms of action. Sci Transl Med. 2016;8:362ps17.
Shah M, Nunes MR, Stearns V. CDK4/6 Inhibitors: Game Changers in the Management of Hormone Receptor-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer? Oncology (Williston Park, NY). 2018;32:216–22.
Scheidemann ER, Shajahan-Haq AN. Resistance to CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Estrogen Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021;22:12292.
Schmid P, Adams S, Rugo HS, Schneeweiss A, Barrios CH, Iwata H, et al. Atezolizumab and Nab-Paclitaxel in Advanced Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;379:2108–21.
Emens LA, Adams S, Barrios CH, Diéras V, Iwata H, Loi S, et al. First-line atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel for unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: IMpassion130 final overall survival analysis. Annals of Oncology. 2021;32:983–93.
Røssevold AH, Andresen NK, Bjerre CA, Gilje B, Jakobsen EH, Raj SX, et al. Atezolizumab plus anthracycline-based chemotherapy in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: the randomized, double-blind phase 2b ALICE trial. Nature Medicine. 2022;28:2573–83.
Tolba MF, Elghazaly H, Bousoik E, Elmazar MMA, Tolaney SM. Novel combinatorial strategies for boosting the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced breast cancers. Clinical and Translational Oncology. 2021;23:1979–94.
Najminejad Z, Dehghani F, Mirzaei Y, Mer AH, Saghi SA, Abdolvahab MH, et al. Clinical perspective: Antibody-drug conjugates for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer. Molecular Therapy. 2023;S1525–0016(23):00140–5.
Molinelli C, Jacobs F, Marchiò C, Pitto F, Cosso M, Spinaci S, et al. HER2-Low Breast Cancer: Where Are We? Breast Care (Basel). 2022;17:533–45.
Modi S, Jacot W, Yamashita T, Sohn J, Vidal M, Tokunaga E, et al. Trastuzumab Deruxtecan in Previously Treated HER2-Low Advanced Breast Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2022;387:9–20.
Khadela A, Soni S, Shah AC, Pandya AJ, Megha K, Kothari N, et al. Unveiling the antibody-drug conjugates portfolio in battling Triple-negative breast cancer: Therapeutic trends and Future horizon. Medical Oncology. 2022;40:25.
Shastry M, Jacob S, Rugo HS, Hamilton E. Antibody-drug conjugates targeting TROP-2: Clinical development in metastatic breast cancer. Breast. 2022;66:169–77.
Almagro J, Messal HA, Elosegui-Artola A, van Rheenen J, Behrens A. Tissue architecture in tumor initiation and progression. Trends Cancer. 2022;8:494–505.
Bivona TG, Doebele RC. A framework for understanding and targeting residual disease in oncogene-driven solid cancers. Nature Medicine. 2016;22:472–8.
Ahmad A. Pathways to breast cancer recurrence. ISRN Oncol. 2013;2013.
Blatter S, Rottenberg S. Minimal residual disease in cancer therapy–Small things make all the difference. Drug Resist Updat. 2015;21–22:1–10.
Havas KM, Milchevskaya V, Radic K, Alladin A, Kafkia E, Garcia M, et al. Metabolic shifts in residual breast cancer drive tumor recurrence. J Clin Invest. 2017;127:2091–105.
Correia AL, Guimaraes JC, Auf der Maur P, De Silva D, Trefny MP, Okamoto R, et al. Hepatic stellate cells suppress NK cell-sustained breast cancer dormancy. Nature. 2021;594:566–71.
Brooks MD, Burness ML, Wicha MS. Therapeutic Implications of Cellular Heterogeneity and Plasticity in Breast Cancer. Cell Stem Cell. 2015;17:260–71.
Cable J, Pei D, Reid LM, Wang XW, Bhatia S, Karras P, et al. Cancer stem cells: advances in biology and clinical translation-a Keystone Symposia report. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 2021;1506:142–63.
Phillips TM, McBride WH, Pajonk F. The response of CD24(-/low)/CD44+ breast cancer-initiating cells to radiation. Journal of the National Cancer Institute (1988). 2006;98:1777–85.
Li X, Lewis MT, Huang J, Gutierrez C, Osborne CK, Wu M-F, et al. Intrinsic resistance of tumorigenic breast cancer cells to chemotherapy. Journal of the National Cancer Institute (1988). 2008;100:672–9.
Piva M, Domenici G, Iriondo O, Rábano M, Simões BM, Comaills V, et al. Sox2 promotes tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer cells. EMBO Molecular Medicine. 2014;6:66–79.
Radic Shechter K, Kafkia E, Zirngibl K, Gawrzak S, Alladin A, Machado D, et al. Metabolic memory underlying minimal residual disease in breast cancer. Molecular Systems Biology. 2021;17.
Eyre R, Alférez DG, Santiago-Gómez A, Spence K, McConnell JC, Hart C, et al. Microenvironmental IL1β promotes breast cancer metastatic colonisation in the bone via activation of Wnt signalling. Nature Communications. 2019;10:5016.
Fabre M, Ferrer C, Domínguez-Hormaetxe S, Bockorny B, Murias L, Seifert O, et al. OMTX705, a Novel FAP-Targeting ADC Demonstrates Activity in Chemotherapy and Pembrolizumab-Resistant Solid Tumor Models. Clinical Cancer Research. 2020;26:3420–30.
Baumann Z, Auf der Maur P, Bentires-Alj M. Feed-forward loops between metastatic cancer cells and their microenvironment-the stage of escalation. EMBO Mol Med. 2022;14:e14283.
Hosseini H, Obradović MMS, Hoffmann M, Harper KL, Sosa MS, Werner-Klein M, et al. Early dissemination seeds metastasis in breast cancer. Nature. 2016;540:552–8.
Harper KL, Sosa MS, Entenberg D, Hosseini H, Cheung JF, Nobre R, et al. Mechanism of early dissemination and metastasis in Her2+ mammary cancer. Nature. 2016;540:588–92.
Rahrmann EP, Shorthouse D, Jassim A, Hu LP, Ortiz M, Mahler-Araujo B, et al. The NALCN channel regulates metastasis and nonmalignant cell dissemination. Nature Genetics. 2022;54:1827–38.
Gkountela S, Castro-Giner F, Szczerba BM, Vetter M, Landin J, Scherrer R, et al. Circulating Tumor Cell Clustering Shapes DNA Methylation to Enable Metastasis Seeding. Cell. 2019;176:98-112.e14.
Diamantopoulou Z, Castro-Giner F, Schwab FD, Foerster C, Saini M, Budinjas S, et al. The metastatic spread of breast cancer accelerates during sleep. Nature. 2022;607:156–62.
Cardiff RD, Jindal S, Treuting PM, Going JJ, Gusterson B, Thompson HJ. Mammary Gland. In: Treuting P, Dintzis S, Montine KS, editors. Comparative Anatomy and Histology. 2nd ed. Academic Press. 2018. p. 487–509.
Bu W, Li Y. Intraductal Injection of Lentivirus Vectors for Stably Introducing Genes into Rat Mammary Epithelial Cells in Vivo. Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia. 2020;25:389–96.
Li Q, Seo J-H, Stranger B, McKenna A, Pe’er I, Laframboise T, et al. Integrative eQTL-based analyses reveal the biology of breast cancer risk loci. Cell. 2013;152:633–41.
Mostafavi H, Spence JP, Naqvi S, Pritchard JK. Limited overlap of eQTLs and GWAS hits due to systematic differences in discovery. bioRxiv; 2022. 2022.05.07.491045. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.07.491045v1. [cited 2023 Feb 18].
Bhattacharya A, García-Closas M, Olshan AF, Perou CM, Troester MA, Love MI. A framework for transcriptome-wide association studies in breast cancer in diverse study populations. Genome Biology. 2020;21:42.
Wiggins GAR, Black MA, Dunbier A, Merriman TR, Pearson JF, Walker LC. Variable expression quantitative trait loci analysis of breast cancer risk variants. Scientific Reports. 2021;11:7192.
Beesley J, Sivakumaran H, Moradi Marjaneh M, Shi W, Hillman KM, Kaufmann S, et al. eQTL Colocalization Analyses Identify NTN4 as a Candidate Breast Cancer Risk Gene. American Journal of Human Genetics. 2020;107:778–87.
Ferreira MA, Gamazon ER, Al-Ejeh F, Aittomäki K, Andrulis IL, Anton-Culver H, et al. Genome-wide association and transcriptome studies identify target genes and risk loci for breast cancer. Nature Communications. 2019;10:1741.
Tzeng A, Sangwan N, Jia M, Liu C-C, Keslar KS, Downs-Kelly E, et al. Human breast microbiome correlates with prognostic features and immunological signatures in breast cancer. Genome Medicine. 2021;13:60.
Fu A, Yao B, Dong T, Chen Y, Yao J, Liu Y, et al. Tumor-resident intracellular microbiota promotes metastatic colonization in breast cancer. Cell. 2022;185:1356-1372.e26.
Martincorena I, Roshan A, Gerstung M, Ellis P, Van Loo P, McLaren S, et al. Tumor evolution. High burden and pervasive positive selection of somatic mutations in normal human skin. Science. 2015;348:880–6.
Messal H, Scheele C, Lips E, Lutz C, Hutten S, Kristel P, et al. Abstract IA012: Mammary epithelial architecture modulates field cancerization. Cancer Prev Res. 2022;15:IA012.
Langille E, Al-Zahrani KN, Ma Z, Liang M, Uuskula-Reimand L, Espin R, et al. Loss of Epigenetic Regulation Disrupts Lineage Integrity, Induces Aberrant Alveogenesis, and Promotes Breast Cancer. Cancer Discovery. 2022;12:2930–53.
Geyer FC, Lacroix-Triki M, Colombo P-E, Patani N, Gauthier A, Natrajan R, et al. Molecular evidence in support of the neoplastic and precursor nature of microglandular adenosis. Histopathology. 2012;60:E115-130.
Abuhadra N, Stecklein S, Sharma P, Moulder S. Early-stage Triple-negative Breast Cancer: Time to Optimize Personalized Strategies. The Oncologist. 2022;27:30–9.
Sparano JA, Gray RJ, Makower DF, Pritchard KI, Albain KS, Hayes DF, et al. Adjuvant Chemotherapy Guided by a 21-Gene Expression Assay in Breast Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2018;379:111–21.
Vliek SB, Hilbers FS, Jager A, Retèl VP, Bueno de Mesquita JM, Drukker CA, et al. Ten-year follow-up of the observational RASTER study, prospective evaluation of the 70-gene signature in ER-positive, HER2-negative, node-negative, early breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2022;175:169–79.
Piccart M, van ’t Veer LJ, Poncet C, Lopes Cardozo JMN, Delaloge S, Pierga J-Y, et al. 70-gene signature as an aid for treatment decisions in early breast cancer: updated results of the phase 3 randomised MINDACT trial with an exploratory analysis by age. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:476–88.
López-Ruiz JA, Mieza JA, Zabalza I, Vivanco M d M. Comparison of Genomic Profiling Data with Clinical Parameters: Implications for Breast Cancer Prognosis. Cancers. 2022;14:4197.
Tadros AB, Wen HY, Morrow M. Breast Cancers of Special Histologic Subtypes Are Biologically Diverse. Annals of Surgical Oncology. 2018;25:3158–64.
Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 70-gene signature compared with clinical assessment in breast cancer based on a randomised controlled trial - European Journal of Cancer. Available from: https://www.ejcancer.com/article/S0959-8049(20)30381-6/fulltext. [cited 2023 Feb 18].
Vodicka E, Nonvignon J, Antwi-Agyei KO, Bawa J, Clark A, Pecenka C, et al. The projected cost-effectiveness and budget impact of HPV vaccine introduction in Ghana. Vaccine. 2022;40:A85-93.
Priyadarshini M, Prabhu VS, Snedecor SJ, Corman S, Kuter BJ, Nwankwo C, et al. Economic Value of Lost Productivity Attributable to Human Papillomavirus Cancer Mortality in the United States. Front Public Health. 2021;8. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.624092. [cited 2023 Feb 18].
Termrungruanglert W, Khemapech N, Vasuratna A, Havanond P, Deebukkham P, Kulkarni AS, et al. The epidemiologic and economic impact of a quadrivalent human papillomavirus vaccine in Thailand. PLoS One1. 2021;16.
Schoustra SM, op ’t Root TJPM, Pompe van Meerdervoort RP, Alink L, Steenbergen W, Manohar S. Pendant breast immobilization and positioning in photoacoustic tomographic imaging. Photoacoustics. 2021;21:100238.
Bentires-Alj M, Rajan A, van Harten W, van Luenen HGAM, Kubicek S, Andersen JB, et al. Stimulating translational research: several European life science institutions put their heads together. Trends in Molecular Medicine. 2015;21:525–7.
Cruciger QV, Pathak S, Cailleau R. Human breast carcinomas: marker chromosomes involving 1q in seven cases. Cytogenetics and Cell Genetics. 1976;17:231–5.
Narayan A, Ji W, Zhang XY, Marrogi A, Graff JR, Baylin SB, et al. Hypomethylation of pericentromeric DNA in breast adenocarcinomas. International Journal of Cancer. 1998;77:833–8.
Hoda SA, Brogi E, Koerner FC, Rosen PP. Rosen’s Breast Pathology. 4th ed. Wolters Kluwer. 2014. ISBN-13: 978-1451176537.
Lehmann BD, Bauer JA, Chen X, Sanders ME, Chakravarthy AB, Shyr Y, et al. Identification of human triple-negative breast cancer subtypes and preclinical models for selection of targeted therapies. J Clin Invest. 2011;121:2750–67.
Lehmann BD, Colaprico A, Silva TC, Chen J, An H, Ban Y, et al. Multi-omics analysis identifies therapeutic vulnerabilities in triple-negative breast cancer subtypes. Nature Communications. 2021;12:6276.
Gusterson B, Eaves CJ. Basal-like Breast Cancers: From Pathology to Biology and Back Again. Stem Cell Rep. 2018;10:1676–86.
Taylor-Papadimitriou J, Stampfer M, Bartek J, Lewis A, Boshell M, Lane EB, et al. Keratin expression in human mammary epithelial cells cultured from normal and malignant tissue: relation to in vivo phenotypes and influence of medium. Journal of Cell Science. 1989;94(Pt 3):403–13.
Santagata S, Thakkar A, Ergonul A, Wang B, Woo T, Hu R, et al. Taxonomy of breast cancer based on normal cell phenotype predicts outcome. The Journal of Clinical Investigation. 2014;124:859–70.
Domenici G, Aurrekoetxea-Rodríguez I, Simões BM, Rábano M, Lee SY, Millán JS, et al. A Sox2–Sox9 signalling axis maintains human breast luminal progenitor and breast cancer stem cells. Oncogene. 2019;38:3151–69.
Huang Q, Garrett A, Bose S, Blocker S, Rios AC, Clevers H, et al. The frontier of live tissue imaging across space and time. Cell Stem Cell. 2021;28:603–22.
Smith BA, Welm AL, Welm BE. On the shoulders of giants: a historical perspective of unique experimental methods in mammary gland research. Seminars in Cell & Developmental Biology. 2012;23:583–90.
Cardiff RD, Kenney N. Mouse mammary tumor biology: a short history. Advances in Cancer Research. 2007;98:53–116.
Home page [Internet]. Cancer Research Horizons. 2023. Available from: https://www.cancerresearchhorizons.com/home-page. [cited 2023 Feb 19].
Acknowledgements
We thank Ms. Laura Wind (Swammerdam Institute for Life Sciences, University of Amsterdam) for help with organizing the Think Tank meeting. The European Network for Breast Development and Cancer labs (ENBDC) is the international society for mammary gland biology and breast cancer research. Labs worldwide can join via https://enbdc.org.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the conception and discussion of the topics presented in this position paper. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Renée van Amerongen and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
ALvB, RI, JJ and MJ do not have any competing interests. All other authors report a conflict of interest as they serve as editorial board members (RvA, MBA, RBC, SF, EGS, MLM, TS, MdMV) or editor in chief (ZSK) of the Journal of Mammary Gland Biology and Neoplasia.
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
van Amerongen, R., Bentires-Alj, M., van Boxtel, A.L. et al. Imagine beyond: recent breakthroughs and next challenges in mammary gland biology and breast cancer research. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 28, 17 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10911-023-09544-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10911-023-09544-y