Breast cancer is a complex and heterogeneous disease. Gene expression profiling has contributed significantly to our understanding of this heterogeneity at a molecular level, refining taxonomy based on simple measures such as histological type, tumour grade, lymph node status and the presence of predictive markers like oestrogen receptor and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) to a more sophisticated classification comprising luminal A, luminal B, basal-like, HER2-positive and normal subgroups. In the laboratory, breast cancer is often modelled using established cell lines. In the present review we discuss some of the issues surrounding the use of breast cancer cell lines as experimental models, in light of these revised clinical classifications, and put forward suggestions for improving their use in translational breast cancer research.

Introduction: Breast cancer remains a significant scientific, clinical and societal challenge. This gap analysis has reviewed and critically assessed enduring issues and new challenges emerging from recent research, and proposes strategies for translating solutions into practice. Methods: More than 100 internationally recognised specialist breast cancer scientists, clinicians and healthcare professionals collaborated to address nine thematic areas: genetics, epigenetics and epidemiology; molecular pathology and cell biology; hormonal influences and endocrine therapy; imaging, detection and screening; current/novel therapies and biomarkers; drug resistance; metastasis, angiogenesis, circulating tumour cells, cancer ‘stem’ cells; risk and prevention; living with and managing breast cancer and its treatment. The groups developed summary papers through an iterative process which, following further appraisal from experts and patients, were melded into this summary account. Results: The 10 major gaps identified were: (1) understanding the functions and contextual interactions of genetic and epigenetic changes in normal breast development and during malignant transformation; (2) how to implement sustainable lifestyle changes (diet, exercise and weight) and chemopreventive strategies; (3) the need for tailored screening approaches including clinically actionable tests; (4) enhancing knowledge of molecular drivers behind breast cancer subtypes, progression and metastasis; (5) understanding the molecular mechanisms of tumour heterogeneity, dormancy, de novo or acquired resistance and how to target key nodes in these dynamic processes; (6) developing validated markers for chemosensitivity and radiosensitivity; (7) understanding the optimal duration, sequencing and rational combinations of treatment for improved personalised therapy; (8) validating multimodality imaging biomarkers for minimally invasive diagnosis and monitoring of responses in primary and metastatic disease; (9) developing interventions and support to improve the survivorship experience; (10) a continuing need for clinical material for translational research derived from normal breast, blood, primary, relapsed, metastatic and drug-resistant cancers with expert bioinformatics support to maximise its utility. The proposed infrastructural enablers include enhanced resources to support clinically relevant in vitro and in vivo tumour models; improved access to appropriate, fully annotated clinical samples; extended biomarker discovery, validation and standardisation; and facilitated cross-discipline working. Conclusions: With resources to conduct further high-quality targeted research focusing on the gaps identified, increased knowledge translating into improved clinical care should be achievable within five years.

The majority of breast cancer research is conducted using established breast cancer cell lines as in vitro models. An alternative is to use cultures established from primary breast tumours. Here, we discuss the pros and cons of using both of these models in translational breast cancer research.

Phytoestrogens are polyphenol compounds of plant origin that exhibit a structural similarity to the mammalian steroid hormone 17β-oestradiol. In Asian nations the staple consumption of phyto-oestrogen-rich foodstuffs correlates with a reduced incidence of breast cancer. Human dietary intervention trials have noted a direct relationship between phyto-oestrogen ingestion and a favourable hormonal profile associated with decreased breast cancer risk. However, these studies failed to ascertain the precise effect of dietary phyto-oestrogens on the proliferation of mammary tissue. Epidemiological and rodent studies crucially suggest that breast cancer chemoprevention by dietary phyto-oestrogen compounds is dependent on ingestion before puberty, when the mammary gland is relatively immature. Phyto-oestrogen supplements are commercially marketed for use by postmenopausal women as natural and safe alternatives to hormone replacement therapy. Of current concern is the effect of phyto-oestrogen compounds on the growth of pre-existing breast tumours. Data are contradictory, with cell culture studies reporting both the oestrogenic stimulation of oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancer cell lines and the antagonism of tamoxifen activity at physiological phyto-oestrogen concentrations. Conversely, phyto-oestrogen ingestion by rodents is associated with the development of less aggressive breast tumours with reduced metastatic potential. Despite the present ambiguity, current data do suggest a potential benefit from use of phyto-oestrogens in breast cancer chemoprevention and therapy. These aspects are discussed.