Histologic grade in breast cancer provides clinically important prognostic information. However, 30%-60% of tumors are classified as histologic grade 2. This grade is associated with an intermediate risk of recurrence and is thus not informative for clinical decision making. We examined whether histologic grade was associated with gene expression profiles of breast cancers and whether such profiles could be used to improve histologic grading. We analyzed microarray data from 189 invasive breast carcinomas and from three published gene expression datasets from breast carcinomas. We identified differentially expressed genes in a training set of 64 estrogen receptor (ER)-positive tumor samples by comparing expression profiles between histologic grade 3 tumors and histologic grade 1 tumors and used the expression of these genes to define the gene expression grade index. Data from 597 independent tumors were used to evaluate the association between relapse-free survival and the gene expression grade index in a Kaplan-Meier analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. We identified 97 genes in our training set that were associated with histologic grade; most of these genes were involved in cell cycle regulation and proliferation. In validation datasets, the gene expression grade index was strongly associated with histologic grade 1 and 3 status; however, among histologic grade 2 tumors, the index spanned the values for histologic grade 1-3 tumors. Among patients with histologic grade 2 tumors, a high gene expression grade index was associated with a higher risk of recurrence than a low gene expression grade index (hazard ratio = 3.61, 95% confidence interval = 2.25 to 5.78; P < .001, log-rank test). Gene expression grade index appeared to reclassify patients with histologic grade 2 tumors into two groups with high versus low risks of recurrence. This approach may improve the accuracy of tumor grading and thus its prognostic value.

This review discusses the results of DNA microarray signatures in breast cancer. These signatures have been useful in the classification of breast cancers, and they have an association with clinical outcomes. Surprisingly, there is little overlap in the types of genes among several useful microarray signatures. The true value of these signatures will become apparent only when prospective trials, now in progress, have been completed.

The newly published World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours of the breast features significant changes compared to earlier editions. In this review, we outline the major changes in this important reference source for those diagnosing tumours, or engaged in cancer research, and describe the significant changes. For breast cancer, the overview acknowledges the treatment‐relevant subtypes of invasive carcinoma (based on ER and HER2 status) and new data is added to support the differences in pathogenesis, treatment response and prognosis of these clinically relevant groupings. The WHO Classification of Tumours is increasingly evidence‐based, with a clear update cycle, improved quality of illustrations, as well as content, led by an editorial board comprising pathologists, but increasingly incorporating input from other disciplines. The advent of the new website allows the use of whole slide images, and hyperlinks to evidence or external bodies that produce guidance on staging or reporting.

Introduction: Breast cancer subtyping and prognosis have been studied extensively by gene expression profiling, resulting in disparate signatures with little overlap in their constituent genes. Although a previous study demonstrated a prognostic concordance among gene expression signatures, it was limited to only one dataset and did not fully elucidate how the different genes were related to one another nor did it examine the contribution of well-known biological processes of breast cancer tumorigenesis to their prognostic performance. Method: To address the above issues and to further validate these initial findings, we performed the largest meta-analysis of publicly available breast cancer gene expression and clinical data, which are comprised of 2,833 breast tumors. Gene coexpression modules of three key biological processes in breast cancer (namely, proliferation, estrogen receptor [ER], and HER2 signaling) were used to dissect the role of constituent genes of nine prognostic signatures. Results: Using a meta-analytical approach, we consolidated the signatures associated with ER signaling, ERBB2 amplification, and proliferation. Previously published expression-based nomenclature of breast cancer 'intrinsic' subtypes can be mapped to the three modules, namely, the ER^-/HER2^- (basal-like), the HER2⁺ (HER2-like), and the low- and high-proliferation ER⁺/HER2^- subtypes (luminal A and B). We showed that all nine prognostic signatures exhibited a similar prognostic performance in the entire dataset. Their prognostic abilities are due mostly to the detection of proliferation activity. Although ER^- status (basal-like) and ERBB2⁺ expression status correspond to bad outcome, they seem to act through elevated expression of proliferation genes and thus contain only indirect information about prognosis. Clinical variables measuring the extent of tumor progression, such as tumor size and nodal status, still add independent prognostic information to proliferation genes. Conclusion: This meta-analysis unifies various results of previous gene expression studies in breast cancer. It reveals connections between traditional prognostic factors, expression-based subtyping, and prognostic signatures, highlighting the important role of proliferation in breast cancer prognosis.

Recent efforts of genome-wide gene expression profiling analyses have improved our understanding of the biological complexity and diversity of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) reporting, at least six different molecular subtypes of TNBC namely Basal-like 1 (BL1), basal-like 2 (BL2), immunomodulatory (IM), mesenchymal (M), mesenchymal stem-like (MSL) and luminal androgen receptor (LAR). However, little is known regarding the potential driving molecular events within each subtype, their difference in survival and response to therapy. Further insight into the underlying genomic alterations is therefore needed. This study was carried out using copy-number aberrations, somatic mutations and gene expression data derived from the Molecular Taxonomy of Breast Cancer International Consortium (METABRIC) and The Cancer Genome Atlas. TNBC samples (n = 550) were classified according to Lehmann’s molecular subtypes using the TNBCtype online subtyping tool (http://cbc.mc.vanderbilt.edu/tnbc/). Each subtype showed significant clinic-pathological characteristic differences. Using a multivariate model, IM subtype showed to be associated with a better prognosis (HR = 0.68; CI = 0.46–0.99; P = 0.043) whereas LAR subtype was associated with a worst prognosis (HR = 1.47; CI = 1.0–2.14; P = 0.046). BL1 subtype was found to be most genomically instable subtype with high TP53 mutation (92%) and copy-number deletion in genes involved in DNA repair mechanism (BRCA2, MDM2, PTEN, RB1 and TP53). LAR tumours were associated with higher mutational burden with significantly enriched mutations in PI3KCA (55%), AKT1 (13%) and CDH1 (13%) genes. M and MSL subtypes were associated with higher signature score for angiogenesis. Finally, IM showed high expression levels of immune signatures and check-point inhibitor genes such as PD1, PDL1 and CTLA4. Our findings highlight for the first time the substantial genomic heterogeneity that characterize TNBC molecular subtypes, allowing for a better understanding of the disease biology as well as the identification of several candidate targets paving novel approaches for the development of anticancer therapeutics for TNBC.