Multiple different oncogenes have been described previously to be amplified in breast cancer including HER2, EGFR, MYC, CCND1, and MDM2. Gene amplification results in oncogene overexpression but may also serve as an indicator of genomic instability. As such, presence of one or several gene amplifications may have prognostic significance. To assess the prognostic importance of amplifications and coamplifications of HER2, EGFR, MYC, CCND1, and MDM2 in breast cancer, we analyzed a breast cancer tissue microarray containing samples from 2197 cancers with follow-up information. Fluorescence in situ hybridizations revealed amplifications of CCND1 in 20.1%, HER2 in 17.3%, MDM2 in 5.7%, MYC in 5.3%, and EGFR in 0.8% of the tumors. All gene amplifications were significantly associated with high grade. HER2 (P < 0.001) and MYC amplification (P < 0.001) were also linked to shortened survival. In case of HER2, this was independent of grade, pT, and pN categories. MYC amplification was almost 3 times more frequent in medullary cancer (15.9%), than in the histologic subtype with the second highest frequency (ductal; 5.6%; P = 0.0046). HER2 and MYC amplification were associated with estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor negativity (P < 0.001) whereas CCND1 amplification was linked to estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor positivity (P < 0.001). Coamplifications were more prevalent than expected based on the individual frequencies. Coamplifications of one or several other oncogenes occurred in 29.6% of CCND1, 43% of HER2, 55.7% of MDM2, 65% of MYC, and 72.8% of EGFR-amplified cancers. HER2/MYC-coamplified cancers had a worse prognosis than tumors with only one of these amplifications. Furthermore, a gradual decrease of survival was observed with increasing number of amplifications. In conclusion, these data support a major prognostic impact of genomic instability as determined by a broad gene amplification survey in breast cancer.

Purpose: About 50% of prostate cancers have TMPRSS2–ERG fusions with concurrent ERG overexpression. The aim of this study was to determine whether clinical differences exist between ERG-positive and ERG-negative cancers in surgically treated patients not exposed to antihormonal therapy. A secondary aim was to search for differences between these tumor classes. Experimental Design: A tissue microarray containing samples from more than 2,800 prostate cancers with clinical data was analyzed for ERG alterations by immunohistochemistry and FISH. Results were compared with tumor phenotype, biochemical recurrence, and molecular features considered important for prostate cancer. The effect of ERG on androgen receptor (AR)-dependent transcription was analyzed in cell lines. Results: ERG expression was found in 52.4% of 2,805 cancers with a 95% concordance between ERG expression and ERG gene rearrangement detected by FISH. ERG expression was unrelated to clinical outcome and tumor phenotype. Differences in AMACR, Annexin A3, Bcl2, CD10, ALCAM, chromogranin A, epidermal growth factor receptor, HER2, mTOR, p53, and synaptophysin status were significant but minimal in absolute numbers. The most striking difference was found for AR expression, which was markedly higher in ERG-positive cancers. In vitro studies showed ERG-dependent impairment of AR-mediated transcriptional activity. Conclusions: The striking similarities between these two types of prostate cancers rules out a major impact of ERG on tumor aggressiveness in early, not hormonally treated cancer. The marked difference in AR levels between ERG-positive and -negative cancers supports a systematic difference in potential response to hormonal therapy as previously observed in clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res; 17(18); 5878–88. ©2011 AACR.