Yang Ying, Chen Xiang, Ma Changyan. Insulin receptor is implicated in triple-negative breast cancer by decreasing cell mobility[J]. The Journal of Biomedical Research, 2021, 35(3): 189-196. DOI: 10.7555/JBR.34.20200082
Citation:
Yang Ying, Chen Xiang, Ma Changyan. Insulin receptor is implicated in triple-negative breast cancer by decreasing cell mobility[J]. The Journal of Biomedical Research, 2021, 35(3): 189-196. DOI: 10.7555/JBR.34.20200082
Yang Ying, Chen Xiang, Ma Changyan. Insulin receptor is implicated in triple-negative breast cancer by decreasing cell mobility[J]. The Journal of Biomedical Research, 2021, 35(3): 189-196. DOI: 10.7555/JBR.34.20200082
Citation:
Yang Ying, Chen Xiang, Ma Changyan. Insulin receptor is implicated in triple-negative breast cancer by decreasing cell mobility[J]. The Journal of Biomedical Research, 2021, 35(3): 189-196. DOI: 10.7555/JBR.34.20200082
Xiang Chen, Department of General Surgery, the Affiliated Yixing Hospital of Jiangsu University, Yixing, Jiangsu 214200, China. Tel: +86-510-87921210, E-mail: staff984@yxph.com
Changyan Ma, Department of Medical Genetics, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Nanjing Medical University, 101 Longmian Avenue, Nanjing, Jiangsu 211166, China. Tel: +86-25-86869463, E-mail: cyma@njmu.edu.cn
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has a poor prognosis and typically earlier onset of metastasis in comparison with other breast cancer subtypes. It has been reported that insulin receptor (INSR) is downregulated in TNBC, however, its clinical significance and functions in TNBC remain to be elucidated. In this study, we found that INSR expression was significantly downregulated in TNBC, and overexpression of INSR suppressed cell migration and invasion in TNBC. In addition, the survival rate of breast cancer patients with low INSR expression was lower than that of patients with high INSR expression. INSR expression was significantly correlated with lymph node metastasis, clinical tumor stages, ER status, PR status, and the proliferation index Ki-67 expression. In summary, our study suggests that INSR may serve as a biomarker for breast cancer prognosis and it may be a potential target for TNBC treatment.
Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents approximately 10% to 15% of all breast cancers and is a highly aggressive subtype of tumors that lack estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) gene amplification[1–2]. Although the prognosis of most breast cancer is greatly improved due to earlier detection and application of new treatment approaches, such as target therapy, the prognosis of TNBC remains poor[3–4]. In comparison with other breast cancer subtypes, TNBC has an earlier onset of metastasis. Currently, no effective marker is available to serve as a therapeutic target for the systemic treatment of TNBC[5–6].
Insulin receptor (INSR) is a dimeric protein that plays important roles in controlling glucose homeostasis, regulating the metabolism of lipid, protein, and carbohydrate[7–8]. INSR dysfunctions have been involved in many diseases, including diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease[8–9]. INSR can be activated by insulin or insulin-like growth factor II, which plays a key role in the regulation of growth and metabolism as well as in the initiation and maintenance of breast tumors[10]. It has been reported that INSR is downregulated in TNBC[11]. However, the roles and clinical significance of INSR in TNBC are still not well known.
In this study, we investigated the clinical significance of INSR expression in TNBC and breast cancer through database and tissue microarray analysis. We found that the expression of INSR was significantly downregulated in TNBC. Wound healing and transwell assays indicated that overexpression of INSR significantly inhibited cell migration and invasion in TNBC. Moreover, we found that breast cancer patients with higher INSR expression had a longer survival time than patients with lower INSR expression. These results suggest that INSR may be a potential prognostic and therapeutic target for TNBC.
Materials and methods
Cell culture and transfection
Human TNBC cell line MDA-MB-231 was purchased from American Type Culture Collection (USA). MDA-MB-231 cells were cultured in Dulbecco's modified Eagle's medium (Gibco, USA) supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS, Gibco) and 1% penicillin/streptomycin (Invitrogen, USA) in a humidified atmosphere with 5% CO2 at 37 °C. Cells were authenticated by STR profiling and tested for mycoplasma contamination. The INSR expression plasmid pCMV3-INSR-Flag and empty vector were from Sino Biological (China). Cells were plated in 6-well plates one day before transfection. Cell transfection was conducted using Lipofectamine 2000 (Invitrogen) following the manufacturer's instructions.
Total RNA isolation and quantitative RT-PCR
Total RNA was isolated using TRIzol (Invitrogen), and complementary DNA was synthesized from 1 μg of RNA using the PrimeScript RT Reagent (Takara, Japan) following the manufacturer's instructions. The quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) was performed using FastStart Universal SYBR Green Master (Yeasen, China) in a Roche LightCycler 96 qRT-PCR System. The mRNA expression values were normalized to that of the ACTB gene. The primer sequences were listed in Table 1.
Cells were washed with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and harvested in radioimmunoprecipitation assay buffer (Beyotime, China) supplemented with a protease inhibitor cocktail (Beyotime). Equal amounts of protein were loaded on 8% sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS)-polyacrylamide gel for electrophoresis and transferred to polyvinylidene difluoride membranes (Millipore, USA). The membrane was probed with primary antibodies overnight at 4 °C and then incubated with secondary antibodies at room temperature for 1 hour. Immunoblots were developed with the enhanced chemiluminescence Western blotting substrate kit (Millipore). The following primary antibodies were used: β-actin (Cat. No. bs-0061R, Bioss, China; 1:2000 dilution) and INSR (Cat. No. ab137747, Abcam, UK; 1:500 dilution).
Immunohistochemical assay
Tumor tissue sections were deparaffinized with 100% xylene, followed by rehydration using gradient ethanol (100%, 95%, 70%, 30%, and 0%). Antigen retrieval was performed by microwaving the slides in citrate buffer for 15 minutes after endogenous peroxidase activity was blocked with 3% H2O2/methanol for 10 minutes. After blocking with 3% BSA, the tumor tissue sections were incubated with primary antibodies against INSR (Cat. No. ab137747, Abcam; 1:100 dilution), and then with HRP-labeled anti-rabbit IgG antibody (Cat. No. SA00001-2, Proteintech, USA; 1:500 dilution). The specimens were counterstained with hematoxylin. Both positive and negative controls were performed throughout the procedure.
INSR immunostaining was analyzed by evaluationof the percentage of stained cells and stainingintensity, allowing assessment of H-score performed independently by two pathologists who were blinded to the clinical data. For each sample, 10 high power fields (400×) were assessed. Staining intensity on a scale of 0 to 3 (0=negative, 1=weak, 2=moderate, 3=strong) was determined for the cells in each field[12]. H-scores were calculated as the sum of the percentage of cells at each intensity multiplied by staining intensity, with a range from 0 to 300[12].
Human tissue microarray
The breast cancer tissue microarrays containing 63 cases of TNBC tissue samples (Cat. No. HBreD075Bc01) and 63 cases of non-TNBC tissue samples (Cat. No. HBreD080CS01) were purchased from Outdo Biotech (China). None of the patients had received preoperative radiotherapy or chemotherapy. All pathologic diagnoses were included with the manufacturer's instructions.
All clinicopathological parameters of tissue microarrays were shown in Table 2. The age range was 27 to 91 years in the total patient cohort with a median age of 58 years. In total, 112 tumors were diagnosed as invasive ductal carcinomas and 2 carcinomas were classified as invasive lobular subtype. Special subtypes such as medullary carcinoma, secretory carcinoma and others were diagnosed in a separate category, which contained 12 cases. This information was provided by the pathology report.
Table
2.
Clinicopathological parameters of the breast cancer cohort
Parameters
TNBC (n)
Non-TNBC (n)
Histological type
Invasive-ductal
56
56
Invasive-lobular
0
2
Other
7
5
Grading*
G1
4
1
G2
21
36
G3
38
26
pT stage
pT1
22
10
pT2
36
43
pT3
2
8
pT4
3
2
Nodal status
pN0
59
21
pN+
4
42
*Tumors were graded according to the modified Bloom-Richardson grading system. TNBC: triple-negative breast cancer.
Grading was available in 126 cases according to the modified Bloom-Richardson grading system. Of the 126 cases, 64 cases were poorly differentiated (G3: TNBC, n=38; non-TNBC, n=26), 57 cases were moderately differentiated (G2: TNBC, n=21; non-TNBC, n=36) and 5 cases were well-differentiated (G1: TNBC, n=4; non-TNBC, n=1).
Wound healing assay
Cells were seeded in 6-well plates and grown to 90% confluence, and then a linear wound was scratched in the cell monolayer with a pipette tip. Separated cells were washed out using PBS. Wounded cultures were incubated in a serum-free medium, and the edges of the scratch were photographed. Random migration was evaluated by measuring the area of occupancy with Image-Pro Plus (Media Cybernetics, USA).
Transwell migration and invasion assays
Transwell chambers (BD Biosciences, USA) were coated (for invasion assays) or uncoated (for migration assays) with Matrigel (BD Biosciences). A total of 2×103 cells were plated onto the upper chamber for migration assays, and 5×103 cells were added to the upper chamber for invasion assays. The total culture medium containing 10% FBS was added to the lower chamber. After incubation for 16 or 24 hours, cells that had migrated and invaded through the membrane to the lower surface were fixed with methanol and stained with crystal violet. The stained cells were photographed and counted under light microscopy in four randomly selected fields per membrane.
Bioinformatics analysis
The UALCAN online database was used to analyze INSR expression in breast cancer (UALCAN, http://ualcan.path.uab.edu/index.html)[13]. A total of 1211 tissue samples were collected and 114 of them were derived from paired normal tissues. The Kaplan-Meier plotter database was used to predict survival value. The KM plotter is available at: http://kmplot.com/analysis/index.php?p=background[14].
Statistical analysis
Statistical significance was calculated by two-tailed Student's t-test, Chi-square test accordingly. Data are presented as mean±SD. Graphpad Prism 6 (GraphPad Software, USA) and SPSS 19.0 (SPSS Software, USA) were used to generate graphs and statistical analyses.
Ethics statement
All participants provided written informed consent before participating in the study. The ethics committee of Outdo Biotech approved this study.
Results
INSR expression was associated with clinicopathologic grading in breast cancer
Correlation between INSR and histopathological parameters from tissue microarrays were shown in Table 3. As shown in Table 3, INSR expression was significantly correlated with lymph node metastasis (LNM), clinical tumor stages, ER status, PR status, and the proliferation index Ki-67 expression in breast cancer. However, there was no obvious correlation between INSR expression and patients' age, tumor size, or HER2 status (Table 3).
Table
3.
Correlation of INSR expression with clinicopathological characteristics in BRCA patients
Characteristics
INSR
P-value
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Age (years)
0.558
≥50
56
25
13
<50
17
8
7
Tumor size (cm)
0.197
≥2
60
26
19
<2
16
4
1
LNM status
5.051E−6****
Positive
15
17
14
Negative
61
13
6
Clinical tumor stages
0.026*
Ⅰ –Ⅱ
29
20
13
Ⅲ
46
11
7
ER
2.819E−4***
Positive
3
7
7
Negative
73
23
13
PR
2.818E−6****
Positive
5
7
11
Negative
71
23
9
HER2
0.319
Positive
4
3
3
Negative
72
27
17
Ki-67
1.237E−4***
High
53
11
5
Low
23
19
15
Statistical significance was calculated by Chi-square test. *P<0.05, ***P<0.001, ****P<0.0001. INSR: insulin receptor; LNM: lymph node metastasis; ER: estrogen receptor; PR: progesterone receptor; HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; Ki-67: proliferation index with a cut off value of 14%.
INSR expression is correlated with prognostic in breast cancer patients
To investigate the prognostic value of INSR expression in breast cancer, we analyzed overall survival of breast cancer patients using the Kaplan Meier plotter database. As shown in Fig. 1, breast cancer patients with lower INSR expression had a poorer survival rate than patients with higher INSR expression (hazard ratio =0.66, log-rank P<0.05), suggesting that INSR may be a positive prognostic factor for breast cancer.
Figure
1.
Association of INSR expression with breast cancer patients' survival.
Bioinformatic analysis showed that patients with higher INSR expression had a longer survival time than patients with lower INSR expression (P=0.026). The Kaplan Meier plotter database was used to estimate survival time, and the log-rank test was performed to analyze survival differences. INSR: insulin receptor; HR: hazard ratio; CI: confidence interval.
INSR expression was significantly downregulated in TNBC
We analyzed the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) transcriptome data using the UALCAN database. A total of 1211 tissue samples were collected and 114 of them were derived from paired normal tissues. The results showed that the expression of INSR was significantly downregulated in breast cancer compared with that in normal tissues (Fig. 2A).
Figure
2.
INSR was significantly downregulated in TNBC and correlated with breast cancer progression.
A: Relative expression of INSR in breast cancer tissues (tumor) compared with non-tumor samples (normal) was analyzed using the UALCAN database and TCGA transcriptome data. B: Representative pictures of immunohistochemical analysis of INSR expression using tissue microarrays. Scale bar, 20 µm. C: H-score of INSR according to intensity of the staining multiplied by the percentage of positive cells. D: Expression of INSR in TNBC and non-TNBC tissues were analyzed from the UALCAN database using TCGA transcriptome data. Data are presented as mean±SD. Comparisons between two groups were analyzed using a two-sided Student's t-test. *P<0.05, ****P<0.0001. TNBC: triple-negative breast cancer; INSR: insulin receptor.
Further, INSR was detected by immunohistochemistry analysis using tissue microarrays which contained 63 TNBC tissues and 63 non-TNBC tissues. The results showed that INSR expression was markedly downregulated in TNBC tissues compared with that in non-TNBC tissues (Fig. 2B–D). Consistent with the immunohistochemistry result, the UALCAN database analysis showed that INSR was also highly expressed in non-TNBC tissues, and weakly expressed in TNBC tissues (Fig. 2E).
INSR suppressed TNBC cell migration and invasion
To investigate the biological functions of INSR in TNBC, we performed wound healing, transwell migration, and invasion assays in MDA-MB-231 cells. As shown in Fig. 3A, INSR was markedly upregulated in MDA-MB-231 cells transfected with INSR expression plasmids. INSR overexpression significantly decreased the migratory and invasive abilities of MDA-MB-231 cells (Fig. 3B and C). These results suggest that INSR may serve as a suppressor in TNBC metastasis.
Figure
3.
INSR suppressed TNBC cell migration and invasion.
A: qRT-PCR and Western blotting detection of INSR expression levels in MDA-MB-231 cells transfected with pCMV3-INSR-Flag plasmids (Control: overexpression control; INSR: overexpression of INSR). B: Wound healing assay of the migration abilities of INSR overexpressing MDA-MB-231 cells. Scale bar, 200 µm. C: Transwell assay of the migratory and invasive abilities of INSR overexpressing MDA-MB-231 cells. The representative images of migrated and invaded cells 24 hours after seeding. Scale bar, 100 µm. Data obtained from three independent experiments are presented as mean±SD. Comparisons between two groups were analyzed using a two-sided Student's t-test. *P<0.05, ****P<0.0001. INSR: insulin receptor.
Over the last decades, intensive efforts have been made to explore the underlying mechanisms of TNBC and identify therapeutic targets[15–16]. It is widely accepted that dysregulation of gene expression[17], copy number variation[18–19], and DNA methylation are involved in the initiation and progression of TNBC[20–21]. Multiple molecules have been identified as biomarkers and therapeutic targets for TNBC. Ectopic expression and therapeutic delivery of the secreted protein tubulointerstitial nephritis antigen-like 1 (Tinagl1) suppress TNBC progression and metastasis through direct binding to integrin α5β1, αvβ1, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), and subsequent simultaneous inhibition of focal adhesion kinase (FAK) and EGFR signaling pathways. Moreover, Tinagl1 protein level is associated with good prognosis and reversely correlates with FAK and EGFR activation status in TNBC[22]. GGNBP2 expression is decreased in TNBC tissues and is associated with the prognosis of breast cancer patients. Furthermore, overexpression of GGNBP2 in TNBC cells suppresses cell proliferation, migration and invasion, reduces the cancer stem cell subpopulation, and promotes cell apoptosis in vitro as well as inhibits tumor growth in vivo[23]. Recent evidence from clinical trials and preclinical studies has demonstrated a pivotal role of signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) in the initiation, progression, metastasis, and immune evasion of TNBC. STAT3 is overexpressed and constitutively activated in TNBC cells and contributes to cell survival, proliferation, cell cycle progression, anti-apoptosis, migration, invasion, angiogenesis, chemoresistance, immunosuppression, and stem cells self-renewal and differentiation[24]. In this study, we found that INSR expression is significantly downregulated in TNBC tissues compared with that in non-TNBC tissues. In addition, INSR expression was markedly downregulated in breast cancer tissues compared with that in normal tissues. breast cancer patients with lower INSR expression had a poorer survival rate than patients with higher INSR expression. Together, these results suggest that INSR may serve as a biomarker for breast cancer prognosis and it may be involved in the progression of TNBC.
The insulin-like growth factor (IGF) system is composed of three receptors (INSR, IGF-1 receptor and mannose 6-phosphate receptor [M6P/IGF-2R]), three ligands (insulin, IGF-1, IGF-2), and six known types of circulating IGF-binding proteins (IGFBP1–6) that modulate the bioavailability and bioactivity of the IGFs[25]. IGF-1 signaling is involved in glycolysis[26] and IGF-1/PI3K signaling promotes both mitochondrial biogenesis and mitophagy[27]. Moreover, mutations in INSR gene have been found in insulin resistance as well as in several types of obesity-related invasive cancers, such as colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, liver cancer and breast cancer[9,28–29]. It has been reported that INSR expression in TNBC tissues is lower than that in normal tissues[11]. However, its biological functions in TNBC are still unclear. In this study, we demonstrated that overexpression of INSR in MDA-MB-231 cells decreased the migration and invasive abilities of the cells. Therefore, INSR may exert an inhibitory function in the metastasis of TNBC. The precise molecular mechanisms by which INSR suppresses TNBC metastasis needs to be further explored.
In summary, we found that INSR expression was significantly downregulated in TNBC patients. Overexpression of INSR markedly inhibited the migration and invasion of MDA-MB-231 cells. Moreover, INSR expression was significantly correlated with tumor size in non-TNBC patients. We found that INSR expression was significantly correlated with LNM, clinical tumor stages, ER status, PR status, and the proliferation index Ki-67 expression in breast cancer. Importantly, breast cancer patients with lower INSR expression had a poorer survival rate than patients with higher INSR expression. These data indicate that INSR may serve as a biomarker for breast cancer prognosis and it may be a potential target for TNBC treatment.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by grants from projects of Reinvigorating Medicine through Science and Education from Jiangsu Health and Family Planning Commission, Women and Child Health Research project from Wuxi Health Commission (No. FYKY 201907).
Dawood S. Triple-negative breast cancer: epidemiology and management options[J]. Drugs, 2010, 70(17): 2247–2258. doi: 10.2165/11538150-000000000-00000
[2]
Lee A, Djamgoz MBA. Triple negative breast cancer: emerging therapeutic modalities and novel combination therapies[J]. Cancer Treat Rev, 2018, 62: 110–122. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.11.003
[3]
Periyasamy K, Sivabalan V, Baskaran K, et al. Cellular metabolic energy modulation by tangeretin in 7,12-dimethylbenz(a) anthracene-induced breast cancer[J]. J Biomed Res, 2016, 30(2): 134–141. doi: 10.7555/JBR.30.20150060
[4]
Chen F, Li Y, Qin N, et al. RNA-seq analysis identified hormone-related genes associated with prognosis of triple negative breast cancer[J]. J Biomed Res, 2020, 34(2): 129–138. doi: 10.7555/JBR.34.20190111
[5]
Kim C, Gao R, Sei E, et al. Chemoresistance evolution in triple-negative breast cancer delineated by single-cell sequencing[J]. Cell, 2018, 173(4): 879–893.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.041
[6]
Al-Mahmood S, Sapiezynski J, Garbuzenko OB, et al. Metastatic and triple-negative breast cancer: challenges and treatment options[J]. Drug Deliv Transl Res, 2018, 8(5): 1483–1507. doi: 10.1007/s13346-018-0551-3
[7]
Saltiel AR, Kahn CR. Insulin signalling and the regulation of glucose and lipid metabolism[J]. Nature, 2001, 414(6865): 799–806. doi: 10.1038/414799a
[8]
Adamo M, Raizada MK, LeRoith D. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor receptors in the nervous system[J]. Mol Neurobiol, 1989, 3(1-2): 71–100. doi: 10.1007/BF02935589
[9]
Frasca F, Pandini G, Sciacca L, et al. The role of insulin receptors and IGF-I receptors in cancer and other diseases[J]. Arch Physiol Biochem, 2008, 114(1): 23–37. doi: 10.1080/13813450801969715
[10]
Kalla Singh S, Brito C, Tan QW, et al. Differential expression and signaling activation of insulin receptor isoforms A and B: a link between breast cancer and diabetes[J]. Growth Factors, 2011, 29(6): 278–289. doi: 10.3109/08977194.2011.616200
[11]
Chen X, Wu J, Huang H, et al. Comparative profiling of triple-negative breast carcinomas tissue glycoproteome by sequential purification of glycoproteins and stable isotope labeling[J]. Cell Physiol Biochem, 2016, 38(1): 110–121. doi: 10.1159/000438613
[12]
Xue YB, Meehan B, Fu Z, et al. SMARCA4 loss is synthetic lethal with CDK4/6 inhibition in non-small cell lung cancer[J]. Nat Commun, 2019, 10(1): 557. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-08380-1
[13]
Chandrashekar DS, Bashel B, Balasubramanya SAH, et al. UALCAN: a portal for facilitating tumor subgroup gene expression and survival analyses[J]. Neoplasia, 2017, 19(8): 649–658. doi: 10.1016/j.neo.2017.05.002
[14]
Györffy B, Lanczky A, Eklund AC, et al. An online survival analysis tool to rapidly assess the effect of 22,277 genes on breast cancer prognosis using microarray data of 1,809 patients[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2010, 123(3): 725–731. doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0674-9
[15]
Cortés J, André F, Gonçalves A, et al. IMpassion132 Phase III trial: atezolizumab and chemotherapy in early relapsing metastatic triple-negative breast cancer[J]. Future Oncol, 2019, 15(17): 1951–1961. doi: 10.2217/fon-2019-0059
[16]
Lyons TG, Traina TA. Emerging novel therapeutics in triple-negative breast cancer[M]//Ahmad A. Breast Cancer Metastasis and Drug Resistance: Challenges and Progress. Cham: Springer, 2019: 377–399.
[17]
Wang SY, Beeghly-Fadiel A, Cai QY, et al. Gene expression in triple-negative breast cancer in relation to survival[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2018, 171(1): 199–207. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4816-9
[18]
Jiang YZ, Ma D, Suo C, et al. Genomic and transcriptomic landscape of triple-negative breast cancers: subtypes and treatment strategies[J]. Cancer Cell, 2019, 35(3): 428–440.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2019.02.001
[19]
Saravia CH, Flores C, Schwarz LJ, et al. Patterns of mutation enrichment in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer[J]. Clin Med Insights Oncol, 2019, 13: 1179554919868482.
[20]
Khaled N, Bidet Y. New insights into the implication of epigenetic alterations in the EMT of triple negative breast cancer[J]. Cancers, 2019, 11(4): 559. doi: 10.3390/cancers11040559
[21]
Yu J, Zayas J, Qin B, et al. Targeting DNA methylation for treating triple-negative breast cancer[J]. Pharmacogenomics, 2019, 20(16): 1151–1157. doi: 10.2217/pgs-2019-0078
[22]
Shen MH, Jiang YZ, Wei Y, et al. Tinagl1 suppresses triple-negative breast cancer progression and metastasis by simultaneously inhibiting integrin/FAK and EGFR signaling[J]. Cancer Cell, 2019, 35(1): 64–80.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ccell.2018.11.016
[23]
Liu JJ, Liu L, Yagüe E, et al. GGNBP2 suppresses triple-negative breast cancer aggressiveness through inhibition of IL-6/STAT3 signaling activation[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2019, 174(1): 65–78. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-5052-z
[24]
Qin JJ, Yan L, Zhang J, et al. STAT3 as a potential therapeutic target in triple negative breast cancer: a systematic review[J]. J Exp Clin Cancer Res, 2019, 38(1): 195. doi: 10.1186/s13046-019-1206-z
[25]
Pollak M. Insulin and insulin-like growth factor signalling in neoplasia[J]. Nat Rev Cancer, 2008, 8(12): 915–928. doi: 10.1038/nrc2536
[26]
Elstrom RL, Bauer DE, Buzzai M, et al. Akt stimulates aerobic glycolysis in cancer cells[J]. Cancer Res, 2004, 64(11): 3892–3899. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-2904
[27]
Lyons A, Coleman M, Riis S, et al. Insulin-like growth factor 1 signaling is essential for mitochondrial biogenesis and mitophagy in cancer cells[J]. J Biol Chem, 2017, 292(41): 16983–16998. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M117.792838
[28]
Cowey S, Hardy RW. The metabolic syndrome: a high-risk state for cancer?[J]. Am J Pathol, 2006, 169(5): 1505–1522. doi: 10.2353/ajpath.2006.051090
[29]
Parekh N, Guffanti G, Lin Y, et al. Insulin receptor variants and obesity-related cancers in the Framingham Heart Study[J]. Cancer Causes Control, 2015, 26(8): 1189–1195. doi: 10.1007/s10552-015-0613-5
Bhattarai S, Rupji M, Chao HP, et al. Cell cycle traverse rate predicts long-term outcomes in a multi-institutional cohort of patients with triple-negative breast cancer. BJC Rep, 2024, 2(1): 87.
DOI:10.1038/s44276-024-00097-z
2.
Wang M, Wei Z, Kong J, et al. Comprehensive evaluation of the relationship between biomarker profiles and neoadjuvant chemotherapy outcomes for breast cancer patients. Diagn Pathol, 2024, 19(1): 53.
DOI:10.1186/s13000-024-01451-y
3.
Xu LY, Zhao J, Wang X, et al. Non-sentinel lymph node metastases risk factors in patients with breast cancer with one or two sentinel lymph node macro-metastases. Heliyon, 2023, 9(11): e21254.
DOI:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21254
4.
Vemuru S, Huang J, Colborn K, et al. Clinical implications of receptor conversions in breast cancer patients who have undergone neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2023, 200(2): 247-256.
DOI:10.1007/s10549-023-06978-0
5.
He Y, Zhang J, Chen H, et al. Clinical significance and prognostic value of receptor conversion after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients. Front Surg, 2023, 9: 1037215.
DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2022.1037215
6.
Vuhahula EA, Jumanne S, Yahaya J. Expression of Ki67 as detected by MIB-1 and its association with histopathological high-risk factors among patients with retinoblastoma tumour: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open Ophthalmol, 2022, 7(1): e000984.
DOI:10.1136/bmjophth-2022-000984
7.
Zhao F, Cai C, Liu M, et al. Identification of the lymph node metastasis-related automated breast volume scanning features for predicting axillary lymph node tumor burden of invasive breast cancer via a clinical prediction model. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2022, 13: 881761.
DOI:10.3389/fendo.2022.881761
8.
Candás G, García A, Ocampo MD, et al. Impact of immunohistochemical profile changes following neoadjuvant therapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Ecancermedicalscience, 2021, 15: 1162.
DOI:10.3332/ecancer.2021.1162
9.
Zattarin E, Leporati R, Ligorio F, et al. Hormone Receptor Loss in Breast Cancer: Molecular Mechanisms, Clinical Settings, and Therapeutic Implications. Cells, 2020, 9(12): 2644.
DOI:10.3390/cells9122644
10.
Rey-Vargas L, Mejía-Henao JC, Sanabria-Salas MC, et al. Effect of neoadjuvant therapy on breast cancer biomarker profile. BMC Cancer, 2020, 20(1): 675.
DOI:10.1186/s12885-020-07179-4
11.
Xu W, Chen X, Deng F, et al. Predictors of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Response in Breast Cancer: A Review. Onco Targets Ther, 2020, 13: 5887-5899.
DOI:10.2147/OTT.S253056
12.
Ding Y, Ding K, Qian H, et al. Impact on survival of estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor and Ki-67 expression discordance pre- and post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer. PLoS One, 2020, 15(4): e0231895.
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0231895
13.
Ma H, Li L, Jia L, et al. POM121 is identified as a novel prognostic marker of oral squamous cell carcinoma. J Cancer, 2019, 10(19): 4473-4480.
DOI:10.7150/jca.33368
Table
3.
Correlation of INSR expression with clinicopathological characteristics in BRCA patients
Characteristics
INSR
P-value
Weak
Moderate
Strong
Age (years)
0.558
≥50
56
25
13
<50
17
8
7
Tumor size (cm)
0.197
≥2
60
26
19
<2
16
4
1
LNM status
5.051E−6****
Positive
15
17
14
Negative
61
13
6
Clinical tumor stages
0.026*
Ⅰ –Ⅱ
29
20
13
Ⅲ
46
11
7
ER
2.819E−4***
Positive
3
7
7
Negative
73
23
13
PR
2.818E−6****
Positive
5
7
11
Negative
71
23
9
HER2
0.319
Positive
4
3
3
Negative
72
27
17
Ki-67
1.237E−4***
High
53
11
5
Low
23
19
15
Statistical significance was calculated by Chi-square test. *P<0.05, ***P<0.001, ****P<0.0001. INSR: insulin receptor; LNM: lymph node metastasis; ER: estrogen receptor; PR: progesterone receptor; HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; Ki-67: proliferation index with a cut off value of 14%.
Authors and Reviewers
DownLoad:
