Prognostic Significance of Survivin and Livin Expression in the Primary Breast Cancer and Their Lymph Node Metastases

A B S T R A C T

Aim: To assess the prognostic significance of Survivin and Livin expression in invasive breast cancer and their lymph node metastases.
Materials and Methods: The present series consists of archival samples from 78 women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed and treated during 2010-2014 at National Cancer Institute, Misurata, Libya. Tumor biopsies were analysed for expression of Survivin and Livin by immunohistochemistry, and different grading systems were tested for their expression.
Results: In the cancer samples, a significant correlation was established between Survivin expression and site of the tumor (p=0.021), tumor recurrence (p=0.036), and unifocal tumor (p=0.001). Moreover, Her-2 negative tumors had higher Survivin expression than Her-2 positive tumors (p= 0.047). There were no associations between Survivin expression and histological grade, histological type, lymph node status, tumor stage, TNM classification, estrogen and progesterone receptors, distant metastases, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone replacement, vascular invasion, surgical margin, positive family history. Livin expression in primary breast cancer showed a significant correlation (p=0.025) with positive family history, but no significant association with other clinicopathological parameters. In addition, we found that primary tumors showed higher Survivin expression (82%) compared with the lymph node metastases (34%), whereas Livin expression did not differ between the primary (71%) tumors and their metastases (84%).
Conclusion: Survivin expression in primary breast cancer is significantly associated with several characteristics of favourable prognosis. Livin expression in primary breast cancer is significantly associated only with a positive family history of breast cancer.

Keywords

Prognostic, significant, survivin, livin, expression, breast cancer, lymph node metastases

Introduction

Breast carcinoma is the most common malignant tumor and the leading cause of cancer mortality among women, with more than 1000000 annual new cases occurring worldwide [1]. During the past two decades, marked progress has been made in defining some of the critical processes associated with the development and progression of breast cancer. It is now generally accepted that malignant transformation involves genetic and epigenetic changes that derail common regulatory mechanisms and result in uncontrolled cellular proliferation and/or aberrant programmed cell death or apoptosis [2]. The most common molecular alterations include: i) growth receptor overexpression (such as HER2/neu amplification in 20-25% of cases, EGFR overexpression in 3%, FGFR1 or FGFR2 overexpression in 10-12%); ii) growth factor overexpression (such as FGF1/FGF4 in 20-30%); iii) alterations in intracellular signaling molecules: HRAS mutation in 5-10%); cell cycle regulator alterations (such as TP53 mutation in 20-60%, RB inactivation in 20%, CCND1 gene amplification in 13-21%); adhesion molecule alterations (such as reduced expression of E-cadherin in 60-70%, reduced expression of P-cadherin in 30%, over-expression of cathepsin D in 20-24%); and others (such as c-myc amplification in (20%) [3, 4]. Several prognostic markers including clinical stage, histologic grade, estrogen receptor (ER)/progesterone receptor (PR) status, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (Her-2), and the Ki67 proliferation index have already been identified and validated [5-12]. Apoptosis (programmed cell death) has been proposed to play a role not only in cancer onset and progression but also in sustaining decreased tumor cell sensitivity to chemotherapy which represents one of the main prognostic indicators in these cancers [13-15].

Recently, novel proteins which suppress apoptosis through caspase-dependent and caspase-independent mechanisms have been characterized, collectively defined as inhibitors of apoptosis (IAPs) [16]. Until now, 8 human IAPs have been recognized: Survivin, Livin, IAP1, c-IAP2, NAIP, XIAP, c-BRUCE, and ILP-2 [17, 18]. Survivin (encoded by baculoviral inhibitor of apoptosis repeat-containing 5 [BIRC5]) is one of the IAPs [19]. It is being involved in inhibition of apoptosis and mitosis regulation in malignant cells. It is over-expressed in a wide range of human tumors such as prostatic, pancreatic, lung, ovarian, and breast cancers [20, 21]. It is also an important molecular prognostic marker in many cancers and a target of cancer therapies [22-24].

In breast cancer, Survivin and its splice variants are found to be associated with an aggressive tumor behaviour [25]. livin is identified as an anti-apoptotic gene, connected with the death receptor signaling complexes, where it suppresses the activation of caspases. The latter are responsible for apoptosis and protect cells from different pro-apoptotic stimuli [18]. Cell proliferation, invasion, and Livin are associated with the stimulation of motility, inhibition of apoptosis in human cancer cells [26-29]. In several human cancers, Livin expression is augmented and correlated with cancer progression [16, 30-34]. In the present study, we assessed the expression of Survivin and Livin proteins in primary invasive breast cancer and their lymph node metastases, correlating Survivin and Livin expression patterns with several clinicopathological variables.

Materials and Methods

I Materials

The material includes archival samples of 78 Libyan women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed during 2010-2014 at the Department of Pathology, National Cancer Institute of Libya. All analyses were made of representative paraffin blocks available at the department archives. All relevant clinical and histopathological data of the patients were collected from the patients’ records and summarized in (Table 1). All patients have been prospectively followed up until death or when last seen alive on their clinical visit, with a mean follow-up time of 26 months (ranges 2-70).

Table 1: The key clinicopathological characteristics of the patients.

Characteristic

Number of patients (%)

Age (years)

 

<49 years

46(59)

≥49 years

32(41)

 

 

Site of tumor

 

Rt.

43(55)

Lt.

35(45)

 

 

Histological type

 

Invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC)

69(89)

Mucinous carcinoma

3 (4)

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC)

3(4)

Papillary carcinoma

1(1)

Secretory carcinoma

1(1)

Cribriform carcinoma

1(1)

 

 

Histological Grades

 

G1

13(17)

G2

48(61)

G3

17(22)

 

 

Stage

 

I

6(8)

IIA

23(29)

IIB

13(17)

III

1(1)

IIIA

18(23)

IIIB

1(1)

IV

16(21)

 

 

Primary tumor:

 

T1

6(8)

T2

44(56)

T3

28(36)

 

 

Lymph node involvement

 

No

35(45)

Yes

43(55)

 

 

Distance metastasis

 

No

62(79)

Yes

16(21)

 

 

Chemotherapy

 

No

7(9)

Yes

71(91)

 

 

Radiotherapy

 

No

26(33)

Yes

52(67)

 

 

Hormone replacement therapy

 

No

29(37)

Yes

49(63)

 

 

Recurrence

 

No

70(90)

Yes

6(8)

 

 

Estrogen

 

No

32(41)

Yes

45(58)

 

 

Progesterone

 

No

31(40)

Yes

46(59)

 

 

Her-2

 

No

59(76)

Yes

18(23)

 

 

Multifocality

 

No

70(90)

Yes

8(10)

Free surgical margin

 

No

16(21)

Yes

20(26)

 

 

Vascular invasion

 

No

58(74)

Yes

20(26)

 

 

Positive family history

 

No

74(95)

yes

4(5)

II Methods
i Livin and Survivin Immunohistochemistry (IHC) Staining

IHC staining was performed using an automated system (BenchMark XT; Ventana Medical System, Inc., Tucson, AZ, USA). This fully automated processing system for code-labeled slides includes baking of the deparaffinization, antigen retrieval in the cell slides, solvent-free conditioning buffer CC1 (Mild: 36 minutes conditioning and standard: 60 minutes conditioning), incubation with rabbit polyclonal anti-Livin and anti-Survivin antibody, 2.0 ml ready-to-use from Spring Bioscience at a dilution of 1:100 for 30 minutes, at 37°C (Survivin, Catalog No: abx 11576, Livin, Catalog abx 48503, USA), as well as application of ultra-viewTM universal DAB inhibitor, ultra-view universal DAB chromogen, ultra-view universal DAB H2O2, ultra-view universal DAB copper and ultra-view universal HRP multimer. Counterstaining with hematoxylin II (C00758) was performed for 4 minutes, followed by post-counterstaining with bluing reagent (B11129) for 4 minutes. After staining, the sections were dehydrated in ethanol, cleared in xylene and covered with Mountex and coverslips.

ii Evaluation of Livin and Survivin Staining

IHC staining of both markers was evaluated using a regular light microscope at the magnification of x40, blinded by the clinical information and other tumor characteristics. Nuclear and cytoplasmic staining were evaluated separately. Three different grading (A, B, C) systems were applied to assess the patterns of Livin and Survivin expression in tumor cells. In system A, the staining was graded into four categories: 0, no expression (no detectable staining); 1, weak staining; 2, moderate staining; and 3, strong staining intensity. In system B, staining was graded in two categories: 1, no/weak expression; and 2, moderate/strong expression. Finally, in system C, Livin and Survivin expression were categorized simply as negative or positive. In calculating the staining indexes, cytoplasmic and nuclear index, the intensity of staining and the fraction of positively stained cells were taken into account using the following formula: I = 0 × f0 + 1 × f1 + 2 × f2 + 3 × f3 Where ‘I’ is the staining index and f0-f3 are the fractions of the cells showing a defined level of staining intensity (from 0 to 3). Theoretically, the index could vary between 0 and 3 [35, 36].

iii Statistical Analysis

SPSS for Windows SPSS 19.0.1 (IBM, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Frequency tables were analysed using the Chi-square test, with Fisher’s exact test (where appropriate), or likelihood ratio (LR) statistics to assess the significance between categorical variables. Differences in the means of continuous variables were analysed using ANOVA (analysis of variance) or nonparametric tests (Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis) tests. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used in evaluating patient survival, with a log-rank test in comparison between the strata. Reported p-values are from two-sided tests, and in all analyses p<0.05 was regarded as statistically significant.

Results

I Expression Patterns of Survivin and Livin

The expression pattern of Survivin and Livin in primary cancer and their lymph node metastases was predominantly cytoplasmic, with few cases showing any nuclear expression, as illustrated in (Figures 1A-1C).

Science Repository

Figure 1: A) Moderate Survivin expression in breast cancer (x40 magnification). B) Strong Livin expression in breast cancer (x40 magnification). C) Moderate Livin expression in breast cancer (x40 magnification).

Enlarge Image

II Correlation of Survivin and Livin Expression with Clinicopathological Characteristics

The distribution of Survivin and Livin in the primary tumor as related to clinicopathological characteristics is presented in (Tables 2 & 3). Survivin expression in primary breast cancer showed a significant correlation with the site of the tumor (p=0.021) in that the right-side tumors had a higher expression than left side tumors. Survivin expression in the primary tumors was significantly (p=0.036) higher in patients without disease recurrence during the follow-up period. Survivin expression was also significantly (p=0.001) associated with unifocal tumors more than multifocal tumors. Moreover, Her-2 negative tumors expressed Survivin more than Her-2 positive tumors (P=0.047). There was no statistically significant association of Survivin expression with the histological grade, histological type, lymph node status, tumor stage, TNM classification, estrogen and progesterone receptors, distant metastases, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormone replacement therapy, vascular invasion, free surgical margins or positive family history of breast cancer (Table 2).

Table 2: Correlation between Survivin expression and clinicopathological features of the primary tumors.

Features

 

Number of cases (%)

Survivin-expression in the primary tumors

 

Negative (0)

Weak (+1)

Moderate (+2)

Strong (+3)

P-value

Age (years)

 

 

 

 

 

0.650

< 49 years

46(59%)

13(28%)

24(52%)

8(18%)

1(2%)

 

≥ 49 years

32(41%)

12(37.5%)

16(50%)

4(12.5%)

0(0%)

 

Site of tumor

 

 

 

 

 

0.021

Right

43(55%)

9(20.9%)

25(58.1%)

9(20.9%)

0(0%)

 

Left

35(45%)

16(45.7%)

10(28.6%)

9(25.7%)

0(0%)

 

Histological Type

 

 

 

 

 

0.611

Invasive ductal carcinoma

69(89%)

21(30.4%)

31(44.9%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Mucinous carcinoma

3(4%)

2(66.7%)

1(33.3)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Invasive lobular carcinoma

3(4%)

1(33.3%)

2(66.7%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Papillary carcinoma

1(1%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Secretory carcinoma

1(1%)

0(0%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Cribriform carcinoma

1(1%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

 

Histological Grades

 

 

 

 

 

0.431

G1

13(17%)

7(53.8%)

4(30.8%)

2(15.4%)

0(0%)

 

G2

48(61%)

12(25%)

24(50%)

12(25%)

0(0%)

 

G3

17(22%)

6(35.3%)

7(41.2%)

4(23.5%)

0(0%)

 

Stage

 

 

 

 

 

0.892

I

6(8%)

3(50%)

1(16.7%)

2(33.3%)

0(0%)

 

IIA

23(29%)

7(30.4%)

10(43.5%)

6(26.1%)

0(0%)

 

IIB

13(17%)

3(23.1%)

7(53.8%)

3(23.1%)

0(0%)

 

III

1(1%)

0(0%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

IIIA

18(23%)

5(27.8%)

10(55.6%)

3(16.7%)

0(0%)

 

IIIB

1(1%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

IV

16(21%)

6(37.5%)

6(37.5%)

4(25%)

0(0%)

 

Primary Tumor

 

 

 

 

 

0.742

T1

6(8%)

3(50%)

1(16.7%)

2(33.3%)

 

 

T2

44(56%)

12(27%)

23(52.5%)

9(20.5%)

 

 

T3

28(36%)

9(32%)

11(39%

8(33%)

 

 

Lymph node involvement

 

 

 

 

 

0.589

No

35(45%)

11(31.4%)

14(40%)

10(28.6%)

0(0%)

 

yes

43(55%)

14(32.6%)

21(48.8%)

8(18.6%)

0(0%)

 

Distance Metastases

 

 

 

 

 

0.771

No

62(79%)

19(30.6%)

29(46.8%)

14(22.6%)

0(0%)

 

yes

16(21%)

6(37.5%)

6(37.5%)

4(25%)

 

 

Chemotherapy

 

 

 

 

 

0.200

No

7(9%)

4(57.1%)

1(14.3%)

2(28.6%)

0(0%)

 

Yes

71(91%)

21(29.6%)

34(47.9%)

16(22.5%)

0(0%)

 

Radiotherapy

 

 

 

 

 

0.584

No

26(33%)

9(34.6%)

13(50%)

4(15.4%)

0(0%)

 

yes

52(67%)

16(30.8%)

22(42.3%)

14(26.9%)

0(0%)

 

Recurrence

 

 

 

 

 

0.036

No

70(90%)

21(30%)

34(48%)

15(21.4%)

0(0%)

 

yes

6(8%)

3(50%)

0(0%)

3(50%)

0(0%)

 

Estrogen

 

 

 

 

 

0.357

No

32(41%)

10(31.3%)

12(37.5%)

10(31.3%)

0(0%)

 

yes

45(58%)

14(31.1%)

23(51.1%)

8(17.8%)

0(0%)

 

Progesterone

 

 

 

 

 

0.554

No

31(40%)

10(32.3%)

12(38.7%)

9(29%)

0(0%)

 

yes

46(59%)

14(30.4%)

23(50%)

9(19.6%)

0(0%)

 

Her-2

 

 

 

 

 

0.047

No

59(76%)

17(28.8%)

31(52.5%)

11(18.6%)

0(0%)

 

yes

18(23%)

7(38.9%)

4(22.2%)

7(38.9%)

0(0%)

 

Multifocality

 

 

 

 

 

0.001

No

70(90%)

18(25.7%)

34(48.6%)

18(25.7%)

0(0%)

 

yes

8(10%)

7(87.5%)

1(12.5%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Free surgical margin

 

 

 

 

 

0.485

No

16(21%)

3(18.8%)

9(56.3%)

4(25%)

0(0%)

 

yes

20(26)

22(35.5%)

26(41.9%)

14(22.6%)

0(0%)

 

Vascular Invasion

 

 

 

 

 

0.754

No

58(74%)

17(29.3%)

27(46.6%)

14(24.1%)

0(0%)

 

yes

20(26%)

8(40%)

8(40%)

4(20%)

0(0%)

 

Positive family history

 

 

 

 

 

0.812

No

74(95%)

23(31.1%)

34(45.9%)

17(23%)

0(0%)

 

yes

4(5%)

2(50%)

1(25%)

1(25%)

0(0%)

 

Table 3: Correlation between Livin expression and clinicopathological features of the primary tumors.

Features

Number of cases (%)

Livin-expression in the primary tumors

 

Negative (0), weak (1) vs. moderate (2+), Strong (3+)

Negative, weak

Moderate, strong

P-value

Age (years)

 

 

 

0.73

< 49 years

46 (59%)

31(68%)

15(32%)

 

≥ 49 years

32(41%)

22(68.7%)

10(31.3%)

 

Site of tumor

 

 

 

0.645

Right

43 (55%)

24(55.8%)

19(44.2%)

 

Left

35(45%)

22(62.9%)

13(37.1%)

 

Histological Type

 

 

 

0.374

Invasive ductal carcinoma

69(89%)

40(58%)

29(42%)

 

Mucinous carcinoma

3(4%)

1(33.3%)

2(66.7%)

 

Invasive lobular carcinoma

3(4%)

3(100%)

0(0%)

 

Papillary carcinoma

1(1%)

1(100%)

0(100%)

 

Secretory carcinoma

1(1%)

1(100%)

0(100%)

 

Cribriform carcinoma

1(1%)

0(100%)

1(100%)

 

Histological Grades

 

 

 

0.852

G1

13(17%)

8(61.5%)

5(38.5%)

 

G2

48(61%)

27(56.3%)

21(43.8%)

 

G3

17(22%)

11(64.7%)

6(35.3%)

 

Stage

 

 

 

0.47

I

6(8%)

2(33.3%)

4(66.7%)

 

IIA

23(29%)

15(65.2%)

8(34.8%)

 

IIB

13(17%)

6(46.2%)

7(53.8%)

 

III

1(1%)

0(0%)

1(100%)

 

IIIA

18(23%)

11(61.1%)

7(38.9%)

 

IIIB

1(1%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

 

IV

16(21%)

11(68.8%)

5(31.3%)

 

Primary Tumor

 

 

 

0.584

T1

6(8%)

2(33.3%)

4(66.7%)

 

T2

44(56%)

24(54.5%)

20(45.5%)

 

T3

28(36%)

12(42.8%)

16(75.2%)

 

Lymph node involvement

 

 

 

0.820

No

35(45%)

20(57.1%)

15(42.9%)

 

yes

43(55%)

26(60.5%)

17(39.5%)

 

Distance Metastases

 

 

 

0.410

No

62(79%)

35(56.5%)

27(43.5%)

 

yes

16(21%)

11(68.8%)

5(31.3%)

 

Chemotherapy

 

 

 

0.694

No

7(9%)

5(71.4%)

2(28.6%)

 

Yes

71(91%)

41(57.7%)

30(42.3%)

 

Radiotherapy

 

 

 

0.330

No

26(33%)

13(50%)

13(50%)

 

yes

52(67%)

33(63.5%)

19(36.5%)

 

Recurrence

 

 

 

0.683

No

70(90%)

42(60%)

28(40%)

 

yes

6(8%)

3(50%)

3(50%)

 

Estrogen

 

 

 

0.353

No

32(41%)

17(53.1%)

15(46.9%)

 

yes

45(58%)

29(64.4%)

16(35.6%)

 

Progesterone

 

 

 

0.488

No

31(40%)

17(45.2%)

14(54.8%)

 

yes

46(59%)

29(63.0%)

17(37%)

 

Her-2

 

 

 

0.414

No

59(76%)

37(62.7%)

22(37.3%)

 

yes

18(23%)

9(50%)

9(50%)

 

Multifocality

 

 

 

1.000

No

70(90%)

41(58.6%)

29(41.4%)

 

yes

8(10%)

5(62.5%)

3(37.5%)

 

Free surgical margin

 

 

 

0.570

No

16(21%)

8(50%)

8(50%)

 

yes

20(26%)

24(38.7%)

38(61.3%)

 

Vascular Invasion

 

 

 

0.299

No

58(74%)

32(55.2%)

26(44.8%)

 

yes

20(26%)

14(70%)

6(30%)

 

Positive family history

 

 

 

0.025

No

74(95%)

46(62.2%)

28(37.8%)

 

yes

4(5%)

0(0%)

4(100%)

 

Hormone replacement Therapy

 

 

 

0.640

No

29(37%)

16(55.2%)

13(44.8%)

 

Yes

49(63%)

30(61.2%)

19(38.8%)

 

Livin expression in primary breast cancer showed a significant correlation (p=0.025) with a positive family history, in that all patients with positive family showing over-expression of Livin. On the other hand, Livin expression was not significantly associated with the site of tumor, histologic type, grade, LN status, TNM classification, tumor stage, recurrence, distant metastasis, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, estrogen- and progesterone receptor status, Her-2, hormone replacement therapy, multifocality, vascular invasion and free surgical margins (Table 3). Survivin and Livin expression were also analysed in the lymph node metastases (secondary breast cancer). A total of 44 patients had lymph node metastases, 15 patients (34%) showing cytoplasmic expression of Survivin, whereas 29 (66%) were considered negative. Altogether, 37 patients (84%) showed cytoplasmic expression of Livin, while 7 patients (16%) were negative. The primary tumors showed higher Survivin expression (82%) than did the lymph node metastases (34%), whereas a Livin expression did not differ between the primary (71%) and the secondary tumors (84%). Survival analysis using the Kaplan-Meier test showed no statistically significant impact of Survivin expression (in the primary breast cancer) one disease-specific survival (DSS) (p=0.775) (Figure 2).

Science Repository

Figure 2: Survivin expression (neg-weak vs. mod-strong) as determinant of disease-specific survival (DSS) in univariate (Kaplan-Meier) analysis (p=0.775 log-rank).

Enlarge Image

Discussion

The need for informative molecular markers that provide prognostic information additional to that given by conventional pathological staging of breast cancer has been recently highlighted. The aim of our study was to investigate the expression of Survivin and Livin proteins in primary breast cancer and their lymph node metastases using immunohistochemistry. Survivin expression was detected in 82% of the primary breast cancer and in 34% of their lymph node metastases. Livin was detected in 71% of the primary tumors and in 84% of their metastases. The IHC staining of Livin and Survivin revealed that their expression was predominantly cytoplasmic with very little nuclear staining. Thus, only the cytoplasmic staining of Livin and Survivin was evaluated in the present study. The role of Survivin and Livin as prognostic markers in breast cancer is controversial. In the present series, cytoplasmic Survivin expression in breast cancer is significantly associated with several indicators of favourable prognosis including unifocal tumor, no recurrence and Her-2 negative tumors. This is in line with the study of, Shaaban et al. who demonstrated that cytoplasmic staining of Survivin was correlated with favourable prognostic indicators [37]. Similarly, Kennedy et al. confirmed that nuclear expression of Survivin is an indicator of favourable disease outlook [38].

Hormonal receptors, as well as Her-2 status, are widely accepted as prognostic and predictive indicators in breast cancer. In the present series, a significant correlation (p=0.047) was established between Survivin expression and Her-2 status, while no such correlation was found with ER (p=0.35) and PR (p=0.55) expression being in alignment with other studies [39-41]. Livin over-expression is associated with tumor progression, more aggressive behaviour, e.g., migration and resistance to radiotherapy and chemotherapy, in several types of human malignancies [42, 43]. The present results disclose a statistically significant difference in Livin expression between the patients with and without a positive family history of breast cancer. Although a positive family history of breast cancer is a well-established risk factor of incident breast cancer, it is not known whether it has an impact on mortality after breast cancer diagnosis. Some studies have reported that breast cancer cases with family history are more likely to have smaller and earlier-stage tumors [44, 45]. However, in the present series, we failed to demonstrate any statistically significant correlation between Livin expression and ER, PR, Her-2 status, or tumor grade, thus, confirming the findings reported in some previous studies [46]. As to the lymph node status in our series, there was no significant association between Livin and Survivin expression, being in agreement with the data of Soliman et al. [47]. Finally, we also analysed the association of Survivin and Livin expression in the (lymph node metastases). Altogether, 44 patients had lymph node metastases, of whom 15 patients (34%) showed cytoplasmic expression of Survivin, and 37 patients (84%) showed cytoplasmic expression of Livin. Accordingly, Survivin expression in the primary tumors (82%) is significantly more common than in their lymph node metastases (34%) whereas no such difference exists in Livin expression (71%) and their metastases (84%) respectively.

Conclusion

Taken together, the present results indicate that Survivin and Livin are frequently expressed in primary breast cancer and their lymph node metastases. Survivin expression in primary breast cancer is significantly associated with several indicators of favourable disease outlook, including unifocal tumor, no recurrence, and Her-2 negative tumors. However, in univariate survival analysis (Kaplan-Meier), Survivin was not a significant predictor of DSS. Livin expression in primary breast cancer is significantly associated with positive family history. These findings advocate further research focused on these two molecular markers in breast cancer.

Acknowledgement

This project was supported by grants from the National Agency for Scientific Research (NASR), Tripoli, Libya and Misurata Cancer center, Misurata, Libya. The skilful technical assistance of Esraa Samir Obida is gratefully acknowledged.

Article Info

Article Type
Research Article
Publication history
Received: Mon 19, Jul 2021
Accepted: Tue 10, Aug 2021
Published: Wed 01, Sep 2021
Copyright
© 2023 Khaled Saleh Ben Salah. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Hosting by Science Repository.
DOI: 10.31487/j.JSO.2021.02.01

Author Info

Sara Glessa Fatma Emaetig Hisham Abudabbous Abdulla Jebril Nabil Elnattah Kari Syrjanen Mamduh Jaber Abdulsalam Elrabie Mohamed Elfagieh Adam Elzagheid Khaled Saleh Ben Salah Abdulhakim W Zaggut

Corresponding Author
Khaled Saleh Ben Salah
Department of Pathology, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Misrata, Libya

Figures & Tables

Table 1: The key clinicopathological characteristics of the patients.

Characteristic

Number of patients (%)

Age (years)

 

<49 years

46(59)

≥49 years

32(41)

 

 

Site of tumor

 

Rt.

43(55)

Lt.

35(45)

 

 

Histological type

 

Invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC)

69(89)

Mucinous carcinoma

3 (4)

Invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC)

3(4)

Papillary carcinoma

1(1)

Secretory carcinoma

1(1)

Cribriform carcinoma

1(1)

 

 

Histological Grades

 

G1

13(17)

G2

48(61)

G3

17(22)

 

 

Stage

 

I

6(8)

IIA

23(29)

IIB

13(17)

III

1(1)

IIIA

18(23)

IIIB

1(1)

IV

16(21)

 

 

Primary tumor:

 

T1

6(8)

T2

44(56)

T3

28(36)

 

 

Lymph node involvement

 

No

35(45)

Yes

43(55)

 

 

Distance metastasis

 

No

62(79)

Yes

16(21)

 

 

Chemotherapy

 

No

7(9)

Yes

71(91)

 

 

Radiotherapy

 

No

26(33)

Yes

52(67)

 

 

Hormone replacement therapy

 

No

29(37)

Yes

49(63)

 

 

Recurrence

 

No

70(90)

Yes

6(8)

 

 

Estrogen

 

No

32(41)

Yes

45(58)

 

 

Progesterone

 

No

31(40)

Yes

46(59)

 

 

Her-2

 

No

59(76)

Yes

18(23)

 

 

Multifocality

 

No

70(90)

Yes

8(10)

Free surgical margin

 

No

16(21)

Yes

20(26)

 

 

Vascular invasion

 

No

58(74)

Yes

20(26)

 

 

Positive family history

 

No

74(95)

yes

4(5)

Table 2: Correlation between Survivin expression and clinicopathological features of the primary tumors.

Features

 

Number of cases (%)

Survivin-expression in the primary tumors

 

Negative (0)

Weak (+1)

Moderate (+2)

Strong (+3)

P-value

Age (years)

 

 

 

 

 

0.650

< 49 years

46(59%)

13(28%)

24(52%)

8(18%)

1(2%)

 

≥ 49 years

32(41%)

12(37.5%)

16(50%)

4(12.5%)

0(0%)

 

Site of tumor

 

 

 

 

 

0.021

Right

43(55%)

9(20.9%)

25(58.1%)

9(20.9%)

0(0%)

 

Left

35(45%)

16(45.7%)

10(28.6%)

9(25.7%)

0(0%)

 

Histological Type

 

 

 

 

 

0.611

Invasive ductal carcinoma

69(89%)

21(30.4%)

31(44.9%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Mucinous carcinoma

3(4%)

2(66.7%)

1(33.3)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Invasive lobular carcinoma

3(4%)

1(33.3%)

2(66.7%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Papillary carcinoma

1(1%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Secretory carcinoma

1(1%)

0(0%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Cribriform carcinoma

1(1%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

 

Histological Grades

 

 

 

 

 

0.431

G1

13(17%)

7(53.8%)

4(30.8%)

2(15.4%)

0(0%)

 

G2

48(61%)

12(25%)

24(50%)

12(25%)

0(0%)

 

G3

17(22%)

6(35.3%)

7(41.2%)

4(23.5%)

0(0%)

 

Stage

 

 

 

 

 

0.892

I

6(8%)

3(50%)

1(16.7%)

2(33.3%)

0(0%)

 

IIA

23(29%)

7(30.4%)

10(43.5%)

6(26.1%)

0(0%)

 

IIB

13(17%)

3(23.1%)

7(53.8%)

3(23.1%)

0(0%)

 

III

1(1%)

0(0%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

IIIA

18(23%)

5(27.8%)

10(55.6%)

3(16.7%)

0(0%)

 

IIIB

1(1%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

IV

16(21%)

6(37.5%)

6(37.5%)

4(25%)

0(0%)

 

Primary Tumor

 

 

 

 

 

0.742

T1

6(8%)

3(50%)

1(16.7%)

2(33.3%)

 

 

T2

44(56%)

12(27%)

23(52.5%)

9(20.5%)

 

 

T3

28(36%)

9(32%)

11(39%

8(33%)

 

 

Lymph node involvement

 

 

 

 

 

0.589

No

35(45%)

11(31.4%)

14(40%)

10(28.6%)

0(0%)

 

yes

43(55%)

14(32.6%)

21(48.8%)

8(18.6%)

0(0%)

 

Distance Metastases

 

 

 

 

 

0.771

No

62(79%)

19(30.6%)

29(46.8%)

14(22.6%)

0(0%)

 

yes

16(21%)

6(37.5%)

6(37.5%)

4(25%)

 

 

Chemotherapy

 

 

 

 

 

0.200

No

7(9%)

4(57.1%)

1(14.3%)

2(28.6%)

0(0%)

 

Yes

71(91%)

21(29.6%)

34(47.9%)

16(22.5%)

0(0%)

 

Radiotherapy

 

 

 

 

 

0.584

No

26(33%)

9(34.6%)

13(50%)

4(15.4%)

0(0%)

 

yes

52(67%)

16(30.8%)

22(42.3%)

14(26.9%)

0(0%)

 

Recurrence

 

 

 

 

 

0.036

No

70(90%)

21(30%)

34(48%)

15(21.4%)

0(0%)

 

yes

6(8%)

3(50%)

0(0%)

3(50%)

0(0%)

 

Estrogen

 

 

 

 

 

0.357

No

32(41%)

10(31.3%)

12(37.5%)

10(31.3%)

0(0%)

 

yes

45(58%)

14(31.1%)

23(51.1%)

8(17.8%)

0(0%)

 

Progesterone

 

 

 

 

 

0.554

No

31(40%)

10(32.3%)

12(38.7%)

9(29%)

0(0%)

 

yes

46(59%)

14(30.4%)

23(50%)

9(19.6%)

0(0%)

 

Her-2

 

 

 

 

 

0.047

No

59(76%)

17(28.8%)

31(52.5%)

11(18.6%)

0(0%)

 

yes

18(23%)

7(38.9%)

4(22.2%)

7(38.9%)

0(0%)

 

Multifocality

 

 

 

 

 

0.001

No

70(90%)

18(25.7%)

34(48.6%)

18(25.7%)

0(0%)

 

yes

8(10%)

7(87.5%)

1(12.5%)

0(0%)

0(0%)

 

Free surgical margin

 

 

 

 

 

0.485

No

16(21%)

3(18.8%)

9(56.3%)

4(25%)

0(0%)

 

yes

20(26)

22(35.5%)

26(41.9%)

14(22.6%)

0(0%)

 

Vascular Invasion

 

 

 

 

 

0.754

No

58(74%)

17(29.3%)

27(46.6%)

14(24.1%)

0(0%)

 

yes

20(26%)

8(40%)

8(40%)

4(20%)

0(0%)

 

Positive family history

 

 

 

 

 

0.812

No

74(95%)

23(31.1%)

34(45.9%)

17(23%)

0(0%)

 

yes

4(5%)

2(50%)

1(25%)

1(25%)

0(0%)

 

Table 3: Correlation between Livin expression and clinicopathological features of the primary tumors.

Features

Number of cases (%)

Livin-expression in the primary tumors

 

Negative (0), weak (1) vs. moderate (2+), Strong (3+)

Negative, weak

Moderate, strong

P-value

Age (years)

 

 

 

0.73

< 49 years

46 (59%)

31(68%)

15(32%)

 

≥ 49 years

32(41%)

22(68.7%)

10(31.3%)

 

Site of tumor

 

 

 

0.645

Right

43 (55%)

24(55.8%)

19(44.2%)

 

Left

35(45%)

22(62.9%)

13(37.1%)

 

Histological Type

 

 

 

0.374

Invasive ductal carcinoma

69(89%)

40(58%)

29(42%)

 

Mucinous carcinoma

3(4%)

1(33.3%)

2(66.7%)

 

Invasive lobular carcinoma

3(4%)

3(100%)

0(0%)

 

Papillary carcinoma

1(1%)

1(100%)

0(100%)

 

Secretory carcinoma

1(1%)

1(100%)

0(100%)

 

Cribriform carcinoma

1(1%)

0(100%)

1(100%)

 

Histological Grades

 

 

 

0.852

G1

13(17%)

8(61.5%)

5(38.5%)

 

G2

48(61%)

27(56.3%)

21(43.8%)

 

G3

17(22%)

11(64.7%)

6(35.3%)

 

Stage

 

 

 

0.47

I

6(8%)

2(33.3%)

4(66.7%)

 

IIA

23(29%)

15(65.2%)

8(34.8%)

 

IIB

13(17%)

6(46.2%)

7(53.8%)

 

III

1(1%)

0(0%)

1(100%)

 

IIIA

18(23%)

11(61.1%)

7(38.9%)

 

IIIB

1(1%)

1(100%)

0(0%)

 

IV

16(21%)

11(68.8%)

5(31.3%)

 

Primary Tumor

 

 

 

0.584

T1

6(8%)

2(33.3%)

4(66.7%)

 

T2

44(56%)

24(54.5%)

20(45.5%)

 

T3

28(36%)

12(42.8%)

16(75.2%)

 

Lymph node involvement

 

 

 

0.820

No

35(45%)

20(57.1%)

15(42.9%)

 

yes

43(55%)

26(60.5%)

17(39.5%)

 

Distance Metastases

 

 

 

0.410

No

62(79%)

35(56.5%)

27(43.5%)

 

yes

16(21%)

11(68.8%)

5(31.3%)

 

Chemotherapy

 

 

 

0.694

No

7(9%)

5(71.4%)

2(28.6%)

 

Yes

71(91%)

41(57.7%)

30(42.3%)

 

Radiotherapy

 

 

 

0.330

No

26(33%)

13(50%)

13(50%)

 

yes

52(67%)

33(63.5%)

19(36.5%)

 

Recurrence

 

 

 

0.683

No

70(90%)

42(60%)

28(40%)

 

yes

6(8%)

3(50%)

3(50%)

 

Estrogen

 

 

 

0.353

No

32(41%)

17(53.1%)

15(46.9%)

 

yes

45(58%)

29(64.4%)

16(35.6%)

 

Progesterone

 

 

 

0.488

No

31(40%)

17(45.2%)

14(54.8%)

 

yes

46(59%)

29(63.0%)

17(37%)

 

Her-2

 

 

 

0.414

No

59(76%)

37(62.7%)

22(37.3%)

 

yes

18(23%)

9(50%)

9(50%)

 

Multifocality

 

 

 

1.000

No

70(90%)

41(58.6%)

29(41.4%)

 

yes

8(10%)

5(62.5%)

3(37.5%)

 

Free surgical margin

 

 

 

0.570

No

16(21%)

8(50%)

8(50%)

 

yes

20(26%)

24(38.7%)

38(61.3%)

 

Vascular Invasion

 

 

 

0.299

No

58(74%)

32(55.2%)

26(44.8%)

 

yes

20(26%)

14(70%)

6(30%)

 

Positive family history

 

 

 

0.025

No

74(95%)

46(62.2%)

28(37.8%)

 

yes

4(5%)

0(0%)

4(100%)

 

Hormone replacement Therapy

 

 

 

0.640

No

29(37%)

16(55.2%)

13(44.8%)

 

Yes

49(63%)

30(61.2%)

19(38.8%)

 

Science Repository

Figure 1: Moderate Survivin expression in breast cancer (x40 magnification). B) Strong Livin expression in breast cancer (x40 magnification). C) Moderate Livin expression in breast cancer (x40 magnification).


Science Repository

Figure 2: Survivin expression (neg-weak vs. mod-strong) as determinant of disease-specific survival (DSS) in univariate (Kaplan-Meier) analysis (p=0.775 log-rank).



References

1.     Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, Pisani P (2001) Estimating the world cancer burden. Globocan 2000. Int J Cancer 94: 153-156. [Crossref]

2.     Omar S, Khaled H, Gaafar R, Zekry AR, Eissa S et al. (2003) Breast cancer in Egypt: a review of disease presentation and detection strategies. East Mediterr Health J 9: 448-463. [Crossref]

3.     Arrick BA (2008) Breastcancer. The molecular basis of cancer, ed.3. Philadelphia: Saunders 423-429.

4.     Pfeifer JD (2006) Breast. Molecular genetic testing in surgical pathology, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 401-414.

5.     Henson DE, Ries L, Freedman LS, Carriaga M (1991) Relationship among outcome, stage of disease, and histologic grade for 22,616 cases of breast cancer. The basis for a prognostic index. Cancer 68: 2142-2149. [Crossref]

6.     Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19: 403-410. [Crossref]

7.     Clark GM, McGuire WL, Hubay CA, Pearson OH, Carter AC (1983) The importance of estrogen and progesterone receptor in primary breast cancer. Prog Clin Biol Res 132E: 183-190. [Crossref]

8.     Ravdin PM, Green S, Dorr TM, McGuire WL, Fabian C et al. (1992) Prognostic significance of progesterone receptor levels in estrogen receptor-positive patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with tamoxifen: results of a prospective Southwest Oncology Group study. J Clin Oncol 10: 1284-1291. [Crossref]

9.     Grann VR, Troxel AB, Zojwalla NJ, Jacobson JS, Hershman D et al. (2005) Hormone receptor status and survival in a population-based cohort of patients with breast carcinoma. Cancer 103: 2241-2251. [Crossref]

10.  Slamon DJ, Clark GM, Wong SG, Levin WJ, Ullrich A et al. (1987) Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. Science 235: 177-182. [Crossref]

11.  Paik S, Hazan R, Fisher ER, Sass RE, Fisher B et al. (1990) Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project: prognostic significance of erbB-2 protein overexpression in primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 8: 103-112. [Crossref]

12.  Trihia H, Murray S, Price K, Gelber RD, Golouh R et al. (2003) Ki-67 expression in breast carcinoma: its association with grading systems, clinical parameters, and other prognostic factors--a surrogate marker? Cancer 97: 1321-1331. [Crossref]

13.  Hickman JA (1992) Apoptosis induced by anticancer drugs. Cancer Metastasis Rev 11: 121-139. [Crossref]

14.  Thompson CB (1995) Apoptosis in the pathogenesis and treatment of disease. Science 267: 1456-1462. [Crossref]

15.  Hoskins WJ, Perenz CA, Young RC (2000) Principles & practice of Gynacologiconcology. Lippincott Williams &Wilkins. Philadelphia 1005-1007.

16.  Gazzaniga P, Gradilone A, Giuliani L, Grandini O, Silvestri I et al. (2003) Expression and prognostic significance of LIVIN, SURVIVIN and other apoptosis-related genes in the progression of superficial bladder cancer. Ann Oncol 14: 85-90. [Crossref]

17.  Kenneth NS, Duckett CS (2012) IAP proteins: regulators of cell migration and development. Curr Opin Cell Biol 24: 871-875. [Crossref]

18.  Myung DS, Park YL, Chung CY, Park HC, Kim JS et al. (2013) Expression of Livin in colorectal cancer and its relationship to tumor cell behavior and prognosis. PLoS One 8: e73262. [Crossref]

19.  Waligórska Stachura J, Jankowska A, Waśko R, Liebert W, Biczysko M et al. (2012) Survivin--prognostic tumor biomarker in human neoplasms--review. Ginekol Pol 83: 537-540. [Crossref]

20.  van’t Veer LJ, Dai H, van de Vijver MJ, He YD, Hart AAM et al. (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415: 530-536. [Crossref]

21.  Ryan B, O’Donovan N, Browne B, O’Shea C, Crown J et al. (2005) Expression of survivin and its splice variants survivin-2B and survivin-DeltaEx3 in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 92: 120-124. [Crossref]

22.  Zeestraten EC, Benard A, Reimers MS, Schouten PC, Liefers GJ et al. (2013) The prognostic value of the apoptosis pathway in colorectal cancer: a review of the literature on biomarkers identified by immunohistochemistry. Biomark Cancer 5: 13-29. [Crossref]

23.  Selemetjev S, Dencic TI, Marecko I, Jankovic J, Paunovic I et al. (2013) Evaluation of survivin expression and its prognostic value in papillary thyroid carcinoma. Pathol Res Pract 210: 30-34. [Crossref]

24.  Jeon C, Kim M, Kwak C, Kim HH, Ku JH (2013) Prognostic role of survivin in bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 8: e76719. [Crossref]

25.  Koike H, Sekine Y, Kamiya M, Nakazato H, Suzuki K (2008) Gene expression of survivin and its spliced isoforms associated with proliferation and aggressive phenotypes of prostate cancer. Urology 72: 1229-1233. [Crossref]

26.  Yan B (2011) Research progress on Livin protein: an inhibitor of apoptosis. Mol Cell Biochem 357: 39-45. [Crossref]

27.  Wang L, Zhang Q, Liu B, Han M, Shan B (2008) Challenge and promise: roles for Livin in progression and therapy of cancer. Mol Cancer Ther 7: 3661-3669. [Crossref]

28.  Chang H, Schimmer AD (2007) Livin/melanoma inhibitor of apoptosis protein as a potential therapeutic target for the treatment of malignancy. Mol Cancer Ther 6: 24-30. [Crossref]

29.  Liu B, Han M, Wen JK, Wang L (2007) Livin/ML-IAP as a new target for cancer treatment. Cancer Lett 250: 168-176. [Crossref]

30.  Hariu H, Hirohashi Y, Torigoe T, Asanuma H, Hariu M et al. (2005) Aberrant expression and potency as a cancer immunotherapy target of inhibitor of apoptosis protein family, Livin/ML-IAP in lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res 11: 1000-1009. [Crossref]

31.  Kim DK, Alvarado CS, Abramowsky CR, Gu L, Zhou M et al. (2005) Expression of inhibitor-of-apoptosis protein (IAP) livin by neuroblastoma cells: correlation with prognostic factors and outcome. Pediatr Dev Pathol 8: 621-629. [Crossref]

32.  Kempkensteffen C, Hinz S, Christoph F, Krause H, Koellermann J et al. (2007) Expression of the apoptosis inhibitor livin in renal cell carcinomas: correlations with pathology and outcome. Tumour Biol 28: 132-138. [Crossref]

33.  Wang X, Xu J, Ju S, Ni H, Zhu J et al. (2010) Livin gene plays a role in drug resistance of colon cancer cells. Clin Biochem 43: 655-660. [Crossref]

34.  Xi RC, Biao WS, Gang ZZ (2011) Significant elevation of survivin and livin expression in human colorectal cancer: inverse correlation between expression and overall survival. Onkologie 34: 428-432. [Crossref]

35.  Elzagheid A, Emaetig F, Alkikhia L, Buhmeida A, Syrjänen K et al. (2013) High cyclooxygenase-2 expression is associated with advanced stages in colorectal cancer. Anticancer Res 33: 3137-3143. [Crossref]

36.  Kaur A, Elzagheid A, Birkman EM, Avoranta T, Kytölä V et al. (2015) Protein phosphatase methylesterase-1 (PME-1) expression predicts a favorable clinical outcome in colorectal cancer. Cancer Med 4: 1798-1808. [Crossref]

37.  Mohamed Shaaban HA, Hafez NH, Ragab HM, El Abadi AI (2016) Nuclear and Cytoplasmic Expression of Survivin in Breast Carcinoma: Correlation with Clinicopathological Parameters. Int J Cancer Res 12: 128-139.

38.  Kennedy SM, O'Driscoll L, Purcell R, Fitz Simons N, McDermott EW et al. (2003) Prognostic importance of survivin in breast cancer. Br J Cancer 88: 1077-1083. [Crossref]

39.  Asanuma H, Torigoe T, Kamiguchi K, Hirohashi Y, Ohmura T (2005) Survivin expression is regulated by coexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 and epidermal growth factor receptor via phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT signaling pathway in breast cancer cells. Cancer Res 65: 11018-11025. [Crossref]

40.  Singh M, Bleile MJ, Shroyer AL, Heinz D, Jarboe EA et al. (2004) Analysis of survivin expression in a spectrum of benign to malignant lesions of the breast. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 12: 296-304. [Crossref]

41.  Span PN, Sweep FCGJ, Wiegerinck ETG, Tjan Heijnen VCG, Manders P et al. (2004) Survivin is an independent prognostic marker for risk stratification of breast cancer patients. Clin Chem 50: 1986-1993. [Crossref]

42.  Kim DK, Alvarado CS, Abramowsky CR, Gu L, Zhou M et al. (2005) Expression of inhibitor-of-apoptosis protein (IAP) livin by neuroblastoma cells: correlation with prognostic factors and outcome. Pediatr Dev Pathol 8: 621-629. [Crossref]

43.  Xi RC, Biao WS, Gang ZZ (2011) Significant elevation of Survivin and Livin expression in human colorectal cancer: inverse correlation between expression and overall survival. Onkologie 34: 428-432. [Crossref]

44.  Figueiredo JC, Ennis M, Knight JA (2007) Influence of young age at diagnosis and family history of breast or ovarian cancer on breast cancer outcomes in a population-based cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 105: 69-80. [Crossref]

45.  Molino A, Giovannini M, Pedersini R, Frisinghelli M, Micciolo R (2004) Correlations between family history and cancer characteristics in 2256 breast cancer patients. Br J Cancer 91: 96-98. [Crossref]

46.  Li F, Yin X, Luo X, Li HY, Su X et al. (2013) Livin promotes progression of breast cancer through induction of epithelial-mesenchymal transition and activation of AKT signaling. Cell Signal 25: 1413-1422. [Crossref]

47. Soliman KE, Abdalla DM, Khedr GA (2016) Livin gene expression in breast carcinoma: correlation with prognostic factors and patient outcome. Egypt J Surg 35: 339-347.