Abstract
Background
Breast cancer is a leading global health concern, with lymph node metastasis (LNM) being a key prognostic factor affecting patient outcomes. Glycosylation-related enzymes such as calcium-activated nucleotidase 1 (CANT1) and Beta-1,3-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase 3 (B3GNT3) have been implicated in tumour progression, yet their roles in breast cancer, particularly invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC), are not well defined. This study investigates the immunohistochemical expression and correlation of CANT1 and B3GNT3 in IDC and their potential role in predicting LNM and clinical outcomes.
Materials and methods
Slides from paraffin blocks of 140 IDC cases and 108 corresponding metastatic axillary lymph nodes were stained with CANT1 and B3GNT3 antibodies. Associations between markers’ immunoreactivity and clinicopathological variables were evaluated. Progression-free survival (PFS) was analysed using the Kaplan–Meier method. The prognostic significance of each variable was evaluated using both univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses.
Results
High CANT1 and B3GNT3 expression was observed in 47.1% and 45.7% of cases, respectively. Both markers were significantly associated with tumour grade, tumour stage, Nottingham prognostic index, lymph node status, lymph node ratio, Her2 status, Ki-67 proliferative index and distant metastasis. A significant positive correlation was found between CANT1 and B3GNT3 expression (p < 0.001). Co-expression of both markers was strongly associated with LNM, along with a significant difference in the expression levels of each marker between primary tumours and corresponding LNM. Univariate analysis showed that tumour grade, stage, ER status and high B3GNT3 expression were all significantly associated with worse PFS. Multivariate Cox regression identified B3GNT3 expression, tumour grade and tumour stage as independent predictors of poor prognosis in IDC. High expression levels of CANT1 and B3GNT3 were associated with reduced PFS across all IDC cases (p = 0.035 and p = 0.001, respectively).
Conclusions
High CANT1 and B3GNT3 expressions are associated with aggressive clinicopathological features in IDC and predict unfavourable outcomes. These markers may serve as potential prognostic indicators and independent predictors of LNM in IDC patients.
Keywords: CANT1, B3GNT3, Invasive ductal carcinoma, Lymph node metastasis, Prognosis
Introduction
Breast cancer is a major global health challenge. According to GLOBOCAN 2020 estimates, breast cancer accounts for approximately 2.3 million new cases, representing 11.7% of all cancer diagnoses. It is also the 5th leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide [1]. While incidence rates are higher in transitioned countries due to factors such as reproductive patterns, lifestyle, and better detection services, mortality rates are lower in these regions due to access to advanced treatments and well-developed healthcare systems [2]. In contrast, transitioning countries experience higher mortality rates due to limited access to early detection and therapies, compounded by insufficient healthcare infrastructure [3].
Given the complexity of breast cancer, studying the underlying molecular pathways of carcinogenesis is mandatory to predict its behaviour and develop targeted therapies. Despite advancements in early detection procedures, a significant proportion of patients still present with lymph node metastasis (LNM), a crucial pathological feature that plays a central role in prognosis and clinical decision-making [4]. Therefore, identifying novel biomarkers, particularly those involved in glycosylation pathways, extracellular matrix (ECM) remodelling and LNM is vital to enhance diagnostic accuracy, refine patient stratification, and improve prognostic evaluation.
The rationale behind focusing on biomarkers involved in glycosylation pathways and extracellular matrix (ECM) remodelling lies in their well-established roles in tumour progression and metastasis. ECM remodelling facilitates tumour invasion and dissemination to lymph nodes [5]. Additionally, glycosylation, a pivotal post-translational modification, entails the attachment of carbohydrate subunits to proteins and lipids, influencing their structural conformation and functional roles. This process is essential for proper protein folding, stability, cellular signalling, and cellular interactions [6]. In malignant transformations, aberrant glycosylation patterns are frequently observed, disrupting normal cellular interactions and promoting tumourigenic behaviours, such as invasion and metastasis. These alterations underscore the molecular basis of tumour progression and highlight potential avenues for therapeutic intervention [7].
Calcium-activated nucleotidase 1 (CANT1) is an enzyme involved in calcium-dependent nucleotidase metabolism, hydrolysing uridine diphosphate to uridine monophosphate. Elevated CANT1 expression has been linked to tumour progression and poor prognosis in various cancers, including lung adenocarcinoma and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [8, 9]. Beta-1,3-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase 3 (B3GNT3) is a glycosyltransferase located on chromosome 19q13.1 and involved in the synthesis of poly-N-acetyllactosamine chains. These chains are critical for forming the structural backbone of dimeric sialyl Lewis A and influencing L-selectin ligand function. Overexpression of B3GNT3 is associated with progression in different cancers such as lung adenocarcinoma and oesophageal cancer [10, 11].These findings suggest that CANT1 and B3GNT3 may act as potential biomarkers for cancer diagnosis and prognosis.
To the best of our knowledge, the relationship between CANT1 and B3GNT3 in breast cancer has not previously been explored. Therefore, this work aims to study the immunohistochemical expression and correlation of CANT1 and B3GNT3 in invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) of the breast to assess their potential significance in predicting LNM and clinical outcomes. Additionally, progression-free survival (PFS) was analyzed using Kaplan–Meier curves, and both univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the independent prognostic value of each variable.
Materials and methods
Tissue specimens
This retrospective analysis included 140 archival paraffin-embedded radical mastectomy specimens collected from patients diagnosed with IDC, along with 108 paraffin blocks of LNM-positive cases corresponding to the primary tumours. Samples were randomly selected from the archives of the Pathology Laboratory at Minia University Hospital, covering the period between January 2017 and January 2019. Exclusion criteria included prior neoadjuvant therapy, non-IDC histological types, and core biopsy specimens. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) under approval code (1494/2025).
Clinicopathological data
Clinicopathological data were retrieved from the medical records. Histopathological evaluations were performed on sections stained with haematoxylin and eosin. Tumour staging was assessed according to the most recent TNM classification guidelines set by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) [12]. Histological grading followed the Nottingham Histologic Score System (The Elston and Ellis modification of Scarff-Bloom-Richardson grading system) [13] and Nottingham Prognostic Index (NPI) was assessed [14].
Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) were evaluated according to the guidelines of the International TILs Working Group 2014, and were categorized as absent, mild (< 10%), moderate (10–40%), or severe (> 40%) based on the percentage of stromal lymphocytic infiltration [15], the presence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as well as lymphovascular invasion (LVI) were evaluated [16, 17]. Lymph node ratio (LNR) was calculated by dividing the number of positive lymph nodes by the total number of excised nodes. Based on established cutoffs, LNR was categorized into three groups: low risk (≤ 0.20), intermediate risk (> 0.20–0.65), and high risk (> 0.65) [18]. Molecular subtypes were determined based on the expression results for oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), Her2, and Ki-67 [19].
Immunohistochemical procedure
Briefly, sections were cut to 5 μm thickness, mounted on positively charged slides, de-paraffinized, and rehydrated. Slides were immersed in 3% hydrogen peroxide for 30 min, rinsed in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) solution and subjected to antigen retrieval using citrate buffer (pH 6.0) in the microwave. After cooling to room temperature, the slides were washed in PBS. CANT1 mouse monoclonal antibody [concentrated form (100 µl) with a dilution of 1:150, Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA, Catalog No # MA5-26752] and B3GNT3 rabbit polyclonal antibody [concentrated form (100 µl) with a dilution of 1:100, ABClonal, USA, Catalog No # A17611] were applied, followed by overnight incubation at 4 °C in a humidity chamber.
After rinsing with PBS, sections were treated with goat anti-mouse IgG (H + L) secondary antibody [Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA; Cat. No. 31430] for CANT1, and goat anti-rabbit IgG (H + L) secondary antibody [Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA; Cat. No. 31460] for B3GNT3. This was followed by application of the Pierce™ Streptavidin–Biotin Peroxidase Complex (ABC) Kit [Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA; Cat. No. PI-21121], according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Sections were then stained with 3,3'-diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride (DAB), washed in distilled water, and counterstained with Harris haematoxylin. Finally, slides were dehydrated, cleared in xylene, and coverslipped. Positive controls (human liver tissue for CANT1 and rat ovary for B3GNT3) were included in each staining batch. Negative controls were processed without primary antibodies.
Evaluation of immunostaining
All stained sections were reviewed by two independent pathologists in a blinded fashion using an Olympus light microscope (Japan). Cytoplasmic staining of CANT1 and B3GNT3 was considered as positive expression. Immunoreactivity was evaluated using a semiquantitative integration method, calculated by multiplying the staining intensity by the percentage of positive tumour cells for both markers [9, 20].
CANT1 expression scoring
For CANT1, immunostaining was scored based on staining intensity and the percentage of positive cells. Staining intensity was evaluated as follows: 0 indicated no staining (colourless), 1 indicated light yellow granules in the cytoplasm, 2 indicated brown granules in the cytoplasm, and 3 indicated strongly brown granules in the cytoplasm. The percentage of positive cells was scored as follows: 0 points for negative, 1 point for < 25%, 2 points for 26–50%, 3 points for 51–75%, and 4 points for > 75%. The degree of positive staining was defined as follows: a score of 1–3 was considered weakly positive (+), 4–6 was moderately positive (+ +), and 7–12 was strongly positive (+ + +). Based on the median value, the results were further divided into low and high expression groups [21].
B3GNT3 expression scoring
For B3GNT3, immunostaining was scored based on: (i) staining intensity: 0 (no staining), 1 (weak = light yellow), 2 (moderate = yellow–brown), and 3 (strong = brown); (ii) the percentage of positive tumour cells: 0 (0%), 1 (1%−10%), 2 (11%−50%), 3 (51%−75%), and 4 (76%−100%). The staining index, ranging from 0 to 12, was calculated, with a score ≥ 6 considered high expression and < 6 as low expression [22].
Survival data analysis
PFS data were collected from pathology laboratory records at Minia University Hospital, covering cases from January 2019 to December 2023. PFS was defined as the time from diagnosis to disease progression or last follow-up, ranging from 10 to 60 months. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) was 43.8 ± 15.2 months, with a median PFS of 50 months. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were generated for PFS, and the log-rank test was used to compare survival distributions across groups. Mean survival times and 95% confidence intervals were reported [23]. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to evaluate the prognostic significance of clinicopathological and molecular variables.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS) version 20 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). The association between CANT1 and B3GNT3 expression and the clinicopathological parameters was determined using the Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. The correlation between the two markers was evaluated using Chi-square test. The prognostic impact of CANT1 and B3GNT3 expression in IDC was initially assessed using univariate analysis, followed by multivariate Cox regression to evaluate their independent prognostic significance. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all analyses [24].
Results
Clinicopathological data
The study included 140 cases of IDC. The mean age ± SD of the studied cases was 49.47 ± 9.51 and the median age was 50 years (ranged from 25 −75 years). Patients were classified into two groups based on the median age, ≤ 50 years and > 50 years. The mean tumour size ± SD was 3.94 ± 1.9 cm and the median was 4 cm (ranged from 1 to 10 cm). Grade I cases were excluded from the study due to their unavailability. Other Clinicopathological characteristics were summarised in Table 1.
Table 1.
The clinicopathological data of IDC patients (n = 140)
| Clinicopathological data | No | Percent% | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | ≤ 50 years | 86 | 61.4% |
| > 50 years | 54 | 38.6% | |
| Laterality | Right breast | 62 | 44.3% |
| Left breast | 78 | 55.7% | |
| Size (cm) | ≤ 2cm | 32 | 22.9% |
| > 2cm- ≤ 5cm | 72 | 51.4% | |
| > 5cm | 36 | 25.7% | |
| Grade | II | 102 | 72.9% |
| III | 38 | 27.1% | |
| Lymph node status | 0 | 32 | 22.9% |
| 1–3 | 46 | 32.8% | |
| > 3 | 62 | 44.3% | |
| LNR | Low risk | 38 | 27.2% |
| Intermediate risk | 52 | 37.1% | |
| High risk | 50 | 35.7% | |
| Tumour stage | I | 16 | 11.4% |
| II | 34 | 24.3% | |
| III | 68 | 48.6% | |
| IV | 22 | 15.7% | |
| NPI | Good | 16 | 11.4% |
| Moderate | 52 | 37.1% | |
| Poor | 72 | 51.5% | |
| ER | Positive | 78 | 55.7% |
| Negative | 62 | 44.3% | |
| PR | Positive | 70 | 50% |
| Negative | 70 | 50% | |
| HER2- enriched | Positive | 44 | 31.4% |
| Negative | 96 | 68.6% | |
| Ki-67 proliferative index | ≤ 30% | 66 | 47.1% |
| > 30% | 74 | 52.9% | |
| Molecular types | Luminal A | 46 | 32.9% |
| Luminal B | 52 | 37.1% | |
| HER subtype | 22 | 15.7% | |
| Triple negative | 20 | 14.3% | |
| Tumour necrosis | Present | 20 | 14.3% |
| Absent | 120 | 85.7% | |
| Local recurrence | Present | 18 | 12.9% |
| Absent | 122 | 87.1% | |
| TILs | Absent | 12 | 8.6% |
| Mild | 34 | 24.3% | |
| Moderate | 40 | 28.6% | |
| Severe | 54 | 38.5% | |
| DCIS | Present | 80 | 57.1% |
| Absent | 60 | 42.9% | |
| LVI | Present | 60 | 42.9% |
| Absent | 80 | 57.1% | |
| Distant metastasis | Present | 22 | 15.7% |
| Absent | 118 | 84.3% | |
HER2-enriched” refers to HER2 positivity based on immunohistochemistry (IHC), regardless of hormone receptor status. The “HER2 subtype,” as defined by molecular classification, includes only tumors that are HER2-positive and hormone receptor-negative (ER −/PR −)
NPI Nottingham prognostic index, LVI lymphovascular invasion, LNR Lymph node ratio, DCIS: Ductal carcinoma in situ, TILs Tumour infiltrating lymphocytes
Immunohistochemical expression of CANT1 and its association with clinicopathological data
In the present study, 47.1% (66/140 cases) revealed high CANT1 expression, while 52.9% (74/140 cases) showed low cytoplasmic expression (Fig. 1). A significant association was detected between high CANT1 expression and several clinicopathological factors, including tumour size (p = 0.004), grade (p = 0.029), stage (p = 0.001), LNR (p = 0.026), lymph node status (p = 0.028), NPI (p = 0.008), PR status (p = 0.031), Her2 status (p = 0.024), Ki-67 proliferative index (p = 0.029) and distant metastasis (p = 0.002) as detailed in Table 3. No significant associations were found between CANT1 expression and the remaining clinicopathological parameters.
Table 2.
Association between cytoplasmic CANT1 expression and clinicopathological data for the patients with IDC (n = 140)
| Clinicopathological data | No | CANT1 cytoplasmic expression | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low expression (%) 74 (52.9%) | High expression (%) 66 (47.1%) | |||
| Age (years) | ||||
| ≤ 50 | 86 | 40 (46.5) | 46 (53.5) | 0.180 |
| > 50 | 54 | 34 (63) | 20 (37) | |
| Laterality | ||||
| Right breast | 62 | 34 (54.8) | 28 (45.2) | 0.767 |
| Left breast | 78 | 40 (51.3) | 38 (48.7) | |
| Size (cm) | ||||
| < 2 cm | 32 | 28 (87.5) | 4 (12.5) | 0.004* |
| > 2—≤ 5 cm | 72 | 34 (47.2) | 38 (52.8) | |
| > 5 cm | 36 | 12 (33.3) | 24 (66.7) | |
| Grade | ||||
| II | 102 | 62 (60.8) | 40 (39.2) | 0.029* |
| III | 38 | 12 (31.6) | 26 (68.4) | |
| Lymph node status | ||||
| 0 | 32 | 26 (81.2) | 6 (18.8) | 0.028* |
| 1–3 | 46 | 18 (39.1) | 28 (60.9) | |
| > 3 | 62 | 30 (48.4) | 32 (51.6) | |
| LNR | ||||
| Low risk | 38 | 34 (89.5) | 4 (10.5) | 0.026* |
| Intermediate risk | 52 | 24 (46.2) | 28 (53.8) | |
| High risk | 50 | 16 (32) | 34 (68) | |
| Tumour stage | ||||
| I | 16 | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | 0.001* |
| II | 34 | 20 (58.8) | 14 (41.2) | |
| III | 68 | 36 (52.9) | 32 (47.1) | |
| IV | 22 | 2 (9.1) | 20 (90.9) | |
| NPI | ||||
| Good | 16 | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | 0.008* |
| Moderate | 52 | 28 (53.8) | 24 (46.2) | |
| Poor | 72 | 30 (41.7) | 42 (58.3) | |
| ER | ||||
| Positive | 78 | 44 (56.4) | 34 (43.6) | 0.504 |
| Negative | 62 | 30 (48.4) | 32 (51.6) | |
| PR | ||||
| Positive | 70 | 46 (65.7) | 24 (34.3) | 0.031* |
| Negative | 70 | 28 (40) | 42 (60) | |
| HER2- enriched | ||||
| Positive | 44 | 32 (72.7) | 12 (27.3) | 0.024* |
| Negative | 96 | 42 (43.8) | 54 (56.2) | |
| Ki-67 proliferative index | ||||
| ≤ 30% | 66 | 44 (66.7) | 22 (33.3) | 0.029* |
| > 30% | 74 | 30 (40.5) | 44 (59.5) | |
| Molecular subtypes | ||||
| Luminal A | 46 | 32 (69.6) | 14 (30.4) | 0.267 |
| Luminal B | 52 | 24 (46.2) | 28 (53.8) | |
| HER2 subtype | 22 | 10 (45.5) | 12 (54.5) | |
| Triple negative | 20 | 8 (40) | 12 (60) | |
| Tumour necrosis | ||||
| Present | 20 | 12 (60) | 8 (40) | 0.739 |
| Absent | 120 | 62 (51.7) | 58 (48.3) | |
| Local Recurrence | ||||
| Present | 18 | 8 (44.4) | 10 (55.6) | 0.726 |
| Absent | 122 | 66 (54.1) | 56 (45.9) | |
| TILs | ||||
| Absent | 12 | 6 (50) | 6 (50) | 0.616 |
| Mild | 34 | 22 (64.7) | 12 (35.3) | |
| Moderate | 40 | 22 (55) | 18 (45) | |
| Severe | 54 | 24 (44.4) | 30 (55.6) | |
| DCIS | ||||
| Present | 80 | 48 (60) | 32 (40) | 0.167 |
| Absent | 60 | 26 (43.3) | 34 (56.7) | |
| LVI | ||||
| Present | 60 | 30 (50) | 30 (50) | 0.678 |
| Absent | 80 | 44 (55) | 36 (45) | |
| Distant metastasis | ||||
| Present | 22 | 2 (9.1) | 20 (90.9) | 0.002* |
| Absent | 118 | 72 (61) | 46 (39) | |
Test of significance: Chi-Square and Fisher's exact tests
HER2-enriched” refers to HER2 positivity based on immunohistochemistry (IHC), regardless of hormone receptor status. The “HER2 subtype,” as defined by molecular classification, includes only tumors that are HER2-positive and hormone receptor-negative (ER −/PR −)
NPI Nottingham prognostic index, LVI Lymphovascular invasion, LNR Lymph node ratio, DCIS Ductal carcinoma in situ, TILs Tumour infiltrating lymphocytes
*P—value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant
Fig. 1.
Representative photomicrographs showing immunohistochemical expression of CANT1 in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast (primary tumor and metastatic lymph node). A Low cytoplasmic expression in a grade II tumour (original magnification X400; scale bar = 20 μm). B High cytoplasmic expression in a grade III tumour (original magnification × 200; scale bar = 50 μm). C High expression in a corresponding metastatic lymph node (original magnification × 100; scale bar = 100 μm)
Table 3.
Association between B3GNT3 cytoplasmic expression and clinicopathological data for the patients with IDC (n = 140)
| Clinicopathological data | No | B3GNT3 cytoplasmic expression | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low expression (%) 76 (54.3%) | High expression (%) 64 (45.7%) | ||||
| Age (years) | |||||
| ≤ 50 | 86 | 50 (58.1) | 36 (41.9) | 0.414 | |
| > 50 | 54 | 26 (48.1) | 28 (51.9) | ||
| Laterality | |||||
| Right breast | 62 | 28 (45.2) | 34 (54.8) | 0.172 | |
| Left breast | 78 | 48 (61.5) | 30 (38.5) | ||
| Size (cm) | |||||
| < 2 cm | 32 | 24 (75) | 8 (25) | 0.163 | |
| > 2—≤ 5 cm | 72 | 34 (47.2) | 38 (52.8) | ||
| > 5 cm | 36 | 18 (50) | 18 (50) | ||
| Grade | |||||
| II | 102 | 64 (62.7) | 38 (37.3) | 0.020* | |
| III | 38 | 12 (31.6) | 26 (68.4) | ||
| Lymph node status | |||||
| 0 | 32 | 30 (93.8) | 2 (6.2) | 0.001* | |
| 1–3 | 46 | 20 (43.5) | 26 (56.5) | ||
| > 3 | 62 | 26 (41.9) | 36 (58.1) | ||
| LNR | |||||
| Low risk | 38 | 32 (84.2) | 6 (15.8) | 0.005* | |
| Intermediate risk | 52 | 26 (50) | 26 (50) | ||
| High risk | 50 | 18 (36) | 32 (64) | ||
| Tumour stage | |||||
| I | 16 | 14 (87.5) | 2 (12.5) | < 0.001* | |
| II | 34 | 26 (76.5) | 8 (23.5) | ||
| III | 68 | 36 (52.9) | 32 (47.1) | ||
| IV | 22 | 0 (0) | 22 (100) | ||
| NPI | |||||
| Good | 16 | 14 (87.5) | 2 (12.5) | 0.001* | |
| Moderate | 52 | 38 (73.1) | 14 (26.9) | ||
| Poor | 72 | 24 (33.3) | 48 (66.7) | ||
| ER | |||||
| Positive | 78 | 50 (64.1) | 28 (35.9) | 0.064 | |
| Negative | 62 | 26 (41.9) | 36 (58.1) | ||
| PR | |||||
| Positive | 70 | 46 (65.7) | 24 (34.3) | 0.055 | |
| Negative | 70 | 30 (42.9) | 40 (57.1) | ||
| HER2- enriched | |||||
| Positive | 44 | 36 (81.8) | 8 (18.2) | 0.002* | |
| Negative | 96 | 40 (41.7) | 56 (58.3) | ||
| Ki-67 proliferative index | |||||
| ≤ 30% | 66 | 48 (60.6) | 18 (39.4) | 0.003* | |
| > 30% | 74 | 28 (48.6) | 46 (51.4) | ||
| Molecular subtypes | |||||
| Luminal A | 46 | 30 (65.2) | 16 (34.8) | 0.324 | |
| Luminal B | 52 | 30 (57.7) | 22 (42.3) | ||
| HER2 subtype | 22 | 8 (36.4) | 14 (63.6) | ||
| Triple negative | 20 | 8 (40) | 12 (60) | ||
| Tumour necrosis | |||||
| Present | 20 | 14 (70) | 6 (30) | 0.326 | |
| Absent | 120 | 62 (51.7) | 58 (48.3) | ||
| Local Recurrence | |||||
| Present | 18 | 8 (44.4) | 10 (55.6) | 0.722 | |
| Absent | 122 | 68 (55.7) | 54 (44.3) | ||
| TILs | |||||
| Absent | 12 | 6 (50) | 6 (50) | 0.11 | |
| Mild | 34 | 24 (70.6) | 10 (29.4) | ||
| Moderate | 40 | 26 (65) | 14 (35) | ||
| Severe | 54 | 20 (37) | 34 (63) | ||
| DCIS | |||||
| Present | 80 | 46 (57.5) | 34 (42.5) | 0.167 | |
| Absent | 60 | 30 (50) | 30 (50) | ||
| LVI | |||||
| Present | 60 | 34 (56.7) | 26 (43.3) | 0.75 | |
| Absent | 80 | 42 (52.5) | 38 (47.5) | ||
| Distant metastasis | |||||
| Present | 22 | 0 (0) | 22 (100) | < 0.001* | |
| Absent | 118 | 76 (64.4) | 42 (35.6) | ||
Test of significance: Chi-Square and Fisher's exact tests
HER2-enriched” refers to HER2 positivity based on immunohistochemistry (IHC), regardless of hormone receptor status. The “HER2 subtype,” as defined by molecular classification, includes only tumors that are HER2-positive and hormone receptor-negative (ER −/PR −)
NPI Nottingham prognostic index, LVI Lymphovascular invasion, LNR Lymph node ratio, DCIS Ductal carcinoma in situ, TILs Tumour infiltrating lymphocytes
*P—value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant
Immunohistochemical expression of B3GNT3 and its association with clinicopathological data
In the current study, 45.7% (64/140 cases) revealed high cytoplasmic B3GNT3 expression, while 54.3% (76/140 cases) revealed low expression (Fig. 2). A significant association was detected between high B3GNT3 expression and several clinicopathological factors, including tumour grade (p = 0.020), stage (p < 0.001), lymph node status (p = 0.001), LNR (p = 0.005), NPI (p = 0.001), Her2 status (p = 0.002), Ki-67 proliferative index (p = 0.003) and distant metastasis (p < 0.001) as shown in Table 3. No significant associations were found between B3GNT3 expression and the other clinicopathological data.
Fig. 2.
Representative photomicrographs of immunohistochemical expression of B3GNT3 in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast (primary tumor and metastatic lymph node). A Low cytoplasmic expression in a grade II tumour (original magnification × 200; scale bar = 50 μm). B High cytoplasmic expression in a grade III tumour (original magnification × 200; scale bar = 50 μm). C High expression in a corresponding metastatic lymph node (original magnification × 100; scale bar = 100 μm)
Correlation between immunohistochemical expression of examined markers
There was a statistically significant positive correlation between CANT1 expression and B3GNT3 (p < 0.001, r = 0.627) as shown in Fig. 3 and Table 4.
Fig. 3.
Representative photomicrographs of combined immunohistochemical expression of CANT1 and B3GNT3 in invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. A High CANT1 expression. B High B3GNT3 expression. C Low CANT1 expression. D Low B3GNT3 expression (All images at original magnification × 200; scale bar = 50 μm)
Table 4.
Correlation between immunohistochemical expression of CANT1 and B3GNT3 (n = 140)
| CANT1 | Total | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low (%) | High (%) | ||||
| B3GNT3 | Low | 62 (83.8) | 12 (16.2) | 74 | < 0.001* |
| High | 14 (21.2) | 52 (78.8) | 66 | ||
| Total | 76 (54.3) | 64 (45.7) | 140 | ||
Test of significance: Chi-square test
*P—value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant
Survival analysis and prognostic significance
We investigated the PFS of 140 cases of IDC patients, analysing variables including marker expression and clinicopathological characteristics. The PFS ranged from 10 to 60 months with a mean ± SD of 43.8 ± 15.2 months and the median survival time was 50 months. Patients with high CANT1 and B3GNT3 immunoexpression had significantly shorter PFS than those patients with low expression (p = 0.035 and p = 0.001, respectively) as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Kaplan–Meier survival curves illustrating progression-free survival (PFS) for all IDC cases (n = 140), stratified by immunoexpression levels of CANT1 (A) and B3GNT3 (B). High expression of both markers is significantly associated with reduced PFS (p < 0.05, log-rank test)
Univariate analysis was conducted to identify factors significantly associated with PFS. Several clinicopathological and molecular variables demonstrated statistically significant associations with PFS. They included tumour grade (p = 0.006), stage (p < 0.001), and ER status (p = 0.003). Additionally, high B3GNT3 expression was significantly correlated with worse PFS (p = 0.005). (Table 5).
Table 5.
Univariate Analysis of Progression-Free Survival (PFS) in IDC Patients (n = 140)
| Mean PFS (months) | HR | 95% CI | P-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower bound | Upper bound | |||||
| Age | ≤ 50 years | 43.34 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.25 |
| > 50 years | 38.63 | 1.33 | 0.82 | 2.16 | ||
| Laterality | Right | 41.61 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.64 |
| Left | 41.51 | 0.89 | 0.56 | 1.43 | ||
| Tumour size | ≤ 2cm | 44.38 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.30 |
| 2-5cm | 39.64 | 1.30 | 0.85 | 1.98 | ||
| > 5 cm | 42.89 | 1.08 | 0.81 | 2.10 | ||
| Tumour grade | Grade II | 45.08 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.006* |
| Grade III | 32.11 | 2.15 | 1.25 | 3.71 | ||
| DCIS | Absent | 42.40 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.23 |
| Present | 40.43 | 1.34 | 0.83 | 2.17 | ||
| Tumour necrosis | Absent | 46.70 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.66 |
| Present | 40.70 | 1.17 | 0.60 | 2.28 | ||
| LVI | Absent | 50.46 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.93 |
| Present | 39.90 | 1.36 | 0.71 | 2.54 | ||
| Lymph node status | 0 | 51.25 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.08 |
| 1–3 | 49.94 | 1.23 | 0.90 | 1.68 | ||
| > 3 | 41.05 | 1.45 | 0.98 | 2.15 | ||
| LNR | Low risk | 47.95 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.29 |
| Intermediate risk | 38.58 | 1.24 | 0.85 | 1.80 | ||
| High risk | 39.80 | 1.20 | 0.82 | 1.75 | ||
| NPI | Good | 44.75 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.50 |
| Moderate | 45.00 | 0.96 | 0.75 | 1.25 | ||
| Poor | 38.36 | 1.27 | 0.86 | 1.89 | ||
| Stage | Stage I | 45.43 | 1.0 | - | - | < 0.001* |
| Stage II | 48.12 | 0.91 | 0.70 | 1.20 | ||
| Stage III | 44.40 | 1.20 | 1.07 | 1.50 | ||
| Stage IV | 19.91 | 2.71 | 2.15 | 5.56 | ||
| TILs | Absent | 51.25 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.31 |
| Mild | 49.94 | 1.22 | 0.85 | 1.75 | ||
| Moderate | 41.05 | 1.45 | 0.94 | 2.21 | ||
| Severe | 36.13 | 1.62 | 0.98 | 2.68 | ||
| ER status | Positive | 46.82 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.003* |
| Negative | 34.94 | 4.11 | 1.62 | 10.39 | ||
| PR status | Positive | 45.20 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.46 |
| Negative | 37.91 | 1.34 | 0.67 | 2.90 | ||
| HER2-enriched | Positive | 44.87 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.15 |
| Negative | 40.04 | 1.46 | 0.88 | 2.44 | ||
| Ki-67 proliferative index | ≤ 30% | 43.94 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.41 |
| > 30% | 39.43 | 1.22 | 0.76 | 1.95 | ||
| Molecular subtypes | Luminal A | 39.74 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.08 |
| Luminal B | 46.85 | 0.73 | 0.52 | 1.02 | ||
| HER2 | 40.27 | 1.12 | 0.78 | 1.60 | ||
| Triple negative | 33.40 | 1.68 | 0.97 | 2.35 | ||
| CANT1 | Low | 44.16 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.26 |
| High | 38.64 | 1.31 | 0.82 | 2.10 | ||
| B3GNT3 | Low | 47.47 | 1.0 | - | - | 0.005* |
| High | 34.53 | 1.85 | 1.23 | 3.26 | ||
HR Hazard Ratio, CI Confidence Interval, PFS Progression-Free Survival
NPI Nottingham prognostic index, LVI Lymphovascular invasion, LNR Lymph node ratio, DCIS Ductal carcinoma in situ, ER Estrogen Receptor, PR Progesterone Receptor, TILs Tumour infiltrating lymphocytes
*Mean estimates (months) are derived from Kaplan–Meier analysis. Hazard Ratios, 95% CIs, and P-values are derived from univariate Cox proportional hazards regression
*Reference category for each variable is indicated by HR = 1.0
**P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant
In multivariate Cox regression analysis, tumour grade (p = 0.021), tumour stage (p = 0.038) and B3GNT3 expression (p = 0.026) were identified as independent prognostic factors for PFS. CANT1 was excluded from the multivariate analysis due to its lack of significance in univariate analysis (p = 0.26), while ER status was not statistically significant (Table 6).
Table 6.
Multivariate Cox regression analysis of progression-free survival (PFS) predictors in IDC patients
| Sig | HR | 95%CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lower | Upper | |||
| B3GNT3 expression | 0.026* | 1.75 | 1.07 | 2.87 |
| Tumour stage | 0.038* | 1.43 | 1.02 | 2.01 |
| Tumour grade | 0.021* | 1.96 | 1.11 | 3.48 |
| ER status | 0.35 | 1.28 | 0.76 | 2.16 |
Hazard ratios (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CI)
Test of significance: COX proportional hazards regression
All variables with p < 0.05 were included
*P—value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant
Comparison between the expression of CANT1 in the primary tumour and corresponding LNM
In the analysis of CANT1 expression in 108 paired samples of primary tumours and their corresponding metastatic axillary lymph nodes, 94 pairs (87%) showed a concordance between the primary tumour and metastatic lymph node CANT1 expression. In contrast, 14 cases (13%) exhibited a discordant CANT1 expression between the primary tumour and its corresponding LNM. Specifically, 8 cases (7.4%) showed high expression in the primary tumour, but low expression in the corresponding lymph nodes. Six cases (5.6%) showed low expression in the primary tumour, but high expression in the corresponding LNM. This discordance was statistically significant (p < 0.001), indicating that while most cases maintain CANT1 expression status between the primary site and LNM, a notable minority do not, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7.
Comparison of CANT1 expression between primary tumour and corresponding metastatic lymph nodes (n = 108)
| CANT1 expression in primary tumour and LNM | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concordant expression (n = 94) | Discordant expression (n = 14) | < 0.001* | ||
| High in both primary tumour and LNM (%) | Low in both primary tumour and LNM (%) | Low in primary tumour, high in LNM (%) | High in primary tumour, low in LNM (%) | |
| 52 (48.1) | 42 (38.9) | 6 (5.6) | 8 (7.4) | |
Test of significance: Chi-Square test
*P—value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant
An additional analysis of hormone receptor status (ER, PR, HER2) in these 14 discordant CANT1 cases revealed that receptor profiles were concordant between the primary tumour and LNM in the vast majority of cases (12/14, 85.7%).
Comparison between the expression of B3GNT3 in the primary tumour and corresponding LNM
Considering B3GNT3 expression in the primary tumour and corresponding metastatic lymph node in 108 pairs; 102 pairs (94.4%) revealed a concordance expression between the primary tumour and corresponding LNM. However, 6 cases (5.6%) showed different expression of B3GNT3 between primary tumour and corresponding LNM. Two cases (1.8%) showed high expression in primary tumour and low expression in corresponding lymph node, while 4 cases (3.7%) showed low expression in primary tumour and high expression in corresponding metastatic lymph node. The results were statistically significant (p < 0.001) (Table 8).
Table 8.
Comparison between the expression of B3GNT3 in 108 pairs of primary tumour and corresponding metastatic lymph nodes (n = 108)
| B3GNT3 expression in primary tumour and LNM | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concordant expression (n = 102) | Discordant expression (n = 6) | < 0.001* | ||
| High in primary tumour and LNM (%) | Low in primary tumour and LNM (%) | Low in primary tumour, high in LNM (%) | High in primary tumour, low in LNM (%) | |
| 60 (55.6) | 42 (38.9) | 4 (3.7) | 2 (1.8) | |
Test of significance: Chi-Square test
*P—value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant
Notably, in all 6 cases with discordant B3GNT3 expression, the receptor status (ER, PR, HER2) remained entirely concordant (100%) between the primary tumour and metastatic lymph nodes.
Correlation between immunohistochemical co-expression of CANT1 and B3GNT3 with lymph node status
There was a statistically significant positive correlation between the co-expression of CANT1 and B3GNT3 and lymph node involvement (p < 0.001, r = 0.559), as presented in Table 9.
Table 9.
Correlation between immunohistochemical co-expression of CANT1 and B3GNT3 with lymph node status (n = 140)
| Lymph node status | CANT1 and B3GNT3 co-expression | Total | P value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Both high (%) | Both low (%) | High CANT1, low B3GNT3 (%) | Low CANT1, high B3GNT3 (%) | |||
| Negative for LNM | 3 (9.4) | 26 (81.3) | 2 (6.2) | 1 (3.1) | 32 (22.9) | < 0.001* |
| Positive for LNM | 49 (45.4) | 36 (33.3) | 10 (9.3) | 13 (12) | 108 (77.1) | |
| Total | 52 (37.1) | 62 (44.3) | 12 (8.6) | 14 (10) | 140 | |
Test of significance: Chi-Square test
*P—value < 0.05 is considered statistically significant
Discussion
Breast cancer is the second-leading cause of cancer- related mortality among Egyptian women. Compared to developed countries, it is often diagnosed at a younger age in Egypt, with a substantial proportion of patients presenting before the age of 50. This earlier onset is frequently associated with aggressive characteristics, including higher tumour grades and increased incidences of LNM [25]. Consequently, identifying reliable biomarkers for early detection and prognosis is crucial for improving patient outcomes and guiding therapeutic decisions.
CANT1 is an enzyme involved in nucleotide metabolism and glycosylation processes, which play vital roles in cellular functions such as adhesion, migration, and invasion. Although the exact role of CANT1 in breast cancer remains underexplored, studies in other tissues suggest that it may influence tumour progression through its involvement in protein glycosylation. This process is essential for cancer cell dissemination and metastasis to distant organs, including lymph nodes, by altering cell–cell interactions and promoting epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) [26].
B3GNT3, a glycosyltransferase responsible for synthesizing core-1 and core-3 O-glycans, also plays a pivotal role in the biosynthesis of selectin ligands that mediate cell–cell interactions [27]. While B3GNT3's role in other cancers is documented, its association with breast cancer has not been previously well investigated. This study provides novel insights into the relationship between CANT1 and B3GNT3 expression in IDC, contributing to the understanding of their roles in metastasis and disease progression.
In the current study, 47.1% of the cases revealed high cytoplasmic CANT1 expression, while 52.9% of the cases revealed low expression. We found a significant association between high CANT1 expression and larger tumour size (p = 0.004). In terms of tumour grade, high CANT1 expression was found in 39.2% and 68.4% of grade II and III cases, respectively, displaying a significant association with advanced tumour grade. Also, 90.9% of stage IV cases showed high expression, meanwhile all stage I cases (100%) showed low CANT1 expression, and the association was statistically significant (p = 0.001).
These findings could be attributed to the anti-apoptotic role of CANT1. It was discovered that CANT1 knocking down, caused upregulation of the pro-apoptotic factors of BAD and cleaved caspase-3, while the anti-apoptotic factor BCL2 was downregulated [28]. Additionally, CANT1 overexpression had a significant effect on tumourigenesis through promoting of the cell cycle at S phase, which caused progression of the mitotic activity of proliferating cells [29].
Our findings are in accordance with. Liu et al., who detected a significant association between CANT1 expression and larger tumour size, advanced stage, and higher histological grade in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [21]. Similarly, Yao et al., reported a significant association between CANT1 expression with advanced tumour stage in lung adenocarcinoma [9].
In addition, our findings demonstrate that CANT1 expression significantly correlates with LNR, lymph node status, NPI, PR status, HER2 status, Ki-67 proliferative index and distant metastasis. Recent evidence suggests that CANT1 may promote tumour metastasis through activation of the PI3K/AKT pathway, a critical signalling cascade that regulates cell proliferation and survival [30]. By enhancing this pathway, CANT1 can facilitate EMT, a process that enables cancer cells to acquire invasive properties and disseminate to distant organs [26]. These findings align with a previous study that reported a significant association between high CANT1 expression and nodal status and poor survival in lung adenocarcinoma [28]. To our knowledge, no prior studies have explored the link between CANT1 expression and ER status, Her2 status, Ki-67 proliferative index, NPI or LNR in IDC.
Similarly, high cytoplasmic B3GNT3 expression was revealed in 45.7% of the cases, while 54.3% of the cases revealed low expression. B3GNT3 expression was significantly associated with tumour grade, stage, LNR, lymph node status, NPI, Her2 status, Ki-67 proliferative index and distant metastasis. These findings were consistent with previous studies which reported that B3GNT3 high expression was linked to advanced tumour stage, higher grade and poor survival in pancreatic adenocarcinoma, early-stage cervical cancer and lung adenocarcinoma, respectively [20, 22, 31].
The mechanism by which B3GNT3 contributes to carcinogenesis differs across various tumour types, suggesting multiple tumour-specific pathways. Zhuang et al. have explained that B3GNT3 is highly expressed in pancreatic cancer stem cells [32]. Wang et al. indicated that B3GNT3 may promote the growth and migration of endometrial cancer cells by regulating the RhoA/RAC1 signalling pathway [33]. In non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, B3GNT3 plays dominant roles in L-selectin ligand biosynthesis, which is important for tumour cell survival [22]. In triple-negative breast cancer, B3GNT3 is overexpressed and facilitates PD-L1 glycosylation, thereby enhancing immune checkpoint therapy efficacy [34].
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the relationship between CANT1 and B3GNT3 in IDC. A significant positive correlation was observed between their expression levels (p < 0.001, r = 0.627), suggesting a potential synergistic effect in promoting cancer cell dissemination through shared molecular pathways involved in glycosylation, cell adhesion and ECM interaction. CANT1 supplies nucleotide sugars for glycosylation, while B3GNT3 synthesizes poly-N-acetyllactosamine structures, contributing to altered cell adhesion and immune interactions [35, 36]. In IDC, this interaction may promote tumour cell invasion and enhance metastatic potential.
Interestingly, our results showed that high expression levels of CANT1 and B3GNT3 were significantly associated with negative HER2 status, despite being linked to higher tumour grade and more aggressive features. This inverse association is somewhat paradoxical because HER2 positivity is often related to more aggressive breast cancers. However, HER2-negative tumours, particularly those classified as triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), can also exhibit highly aggressive behavior and poor prognosis [37]. This highlights the complexity of glycosylation-related pathways in different oncogenic contexts [7]. Since there are no previous studies examining the relationship between CANT1 and B3GNT3 expression and HER2 status in breast cancer, the exact reason for this contradiction is unclear. It may suggest that these markers contribute to tumour aggressiveness through HER2-independent mechanisms [38], indicating a complex and heterogeneous tumour biology. Further studies are needed to explore these pathways and clarify the clinical significance of this finding.
Univariate analysis identified several factors significantly associated with PFS, including tumour grade, stage, and ER status. Additionally, high B3GNT3 expression was linked to worse PFS. Multivariate Cox regression analysis further corroborated these findings, identifying B3GNT3 expression, tumour grade and tumour stage as independent poor prognostic factors for IDC. Similarly, Wu et al., reported thar B3GNT3 was an independent prognostic factor for poor overall survival in lung adenocarcinoma [31]. Interestingly, high expression of CANT1 and B3GNT3 has been associated with favourable prognostic outcomes in prostate cancer and neuroblastoma, respectively [29, 39].
To our knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the association between CANT1 and B3GNT3 expression and PFS in IDC, using both univariate and multivariate analyses. Our findings revealed that high expression of both CANT1 and B3GNT3 was significantly associated with reduced PFS across all IDC cases.
From a clinical perspective, early prediction of LNM is essential for guiding the extent of surgery and the selection of adjuvant therapy strategies [40]. Our findings suggest that CANT1 and B3GNT3 could serve as predictive biomarkers for lymph node involvement. We detected a strong significant association between the co-expression of both markers and LNM (p < 0.001, r = 0.527). Additionally, the significant correlations between high expression of each marker with both LNR and lymph node status further supports their potential utility as combined prognostic indicators. Additionally, the significant differences in the expression levels of each marker between the primary tumour and corresponding metastatic lymph nodes indicate their dynamic role in the metastatic cascade.
Previous studies have highlighted the importance of B3GNT3 in the biosynthesis of selectin ligands, which are crucial for lymphocyte homing and cancer cell trafficking to lymph nodes. Furthermore, overexpression of B3GNT3 has been linked to increased LNM in early-stage cervical cancer [22]. Similarly, CANT1 regulates nucleotide metabolism and glycosylation processes that influence the post-translational modification of cell surface proteins involved in adhesion and migration [36]. CANT1 overexpression may also activate the PI3K/AKT signalling pathway, promoting lymphangiogenesis and facilitating cancer cell survival in lymphatic circulation [30].
The expression levels of CANT1 and B3GNT3 show significant potential as diagnostic biomarkers for LNM in IDC. Current diagnostic approaches, including sentinel lymph node biopsy, have limitations, such as false negatives and unnecessary procedures for low-risk patients [41]. Incorporating CANT1 and B3GNT3 expression analysis into routine pathological workflows could improve the accuracy of nodal involvement detection, enabling more precise stratification of patients. Individuals with high biomarker expression may benefit from more intensive nodal assessment, while low expression cases could potentially avoid unnecessary interventions.
Enhancing LNM diagnosis through biomarker integration could lead to more reliable pathological assessments, complementing traditional histopathological techniques and ultimately improving surgical decision-making, and patient outcomes. Further validation of CANT1 and B3GNT3 in clinical settings could establish their role as valuable adjuncts in diagnostic pathology and guide more personalized treatment strategies.
This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the cases were randomly selected from archived samples and may not fully represent the overall population distribution of IDC. Notably, there was a higher proportion of patients younger than 50 years and an absence of grade 1 tumours, which may limit the generalizability of our findings regarding expression frequencies. Additionally, most cases were locally advanced or Stage 3, potentially influencing survival outcomes. Treatment regimens varied among patients, but detailed therapy data were unavailable, which may have confounded survival analyses. Furthermore, PFS was used as the primary survival endpoint, as progression data were more reliably available for this retrospective cohort. However, DFS could not be assessed due to limited data on recurrence in early-stage cases. Although our study highlights the association of CANT1 and B3GNT3 expression with poor prognosis and LNM in IDC, their potential as therapeutic targets requires further validation. Functional studies and clinical trials are necessary to confirm their role in treatment strategies. Taken together, these limitations indicate that this study should be considered exploratory.
Future directions
Further studies with larger cohorts and functional analyses are needed to validate the precise role of CANT1 and B3GNT3 in IDC and to determine whether they can serve as predictive tools for personalized surgical and therapeutic approaches. A deeper understanding of their biological roles may reveal novel opportunities for targeted interventions in IDC. Additionally, assessing DFS is particularly valuable in early-stage IDC, as it offers important insights into recurrence risk within a relatively short follow-up period. Such studies will help clarify the prognostic value of CANT1 and B3GNT3 expression in different clinical contexts and stages of IDC. Integrating these biomarkers with established clinicopathological factors may further enhance personalized treatment strategies and improve patient outcomes.
Acknowledgements
Not applicable
Abbreviations
- LNM
Lymph node metastasis.
- CANT1
Calcium-activated nucleotidase 1.
- B3GNT3
Beta-1,3-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferase 3.
- IDC
Invasive ductal carcinoma.
- PFS
Progression free survival.
- ECM
Extracellular matrix.
- AJCC
American Joint Committee on Cancer.
- NPI
Nottingham prognostic index.
- TILs
Tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes.
- DCIS
Ductal carcinoma in situ.
- LVI
Lymphovascular invasion.
- LNR
Lymph node ratio.
- ER
Estrogen receptor.
- PR
Progesterone receptor.
- PBS
Phosphate-buffered saline.
- DAB
3,3-Diaminobenzidinetetra hydrochloride
- SD
Standard deviation.
- HCC
Hepatocellular carcinoma
Authors’ contributions
Both authors shared in the laboratory work, data analysis, manuscript writing and approval of the final version.
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). The study was funded by the authors without any funding body.
Data availability
All data analysed during this study are included in this article.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study had been approved by Minia University, Faculty of Medicine Research Ethical Committee (1494/2025).
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Arnold M, Morgan E, Rumgay H, Mafra A, Singh D, Laversanne M, et al. Current and future burden of breast cancer: global statistics for 2020 and 2040. Breast. 2022;66:15–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Lei S, Zheng R, Zhang S, Wang S, Chen R, Sun K, et al. Global patterns of breast cancer incidence and mortality: a population-based cancer registry data analysis from 2000 to 2020. Cancer Commun. 2021;41(11):1183–94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Trapani D, Ginsburg O, Fadelu T, Lin NU, Hassett M, Ilbawi AM, et al. Global challenges and policy solutions in breast cancer control. Cancer Treat Rev. 2022;104:102339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Xue M, Che S, Tian Y, Xie L, Huang L, Zhao L, et al. Nomogram based on breast MRI and clinicopathologic features for predicting axillary lymph node metastasis in patients with early-stage invasive breast cancer: a retrospective study. Clin Breast Cancer. 2022;22(4):e428–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Josic D, Martinovic T, Pavelic K. Glycosylation and metastases. Electrophoresis. 2019;40(1):140–50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Yang YH, Wen R, Yang N, Zhang TN, Liu CF. Roles of protein post-translational modifications in glucose and lipid metabolism: mechanisms and perspectives. Mol Med. 2023;29(1):93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Pinho SS, Reis CA. Glycosylation in cancer: mechanisms and clinical implications. Nat Rev Cancer. 2015;15(9):540–55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Gao F, Hu X, Liu W, Wu H, Mu Y, Zhao Y. Calcium-activated nucleotides 1 (CANT1)-driven nuclear factor-k-gene binding (NF-ĸB) signaling pathway facilitates the lung cancer progression. Bioengineered. 2022;13(2):3183–93. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Yang W, Liu Z, Liu T. Pan-cancer analysis predicts CANT1 as a potential prognostic, immunologic biomarker. Cell Signal. 2024;117:111107. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Lu J, Lei T, Yu H, Su X, Zhang L, Zhang Y. The role of B3GNT3 as an oncogene in the growth, invasion and migration of esophageal cancer cells. Acta Cir Bras. 2023;38:e380923. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Sun Y, Liu T, Xian L, Liu W, Liu J, Zhou H. B3GNT3, a direct target of miR-149-5p, promotes lung cancer development and indicates poor prognosis of lung cancer. Cancer Manag Res. 2020. 10.2147/CMAR.S236565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Yang PD, Peng QQ, Lian WB, Fu FM, Wang C, Chen D. Validation of the eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer anatomic and prognostic staging system for breast cancer. J Surg Res. 2022;270:539–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Lee AH, Elston CW, Grainge MJ, Hodi Z, et al. Prognostic significance of Nottingham histologic grade in invasive breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(19):3153–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Lee AH, Ellis IO. The Nottingham prognostic index for invasive carcinoma of the breast. Pathol Oncol Res. 2008;14:113–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Salgado R, Denkert C, Demaria S, Sirtaine N, Klauschen F, Pruneri G, et al. The evaluation of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) in breast cancer: recommendations by an International TILs Working Group 2014. Ann Oncol. 2015;26(2):259–71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Doebar SC, van den Broek EC, Koppert LB, Jager A, Baaijens MH, Obdeijn IM, et al. Extent of ductal carcinoma in situ according to breast cancer subtypes: a population-based cohort study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;158:179–87. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kuhn E, Gambini D, Despini L, Asnaghi D, Runza L, Ferrero S. Updates on lymphovascular invasion in breast cancer. Biomedicines. 2023;11(3):968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Vinh-Hung V, Verkooijen HM, Fioretta G, Neyroud-Caspar I, Rapiti E, Vlastos G, et al. Lymph node ratio as an alternative to pN staging in node-positive breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(7):1062–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Johnson KS, Conant EF, Soo MS. Molecular subtypes of breast cancer: a review for breast radiologists. J Breast Imaging. 2021;3(1):12–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Kong K, Zhao Y, Xia L, Jiang H, Xu M, Zheng J. B3GNT3: a prognostic biomarker associated with immune cell infiltration in pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Oncol Lett. 2021;21(2):159. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Liu T, Li ZZ, Sun L, Yang K, Chen JM, Han XY, et al. Upregulated CANT1 is correlated with poor prognosis in hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2023;23(1):1007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Zhang W, Hou T, Niu C, Song L, Zhang Y. B3Gnt3 expression is a novel marker correlated with pelvic lymph node metastasis and poor clinical outcome in early-stage cervical cancer. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(12):e0144360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bilal E, Dutkowski J, Guinney J, Jang IS, Logsdon BA, Pandey G, et al. Improving breast cancer survival analysis through competition-based multidimensional modeling. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(5):e1003047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31(4):337–50. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Al Ajmi AA, Ayaad O, Al Aghbari S, Al Balushi MN, Koziha EK, Al-Ishaq Z, et al. Challenges with the management of young women’s breast cancer in Gulf countries and the Middle East. Journal of Young Women’s Breast Cancer and Health. 2024;1(1&2):36–41. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Qiao G, Wang HB, Duan XN, Yan XF. The effect and mechanism of miR-607/CANT1 axis in lung squamous carcinoma. Anticancer Drugs. 2021;32(7):693–702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Barkeer S, Chugh S, Karmakar S, Kaushik G, Rauth S, Rachagani S, et al. Novel role of O-glycosyltransferases GALNT3 and B3GNT3 in the self-renewal of pancreatic cancer stem cells. BMC Cancer. 2018;18:1–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Yao Q, Yu Y, Wang Z, Zhang M, Ma J, Wu Y, et al. CANT1 serves as a potential prognostic factor for lung adenocarcinoma and promotes cell proliferation and invasion in vitro. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Gerhardt J, Steinbrech C, Büchi O, Behnke S, Bohnert A, Fritzsche F, et al. The androgen-regulated Calcium-Activated Nucleotidase 1 (CANT1) is commonly overexpressed in prostate cancer and is tumor-biologically relevant in vitro. Am J Pathol. 2011;178(4):1847–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Ni H, Chai P, Yu J, Xing Y, Wang S, Fan J, et al. LncRNA CANT1 suppresses retinoblastoma progression by repellinghistone methyltransferase in PI3Kγ promoter. Cell Death Dis. 2020;11(5):306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Wu Y, Luo J, Li H, Huang Y, Zhu Y, Chen Q. B3GNT3 as a prognostic biomarker and correlation with immune cell infiltration in lung adenocarcinoma. Ann Transl Med. 2022;10(6):295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Zhuang H, Zhou Z, Zhang Z, Chen X, Ma Z, Huang S, et al. B3GNT3 overexpression promotes tumor progression and inhibits infiltration of CD8+ T cells in pancreatic cancer. Aging (Albany NY). 2020;13(2):2310. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Wang JS, Ruan F, Guo LZ, Wang FG, Wang FL, An HM. B3GNT3 acts as a carcinogenic factor in endometrial cancer via facilitating cell growth, invasion and migration through regulating RhoA/RAC1 pathway-associated markers. Genes Genomics. 2021;43:447–57. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Lv W, Yu H, Han M, Tan Y, Wu M, Zhang J, et al. Analysis of tumor glycosylation characteristics and implications for immune checkpoint inhibitor’s efficacy for breast cancer. Front Immunol. 2022;13:830158. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Yamashita R, Tsutsui S, Mizumoto S, Watanabe T, Yamamoto N, Nakano K, et al. CANT1 is involved in collagen fibrogenesis in tendons by regulating the synthesis of dermatan/chondroitin sulfate attached to the decorin core protein. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(6):2463. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Xie A, Wang J, Liu Y, Li G, Yang N. Impacts of β-1, 3-N-acetylglucosaminyltransferases (B3GNTs) in human diseases. Mol Biol Rep. 2024;51(1):476. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Bianchini G, Balko JM, Mayer IA, Sanders ME, Gianni L. Triple-negative breast cancer: challenges and opportunities of a heterogeneous disease. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13(11):674–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Jin X, Zhou YF, Ma D, Zhao S, Lin CJ, Xiao Y, et al. Molecular classification of hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer. Nat Genet. 2023;55(10):1696–708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.- 38- Ho WL, Che MI, Chou CH, Chang HH, Jeng YM, Hsu WM, Lin KH, Huang MC. B3 GNT 3 expression suppresses cell migration and invasion and predicts favorable outcomes in neuroblastoma. Cancer science. 2013;104(12):1600-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 40.Oakman C, Santarpia L, Di Leo A. Breast cancer assessment tools and optimizing adjuvant therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010;7(12):725–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Aragon-Sanchez S, Oliver-Perez MR, Madariaga A, Tabuenca MJ, Martinez M, Galindo A, et al. Accuracy and limitations of sentinel lymph node biopsy after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients with positive nodes. Breast J. 2022;2022(1):1507881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
All data analysed during this study are included in this article.