Abstract
Background
Tumor biology of estrogen receptor-α (ERα) and progesterone receptor (PR) has been studied in breast cancers. However, clinical impact in lung cancer remains controversial. In our study, we investigate whether ERα and PR expression predicts disease recurrence and correlates with immunologic factors in stage I lung adenocarcinoma.
Methods
We reviewed patients with pathologic stage I resected lung adenocarcinoma. Tumors were classified according to the IASLC/ATS/ERS classification. Immunostaining of ERα and PR was performed using tissue microarrays (n = 913). Immunostaining of CD3+ and forkhead box P3 (FoxP3)+ lymphocyte infiltration, interleukin-7 receptor (IL-7R), and IL-12Rβ2 were performed. Cumulative incidence of recurrence (CIR) analysis was used to estimate probability of recurrence.
Results
Nuclear ERα expression was observed in 157 (17%) patients and presented more frequently in females (P = 0.038) and smaller tumors (P = 0.019). Nuclear ERα expression was not identified in mucinous tumors. In pT1a patients, 5-year CIR of patients with ERα-positive tumors was significantly higher (5-year CIR, 20%) than those with ERα-negative tumors (8%; P = 0.018). This difference was statistically significant in males (P = 0.003) but not females (P = 0.55). On multivariate analysis, nuclear ERα expression was an independent predictor of recurrence (hazard ratio = 2.27; P = 0.030). In pT1a patients, nuclear ERα expression positively correlated with tumoral FoxP3+ lymphocytes (P < 0.001), FoxP3/CD3 index (P < 0.001), and IL-7R (P = 0.022).
Conclusions
Nuclear ERα expression is an independent predictor of recurrence in pT1a lung adenocarcinomas and correlates with poor prognostic immune microenvironments.
Keywords: adenocarcinoma, lung, estrogen receptor, regulatory T-cell, recurrence
INTRODUCTION
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death and its incidence is increasing in women [1]. Gender has been shown to play a prognostic role in lung cancer. Compared to men, the proportions of adenocarcinoma histology and early-stage disease are greater in women with lung cancers [2, 3]. Women have a higher response rate to chemotherapy and a better survival rate than men, especially in adenocarcinomas [3, 4]. In addition, mutations in epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), which can predict sensitivity to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, are more frequently identified in women than in men [5, 6]. This suggests that lung cancer carcinogenesis should be considered, at least partly, as a distinct entity by gender.
The tumor biology of sex steroid hormone receptors, such as the estrogen receptor (ER) and the progesterone receptor (PR), has been studied, especially in breast cancers [7–12]. In human ERs, there are two isoforms (ERα and ERβ) with partial homology, yet distinct function, in normal and neoplastic cells [13]. In breast cancer patients, nuclear expression of ERα and PR has been an important and favorable prognostic biomarker with a greater response to endocrine therapy (such as tamoxifen) [7–9]. Currently, immunohistochemical assessment of ERα and PR has been part of routine clinical practice for treating breast cancers. In addition to ERα, since the discovery of a second ER—which has been identified as ERβ—its functional and prognostic importance has been also investigated in breast cancers [10–12]. Recently, in lung cancers the positive association between ER expression and EGFR mutations has been detected [14, 15], and the potential clinical impact of ERα, ERβ, and PR has also been investigated [14–23]. Despite these investigations, their prognostic value remains controversial.
The tumor immune microenvironment has a prognostic impact on solid malignancies [24–26]. Using a large cohort of stage I lung adenocarcinoma patients, we have identified forkhead box P3 (FoxP3)+/CD3+ lymphocytes infiltration index—which represents the ratio of regulatory T cells to total T cells—in tumor-related stroma, overexpression of tumoral interleukin-7 receptor (IL-7R), and loss of tumoral IL-12Rβ2 as independent prognostic factors [27]. In breast carcinomas, associations between the tumor immune microenvironment and ER status have been investigated; the number of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (including FoxP3+, CD8+ or CD20+ cells) is greater in ERα-negative tumors than in ERα-positive tumors [28–31] and lymphocyte infiltration contributes to better clinical outcomes in ERα-negative tumors than in ERα-positive tumors [32].
In 2011, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the European Respiratory Society (ERS) published the new lung adenocarcinoma histologic classification system [33]. Its prognostic value—which is based on predominant histologic patterns—has been confirmed in large independent cohorts worldwide [34–36]. Additionally, our group has reported molecular and radiologic correlations with histologic subtypes [37–40]. However, associations between histologic subtypes and sex steroid hormone receptors in lung adenocarcinoma have yet to be investigated.
In our study, we investigate whether ERα and PR expression predicts risk of disease recurrence and if it has any associations with clinicopathologic factors, histologic patterns, mutation status, or immune factors in stage I lung adenocarcinoma patients.
RESULTS
Patient demographics
Patient demographics are shown in Table 1. Of all (n = 913), median patient age was 69 years (range, 23–96 years). More than half of the patients were women (n = 564) and had stage IA disease (n = 636). Median tumor size was 2.0 cm (range, 0.3–5.0). During the study period, 14% (n = 130) of patients experienced recurrence and 17% (n = 136) died from any cause without documented recurrence. Median follow-up period for patients who did not experience recurrence was 38.5 months (range, 2.6–160.1 months).
Table 1. Patients demographics and its associations with nuclear ERα in all patients.
| Variables | N | Nuclear ERα, N (%) | P | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative | Positive | |||||
| Age, years | 0.63 | |||||
| Median | 69* | 69* | 69* | |||
| Range | 23–96** | 23–96** | 43–87** | |||
| Sex | 0.038 | |||||
| Female | 564 | 455 | (81) | 109 | (19) | |
| Male | 349 | 301 | (86) | 48 | (14) | |
| Smoking status | 0.56 | |||||
| Never | 151 | 128 | (85) | 23 | (15) | |
| Former/current | 762 | 628 | (82) | 134 | (18) | |
| Surgery | 0.019 | |||||
| Lobectomy | 718 | 606 | (84) | 112 | (16) | |
| Limited resection | 195 | 150 | (77) | 45 | (23) | |
| Tumor size (cm) | 0.006 | |||||
| Median | 2.0* | 2.0* | 1.8* | |||
| Range | 0.3–5.0** | 0.3–5.0** | 0.5–5.0** | |||
| Pathological stage | 0.98 | |||||
| IA | 636 | 526 | (83) | 110 | (17) | |
| IB | 277 | 230 | (83) | 47 | (17) | |
| Architectural grade | 0.37 | |||||
| Low | 111 | 93 | (84) | 18 | (16) | |
| Intermediate | 579 | 472 | (82) | 107 | (18) | |
| High | 223 | 191 | (86) | 32 | (14) | |
| Pleural invasion | 0.26 | |||||
| Absence | 758 | 633 | (84) | 125 | (16) | |
| Presence | 155 | 123 | (79) | 32 | (21) | |
| Lymphatic invasion | 0.39 | |||||
| Absence | 622 | 510 | (82) | 112 | (18) | |
| Presence | 291 | 246 | (85) | 45 | (15) | |
| Vascular invasion | 0.45 | |||||
| Absence | 679 | 558 | (82) | 121 | (18) | |
| Presence | 234 | 198 | (85) | 36 | (15) | |
| Necrosis | 0.75 | |||||
| Absence | 761 | 632 | (83) | 129 | (17) | |
| Presence | 152 | 124 | (82) | 28 | (18) | |
| Nuclear atypia | 0.47 | |||||
| Mild | 392 | 331 | (84) | 61 | (16) | |
| Moderate | 315 | 255 | (81) | 60 | (19) | |
| Severe | 206 | 170 | (83) | 36 | (17) | |
| Mitotic count | 0.98 | |||||
| Low | 442 | 367 | (83) | 75 | (17) | |
| Intermediate | 196 | 162 | (83) | 34 | (17) | |
| High | 275 | 227 | (83) | 48 | (17) | |
Significant P-values (<0.05) are shown in bold.
ER, estrogen receptor
Median
Range
ER and PR expression profiles
ERα and PR expression profiles are summarized in Table 2. Of all, nuclear ERα expression was observed in 157 (17%) patients, most of whom were focally positive (n = 138; 88%). Among nuclear ERα-positive tumors, 118 (75%) were weakly positive, 27 (17%) were moderately positive, and 12 (8%) were strongly positive (Fig. 1A). Cytoplasmic ERα expression was observed in 86 (9%) patients, most of whom were weakly (n = 80; 93%) (Fig. 1B) and focally positive (n = 74; 86%). Nuclear PR expression was observed in 119 (13%) patients, most of whom were focally positive (n = 108; 91%). Among nuclear PR-positive tumors, 93 (78%) were weakly positive, 20 (17%) were moderately positive (Fig. 1C), and 6 (5%) were strongly positive. Cytoplasmic PR expression was observed in 116 (13%) patients, more than half of whom were focally positive (n = 80; 69%). Among cytoplasmic PR-positive tumors, 87 (75%) were weakly positive, 21 (18%) were moderately positive, and 8 (7%) were strongly positive (Fig. 1D).
Table 2. ERα and PR expression profiles in all patients.
| Intensity | Distribution | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marker | Positive | Weak | Moderate | Strong | Focal | Diffuse | ||||||
| N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | N | (%) | |
| ERα (n = 913) | ||||||||||||
| Nucleus | 157 | (17) | 118 | (75) | 27 | (17) | 12 | (8) | 138 | (88) | 19 | (12) |
| Cytoplasm | 86 | (9) | 80 | (93) | 6 | (7) | 0 | (0) | 74 | (86) | 12 | (14) |
| PR (n = 910) | ||||||||||||
| Nucleus | 119 | (13) | 93 | (78) | 20 | (17) | 6 | (5) | 108 | (91) | 11 | (9) |
| Cytoplasm | 116 | (13) | 87 | (75) | 21 | (18) | 8 | (7) | 80 | (69) | 36 | (31) |
ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor
Figure 1. Immunohistochemical analyses of estrogen receptor-α (ERα) and progesterone receptor (PR) using tissue microarrays (original magnification, A–F: × 100 magnification).
A. ERα is weakly, moderately, or strongly positive in tumor nuclei. B. ERα is weakly positive in tumor cytoplasm. C. PR is moderately positive in tumor nuclei. D. PR is strongly positive in tumor cytoplasm.
ERα and PR expression associations with disease recurrence and overall survival
In all patients, nuclear ERα expression was not associated with risk of recurrence (P = 0.38) (Fig. 2A). In pT1a patients, 5-year CIR of patients with nuclear ERα-positive tumors was significantly higher (n = 81; 5-year CIR, 20%) than nuclear ERα-negative tumors (n= 336; 5-year CIR, 8%; P = 0.018) (Fig. 2B). Among pT1a patients, 5-year CIR of patients with nuclear ERα-positive tumors was significantly higher (n = 24; 5-year CIR, 47%) than nuclear ERα-negative tumors in males (n = 131; 5-year CIR, 11%; P = 0.003) (Fig. 2C) while the difference was not observed in females (P = 0.55) (Fig. 2D). After excluding the wedge resection group, among T1a patients who had undergone sublobar resection or lobectomy, 5-year CIR of patients with nuclear ERα-positive tumors was still higher (n = 60; 5-year CIR, 13%) than nuclear ERα-negative tumors (n = 279; 5-year CIR, 6%); the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.19). Among T1a patients who had undergone lobectomy only, 5-year CIR of patients with nuclear ERα-positive tumors was slightly higher (n = 53; 5-year CIR, 10%) than nuclear ERα-negative tumors (n = 249; 5-year CIR, 5%); the difference was also not statistically significant (P = 0.58). Cytoplasmic ERα, nuclear PR, and cytoplasmic PR were not associated with risk of recurrence (Table 3).
Figure 2. Estrogen receptor-α (ERα) associations with disease recurrence.
A. In all patients, nuclear ERα expression was not associated with risk of recurrence (P = 0.38) B. In pT1a patients, 5-year CIR of patients with nuclear ERα-positive tumors was significantly higher (n = 81; 5-year CIR, 20%) than patients with nuclear ERα-negative tumors (n = 336; 5-year CIR, 8%; P = 0.018). C. In pT1a males, 5-year CIR of patients with nuclear ERα-positive tumors was significantly higher (n = 24; 5-year CIR, 47%) than patients with nuclear ERα-negative tumors (n = 131; 5-year CIR, 11%; P = 0.003). D. In pT1a females, nuclear ERα expression was not associated with risk of recurrence (P = 0.55).
Table 3. ERα and PR association with disease recurrence.
| Variables | All patients | Patients with pT1a disease | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | (%) | 5-yr CIR | P | N | (%) | 5-yr CIR | P | |
| ERα nucleus | 0.38 | 0.018 | ||||||
| Negative | 756 | (83) | 17% | 336 | (81) | 8% | ||
| Positive | 157 | (17) | 21% | 81 | (19) | 20% | ||
| ERα cytoplasm | 0.37 | 0.14 | ||||||
| Negative | 827 | (91) | 18% | 380 | (91) | 11% | ||
| Positive | 86 | (9) | 14% | 37 | (9) | 5% | ||
| PR nucleus | 0.18 | 0.96 | ||||||
| Negative | 791 | (87) | 17% | 347 | (83) | 10% | ||
| Positive | 119 | (13) | 23% | 69 | (17) | 12% | ||
| PR cytoplasm | 0.42 | 0.65 | ||||||
| Negative | 794 | (87) | 18% | 348 | (84) | 10% | ||
| Positive | 116 | (13) | 16% | 68 | (16) | 10% | ||
Significant P-values (<0.05) are shown in bold.
ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; CIR, cumulative incidence of recurrence
Although overall survival (OS) analysis was also performed, ERα and PR expression (in nuclear or cytoplasm) were not associated with OS in all and T1a patients. In pT1a patients, limited resection (vs. lobectomy; P < 0.001), high architectural grade (P < 0.001), lymphatic invasion (P = 0.001), vascular invasion (P = 0.004), tumor necrosis (P = 0.043), greater nuclear atypia (P = 0.027), and higher mitotic count (P = 0.001) were significantly associated with high risk of recurrence.
On multivariate analysis of patients with pT1a disease, nuclear ERα expression remained a significant prognostic factor of increased risk of recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.27; P = 0.03) (Table 4A). When analyzing the effect of nuclear ERα expression on recurrence in males and females separately, nuclear ERα expression was significantly associated with a higher risk of recurrence in males (HR = 3.66; P = 0.009), but not in females (HR = 1.31; P = 0.63) (Table 4B).
Table 4. Multivariate analysis for disease recurrence in patients with T1a disease.
| (A) In patients with pT1a disease | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Hazard Ratio | 95% CI | P | |
| Nuclear ERα | positive vs. negative | 2.27 | 1.08–4.77 | 0.03 |
| Sex | males vs. females | 2.19 | 1.06–4.53 | 0.035 |
| Surgery | lobectomy vs. limited resection | 3.55 | 1.69–7.49 | <0.001 |
| Architectural grade | high vs. intermediate | 2.88 | 1.26–6.58 | 0.012 |
| high vs. low | 11.67 | 1.60–84.75 | 0.015 | |
| Lymphatic Invasion | present vs. absent | 1.18 | 0.56–2.51 | 0.67 |
| Mitotic count | intermediate vs. low | 0.67 | 0.23–1.95 | 0.46 |
| high vs. low | 1.31 | 0.54–3.17 | 0.55 | |
| (B) Effect of nuclear ER in males and females with pT1a disease | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | Hazard Ratio | 95% CI | P | |
| Nuclear ERα in females | positive vs. negative | 1.31 | 0.43–4.01 | 0.63 |
| Nuclear ERα in males | positive vs. negative | 3.66 | 1.37–9.74 | 0.009 |
| Surgery | lobectomy vs. limited resection | 3.49 | 1.65–7.36 | 0.001 |
| Architectural grade | high vs. intermediate | 2.99 | 1.25–7.15 | 0.014 |
| high vs. low | 12.55 | 1.80–86.96 | 0.011 | |
| Lymphatic Invasion | present vs. absent | 1.12 | 0.53–2.4 | 0.77 |
| Mitotic count | intermediate vs. low | 0.69 | 0.23–2.02 | 0.49 |
| high vs. low | 1.33 | 0.53–3.33 | 0.54 | |
Significant P-values (<0.05) are shown in bold.
ER, estrogen receptor; CI, confidence interval
Nuclear ER associations with patient clinicopathologic factors
In all patients, nuclear ERα-positive tumors were more frequently identified in females than in males (19% vs. 14%; P = 0.038) and they were smaller in size than nuclear ERα-negative tumors (median size, 1.8 cm vs. 2.0 cm; P = 0.019) (Table 1). However, these differences were not significant in pT1a tumors (P = 0.15 and P = 0.59, respectively). In all patients, nuclear ERα-positive tumors were slightly more frequently identified in the limited resection group than in the lobectomy group (23% vs. 16%; P = 0.019); however, this difference was not statistically significant in pT1a tumors (P = 0.15). The other aforementioned factors were not associated with nuclear ERα expression.
According to histologic subtype, nuclear ERα-positive tumors were most frequently observed in micropapillary subtype (22%) although there was no significant difference in the rate of nuclear ERα-positive tumors among non-mucinous invasive tumors (18% in lepidic subtype, 19% in acinar subtype, 18% in papillary subtype, and 16% in solid subtype) (Fig. 3). Nuclear ERα-positive tumors were not identified in mucinous subtypes (invasive mucinous or colloid subtype). Nuclear ERα-positive tumors were less frequently identified in minimally invasive subtype (11%). Among minimally invasive tumors, two mucinous cases were negative for nuclear ERα.
Figure 3. Percentage of nuclear estrogen receptor-α (ERα)-positive tumors according to histologic subtypes.
Nuclear ERα-positive tumors were most frequently observed in micropapillary subtype (22%), although there was no significant difference in percentages of nuclear ERα-positive tumors among non-mucinous invasive tumors (18% in lepidic subtype, 19% in acinar subtype, 18% in papillary subtype, and 16% in solid subtype). Nuclear ERα-positive tumors were not identified in mucinous subtypes (invasive mucinous or colloid subtype). Nuclear ERα-positive tumors were less frequently identified in minimally invasive subtype (11%).
Associations between nuclear ERα and mutation status were also analyzed and the results showed that nuclear ERα expression was not associated with EGFR or KRAS mutations (P = 0.99 and P = 0.6, respectively).
Nuclear ER associations with prognostic immune markers
In all patients, nuclear ERα expression was positively associated with high tumoral and stromal CD3+ lymphocyte infiltration (P = 0.012 and P = 0.043, respectively), high tumoral and stromal FoxP3+ lymphocyte infiltration (P < 0.001 and P = 0.027, respectively), and high tumoral and stromal FoxP3/CD3 risk index (P < 0.001 and P = 0.006, respectively) (Table 5). In patients with pT1a disease, nuclear ERα expression was positively associated with high stromal CD3+ lymphocyte infiltration (P < 0.001), high tumoral and stromal FoxP3+ lymphocyte infiltration (P < 0.001 and P = 0.028, respectively), high tumoral FoxP3/CD3 risk index (P < 0.001), and high tumoral IL-7R expression (P = 0.022) (Table 5). In male patients with pT1a disease, nuclear ERα expression was positively associated with high tumoral CD3+ lymphocyte infiltration (P < 0.001), and high tumoral FoxP3/CD3 risk index (P = 0.001). However, these immune markers were not associated with smoking status or patient gender (data not shown).
Table 5. Associations between nuclear ERα and immune markers.
| Variable | (A) All patients | (B) Patients with pT1a disease | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nuclear ERα, N (%) | P | Nuclear ERα, N (%) | P | |||||||
| Negative | Positive | Negative | Positive | |||||||
| Tumoral CD3 | 0.012 | 0.07 | ||||||||
| Low | 425 | (86) | 72 | (14) | 179 | (84) | 34 | (16) | ||
| High | 314 | (79) | 84 | (21) | 149 | (76) | 46 | (24) | ||
| Stromal CD3 | 0.043 | <0.001 | ||||||||
| Low | 501 | (85) | 89 | (15) | 235 | (86) | 39 | (14) | ||
| High | 224 | (79) | 59 | (21) | 87 | (70) | 37 | (30) | ||
| Tumoral FoxP3 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||||
| Low | 391 | (91) | 38 | (9) | 168 | (92) | 15 | (8) | ||
| High | 341 | (75) | 116 | (25) | 155 | (71) | 63 | (29) | ||
| Stromal FoxP3 | 0.027 | 0.028 | ||||||||
| Low | 471 | (85) | 85 | (15) | 223 | (84) | 44 | (16) | ||
| High | 241 | (79) | 66 | (21) | 98 | (74) | 35 | (26) | ||
| Tumoral FoxP3/CD3 index | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||||||||
| Low | 457 | (89) | 56 | (11) | 196 | (88) | 26 | (12) | ||
| High | 273 | (74) | 98 | (26) | 127 | (71) | 52 | (29) | ||
| Stromal FoxP3/CD3 index | 0.006 | 0.07 | ||||||||
| Low | 526 | (85) | 92 | (15) | 236 | (83) | 48 | (17) | ||
| High | 175 | (77) | 53 | (23) | 78 | (74) | 27 | (26) | ||
| IL-7 R | 0.41 | 0.022 | ||||||||
| Low | 440 | (84) | 85 | (16) | 228 | (84) | 44 | (16) | ||
| High | 299 | (81) | 68 | (19) | 98 | (74) | 35 | (26) | ||
| IL-12Rβ2 | 0.96 | 0.96 | ||||||||
| Low | 557 | (83) | 117 | (17) | 238 | (80) | 60 | (20) | ||
| High | 180 | (82) | 39 | (18) | 88 | (81) | 21 | (19) | ||
Significant P-values (<0.05) are shown in bold.
ER, estrogen receptor; FoxP3, forkhead box P3; IL-7R, interleukin-7 receptor; IL-12Rβ2, interleukin-12 receptor β2
DISCUSSION
We have demonstrated that nuclear ERα expression is an independent predictor of increased risk of recurrence in patients with pT1aN0 (≤2.0 cm) lung adenocarcinoma, especially in male patients, and positively correlates with poor prognostic immune microenvironments (CD3+ and FoxP3+ lymphocyte infiltration, and tumoral IL-7R expression).
In lung cancers, ER expression was reported to correlate with female sex, less smoking history, smaller tumor size, adenocarcinoma histology, and EGFR mutation [14, 15, 20–23]. Our results from stage I lung adenocarcinoma show that ERα expression was more frequently observed in females than males (19% vs. 14%) and correlates with smaller tumor size (1.8 cm vs. 2.0 cm); however, it was not associated with smoking history or EGFR mutation.
Previous studies have investigated the clinical impact of ER expression in lung cancer patients [14–23]; however, its prognostic significance remains controversial. Most studies have demonstrated that nuclear ERβ expression is associated with better prognosis in lung cancers [15–18], especially in male patients [16, 17]. However, other groups also have reported the unfavorable prognostic value of nuclear and cytoplasmic ERβ expression in lung cancers [20, 22]. With regard to ERα expression in lung cancers, Raso et al. and Kawai et al. reported that cytoplasmic ERα expression was associated with worse prognosis [18, 20], while Rouquette et al. found that it had favorable prognostic value [21]. Moreover, other studies did not identify any prognostic significance of nuclear or cytoplasmic ERα expression in lung cancers [14–16, 19, 22]. By contrast, the prognostic significance of ERα in resected early-stage lung adenocarcinoma remained unknown since previous study cohorts were either composed of only a small number of patients or were a heterogeneous population with regards to pathologic TNM stage (including early-stage and advanced-stage) and histology (including adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma). In our study using a large, uniform cohort (n > 900) comprised of patients with stage I lung adenocarcinoma, we have demonstrated that ERα expression is an independent risk factor of disease recurrence, especially in male patients with pT1a status (HR = 3.66).
Considering the inconsistent results of previous studies—specifically clinical correlations and the prognostic value of ER expression in lung cancers—its function may vary due to variations in patient gender (male vs. female), location of ER expression (nucleus vs. cytoplasm), ER isoforms (ERα vs. ERβ), and epitopes that each anti-ER monoclonal antibody can recognize. The two anti-ERα mouse monoclonal antibodies (ID5 and 6F11) have shown similar immunoreactivity in breast carcinomas [41] and were most frequently used in previous studies on lung carcinomas [14, 16, 19–21]. As an epitope, monoclonal antibody ID5 recognizes N-terminal of ERα while 6F11 recognizes full length of ERα [20]. More recently, anti-ERα rabid monoclonal antibody SP1—which recognizes C-terminal of ERα—has been introduced and is reported to have higher sensitivity and an 8-fold higher affinity in breast carcinomas for the detection of ERα, compared with ID5 [42]. Furthermore, in breast carcinomas, SP1 was recognized as a more reliable prognostic factor and a superior predictor of response to endocrine therapy compared with ID5 [9]. In lung adenocarcinoma, the superiority of SP1 to ID5 in the detection of tumoral ERα was also demonstrated; detection rate of ERα was significantly higher in SP1 (27%) when compared with ID5 (8%) and 6F11 (14%) [43]. In our study, we first described the unfavorable prognostic value of nuclear ERα in early-stage lung adenocarcinoma using monoclonal antibody SP1, which has high sensitivity and affinity. Use of different monoclonal antibodies in the studies may be the reason why nuclear ERα expression was not associated with smoking history or EGFR mutations in our study.
The IASLC/ATS/ERS lung adenocarcinoma classification system has powerful prognostic value [34–36] and shows molecular correlations (such as thyroid transcription factor-1, Ki-67, EGFR/KRAS mutations) [37–40]. In our study, no significant difference of ERα expression rate was observed among tumors with non-mucinous invasive subtypes. However, we found it interesting that no mucinous tumors (including mucinous minimally invasive, invasive mucinous, and colloid subtypes) showed nuclear ERα expression. Invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (mucinous bronchioloalveolar carcinoma) has been known to correlate with KRAS mutation and harbor no EGFR mutation [44, 45]. Additionally, the recently discovered fusion gene CD74-NRG1 presented specifically in invasive mucinous lung adenocarcinoma [46, 47]. Taking this into account, invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma can be considered a distinct entity or subtype from non-mucinous adenocarcinoma of the lung, according to its molecular profile.
Estradiol-which is the most biologically active type of estrogen-was proven to stimulate lung cancer cell growth, both in vitro and in mouse models [48]. In lung cancer patients, high serum estrogen levels are an unfavorable prognostic marker [49] and hormone replacement therapy may correlate with decreases survival in women [50, 51]. Tamoxifen is an antagonist of ER and causes decreases in invasion capacity and proliferation of ER-positive human lung adenocarcinoma cell lines [52, 53]. Interestingly, highly concordant co-expression of estrogen receptors and aromatase-which is an enzyme that can catalyze androgen aromatization into estrogen-has been identified in lung cancers [54]. Additionally, Niikawa et al. reported that estradiol was locally produced, mainly by aromatase, in lung cancer cells and it played an important role in the growth of ER-positive tumors in in vitro studies, thereby suggesting that anti-estrogen therapies (such as selective ER modulators and aromatase inhibitors) may be clinically effective in patients with ER-positive lung cancers [55]. More importantly, their study also demonstrated that estradiol concentration in lung cancer tissue was significantly higher in men than in postmenopausal women [55]. This finding may explain why ERα expression in lung adenocarcinoma has had a significant prognostic impact on males but not for females in our study.
Recently, an effect of estrogen levels on regulatory T cells was investigated and it was suggested that high levels of estrogen might induce increases of regulatory T cells in peripheral blood [56, 57]. Previously, we reported high FoxP3+/CD3+ lymphocyte ratio as an independent risk factor of recurrence in stage I lung adenocarcinoma [27]. In our current study, we demonstrated that FoxP3+ regulatory T lymphocyte infiltration was positively associated with ERα expression in lung adenocarcinoma. By contrast, in breast carcinomas the degree of tumor infiltrating FoxP3+ regulatory T lymphocytes was higher in ERα-negative tumors than in ERα-positive tumors [30, 31]. This discrepancy may be due to multiple factors including variations in primary tumor location (lung vs. breast), predominant gender and exposure of the tumor microenvironment to other immunogenic proteins.
In conclusion, our study demonstrates that nuclear ERα expression is an independent predictor of increased risk of recurrence in small (pT1aN0) stage I lung adenocarcinoma, especially in males, and correlates with unfavorable prognostic immune microenvironments (FoxP3+ regulatory T lymphocyte infiltration and tumoral IL-7R overexpression). In stage I lung adenocarcinoma, nuclear ERα expression is observed in 17% of cases using monoclonal antibody SP1, which may become a potential target for anti-estrogen therapy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Patients
The Institutional Review Board at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) approved our retrospective study (WA0269-08). We reviewed patients with pathologic stage I, solitary lung adenocarcinomas who had undergone surgical resection at MSK between 1995 and 2009. Tumor slides and blocks from 944 patients were available for slide review and tissue microarray construction. Of the 913 patients with high quality tissue cores, 718 had undergone lobectomy and 195 had undergone limited resection (segmentectomy [n = 65] and wedge resection [n = 130]). In our cohort of patients with T1a disease, 85% of patient had undergone lymph node dissection or sampling in addition to lung resection. Lymph nodes were not examined in this study.
Clinical data were collected from our prospectively maintained database. As of March 2013, patient medical records and the database of last follow-up were reviewed and update. Disease stage was assigned using the seventh edition of the American Joint Committee on Cancer TNM Staging Manual [58]. Of all, 497 patients had EGFR and KRAS mutation analyses results in our dataset. Subsets of the cases in this study have been used in our previous publications [27, 37–39].
Histologic evaluation
All available tumor slides were reviewed by two pathologists (K.K. and W.D.T.), both of whom were blinded to patient clinical outcomes, using an Olympus BX51 microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) with a standard 22-mm diameter eyepiece. Tumors demonstrating squamous morphology, such as keratinization or intracellular bridges, were excluded from this study. When the tumors exhibited a purely solid pattern without differentiated adenocarcinoma morphology (e.g., lepidic, acinar, or papillary patterns), those cases were proven to have intracellular mucin with mucin stains at time of original pathologic diagnosis. Tumors were classified according to the IASLC/ATS/ERS classification system [33] and were grouped into 3 architectural grades on the basis of histologic subtype-low (adenocarcinoma in situ, minimally invasive, or lepidic), intermediate (papillary or acinar), and high (micropapillary, solid, invasive mucinous, or colloid) [34, 37, 39].
Mitoses were evaluated in 50 high-power fields (HPFs) at × 400 magnification (0.237 mm2 field) in areas with highest mitotic activity and were counted as average number of mitotic figures per 10 HPFs. Mitotic count was classified as follows: low (0–1 mitotic figures/10 HPFs), intermediate (2–4 mitotic figures/10 HPFs), and high (≥5 mitotic figures/10 HPFs) [39]. Visceral pleural invasion, lymphovascular invasion, and tumor were also investigated.
Immunohistochemical analysis and scoring of ERα and PR expression
We briefly deparaffinized 4 μm-thick sections from previously constructed tissue microarray blocks [27, 38]. Each case had 2–6 tumoral cores and 2–3 stromal cores (0.6 mm in diameter). Using the standard avidin-biotin-complex peroxidase technique, sections were immunostained for anti-ERα antibody (SP1, Ventana; prediluted) and anti-PR antibody (1E2, Ventana; prediluted). Of all, 913 ERα cases and 910 PR cases had adequate tumor cores available for immunohistochemical analyses. In each tumor core, intensity score (0: no expression, 1: weak, 2: moderate, and 3: strong) and distribution (%) of ERα and PR expression were evaluated separately in tumor nuclei and cytoplasm [14, 20, 27]. Average of intensity scores and positive cell distribution within cores were used as the score for each patient. Intensity scores were classified into either negative (score 0), weakly (score 0–1), moderately (score 1–2), or strongly positive (score 2–3). Distribution was classified into focally (0–49%) and diffusely (≥50%) positive. Any level of positivity (score > 0) for ERα and PR was considered positive [14, 20].
Immunohistochemical scores (high or low) of CD3+ lymphocyte infiltration (in tumor and stroma), FoxP3+ lymphocyte infiltration (in tumor and stroma), CD3/ FoxP3+ risk index (in tumor and stroma), tumoral IL-7R, and tumoral IL-12Rβ2 were obtained from the dataset used in our previous study [27].
Statistical analysis
Associations between variables were analyzed using Fisher's exact test for categorical variables and the Wilcoxon test for continuous variables. Follow-up duration was calculated from date of surgery to date of first recurrence, death from any cause, or last follow-up. Cumulative incidence of recurrence (CIR) where death from any cause other than recurrence was considered a competing event was used to estimate probability of recurrence [59]. Differences in CIR between groups were assessed using the Gray method for univariate analyses and the Fine-Gray method for multivariate analyses, after adjustment for important potential confounders [60]. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and nonparametric group comparisons were performed using the logrank test. All P-values were determined using two-tailed statistical analyses and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS v9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC) and R (R Development Core Team, 2010), including the “survival” and “cmprsk” packages.
Acknowledgments
We thank Joe Dycoco of the MSK Thoracic Surgery Service for assisting with the MSK Thoracic Surgery Service's lung cancer database; Irina Linkov of the Pathology Core Facility for technical assistance with immunohistochemistry; and Alex Torres of the MSK Thoracic Surgery Service for their editorial assistance.
Footnotes
FUNDING
This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R21 CA164568-01A1, R21 CA164585-01A1, R01 CA136705-06, U54 CA137788, P30 CA008748, and P50 CA086438-13), the U.S. Department of Defense (PR101053 and LC110202), and the Mr. William H. Goodwin and Mrs. Alice Goodwin, the Commonwealth Foundation for Cancer Research, and the Experimental Therapeutics Center of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
All authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
REFERENCES
- 1.Siegel R, Ward E, Brawley O, et al. Cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011;61:212–236. doi: 10.3322/caac.20121. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Minami H, Yoshimura M, Miyamoto Y, et al. Lung cancer in women: sex-associated differences in survival of patients undergoing resection for lung cancer. Chest. 2000;118:1603–1609. doi: 10.1378/chest.118.6.1603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Sakurai H, Asamura H, Goya T, et al. Survival differences by gender for resected non-small cell lung cancer: a retrospective analysis of 12, 509 cases in a Japanese Lung Cancer Registry study. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:1594–1601. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181f1923b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Wheatley-Price P, Blackhall F, Lee SM, et al. The influence of sex and histology on outcomes in non-small-cell lung cancer: a pooled analysis of five randomized trials. Annals of oncology: official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO. 2010;21:2023–2028. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdq067. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Shigematsu H, Lin L, Takahashi T, et al. Clinical and biological features associated with epidermal growth factor receptor gene mutations in lung cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97:339–346. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji055. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Tam IY, Chung LP, Suen WS, et al. Distinct epidermal growth factor receptor and KRAS mutation patterns in non-small cell lung cancer patients with different tobacco exposure and clinicopathologic features. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:1647–1653. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-1981. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bardou V-J, Arpino G, Elledge RM, et al. Progesterone receptor status significantly improves outcome prediction over estrogen receptor status alone for adjuvant endocrine therapy in two large breast cancer databases. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1973–1979. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.09.099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Clarke MCR, Darby S, Davies C, Evans V, Godwin J, Gray R, McGale P, Peto R, Wang Y. Effects of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for early breast cancer on recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;365:1687–1717. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66544-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Cheang MCU, Treaba DO, Speers CH, et al. Immunohistochemical detection using the new rabbit monoclonal antibody SP1 of estrogen receptor in breast cancer is superior to mouse monoclonal antibody 1D5 in predicting survival. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5637–5644. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.05.4155. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Esslimani-Sahla M, Simony-Lafontaine J, Kramar A, et al. Estrogen receptor β (ERβ) level but not its ERβcx variant helps to predict tamoxifen resistance in breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10:5769–5776. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-04-0389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Gruvberger-Saal SK, Bendahl P-O, Saal LH, et al. Estrogen receptor β expression is associated with tamoxifen response in ERα-negative breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:1987–1994. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1823. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Honma N, Horii R, Iwase T, et al. Clinical importance of estrogen receptor-β evaluation in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant tamoxifen therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3727–3734. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.14.2968. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Morani A, Warner M, Gustafsson JA. Biological functions and clinical implications of oestrogen receptors alfa and beta in epithelial tissues. Journal of internal medicine. 2008;264:128–142. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2796.2008.01976.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Toh CK, Ahmad B, Soong R, et al. Correlation between epidermal growth factor receptor mutations and expression of female hormone receptors in East-Asian lung adenocarcinomas. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:17–22. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181c0a602. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Nose N, Sugio K, Oyama T, et al. Association between estrogen receptor-beta expression and epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in the postoperative prognosis of adenocarcinoma of the lung. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:411–417. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.18.3251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Schwartz AG, Prysak GM, Murphy V, et al. Nuclear estrogen receptor beta in lung cancer: expression and survival differences by sex. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:7280–7287. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0498. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Skov BG, Fischer BM, Pappot H. Oestrogen receptor beta over expression in males with non-small cell lung cancer is associated with better survival. Lung Cancer. 2008;59:88–94. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.07.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Kawai H, Ishii A, Washiya K, et al. Estrogen receptor alpha and beta are prognostic factors in non-small cell lung cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2005;11:5084–5089. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ishibashi H, Suzuki T, Suzuki S, et al. Progesterone receptor in non-small cell lung cancer - A potent prognostic factor and possible target for endocrine therapy. Cancer Res. 2005;65:6450–6458. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-3087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Raso MG, Behrens C, Herynk MH, et al. Immunohistochemical expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors identifies a subset of NSCLCs and correlates with EGFR mutation. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:5359–5368. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-09-0033. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Rouquette I, Lauwers-Cances V, Allera C, et al. Characteristics of lung cancer in women: Importance of hormonal and growth factors. Lung Cancer. 2012;76:280–285. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2011.11.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Stabile LP, Dacic S, Land SR, et al. Combined analysis of estrogen receptor β-1 and progesterone receptor expression identifies lung cancer patients with poor outcome. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17:154–164. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-10-0992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sun H-b, Zheng Y, Ou W, et al. Association between hormone receptor expression and epidermal growth factor receptor mutation in patients operated on for non-small cell lung cancer. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011;91:1562–1567. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2011.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Galon J, Costes A, Sanchez-Cabo F, et al. Type, density, and location of immune cells within human colorectal tumors predict clinical outcome. Science. 2006;313:1960–1964. doi: 10.1126/science.1129139. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Zhang L, Conejo-Garcia JR, Katsaros D, et al. Intratumoral T cells, recurrence, and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:203–213. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa020177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Pages F, Kirilovsky A, Mlecnik B, et al. In situ cytotoxic and memory T cells predict outcome in patients with early-stage colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5944–5951. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2008.19.6147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Suzuki K, Kadota K, Sima CS, et al. Clinical impact of immune microenvironment in stage I lung adenocarcinoma: Tumor interleukin-12 receptor beta2 (IL-12Rbeta2), IL-7R, and stromal FoxP3/CD3 ratio are independent predictors of recurrence. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:490–498. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2052. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Mahmoud SM, Paish EC, Powe DG, et al. Tumor-infiltrating CD8+ lymphocytes predict clinical outcome in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:1949–1955. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2010.30.5037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Mahmoud SM, Lee AH, Paish EC, et al. The prognostic significance of B lymphocytes in invasive carcinoma of the breast. Breast cancer research and treatment. 2012;132:545–553. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1620-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Mahmoud SM, Paish EC, Powe DG, et al. An evaluation of the clinical significance of FOXP3+ infiltrating cells in human breast cancer. Breast cancer research and treatment. 2011;127:99–108. doi: 10.1007/s10549-010-0987-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Bates GJ, Fox SB, Han C, et al. Quantification of regulatory T cells enables the identification of high-risk breast cancer patients and those at risk of late relapse. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:5373–5380. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.05.9584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Loi S, Sirtaine N, Piette F, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in a phase III randomized adjuvant breast cancer trial in node-positive breast cancer comparing the addition of docetaxel to doxorubicin with doxorubicin-based chemotherapy: BIG 02–98. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:860–867. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.41.0902. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Travis WD, Brambilla E, Noguchi M, et al. International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society international multidisciplinary classification of lung adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol. 2011;6:244–285. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e318206a221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Yoshizawa A, Motoi N, Riely GJ, et al. Impact of proposed IASLC/ATS/ERS classification of lung adenocarcinoma: prognostic subgroups and implications for further revision of staging based on analysis of 514 stage I cases. Mod Pathol. 2011;24:653–664. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2010.232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Yoshizawa A, Sumiyoshi S, Sonobe M, et al. Validation of the IASLC/ATS/ERS lung adenocarcinoma classification for prognosis and association with EGFR and KRAS gene mutations: analysis of 440 Japanese patients. J Thorac Oncol. 2013;8:52–61. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3182769aa8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Warth A, Muley T, Meister M, et al. The novel histologic International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society classification system of lung adenocarcinoma is a stage-independent predictor of survival. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30:1438–1446. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.37.2185. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Kadota K, Colovos C, Suzuki K, et al. FDG-PET SUVmax combined with IASLC/ATS/ERS histologic classification improves the prognostic stratification of patients with stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Annals of surgical oncology. 2012;19:3598–3605. doi: 10.1245/s10434-012-2414-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Kadota K, Nitadori J, Sarkaria IS, et al. Thyroid transcription factor-1 expression is an independent predictor of recurrence and correlates with the IASLC/ATS/ERS histologic classification in patients with stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer. 2013;119:931–938. doi: 10.1002/cncr.27863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kadota K, Suzuki K, Kachala SS, et al. A grading system combining architectural features and mitotic count predicts recurrence in stage I lung adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2012;25:1117–1127. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2012.58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Rekhtman N, Ang DC, Riely GJ, et al. KRAS mutations are associated with solid growth pattern and tumor-infiltrating leukocytes in lung adenocarcinoma. Mod Pathol. 2013;26:1307–1319. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2013.74. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Vassallo J, Pinto GA, Alvarenga M, et al. Comparison of immunoexpression of 2 antibodies for estrogen receptors in breast carcinomas using different antigen retrieval and detection methods. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2004;12:177–182. doi: 10.1097/00129039-200406000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Huang Z, Zhu W, Szekeres G, et al. Development of new rabbit monoclonal antibody to estrogen receptor: Immunohistochemical assessment on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue sections. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2005;13:91–95. doi: 10.1097/00129039-200503000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Gomez-Fernandez C, Mejias A, Walker G, et al. Immunohistochemical expression of estrogen receptor in adenocarcinomas of the lung: The antibody factor. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol. 2010;18:137–141. doi: 10.1097/PAI.0b013e3181bec23b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44.Casali C, Rossi G, Marchioni A, et al. A single institution-based retrospective study of surgically treated bronchioloalveolar adenocarcinoma of the lung: clinicopathologic analysis, molecular features, and possible pitfalls in routine practice. J Thorac Oncol. 2010;5:830–836. doi: 10.1097/jto.0b013e3181d60ff5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Finberg KE, Sequist LV, Joshi VA, et al. Mucinous differentiation correlates with absence of EGFR mutation and presence of KRAS mutation in lung adenocarcinomas with bronchioloalveolar features. J Mol Diagn. 2007;9:320–326. doi: 10.2353/jmoldx.2007.060182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Nakaoku T, Tsuta K, Ichikawa H, et al. Druggable oncogene fusions in invasive mucinous lung adenocarcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:3087–93. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-0107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Fernandez-Cuesta L, Plenker D, Osada H, et al. CD74-NRG1 fusions in lung adenocarcinoma. Cancer discovery. 2014;4:415–422. doi: 10.1158/2159-8290.CD-13-0633. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Stabile LP, Davis AL, Gubish CT, et al. Human non-small cell lung tumors and cells derived from normal lung express both estrogen receptor alpha and beta and show biological responses to estrogen. Cancer Res. 2002;62:2141–2150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Olivo-Marston SE, Mechanic LE, Mollerup S, et al. Serum estrogen and tumor-positive estrogen receptor-alpha are strong prognostic classifiers of non-small-cell lung cancer survival in both men and women. Carcinogenesis. 2010;31:1778–1786. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgq156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Ganti AK, Sahmoun AE, Panwalkar AW, et al. Hormone replacement therapy is associated with decreased survival in women with lung cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:59–63. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.9827. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Chlebowski RT, Schwartz AG, Wakelee H, et al. Oestrogen plus progestin and lung cancer in postmenopausal women: a post-hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;374:1243–1251. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61526-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Shen H, Yuan Y, Sun J, et al. Combined tamoxifen and gefitinib in non-small cell lung cancer shows antiproliferative effects. Biomed Pharmacother. 2010;64:88–92. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2009.06.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Wang XY, Wang Y, Liu HC. Tamoxifen lowers the MMP-9/TIMP-1 ratio and inhibits the invasion capacity of ER-positive non-small cell lung cancer cells. Biomed Pharmacother. 2011;65:525–528. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2011.06.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 54.Abe K, Miki Y, Ono K, et al. Highly concordant coexpression of aromatase and estrogen receptor β in non-small cell lung cancer. Human Pathology. 2010;41:190–198. doi: 10.1016/j.humpath.2009.07.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Niikawa H, Suzuki T, Miki Y, et al. Intratumoral estrogens and estrogen receptors in human non-small cell lung carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:4417–4426. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-07-1950. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 56.Tai P, Wang J, Jin H, et al. Induction of regulatory T cells by physiological level estrogen. Journal of cellular physiology. 2008;214:456–464. doi: 10.1002/jcp.21221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 57.Xiong YH, Yuan Z, He L. Effects of estrogen on CD4(+) CD25(+) regulatory T cell in peripheral blood during pregnancy. Asian Pac J Trop Med. 2013;6:748–752. doi: 10.1016/S1995-7645(13)60131-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Edge SB, Byrd DR, Compton CC, et al. American Joint Committee on Cancer Cancer Staging Manual. 7. New York, NY: Springer; 2009. pp. 253–270. [Google Scholar]
- 59.Dignam JJ, Zhang Q, Kocherginsky M. The use and interpretation of competing risks regression models. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:2301–2308. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-2097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 60.Gray RJ. A class of K-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16:1141–1154. [Google Scholar]