290P - Clinical and morphological characteristics of p53-positive breast cancer stage I in Russian and Dutch populations

Date 29 September 2014
Event ESMO 2014
Session Poster Display session
Topics Pathology/Molecular Biology
Breast Cancer
Basic Scientific Principles
Presenter IRINA Kolyadina
Citation Annals of Oncology (2014) 25 (suppl_4): iv85-iv109. 10.1093/annonc/mdu327
Authors I.V. Kolyadina1, P.J.K. Kuppen2, C. van de Velde3, N.G. Dekker-Ensink4, E. Bastiaannet2, B. Prinse4, C. Engels4, A. Karseladze5, I.V. Poddubnaya5, V.V. Ermilova5, D. Komov5, G. Frank5
  • 1Oncology Chair, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education; N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, 115409 - Moscow/RU
  • 2Department Of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 - Leiden/NL
  • 3Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden/NL
  • 4Surgery, Leiden University Medical Center, 2300 - Leiden/NL
  • 5Oncology Chair, Russian Medical Academy of Postgraduate Education; N.N. Blokhin Russian Cancer Research Center, Moscow/RU



to study p53 tumor expression in two independent women populations with breast cancer stage I


Our study included Russian (n = 315) and Dutch (n = 203) women with breast cancer stage I, radically treated in RCRC, RMAPE and LUMC (1985-2009). A Tissue Micro Array (TMA) with triplicate 1 mm tumor tissue punches taken from tumor blocks was constructed in LUMC; sections were immunohistochemically stained for estrogen and progesterone receptor (ER, PR), HER2-status, and p53-expression. Also the histological type, tumor grade, and age of patients were examined. ER and PR were scored using the proportion of cells with nuclear staining, which was multiplied by the intensity of staining (0, 1, 2, or 3) to provide a score of 0–300. Expression results were evaluated as positive (>median) or negative (≤ median). HER2 staining intensity was graded in accordance with the HercepTest protocol system. P53 tumor status was automatic analyzed with the Ariol system and evaluated as positive (>0) or negative. We analyzed the clinic and morphological data of p53-positive tumors in Russian and Dutch women.


p53-expression was seen significantly (p < 0,0001) higher in Dutch (34,8%) than Russian (14,5%) women; however, in the Russian cohort p53-expression was found more often in women ≤40 years (26,3%), while in patients of older than 40 years less than 17%. In the Dutch cohort p53-expression was seen in 41,5% of women older than 50 years, while in women of 50 years or younger this was less than 23%, p < 0,0001. P53-positive status significantly correlated (p < 0,05) with high tumor grade in both cohorts (Russian: G1- 0%; G2, 15,1%; G3, 22,6%; and Dutch: G1, 14,6%; G2, 31,1%; and G3, 67,6%), PR-negative status and HER2-overexpression. Combined, p53-positive and HER2-positive status was seen in 34,4% (Russian) and 62,5% (Dutch) women, while p53-positive and HER2-negative status was in 12,6% (Russian) and 34,6% (Dutch) patients, p = 0,001.


p53 was more often expressed in tumors from Dutch than Russian women and strongly associated with high tumor grade, PR-negative and HER2-positive status. P53-positive tumors were seen more often in Russian women of 40 years younger, but in the Dutch cohort in women older than 50 years. These data may reflect differences in tumor biology between Russian and Dutch populations.


All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.