Advertisement

Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 167, Issue 3, pp 635–648 | Cite as

Canine invasive mammary carcinomas as models of human breast cancer. Part 1: natural history and prognostic factors

  • Frédérique Nguyen
  • Laura Peña
  • Catherine Ibisch
  • Delphine Loussouarn
  • Adelina Gama
  • Natascha Rieder
  • Anton Belousov
  • Mario Campone
  • Jérôme Abadie
Open Access
Preclinical study

Abstract

Purpose

Dogs have been proposed as spontaneous animal models of human breast cancer, based on clinicopathologic similarities between canine and human mammary carcinomas. We hypothesized that a better knowledge of the natural history and prognostic factors of canine invasive mammary carcinomas would favor the design of preclinical trials using dogs as models of breast cancer.

Methods

The 2-year outcome of 350 female dogs with spontaneous invasive mammary carcinoma was studied. The investigated prognostic factors included age at diagnosis, pathologic tumor size, pathologic nodal stage, lymphovascular invasion, histological grade, and expression of Estrogen Receptor alpha (ERα), Progesterone Receptor, Ki-67, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2, basal cytokeratins 5/6, and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor. Multivariate survival analyses were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

The overall survival after mastectomy was 11 months. Within 1 year post mastectomy, 41.5% of dogs (145/350) died from their mammary carcinoma. By multivariate analysis, the significant prognostic factors for overall survival included a pathologic tumor size larger than 20 mm [HR 1.47 (95% confidence interval 1.15–1.89)], a positive nodal stage [pN+, HR 1.89 (1.43–2.48)], a histological grade III [HR 1.32 (1.02–1.69)], ERα negativity [HR 1.39 (1.01–1.89)], a high Ki-67 proliferation index [HR 1.32 (1.04–1.67)], and EGFR absence [HR 1.33 (1.04–1.69)].

Conclusion

The short natural history of spontaneous canine invasive mammary carcinomas and high rate of cancer-related death allow for rapid termination of preclinical investigations. The prognostic factors of invasive mammary carcinomas are remarkably similar in dogs and humans, highlighting the similarities in cancer biology between both species.

Keywords

Dog Spontaneous animal model Breast cancer Estrogen Receptor alpha HER2 Prognosis 

List of Abbreviations

95%-CI

95% confidence interval

CK5/6

Cytokeratins 5 and 6

CMC

Canine mammary carcinoma

DFI

Disease-free interval

DMFI

Distant metastasis-free interval

EGFR

Epidermal growth factor receptor (type 1)

ERα

Estrogen receptor alpha

HER2

Human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2

HES

Hematoxylin–eosin-saffron

HR

Hazard ratio

IHC

Immunohistochemistry

LRR

Locoregional relapse

LVI

Lymphovascular invasion

M

Distant metastasis

OS

Overall survival

PR

Progesterone Receptor

pT

Pathologic tumor size

pN

Pathologic nodal stage

SS

Specific survival

Introduction

Breast cancer represents the most prevalent cancer and the leading cause of cancer death in women worldwide [1]. Despite considerable progress in breast cancer management, prognosis in the metastatic setting remains poor. The 5-year specific survival after initial diagnosis was estimated 97% for stage I, 88% for stage II, 70% for stage III, and only 25% for stage IV breast cancer [2]. One of the current challenges is to define molecular tools and relevant models that can predict the response and potential resistance to therapies. The classic in vitro (tumor cell lines) and in vivo (xenografts) preclinical models have indeed limitations related to the difficulty to reproduce interactions with the microenvironment, the absent or incomplete metastatic pattern, and their inability to fully integrate the host immune response [3]. Spontaneous tumor models are thus of high interest, to study the pharmacokinetics of innovative therapeutics in vivo, their effect on tumor (pathologic response) and patient (metastasis, survival), and the interactions between tumor cells and their microenvironment. In this respect, canine spontaneous cancers seem particularly relevant to human oncology [4, 5, 6].

Although their prevalence decreases in regions where early preventive ovariectomy is routinely performed, canine mammary carcinomas (CMCs) remain the most common canine cancer, with an estimated annual incidence of 182 per 100,000 female dogs [7]. Recent publications describe the relevance of spontaneous CMCs as models of human breast cancer, because of their high incidence, similarities in relative age of onset, risk factors, biological behavior, and metastatic pattern [8, 9, 10, 11]. However, the biological behavior of CMCs needs further evaluation. Few studies dealt with the natural history of CMCs, i.e., the outcome of dogs after mastectomy as single therapy [12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. The prognostic factors of CMCs were poorly described, usually in medium-sized cohorts (45–229 dogs), and mostly by univariate analyses [15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29], although multivariate analyses are available [14, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41]. Because adjuvant chemotherapy does not significantly improve survival in dogs with advanced invasive CMC [41], and because tamoxifen-based hormone therapy is associated with significant adverse effects [42], most dogs benefit only from mastectomy, sometimes associated with ovariohysterectomy [43]. This situation allows studies of the natural history of invasive CMCs, and the identification of prognostic factors without the confounding effects of adjuvant therapy. This also favors preclinical therapeutic trials of new anti-cancer drugs as first-line regimens, rather than in relapsed patients with advanced cancer.

Here, we hypothesized that (1) knowledge of the natural history of CMCs would emphasize the aggressive and short course of the disease, and could be useful for the design of preclinical therapeutic trials in dogs with CMC, as translational models of human breast cancer; (2) knowledge of the prognostic factors of CMCs would highlight the biological similarities between spontaneous CMCs and breast cancers.

The aims of this study were thus to describe the natural history of invasive CMCs, i.e., cancer progression and mortality rates, in the largest cohort collected so far (350 female dogs); to describe invasive CMCs using human pathological criteria including immunohistochemical markers; and to validate these criteria as prognostic factors able to predict patients' outcome. In part 2 of this article, we evaluated the prognostic significance of the immunohistochemical classification of human breast cancer applied to dogs.

Methods

Patients and samples

This retrospective study included 350 female dogs with invasive mammary carcinoma, but free from other cancer, initially diagnosed in two laboratories of veterinary histopathology (Laboratoire d’Histopathologie Animale, Oniris, Nantes, and Laboratoire d’Anatomie Pathologique Vétérinaire d’Amboise, France) between 2007 and 2010. The owners’ written consent and approval from the Oniris College of Veterinary Medicine local Animal Welfare Committee were obtained prior to inclusion.

Dogs were eligible for inclusion when a histological diagnosis of invasive mammary carcinoma was established and confirmed by an absent layer of p63-positive myoepithelial cells (anti-p63 antibody, clone ab111449, Abcam) by immunohistochemistry (IHC) that differentiates invasive from in situ mammary carcinomas [44, 45]. All dogs were treated surgically by their veterinarian, and none of them received any additional treatment before and/or after mastectomy. Age, breed, spay status, parity, contraception, prior benign mammary lesions, medical history, and outcome were obtained through written questionnaires or telephone interviews with referring veterinarians and owners. All 350 dogs were followed for at least 48 months with particular emphasis on the occurrence of locoregional relapse (time between mastectomy and the earliest local recurrence on the same mammary gland, new primary mammary tumor, or lymph node metastasis), distant metastasis-free interval (time from mastectomy to first evidence of distant metastases by medical imaging), and disease-free interval (interval from mastectomy to the first local recurrence, new primary tumor, lymph node metastasis, and/or distant metastasis). Overall survival was defined as the time between mastectomy and death from any cause. Specific survival was defined as the time between mastectomy and death attributable to the mammary carcinoma.

Pathological evaluation

Histological examination was performed on 3-μm-thick hematoxylin–eosin-saffron (HES) stained sections. The 350 tumors were classified according to the human breast cancer classification adapted to dogs (World Health Organization classification system) [46, 47], and graded according to the criteria of Elston and Ellis [48] adapted to canine mammary carcinomas [38]. The pathologic tumor size (pT, measured on histological slides), lymphovascular invasion (LVI), dermal infiltration, cutaneous ulceration, muscle invasion, margin status, and central necrosis were recorded for each case. Peritumoral lymphohistiocytic inflammation was considered positive when moderate to severe. In case of multicentric CMC, the largest tumor and/or tumor of highest histological grade was considered for prognostic purposes.

The methods used for IHC were detailed previously [35]. Briefly, automated IHC (Benchmark XT Ventana, Roche Diagnostics) was performed on 3-μm-thick serial sections using the following antibodies: monoclonal mouse anti-human Estrogen Receptor alpha (ERα, clone C311, Santa Cruz, dilution 1:50), monoclonal rabbit anti-human Progesterone Receptor (PR, clone 1E2, Roche Diagnostics, prediluted), monoclonal rabbit anti-Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Type 2 (HER2, clone 4B5, Roche Diagnostics, prediluted), polyclonal rabbit anti-HER2 (Dako A0485, dilution 1:400), monoclonal mouse anti-human Ki-67 (clone MIB1, Dako, dilution 1:50), monoclonal mouse anti-human Cytokeratins 5/6 (CK5/6, clone D5/16B4, Dako, dilution 1:50), and monoclonal mouse anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Type 1 (EGFR, clone 31G7, Invitrogen, dilution 1:20).

ERα, PR, and Ki-67 were assessed based on the number of positive nuclei among > 500 neoplastic cells (manual image analysis, Image J software, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA), and considered positive at threshold ≥ 10% for ERα and PR [45, 49], CK5/6, and EGFR [50]. The > 33.3% threshold for Ki-67 was evaluated by the receiver-operator-characteristic curve calculated for 2-year cancer-specific mortality. HER2 was scored 0 for no staining at all or incomplete, faint/barely perceptible membrane staining in ≤ 10% of tumor cells; 1 + for incomplete and faint/barely perceptible membrane staining in > 10% of tumor cells; 2 + for circumferential and incomplete and/or weak/moderate membrane staining in > 10% of tumor cells; or incomplete and circumferential membrane staining that is intense but within ≤ 10% of tumor cells; and 3 + for circumferential, complete, and intense membrane staining in > 10% of tumor cells. Carcinomas were considered HER2 positive only for a 3 + IHC score [45, 51].

Negative controls were included in each IHC run, and consisted in replacing the primary antibody with normal mouse or rabbit serum (prediluted reagents, Roche Diagnostics). The positive controls were mostly internal (epidermis and hair follicles for Ki-67, CK5/6, and EGFR; non-neoplastic mammary gland surrounding the carcinoma for ERα and PR; sebaceous glands for ERα). For HER2, the pathway HER2 4-in-1 control slides (Roche Diagnostics) were chosen to assess the quality of staining for each HER2 score (0, 1 + , 2 + , 3 +).

Four veterinary pathologists (JA, FN, LP, AG) and 1 medical pathologist (DL) examined the HES and IHC slides blindly (i.e., without any information on the dog or on the other pathologists’ interpretation). In case of discrepancy between evaluators, cases were collectively reviewed in order to achieve a consensual diagnosis, grade, and immunohistochemical scoring.

Statistical analyses

The MedCalc® statistical software (Ostend, Belgium) was used. Continuous variables are expressed as median, [range], mean ± standard deviation. Correlations between categorical variables were analyzed using the Pearson Chi-square test. The Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank tests were used for univariate survival analyses, and Cox proportional hazards models for multivariate survival analyses, whose results are reported using the Hazard Ratio (HR), its confidence interval (95%-CI), and the p value of each covariate. For all statistical tests, a p value < 0.05 was considered significant.

Results

Clinicopathologic features of invasive canine mammary carcinomas (CMCs)

The cohort comprises 350 female dogs with invasive CMC, including 253 (72.3%) intact and 97 (27.7%) spayed female dogs. The main characteristics of patients and CMCs are given in Table 1. The mean age at diagnosis was 11.0 ± 2.1 years [range (3.6–16.3), median 11.0 years]. Fifty-seven breeds were represented. Mixed-breed dogs (n = 78, 22.3%) outnumbered Poodles (n = 50; 14.3%), German Shepherds (n = 25; 7.1%), Brittany and Labrador Retrievers (n = 19 each; 5.4%), and Yorkshire Terriers (n = 10; 2.9%).
Table 1

Characteristics of dogs and their invasive mammary carcinoma at diagnosis

 

N

%

Age (years) (n = 349)a

 < 11.7 years

229

65.6

 ≥ 11.7 years

120

34.4

Spay status (n = 350)

 Intact females

253

72.3

 Neutered females

97

27.7

Multicentricity (n = 350)

 Single carcinoma

295

84.3

 Multicentric carcinoma

55

15.7

Pathologic tumor size (n = 350)

 pT < 20 mm

141

40.3

 pT ≥ 20 mm

209

59.7

Pathologic nodal stage (n = 350)

 pN0

39

11.1

 pNX

236

67.4

 pN+

75

21.4

Lymphovascular invasion (n = 350)

 LVI+

171

48.9

 LVI–

179

51.1

Histological grade (n = 350)

 I

19

5.4

 II

106

30.3

 III

225

64.3

Histological type (n = 350)

 Invasive mammary carcinoma

350

100

 Simple tubulopapillary

176

50.3

 Simple solid

103

29.4

 Complex

31

8.9

 Anaplastic

21

6.0

 Squamous cell

14

4.0

 Inflammatory

5

1.4

Surgical margins (n = 350)

 Positive margins

158

45.1

 Negative margins

192

54.9

Peritumoral inflammation (n = 350)

 Yes (moderate to severe)

168

48.0

 No (absent to mild)

182

52.0

ERα (n = 350)

 ER+ (≥ 10%)

57

16.3

 ER– (< 10%)

293

83.7

PR (n = 350)

 PR+ (≥ 10%)

40

11.4

 PR– (< 10%)

310

88.6

Ki-67 (n = 350)

 Ki-67 low (≤ 33.3%)

162

46.3

 Ki-67 high (> 33.3%)

188

53.7

HER2 clone 4B5 (n = 350)

 0

246

70.3

 1 +

76

21.7

 2 +

28

8.0

 3 +

0

0

HER2 polyclonal Dako (n = 350)

 0

262

74.9

 1 +

71

20.3

 2 +

17

4.9

 3 +

0

0

CK5/6 (n = 350)

 CK5/6+ (≥ 10%)

229

65.4

 CK5/6– (< 10%)

121

34.6

EGFR (n = 350)

 EGFR+ (≥ 10%)

186

53.1

 EGFR– (< 10%)

164

46.9

aOne case with missing data

In 235 dogs (67.1%), the invasive carcinoma was the first mammary lesion detected, whereas 115 (32.9%) dogs had a history of previous non-malignant mammary lesions. Parity was unknown in 269 dogs (76.9%), and nulliparous females (n = 49; 14.0%) slightly outnumbered multiparous (n = 32; 9.1%) females. History of contraceptive use was reported in 20 (5.7%) dogs.

Tumors involved the abdominal and inguinal mammary glands (M3 to M5) in 256 cases (73.1%), the thoracic mammary glands (M1–M2) in 50 (14.3%), both in 11 (3.1%), and location was unrecorded in 33 cases (9.4%). The most common surgical procedure was radical mastectomy (excision of the 5 mammary glands of the affected side) in 156 dogs (44.6%), followed by regional (M1–M3 or M3–M5) mastectomy in 112 cases (32.0%), and single mastectomy in 64 cases (18.3%). Information on the surgical procedure was missing in 18 dogs (5.1%).

The mean pathologic tumor size was 18 ± 7 mm [median 18 mm, range (2–49), n = 227 dogs]; in the other cases, the pathologic tumor size could not be precisely determined due to larger size and/or positive margins. In 236 dogs (67.4%), the pathologic nodal stage was pNX due to absence of lymph node sampling for histopathology. Nodal stage pN+ (with metastasis of any size) was confirmed in 75 cases (21.4%). Six dogs (1.7%) had evidence of distant metastasis (M1) at diagnosis.

All of the included cases correspond to invasive mammary carcinomas according to breast cancer classification. The predominant histological types were simple tubulopapillary (n = 176; 50.3%), simple solid (n = 103; 29.4%), and complex carcinomas (malignant epithelial proliferation associated with benign myoepithelial proliferation, n = 31, 8.6%). The mean mitotic index was 41 ± 29 mitoses in 10 high-power fields [× 400, diameter of the field of view 0.55 mm; median 33, range (5–236)].

Regarding histopathological criteria of aggressiveness, dermal infiltration was present in 119 cases (34.0%), cutaneous ulceration in 50 cases (14.3%), abdominal or thoracic muscle infiltration in 65 cases (18.6%), peritumoral inflammation in 168 cases (48.0%), and central necrosis in 261 cases (74.6%).

The mean ERα index was 6.3 ± 14.0% (0–87.6%); 58.0% of cases (n = 203) did not express ERα at all. The mean PR index was 5.4 ± 14.8% (0–92.0%); 65.4% (n = 229) of CMCs did not express PR at all. At positive threshold 10%, 57 CMCs (16.3%) were ER + and 40 (11.4%) were PR+ (Fig. 1). Two hundred and sixty-seven CMCs (76.3%) were ER – PR − , 26 (7.4%) were ER − PR + , 43 (12.3%) were ER + PR − , and only 14 (4.0%) were ER + PR + . The mean Ki-67 index was 36.2 ± 17.4% [median 35.4%, range (1.3–94.6%)].
Fig. 1

Immunohistochemical markers of canine invasive mammary carcinomas. Positivity to a Estrogen Receptor alpha (ERα, nuclear), b Progesterone Receptor (PR, nuclear), c the proliferation index Ki-67 (nuclear), d score 2 + for Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor type 2 (HER2, membranous), and positivity to e basal cytokeratins 5 and 6 (CK5/6, cytoplasmic), and f Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor type 1 (EGFR, membranous) in 6 different canine invasive mammary carcinomas. Indirect immunohistochemistry, initial magnification × 400, bar = 50 micrometers

Both immunohistochemical protocols used to assess HER2 expression were highly correlated (p < 0.0001, Chi-square test). HER2 score 0 was predominant (70.3% of the cases with clone 4B5, 74.9% with polyclonal A0485), followed by HER2 score 1 + (Table 1). The cohort does not comprise any case with HER2 overexpression (score 3 +).

Natural history and prognostic factors of canine invasive mammary carcinoma

Locoregional relapse (LRR)

The median time to LRR was 26.4 months; the LRR probability was 34% at 1 year, and 47% at 2 years post diagnosis (Fig. 2a). At the end of the follow-up period, 76 dogs (21.7%) had experienced tumor recurrence at the site of prior mastectomy, 56 dogs (16.0%) a new primary mammary tumor, and 18 dogs (5.1%) more than one locoregional event.
Fig. 2

Natural history of invasive mammary carcinoma in 350 female dogs. Kaplan–Meier curves for a Locoregional Relapse (LRR), b Distant Metastasis-Free Interval (DMFI), c Overall Survival (OS), and d Specific Survival (SS). The 95% confidence interval is shown for each survival curve

By univariate analysis, 11 parameters were significantly associated with the LRR risk (Table 2), of which 4 remained as significant independent prognostic factors by multivariate analysis (p < 0.0001): the strongest predictor of locoregional relapse was ERα positivity (HR 0.48), followed by the pathological nodal stage pN + (HR 1.92), the presence of lymphovascular invasion, and positive margins (HR = 1.55 for each).
Table 2

Prognostic factors for Locoregional Relapse of canine invasive mammary carcinomas by univariate and multivariate analyses

Univariate analysis

HR

95%-CI

p

Breed

 Molossoid breeds

2.26

1.10–4.64

0.0266

 British and Irish pointing dogs

4.61

1.74–12.20

0.0022

 Japanese, Chinese and Pekingese Spaniels

8.22

1.11–61.09

0.0406

 Continental Toy Spaniels

11.56

1.52–87.73

0.0185

 Molossian Toy dogs

16.40

2.17–123.95

0.0070

 Any other breed

1.00

Reference

 

Histological type

 Anaplastic CMC

2.38

1.19–4.77

0.0148

 Inflammatory CMC

12.22

4.30–34.74

< 0.0001

 Any other type

1.00

Reference

 

Lymphovascular invasion

 LVI− versus LVI+

0.49

0.35–0.69

< 0.0001

Pathologic nodal stage

 

 pN+ versus pN0–pNX

2.31

1.46–3.67

< 0.0001

Margin status

 Positive versus negative margins

1.86

1.33–2.61

0.0001

Central necrosis

 Absent versus present

1.46

0.99–2.18

0.0343

Peritumoral inflammation

 No versus yes

0.67

0.48–0.92

0.0105

ERα

 ER+ versus ER−

0.49

0.33–0.73

0.0036

PR

 PR+ versus PR−

0.54

0.34–0.88

0.0460

Ki-67

 Continuous (%)

1.0107

1.0017–1.0197

0.0227

EGFR

 EGFR+ versus EGFR−

0.72

0.52–0.99

0.0428

Multivariate analysis

Lymphovascular invasion

 LVI+ versus LVI−

1.55

1.08–2.24

0.0181

Pathologic nodal stage

 pN+ versus pN0–pNX

1.92

1.30–2.84

0.0012

Margin status

 Positive versus negative margins

1.55

1.10–2.18

0.0135

ERα

 ER+ versus ER−

0.48

0.29–0.79

0.0040

Distant Metastasis-Free Interval (DMFI)

The risk of distant metastasis was 17% at 1 year and 24% at 2 years post diagnosis (Fig. 2b), and was likely underestimated in this retrospective cohort, as the dogs’ owners may have declined complete staging, for financial reasons.

By univariate analysis, six parameters were significantly associated with DMFI (Table 3), of which four remained as significant independent prognostic factors by multivariate analysis (p < 0.0001): the strongest was lymphovascular invasion (HR 2.66), followed by age at diagnosis (HR 2.16 for older dogs), multicentricity (HR 1.89), and the Ki-67 proliferation index (HR 1.0149).
Table 3

Prognostic factors for Distant Metastasis-Free Interval (DMFI) of dogs with invasive mammary carcinomas (n = 350)

Univariate analysis

HR

95%-CI

p

Age at diagnosis

 ≤ 11.7 versus > 11.7 years

0.44

0.25–0.75

0.0007

Multicentricity

 Single versus multicentric

0.44

0.20–0.96

0.0047

Lymphovascular invasion

 LVI− versus LVI+

0.33

0.20–0.56

<0.0001

Pathologic nodal stage

 pN+ versus pN0–pNX

1.86

0.92–3.75

0.0326

Peritumoral inflammation

 No versus yes

0.58

0.35–0.96

0.0281

Ki-67

 Continuous (%)

1.0203

1.0068–1.0339

0.0045

Multivariate analysis

Age at diagnosis

 > 11.7 versus ≤ 11.7 years

2.16

1.29–3.62

0.0037

Multicentricity

 Multicentric versus single

1.89

1.03–3.46

0.0404

Lymphovascular invasion

 LVI+ versus LVI−

2.66

1.56–4.53

0.0003

Ki-67

 Continuous (%)

1.0149

1.0007–1.0293

0.0412

Disease-free interval (DFI)

The median DFI was 34.4 months. Cancer progression (locoregional recurrence and/or distant metastasis) was recorded in 34% of dogs at 1 year post diagnosis, and 45% at 2 years.

By univariate analysis, 13 parameters were significantly associated with DFI (Table 4), of which 4 were independent prognostic factors by multivariate analysis (p < 0.0001): the pathologic nodal stage pN + (HR 1.92), ERα negativity (HR 1.69), a high proliferation index (HR 1.59), and positive margins (HR 1.54).
Table 4

Prognostic factors for Disease-Free Interval of dogs with invasive mammary carcinomas (n = 350)

Univariate analysis

HR

95%-CI

p

Age at diagnosis

 Continuous (years)

1.1511

1.0624–1.2473

0.0006

Breed

 British and Irish pointing dogs

3.60

1.38–9.43

0.0094

 Continental Toy Spaniels

22.64

5.10–100.46

< 0.0001

 Molossian Toy dogs

15.41

2.04–116.71

0.0084

 Any other breed

1.00

Reference

 

Multicentricity

 Single versus multicentric

0.50

0.30–0.84

0.0007

Histological type

 Anaplastic CMC

2.11

1.01–4.38

0.0468

 Inflammatory CMC

6.81

1.63–28.54

0.0090

 Any other type

1.00

Reference

 

Histological grade

 I versus II–III

0.36

0.15–0.89

0.0284

Lymphovascular invasion

 LVI− versus LVI+

0.35

0.25–0.49

< 0.0001

Pathologic nodal stage

 pN+ versus pN0–pNX

2.20

1.37–3.51

< 0.0001

Muscle invasion

 No versus yes

0.67

0.42–1.06

0.0482

Margin status

 Positive versus negative margins

1.63

1.15–2.30

0.0031

Peritumoral inflammation

 No versus yes

0.65

0.46–0.91

0.0093

ERα

 ER+ versus ER−

0.57

0.38–0.85

0.0222

Ki-67

   

 Continuous (%)

1.0164

1.0073–1.0256

0.0006

EGFR

 EGFR+ versus EGFR−

0.72

0.51–1.00

0.0473

Multivariate analysis

Margin status

 Positive versus negative margins

1.54

1.09–2.16

0.0140

Pathologic nodal stage

 pN+ versus pN0–pNX

1.92

1.30–2.82

0.0011

ERα

 ER + versus ER−

0.59

0.36–0.97

0.0367

Ki-67

 ≤ 33.3% versus > 33.3%

0.63

0.45–0.89

0.0096

Overall survival (OS)

During the follow-up period, 310 dogs (88.6%) died (Fig. 2c). The median OS was 11.4 months (2 days–75 months). The mortality rate was 51.7% at 1 year and 72.0% at 2 years post diagnosis. Death was unrelated to cancer in 58 dogs (16.6%), from unknown causes in 65 dogs (18.6%), and attributable to the invasive CMC in 187 dogs (53.4%).

By univariate analysis, 16 parameters were significantly associated with OS (Table 5), of which 6 were independent prognostic factors by multivariate analysis (p < 0.0001). The strongest prognostic factors were the pathologic nodal stage (pN + : HR 1.89) and pathologic tumor size (pT ≥ 20 mm: HR 1.47), followed by the histological grade, ERα positivity, the Ki-67 index, and EGFR expression (HR 1.32–1.39).
Table 5

Prognostic factors for Overall Survival of dogs with invasive mammary carcinomas (n = 350)

Univariate analysis

HR

95%-CI

p

Age at diagnosis

 Continuous (years)

1.1508

1.0898–1.2152

< 0.0001

History of contraception

 No versus yes/unknown

0.73

0.57–0.93

0.0106

Multicentricity

 Single versus multicentric

0.57

0.40–0.82

0.0001

Histological type

 Anaplastic CMC

3.45

2.18–5.46

< 0.0001

 Inflammatory CMC

11.56

4.66–28.67

< 0.0001

 Any other type

1.00

reference

 

Histological grade

 I versus III

0.36

0.20–0.64

0.0006

 II versus III

0.71

0.55–0.91

0.0066

Pathologic tumor size

 < 1 cm versus ≥ 2 cm

0.49

0.30–0.81

0.0054

 1 cm ≤ pT < 2 cm versus ≥ 2 cm

0.65

0.51–0.83

0.0006

Lymphovascular invasion

 LVI– versus LVI+

0.42

0.34–0.54

< 0.0001

Pathologic nodal stage

 pN0 versus pNX

0.60

0.41–0.88

0.0091

 pN+ versus pNX

1.80

1.38–2.36

< 0.0001

Dermal invasion

 No versus yes

0.77

0.60–0.98

0.0276

Muscle invasion

 No versus yes

0.66

0.48–0.91

0.0029

Margin status

 Positive versus negative margins

1.99

1.57–2.52

< 0.0001

Peritumoral inflammation

 No versus yes

0.68

0.54–0.85

0.0005

ERα

 ER+ versus ER−

0.69

0.53–0.91

0.0169

Ki-67

 ≤ 33.3% versus > 33.3%

0.65

0.52–0.81

0.0001

CK5/6

 CK5/6+ versus CK5/6−

0.78

0.62–0.99

0.0376

EGFR

 EGFR > 0 versus EGFR absent

0.76

0.58–0.98

0.0217

Multivariate analysis

Pathologic tumor size

 pT < 20 mm versus pT ≥ 20 mm

0.68

0.53–0.87

0.0026

Pathologic nodal stage

 pN+ versus pN0–pNX

1.89

1.43–2.48

< 0.0001

Histological grade

 I–II versus III

0.76

0.59–0.98

0.0328

ERα

 ER+ versus ER−

0.72

0.53–0.99

0.0436

Ki-67

 ≤ 33.3% versus > 33.3%

0.76

0.60–0.96

0.0228

EGFR

 EGFR absent versus EGFR > 0

1.33

1.04–1.69

0.0239

Specific survival

The median time to death attributable to cancer was 19.5 months [2 days–56 months] (Fig. 2d). The cancer-related death rate was 41.5% at 1 year and 54.1% at 2 years post diagnosis.

By univariate analysis, 15 clinicopathologic parameters were significantly associated with cancer-related death (Table 6), of which six were independent prognostic factors by multivariate analysis (p < 0.0001). The most significant predictors of cancer-related death were those that define the stage of invasive CMCs: the pathologic tumor size (pT ≥ 20 mm: HR 1.41), pathologic nodal stage (pN + : HR = 1.82), and the presence of distant metastases at diagnosis (M1: HR 2.61). Peritumoral inflammation (HR 1.54), ERα negativity (HR 1.56), and a high Ki-67 proliferation index (HR 1.67) were also associated with cancer-related death, independently of the stage of the carcinoma at diagnosis.
Table 6

Prognostic factors for Cancer-Specific Survival of dogs with invasive mammary carcinomas (n = 350)

Univariate analysis

HR

95%-CI

p

Age at diagnosis

 Continuous (years)

1.1423

1.0652–1.2249

0.0002

Breed group

 Mixed-breed

1.98

1.09–3.62

0.0264

 British and Irish pointing dogs

3.40

1.42–8.17

0.0065

 Continental Toy Spaniels

24.39

5.62–105.81

< 0.0001

 Any other breed

1.00

Reference

 

Distant metastasis

 M1 versus M0–MX

3.19

0.77–13.18

0.0031

Multicentricity

   

 Single versus multicentric

0.50

0.32–0.78

0.0001

Histological type

 Anaplastic CMC

3.29

1.87–5.78

< 0.0001

 Inflammatory CMC

14.35

5.71–36.07

< 0.0001

 Any other type

1.00

Reference

 

Histological grade

 I versus III

0.41

0.20–0.84

0.0151

 II versus III

0.63

0.45–0.87

0.0054

Pathologic tumor size

 < 1 cm versus ≥ 2 cm

0.46

0.23–0.90

0.0251

 1 cm ≤ pT < 2 cm versus ≥ 2 cm

0.70

0.51–0.95

0.0242

Lymphovascular invasion

 LVI− versus LVI+

0.31

0.23–0.42

< 0.0001

Pathologic nodal stage

 pN0 versus pNX

0.53

0.30–0.92

0.0242

 pN + versus pNX

2.13

1.54–2.94

< 0.0001

Central necrosis

 No versus Yes

1.38

0.98–1.96

0.0444

Dermal invasion

 No versus Yes

0.74

0.54–1.00

0.0427

Margin status

 Positive versus negative margins

1.93

1.43–2.60

< 0.0001

Peritumoral inflammation

 No versus yes

0.59

0.44–0.79

0.0003

ERα

 ER + versus ER−

0.61

0.43–0.88

0.0209

Ki-67

 Continuous (%)

1.0179

1.0102–1.0257

< 0.0001

Multivariate analysis

Pathologic tumor size

 pT < 20 mm versus pT ≥ 20 mm

0.71

0.52–0.95

0.0232

Pathologic nodal stage

 pN+ versus pN0–pNX

1.82

1.30–2.54

0.0005

Distant metastasis

 M1 versus M0–MX

2.61

1.14–5.99

0.0245

Peritumoral inflammation

 Yes versus no

1.54

1.14–2.07

0.0050

ERα

 ER+ versus ER−

0.64

0.41–0.97

0.0380

Ki–67

 ≤ 33.3% versus > 33.3%

0.60

0.44–0.81

0.0011

Discussion

Dogs with invasive mammary carcinomas have been proposed as a useful resource for preclinical research in comparative oncology due to epidemioclinical, biological, and pathological similarities with human breast cancer [8, 9, 10, 11]. There was, however, a relative uncertainty of predictability of this spontaneous cancer as a translational model, as the natural history and prognostic factors have been described in relatively small cohorts [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41]. The present study is of particular interest because (1) mammary carcinomas in situ have been carefully excluded from analysis, using p63 immunohistochemistry when necessary, which is rarely, if ever, performed in veterinary studies, but of paramount importance in human breast oncology; (2) the cases were reviewed blindly by veterinary and medical pathologists, until consensus diagnoses were achieved, which permitted interpretation of canine samples using the criteria used for human breast cancer; (3) this is the largest cohort of CMCs described so far, which allowed for multivariate survival analyses with sufficient statistical power; (4) this study is one of the rare reports [14, 15, 17, 30, 37] of locoregional recurrence, distant metastasis-free interval, and specific survival in dogs with CMCs, as most previous studies focused on disease-free survival and overall survival only [18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 38, 39].

The epidemiological characteristics of CMCs in this cohort, although in agreement with some previous reports [20, 33], are characterized by an older age at diagnosis, lower rate of positivity to ERα and PR, and higher Ki-67 index than previous descriptions [19, 23, 27, 31, 37, 39]. These differences can be attributed at least in part to the systematic exclusion of mammary carcinomas in situ, which are diagnosed in younger dogs, and are more commonly ERα and PR positive compared to invasive CMCs (unpublished observations, manuscript in preparation), as described in human breast cancer [52].

Another particularity of this cohort is the absence of any HER2-positive CMC, as previously reported [53]. However, HER2-positive CMCs have been previously described by immunohistochemistry, with the polyclonal A0485 antibody [18, 26, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58] or the CB11 clone [59]. In this study, the external positive controls (cytospins of breast carcinoma cell lines, representative of the HER2 scores 0–3 +) ensured that HER2 expression was neither underestimated nor overestimated on the canine slides, a precaution that was rarely taken in veterinary oncology [26, 54]. Of note, HER2 gene amplification was not previously found in CMCs [60], and thus the existence of HER2-positive mammary carcinomas in dogs is still uncertain [61, 62].

The natural history of invasive CMCs is much shorter in dogs (54% cancer-related death at 2 years post diagnosis in this study) than in human breast cancer [2], probably in relation to shorter life expectancy in dogs, and the lack of adjuvant therapy, a situation that favors the setting of preclinical trials in the canine species. The effects of a given compound on patient survival, including in first-line regimen, is expected to be evaluable in short delays in dogs with CMCs, an advantage already highlighted for other canine cancers [4, 5]. The prognostic factors of invasive CMCs, described here in the largest retrospective cohort described so far, include the pathologic tumor size, pathologic nodal stage, lymphovascular invasion, histological grade, and ERα positivity, which are all also strong prognostic factors in human breast cancer [63], confirming the similar biology of invasive mammary carcinomas in both species.

Conclusions

The results of the present study confirm that canine invasive mammary carcinomas have a short disease course, which is predictable with clinicopathologic criteria close to those of human oncology. In the second part of this article, we hypothesized that CMCs could be subdivided into luminal and triple-negative cases with different outcomes, as in human breast cancer.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors deeply acknowledge Dr. Chand Khanna (EthosDiscovery, EthosVeterinary Health) for his help in reviewing the manuscript. The authors thank Dr. Claire Hanzenne, Dr. Ingrid Bemelmans, Dr. Floriane Morio, and Dr. Clotilde de Brito, who helped in collecting the clinical and follow-up data. The authors also thank Dr. Laëtitia Jaillardon for her involvement in data analysis, the veterinary pathologists (Dr. Jean-Loïc Le Net, Dr. Virginie Théau, Dr. Pierre Lagourette, Dr. Olivier Albaric and Dr. Sophie Labrut) who performed the initial diagnoses of canine mammary carcinomas, as well as the technicians in histopathology (Mr. Bernard Fernandez, Mrs. Florence Lezin, and Mrs. Catherine Guéreaud) who made the slides. Finally, we thank the referring veterinarians and the owners of the dogs included in this study, who gave us the clinical and follow-up data.

Funding

This work was supported by the French National Cancer Institute (INCa, Institut National du Cancer) with a grant for translational research (INCa-DHOS 2010, Pr M. Campone) and one grant for PhD students on translational research (Grant N°201108; 2011); and by Roche Diagnostics GmbH, Germany, which provided financial and technical support for the immunohistochemical characterization of the carcinomas.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. The owners’ written consent and approval from the Oniris College of Veterinary Medicine local Animal Welfare Committee were obtained prior to inclusion of each canine mammary carcinoma in this retrospective observational study.

References

  1. 1.
    Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, Rebelo M et al (2015) Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: sources, methods and major patterns in GLOBOCAN 2012. Int J Cancer 136:E359–E386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Macià F, Porta M, Murta-Nascimento C, Servitja S, Guxens M, Burón A et al (2012) Factors affecting 5- and 10-year survival of women with breast cancer: an analysis based on a public general hospital in Barcelona. Cancer Epidemiol 36:554–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vargo-Gogola T, Rosen JM (2007) Modelling breast cancer: one size does not fit all. Nat Rev Cancer 7:659–672CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gordon I, Paoloni M, Mazcko C, Khanna C (2009) The Comparative Oncology Trials Consortium: using spontaneously occurring cancers in dogs to inform the cancer drug development pathway. PLoS Med 6:e1000161CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paoloni M, Khanna C (2008) Translation of new cancer treatments from pet dogs to humans. Nat Rev Cancer 8:147–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ranieri G, Gadaleta CD, Patruno R, Zizzo N, Daidone MG, Hansson MG et al (2013) A model of study for human cancer: spontaneous occurring tumors in dogs. Biological features and translation for new anticancer therapies. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 88:187–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Merlo DF, Rossi L, Pellegrino C, Ceppi M, Cardellino U, Capurro C et al (2008) Cancer incidence in pet dogs: findings of the Animal Tumor Registry of Genoa, Italy. J Vet Intern Med 22:976–984CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pinho SS, Carvalho S, Cabral J, Reis CA, Gärtner F (2012) Canine tumors: a spontaneous animal model of human carcinogenesis. Transl Res 159:165–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rivera P, von Euler H (2011) Molecular biological aspects on canine and human mammary tumors. Vet Pathol 48:132–146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Uva P, Aurisicchio L, Watters J, Loboda A, Kulkarni A, Castle J et al (2009) Comparative expression pathway analysis of human and canine mammary tumors. BMC Genomics 10:135CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vail DM, MacEwen EG (2000) Spontaneously occurring tumors of companion animals as models for human cancer. Cancer Invest 18:781–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Benjamin SA, Lee AC, Saunders WJ (1999) Classification and behavior of canine mammary epithelial neoplasms based on life-span observations in beagles. Vet Pathol 36:423–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moulton JE, Rosenblatt LS, Goldman M (1986) Mammary tumors in a colony of beagle dogs. Vet Pathol 23:741–749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rasotto R, Berlato D, Goldschmidt MH, Zappulli V (2017) Prognostic significance of canine Mammary tumor histologic subtypes: an observational cohort study of 229 cases. Vet Pathol 54:571–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Santos AA, Lopes CC, Marques RM, Amorim IF, Gärtner MF, de Matos AJ (2012) Matrix metalloproteinase-9 expression in mammary gland tumors in dogs and its relationship with prognostic factors and patient outcome. Am J Vet Res 73:689–697CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schneider R, Dorn CR, Taylor DO (1969) Factors influencing canine mammary cancer development and postsurgical survival. J Natl Cancer Inst 43:1249–1261PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stratmann N, Failing K, Richter A, Wehrend A (2008) Mammary tumor recurrence in bitches after regional mastectomy. Vet Surg 37:82–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Araújo MR, Campos LC, Damasceno KA, Gamba CO, Ferreira E, Cassali GD (2016) HER-2, EGFR, Cox-2 and Ki67 expression in lymph node metastasis of canine mammary carcinomas: association with clinical-pathological parameters and overall survival. Res Vet Sci 106:121–130CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chang CC, Tsai MH, Liao JW, Chan JP, Wong ML, Chang SC (2009) Evaluation of hormone receptor expression for use in predicting survival of female dogs with malignant mammary gland tumors. J Am Vet Med Assoc 235:391–396CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Chang SC, Chang CC, Chang TJ, Wong ML (2005) Prognostic factors associated with survival two years after surgery in dogs with malignant mammary tumors: 79 cases (1998–2002). J Am Vet Med Assoc 227:1625–1629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ferreira E, Bertagnolli AC, Cavalcanti MF, Schmitt FC, Cassali GD (2009) The relationship between tumour size and expression of prognostic markers in benign and malignant canine mammary tumours. Vet Comp Oncol 7:230–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gama A, Alves A, Schmitt F (2010) Expression and prognostic significance of CK19 in canine malignant mammary tumours. Vet J 184:45–51CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gama A, Alves A, Schmitt F (2008) Identification of molecular phenotypes in canine mammary carcinomas with clinical implications: application of the human classification. Virchows Arch 453:123–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karayannopoulou M, Kaldrymidou E, Constantinidis TC, Dessiris A (2005) Histological grading and prognosis in dogs with mammary carcinomas: application of a human grading method. J Comp Pathol 133:246–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pérez Alenza MD, Peña L, Nieto AI, Castaño M (1997) Clinical and pathological prognostic factors in canine mammary tumors. Ann Ist Super Sanita 33:581–585PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ressel L, Puleio R, Loria GR, Vannozzi I, Millanta F, Caracappa S et al (2013) HER-2 expression in canine morphologically normal, hyperplastic and neoplastic mammary tissues and its correlation with the clinical outcome. Res Vet Sci 94:299–305CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sassi F, Benazzi C, Castellani G, Sarli G (2010) Molecular-based tumour subtypes of canine mammary carcinomas assessed by immunohistochemistry. BMC Vet Res 6:5CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Szczubiał M, Łopuszynski W (2011) Prognostic value of regional lymph node status in canine mammary carcinomas. Vet Comp Oncol 9:296–303CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yamagami T, Kobayashi T, Takahashi K, Sugiyama M (1996) Prognosis for canine malignant mammary tumors based on TNM and histologic classification. J Vet Med Sci 58:1079–1083CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Betz D, Schoenrock D, Mischke R, Baumgärtner W, Nolte I (2012) Postoperative treatment outcome in canine mammary tumors. Multivariate analysis of the prognostic value of pre- and postoperatively available information. Tierarztl Prax Ausg K Kleintiere Heimtiere 40:235–242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    De Las Mulas JM, Millán Y, Dios R (2005) A prospective analysis of immunohistochemically determined estrogen receptor alpha and progesterone receptor expression and host and tumor factors as predictors of disease-free period in mammary tumors of the dog. Vet Pathol 42:200–212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Diessler ME, Castellano MC, Portiansky EL, Burns S, Idiart JR (2017) Canine mammary carcinomas: influence of histological grade, vascular invasion, proliferation, microvessel density and VEGFR2 expression on lymph node status and survival time. Vet Comp Oncol 15:450–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hellmén E, Bergström R, Holmberg L, Spångberg IB, Hansson K, Lindgren A (1993) Prognostic factors in canine mammary tumors: a multivariate study of 202 consecutive cases. Vet Pathol 30:20–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Itoh T, Uchida K, Ishikawa K, Kushima K, Kushima E, Tamada H et al (2005) Clinicopathological survey of 101 canine mammary gland tumors: differences between small-breed dogs and others. J Vet Med Sci 67:345–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Jaillardon L, Abadie J, Godard T, Campone M, Loussouarn D, Siliart B et al (2015) The dog as a naturally-occurring model for insulin-like growth factor type 1 receptor-overexpressing breast cancer: an observational cohort study. BMC Cancer 15:664CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Misdorp W, Hart AA (1976) Prognostic factors in canine mammary cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 56:779–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nieto A, Peña L, Pérez-Alenza MD, Sánchez MA, Flores JM, Castaño M (2000) Immunohistologic detection of estrogen receptor alpha in canine mammary tumors: clinical and pathologic associations and prognostic significance. Vet Pathol 37:239–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Peña L, De Andrés PJ, Clemente M, Cuesta P, Pérez-Alenza MD (2013) Prognostic value of histological grading in noninflammatory canine mammary carcinomas in a prospective study with two-year follow-up: relationship with clinical and histological characteristics. Vet Pathol 50:94–105CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Peña LL, Nieto AI, Pérez-Alenza D, Cuesta P, Castaño M (1998) Immunohistochemical detection of Ki-67 and PCNA in canine mammary tumors: relationship to clinical and pathologic variables. J Vet Diagn Invest 10:237–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Philibert JC, Snyder PW, Glickman N, Glickman LT, Knapp DW, Waters DJ (2003) Influence of host factors on survival in dogs with malignant mammary gland tumors. J Vet Intern Med 17:102–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tran CM, Moore AS, Frimberger AE (2016) Surgical treatment of mammary carcinomas in dogs with or without postoperative chemotherapy. Vet Comp Oncol 14:252–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Tavares WL, Lavalle GE, Figueiredo MS, Souza AG, Bertagnolli AC, Viana FA et al (2010) Evaluation of adverse effects in tamoxifen exposed healthy female dogs. Acta Vet Scand 52:67CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kristiansen VM, Peña L, Díez Córdova L, Illera JC, Skjerve E, Breen AM et al (2016) Effect of ovariohysterectomy at the time of tumor removal in dogs with mammary carcinomas: a randomized controlled trial. J Vet Intern Med 30:230–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shamloula MM, El-Shorbagy SH, Saied EM (2007) P63 and cytokeratin8/18 expression in breast, atypical ductal hyperplasia, ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive duct carcinoma. J Egypt Natl Canc Inst 19:202–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Peña L, Gama A, Goldschmidt MH, Abadie J, Benazzi C, Castagnaro M et al (2014) Canine mammary tumors: a review and consensus of standard guidelines on epithelial and myoepithelial phenotype markers, HER2, and hormone receptor assessment using immunohistochemistry. Vet Pathol 51:127–145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Goldschmidt M, Peña L, Rasotto R, Zappulli V (2011) Classification and grading of canine mammary tumors. Vet Pathol 48:117–131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Misdorp W, Else RW, Hellmen E, Lipscomb TP (1999) Histological classification of mammary tumors of the dog and cat. 2nd series. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Elston CW, Ellis IO (1991) Pathological prognostic factors in breast cancer. I. The value of histological grade in breast cancer: experience from a large study with long-term follow-up. Histopathology 19:403–410CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gama A, Gärtner F, Alves A, Schmitt F (2009) Immunohistochemical expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) in canine mammary tissues. Res Vet Sci 87:432–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, Paish EC, Lee AH, Ellis IO (2007) Breast carcinoma with basal differentiation: a proposal for pathology definition based on basal cytokeratin expression. Histopathology 50:434–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wolff AC, Hammond ME, Hicks DG, Dowsett M, McShane LM, Allison KH et al (2014) Recommendations for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 testing in breast cancer: american Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists clinical practice guideline update. Arch Pathol Lab Med 138:241–256CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bravaccini S, Granato AM, Medri L, Foca F, Falcini F, Zoli W et al (2013) Biofunctional characteristics of in situ and invasive breast carcinoma. Cell Oncol (Dordr) 36:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Campos LC, Silva JO, Santos FS, Araújo MR, Lavalle GE, Ferreira E et al (2015) Prognostic significance of tissue and serum HER2 and MUC1 in canine mammary cancer. J Vet Diagn Invest 27:531–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Beha G, Brunetti B, Asproni P, Muscatello LV, Millanta F, Poli A et al (2012) Molecular portrait-based correlation between primary canine mammary tumor and its lymph node metastasis: possible prognostic-predictive models and/or stronghold for specific treatments? BMC Vet Res 8:219CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Dutra AP, Granja NV, Schmitt FC, Cassali GD (2004) c-erbB-2 expression and nuclear pleomorphism in canine mammary tumors. Braz J Med Biol Res 37:1673–1681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kim JH, Im KS, Kim NH, Yhee JY, Nho WG, Sur JH (2011) Expression of HER-2 and nuclear localization of HER-3 protein in canine mammary tumors: histopathological and immunohistochemical study. Vet J 189:318–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Muhammadnejad A, Keyhani E, Mortazavi P, Behjati F, Haghdoost IS (2012) Overexpression of her-2/neu in malignant mammary tumors; translation of clinicopathological features from dog to human. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 13:6415–6421CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Singer J, Weichselbaumer M, Stockner T, Mechtcheriakova D, Sobanov Y, Bajna E et al (2012) Comparative oncology: erbB-1 and ErbB-2 homologues in canine cancer are susceptible to cetuximab and trastuzumab targeting. Mol Immunol 50:200–209CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Im KS, Kim NH, Lim HY, Kim HW, Shin JI, Sur JH (2014) Analysis of a new histological and molecular-based classification of canine mammary neoplasia. Vet Pathol 51:549–559CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    de las Mulas JM, Ordás J, Millán Y, Fernández-Soria V, y Cajal SR (2003) Oncogene HER-2 in canine mammary gland carcinomas: an immunohistochemical and chromogenic in situ hybridization study. Breast Cancer Res Treat 80:363–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Burrai GP, Tanca A, De Miglio MR, Abbondio M, Pisanu S, Polinas M et al (2015) Investigation of HER2 expression in canine mammary tumors by antibody-based, transcriptomic and mass spectrometry analysis: is the dog a suitable animal model for human breast cancer? Tumour Biol 36:9083–9091CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Liu D, Xiong H, Ellis AE, Northrup NC, Rodriguez CO Jr, O’Regan RM et al (2014) Molecular homology and difference between spontaneous canine mammary cancer and human breast cancer. Cancer Res 74:5045–5056CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    van de Vijver MJ (2014) Molecular tests as prognostic factors in breast cancer. Virchows Arch 464:283–291CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frédérique Nguyen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Laura Peña
    • 3
  • Catherine Ibisch
    • 1
    • 2
  • Delphine Loussouarn
    • 2
    • 4
  • Adelina Gama
    • 5
  • Natascha Rieder
    • 6
  • Anton Belousov
    • 7
  • Mario Campone
    • 2
    • 8
  • Jérôme Abadie
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Oniris, Nantes Atlantic College of Veterinary Medicine Food Science and Engineering, Animal Cancers, Models for Research in Comparative Oncology (AMaROC) Research UnitNantesFrance
  2. 2.CRCINA, INSERM, Université d’Angers, Université de NantesNantesFrance
  3. 3.Department of Animal Medicine, Surgery and PathologyComplutense University of MadridMadridSpain
  4. 4.Department of PathologyUniversity HospitalNantesFrance
  5. 5.Animal and Veterinary Research Centre (CECAV)University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro (UTAD)Vila RealPortugal
  6. 6.Pathology and Tissue Analytics, Pharma Research & Early DevelopmentRoche Innovation Center MunichMunichGermany
  7. 7.Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pharma Research & Early DevelopmentRoche Innovation Center MunichMunichGermany
  8. 8.Institut de Cancérologie de l’OuestAngersFrance

Personalised recommendations