Download Bringing the p53 signature into focus

Editorial
Bringing the p53 Signature Into Focus
Christopher P. Crum, MD1 and Wa Xian, PhD1,2
The origin of ovarian cancer, and specifically high-grade serous carcinoma, has been the subject of considerable debate
over the past 25 years, and the elucidation of this issue has been hampered because >90% of these tumors are discovered
after considerable tumor growth has occurred, obscuring not only the ovaries but also the fallopian tubes and peritoneal
surfaces. This propensity for discovering high-grade serous carcinomas at a late stage has not been altered appreciably by
conventional approaches to early detection, and the beneficial role of serologic screening for cancer-related biomarkers
remains to be proven. Thus, identifying the precursors to ovarian malignancies and their relevance to the detection or
prevention of ovarian cancer has been a major objective in ovarian cancer research.
At least a partial answer to the question of tumor origin has come from the study of women who harbor an inherited
mutation in either the BRCA1 or BRCA2 breast cancer gene (BRCA-positive). The inheritance of a heterozygous loss of
function mutation of BRCA1 or BRCA2 gives rise to an average 10-fold increased risk of developing ovarian cancer.1 Eight
percent of BRCA-positive women who undergo risk-reducing surgery will have an early serous (and, less commonly, endometrioid) carcinoma identified. The accumulated studies in the past decade increasingly have implicated the distal fallopian tube rather than the ovary as the source of disease in these women, and approximately 80% of these early cancers are
traced to an early (intraepithelial) carcinoma in the fimbrial mucosa.2-5 This same intraepithelial carcinoma also can be
identified in up to 47% of presumed sporadic ovarian and primary peritoneal serous cancers, suggesting that the salpingeal
mucosa is prone to malignancy in all women, albeit more exquisitely in the BRCA-positive population, which is handicapped by the germline mutation in 1 functioning allele.6,7 It is noteworthy that 1 previous report suggested a 120-fold
greater risk of fallopian tube cancer in BRCA1 mutation carriers.8
Inactivating p53 mutations are identified in virtually all serous carcinomas and most often lead to the accumulation
of altered protein product in the tumor cell nuclei. In a previous study of benign tubal mucosa from BRCA-positive
women, investigators observed an increase in epithelial atypia and p53 positivity; and, recently, a candidate serous cancer
precursor—the p53 signature—was described.9,10 Like its malignant counterpart, the p53 signature was observed most
commonly in the fimbria, harbored evidence of DNA damage, increased p53 staining and p53 mutations, involved the
tubal secretory cell, was observed in continuity with malignancy, and was present more commonly in women who had serous carcinoma.9,10 Significantly, the p53 signature was nearly equally common in BRCA-positive women and population
controls; thus, it was proposed as a generic precursor that was independent of BRCA status.10,11 On the basis of the high
frequency of BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene inactivation in familial and sporadic ovarian cancer, it was presumed that loss of heterozygosity (LOH) or other functional loss of the remaining BRCA1 or BRCA2 allele was an important rate-limiting event
in the transition from p53 signature, to serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, and, finally, to serous carcinoma.12
In this issue of Cancer, Norquist et al have brought the p53 signature (or, as they call it, p53 foci) into a clearer focus,
albeit with some controversy.13 These authors from the University of Washington School of Medicine make at least 3 important observations, including 1) that p53 signatures are more common in BRCA-positive women, 2) that the index of
tubal epithelial proliferation is higher in the BRCA-positive group, and 3) that the transition from p53 signature to intraepithelial carcinoma is marked by a loss of function of the remaining BRCA allele. The latter observation is the first to
Corresponding author: Christopher P. Crum, MD, Department of Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115; Fax: (617)
264-5125; [email protected]
See referenced original article on pages 5261-71, this issue.
1
Department of Pathology, Division of Women’s and Perinatal Pathology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; 2Institute of Medical Biology,
Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.25450, Received: January 28, 2010; Accepted: May 7, 2010, Published online August 3, 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)
Cancer
November 15, 2010
5119
Editorial
make it clear that nonfunctioning BRCA and p53 genes
not only are compelling dance partners in early serous carcinogenesis but will not be discovered together until p53
signatures have transitioned to malignancy. This finding
also dispels the notion that the pathogenesis of the p53
signature requires previous inactivation of both alleles of
the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene, clearly indicating that p53
typically is inactivated before LOH of the wild type
BRCA allele during serous carcinogenesis. This further
supports the prior observations that p53 signatures are not
highly dependent on BRCA status.10,11
Whether inactivating mutations of both BRCA1 or
BRCA2 and p53 are more common in the distal tube is
not clear at this point; however, it is reasonable to assume
that a cell that has lost 1 BRCA allele is at greater risk for
BRCA inactivation—which requires only 1 more genotoxic event—than a cell that has not lost an allele. A
graphic example of this gradient of genotoxic risk can be
observed with fallopian tubes from women with Li Fraumeni syndrome, who are haploinsufficient for p53. The
fimbria in these women exhibits a multiplicity of p53 signatures, likely reflecting the lower threshold for p53 inactivation in the face of a germline mutation.14 However, these
individuals have no increased risk of serous carcinoma, presumably because the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are intact.
The link between the subsequent loss of the wild type allele
of BRCA1 or BRCA2 and malignancy is consistent with
previous observations that the inactivation of BRCA genes
in normal cells leads to growth arrest as a consequence of
accumulated DNA damage. However, loss of another tumor suppressor gene in this context, such as p53, may permit these cells to bypass cell cycle arrest, accumulate more
genomic instability, and progress to malignancy.15 Taken
together, the results reported by Norquist et al provide convincing evidence for this sequence of these genetic events
during the development of serous cancer.
The observations by Norquist et al that the frequencies of p53 signatures and DNA proliferation are greater
in BRCA-positive women13 are more difficult to interpret. Others have not reported a significant difference in
the frequency of p53 signatures between BRCA-positive
women and controls.10,11 Given the meticulous nature
with which the analysis was done in this study, including
BRCA genetic analyses in all patients, a greater frequency
in BRCA-positive women cannot be dismissed, although
additional studies will be required to resolve this issue.
The findings by the authors that proliferation was
increased globally in the tubes of these women, that p53
signatures were more prevalent in the distal tube, and that
5120
p53 signatures did not exhibit increased proliferation
make it more problematic to establish a direct connection
between proliferation and p53 mutations.
In support of the Norquist et al, Piek et al appreciated the increased proliferative index in the fallopian tubes
of BRCA-positive women and the increased risk of genealtering events in cells that undergo cell division.9 It is
possible that proliferation, which Norquist et al demonstrate is increased globally in the fallopian tubes of BRCApositive women (and is increased even more in women
with malignancy), and along with the inactivation of p53
and BRCA1 or BRCA2, is an independent event. This
supports the hypothesis that the development of malignancy requires the convergence of multiple events, some
of which might serve as markers of cancer risk. For example, in a recent study, ‘‘epigenetic signatures’’ (homeobox
A methylation) were uncovered in benign uterine mucosa
and were associated with an increased ovarian cancer
risk.16 Another study recently identified discrete secretory
cell outgrowths in the fallopian tube that are not related
directly to p53 mutations but may be increased in the
presence of tubal malignancy.17 Thus, the possibility that
the fallopian tubes in certain populations are at greater
risk of early genetic events is gaining traction, reinforcing
the role of this organ both as the site of pelvic serous
carcinogenesis and, possibly, as a potential source of
biomarkers that could prove valuable in screening or
ascertaining cancer risk. Advancing this concept will
require teasing apart the influence of inherited (BRCApositive) genetic predisposition, acquired mutations
(p53), and more globally distributed gene dysregulation
(histone modification and DNA methylation) on serous
carcinogenesis in both BRCA-positive carcinomas and
sporadic serous carcinomas. Norquist et al and their predecessors have made it increasingly clear that all of these
perturbations may be complementary in the distal fallopian tube.
The fallopian tube is a challenging anatomic region
and harbors microscopic precursors (some as few as 12
cells) that can test the limits of any technology and can
spawn cancers that are much more conspicuous after they
have left the tube. Nevertheless, it must be explored. Norquist et al have demonstrated that this is not an easy area
of research, but those who make the effort may find it
extremely fertile.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURES
Supported by National
3R21CA124688-02S1.
Institutes
Cancer
of
Health
grant
November 15, 2010
Editorial/Crum and Xian
REFERENCES
1. National Cancer Institute. SEER Cancer Statistics Review,
1975-2005. Bethesda, Md: National Cancer Institute; 2005.
Available at: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/index.html.
Accessed April 20, 2009.
2. Finch A, Shaw P, Rosen B, et al. Clinical and pathologic
findings of prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomies in 159
BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. Gynecol Oncol. 2006;100:5864.
3. Cass I, Holschneider C, Datta N, et al. BRCA-mutationassociated fallopian tube carcinoma: a distinct clinical phenotype? Obstet Gynecol. 2005;106:1327-1334.
4. Callahan MJ, Crum CP, Medeiros F, et al. Primary fallopian tube malignancies in BRCA-positive women undergoing surgery for ovarian cancer risk reduction. J Clin Oncol.
2007;25:3985-3990.
5. Paley PJ, Swisher EM, Garcia RL, et al. Occult cancer of
the fallopian tube in BRCA-1 germline mutation carriers at
prophylactic oophorectomy: a case for recommending hysterectomy at surgical prophylaxis. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;80:
176-180.
6. Carlson JW, Miron A, Jarboe EA, et al. Serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma: its potential role in primary peritoneal
serous carcinoma and serous cancer prevention. J Clin Oncol.
2008;26:4160-4165.
7. Kindelberger DW, Lee Y, Miron A, et al. Intraepithelial carcinoma of the fimbria and pelvic serous carcinoma: evidence
for a causal relationship. Am J Surg Pathol. 2007;31:161169.
8. Brose MS, Rebbeck TR, Calzone KA, Stopfer JE, Nathanson KL, Weber BL. Cancer risk estimates for BRCA1 mutation carriers identified in a risk evaluation program. J Natl
Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1365-1372.
Cancer
November 15, 2010
9. Piek JM, van Diest PJ, Zweemer RP, et al. Dysplastic changes
in prophylactically removed fallopian tubes of women predisposed to developing ovarian cancer. J Pathol. 2001;195:451-456.
10. Lee Y, Miron A, Drapkin R, et al. A candidate precursor to
serous carcinoma that originates in the distal fallopian tube.
J Pathol. 2007;211:26-35.
11. Shaw PA, Rouzbahman M, Pizer ES, Pintilie M, Begley H. Candidate serous cancer precursors in fallopian tube epithelium of
BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. Mod Pathol. 2009;22:1133-1138.
12. Kobel M, Huntsman D, Gilks CB. Critical molecular
abnormalities in high-grade serous carcinoma of the ovary
[serial online]. Expert Rev Mol Med. 2008;10:e22.
13. Norquist BM, Garcia RL, Allison KH, et al. The molecular
pathogenesis of hereditary ovarian carcinoma: alterations in
the tubal epithelium of women with BRCA1 and mutations.
Cancer. 2010;116:5261-5271.
14. Xian W, Miron A, Roh M, et al. The Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS): a model for the initiation of p53 signatures in
the distal fallopian tube. J Pathol. 2010;220:17-23.
15. Reedy MB, Hang T, Gallion H, Arnold S, Smith SA. Antisense
inhibition of BRCA1 expression and molecular analysis of
hereditary tumors indicate that functional inactivation of the
p53 DNA damage response pathway is required for BRCAassociated tumorigenesis. Gynecol Oncol. 2001;81:441-446.
16. Widschwendter M, Apostolidou S, Jones AA, et al. HOXA
methylation in normal endometrium from premenopausal
women is associated with the presence of ovarian cancer: a
proof of principle study. Int J Cancer. 2009;125:2214-2218.
17. Chen EY, Mehra K, Mehrad M, Ning G, Miron A, Mutter
GL, Monte N, Quade BJ, McKeon FD, Yassin Y, Xian W,
Crum CP. Secretory cell outgrowth, PAX2 and serous carcinogenesis in the Fallopian tube. J Pathol. 2010 May 21.
[Epub ahead of print].
5121