Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Origins of breast cancer subtypes and therapeutic implications

Nature Clinical Practice Oncology volume 4, pages 516–525 (2007)Cite this article

Abstract

This Review summarizes and evaluates the current evidence for the cellular origins of breast cancer subtypes identified by different approaches such as histology, molecular pathology, genetic and gene-expression analysis. Emerging knowledge of the normal breast cell types has led to the hypothesis that the subtypes of breast cancer might arise from mutations or genetic rearrangements occurring in different populations of stem cells and progenitor cells. We describe the common distinguishing features of these breast cancer subtypes and explain how these features relate both to prognosis and to selection of the most appropriate therapy. Recent data indicate that breast tumors may originate from cancer stem cells. Consequently, inhibition of stem-cell self-renewal pathways should be explored because of the likelihood that residual stem cells might be resistant to current therapies.

Key Points

  • There are several approaches to classification of breast cancer, including histology, molecular pathology, genetic, and gene-expression analysis

  • Subtyping of breast cancer can enable prediction of response to treatment and prognosis

  • The subtypes of breast cancer might arise from different populations of stem cells and progenitor cells present in the normal mammary gland

  • Cancer stem cells might give rise to tumors, which could explain why some cancer cells are resistant to current therapies

  • Stem-cell self-renewal pathways may represent targets for new treatments

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Comparison of the histopathology, molecular pathology, genetic, and gene-expression analysis methods used to delineate breast cancer tumor subtypes and suggested current and future therapies in a historical context
Figure 2: The hypothesis of early divergence between the main subtypes of breast cancer is supported by histopathology, molecular pathology, genetic, and gene-expression analysis
Figure 3: A model of stem-cell hierarchy and how it may account for the origins of different subtypes of breast cancer via cancer stem cells

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Daniel CW and Smith GH (1999) The mammary gland: a model for development. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 4: 3–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Shackleton M et al. (2006) Generation of a functional mammary gland from a single stem cell. Nature 439: 84–88

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Clarke RB et al. (2005) A putative human breast stem cell population is enriched for steroid receptor-positive cells. Dev Biol 277: 443–456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Simpson PT et al. (2005) Molecular evolution of breast cancer. J Pathol 205: 248–254

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kronenwett U et al. (2006) Genomic instability and prognosis in breast carcinomas. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15: 1630–1635

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schuetz CS et al. (2006) Progression-specific genes identified by expression profiling of matched ductal carcinomas in situ and invasive breast tumors, combining laser capture microdissection and oligonucleotide microarray analysis. Cancer Res 66: 5278–5286

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Wellings SR et al. (1975) An atlas of subgross pathology of the human breast with special reference to possible precancerous lesions. J Natl Cancer Inst 55: 231–273

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee S et al. (2006) Hormones, receptors, and growth in hyperplastic enlarged lobular units: early potential precursors of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 8: R6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Colozza M et al. (2005) Proliferative markers as prognostic and predictive tools in early breast cancer: where are we now? Ann Oncol 16: 1723–1739

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Roylance R et al. (2006) A comprehensive study of chromosome 16q in invasive ductal and lobular breast carcinoma using array CGH. Oncogene 25: 6544–6553

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wennmalm K et al. (2007) Gene expression in 16q is associated with survival and differs between Sorlie breast cancer subtypes. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 46: 87–97

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Bergamaschi A et al. (2006) Distinct patterns of DNA copy number alteration are associated with different clinicopathological features and gene-expression subtypes of breast cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 45: 1033–1040

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Roylance R et al. (1999) Comparative genomic hybridization of breast tumors stratified by histological grade reveals new insights into the biological progression of breast cancer. Cancer Res 59: 1433–1436

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zhao H et al. (2004) Different gene expression patterns in invasive lobular and ductal carcinomas of the breast. Mol Biol Cell 15: 2523–2536

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Korkola JE et al. (2003) Differentiation of lobular versus ductal breast carcinomas by expression microarray analysis. Cancer Res 63: 7167–7175

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sjöblom T et al. (2006) The consensus coding sequences of human breast and colorectal cancers. Science 314: 268–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sorlie T et al. (2003) Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 8418–8423

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hunter KW and Crawford NP (2006) Germ line polymorphism in metastatic progression. Cancer Res 66: 1251–1254

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Landis MD et al. (2005) Gene expression profiling of cancer progression reveals intrinsic regulation of transforming growth factor-beta signaling in ErbB2/Neu-induced tumors from transgenic mice. Oncogene 24: 5173–5190

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Finak G et al. (2006) Gene expression signatures of morphologically normal breast tissue identify basal-like tumors. Breast Cancer Res 8: R58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Perou CM et al. (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406: 747–752

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sorlie T et al. (2001) Gene expression patterns of breast carcinomas distinguish tumor subclasses with clinical implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98: 10869–10874

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sorlie T et al. (2006) Distinct molecular mechanisms underlying clinically relevant subtypes of breast cancer: gene expression analyses across three different platforms. BMC Genomics 7: 127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hu Z et al. (2006) The molecular portraits of breast tumors are conserved across microarray platforms. BMC Genomics 7: 96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Farmer P et al. (2005) Identification of molecular apocrine breast tumours by microarray analysis. Oncogene 24: 4660–4671

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Richardson AL et al. (2006) X chromosomal abnormalities in basal-like human breast cancer. Cancer Cell 9: 121–132

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Sims AH et al. (2006) High-throughput genomic technology in research and clinical management of breast cancer. Exploiting the potential of gene expression profiling: is it ready for the clinic? Breast Cancer Res 8: 214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Bertucci F et al. (2006) Gene expression profiling shows medullary breast cancer is a subgroup of basal breast cancers. Cancer Res 66: 4636–4644

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Nguyen DM et al. (2006) Molecular heterogeneity of inflammatory breast cancer: a hyperproliferative phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 12: 5047–5054

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. van 't Veer LJ et al. (2002) Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 415: 530–536

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Paik S et al. (2004) A multigene assay to predict recurrence of tamoxifen-treated, node-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med 351: 2817–2826

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Wang Y et al. (2005) Gene-expression profiles to predict distant metastasis of lymph-node-negative primary breast cancer. Lancet 365: 671–679

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Fan C et al. (2006) Concordance among gene-expression-based predictors for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355: 560–569

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Chang HY et al. (2005) Robustness, scalability, and integration of a wound-response gene expression signature in predicting breast cancer survival. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 3531–3532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chi JT et al. (2006) Gene expression programs in response to hypoxia: cell type specificity and prognostic significance in human cancers. PLoS Med 3: e47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Adler AS et al. (2006) Genetic regulators of large-scale transcriptional signatures in cancer. Nat Genet 38: 421–430

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Reya T et al. (2001) Stem cells, cancer, and cancer stem cells. Nature 414: 105–111

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Smalley M and Ashworth A (2003) Stem cells and breast cancer: a field in transit. Nat Rev Cancer 3: 832–844

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Clarke RB et al. (2003) Regulation of human breast epithelial stem cells. Cell Prolif 36 (Suppl 1): S45–S58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Dontu G et al. (2003) Stem cells in normal breast development and breast cancer. Cell Prolif 36 (Suppl 1): S59–S72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Smith GH and Boulanger CA (2003) Mammary epithelial stem cells: transplantation and self-renewal analysis. Cell Prolif 36 (Suppl 1): S3–S15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Daniel CW and Deome KB (1965) Growth of mouse mammary glands in vivo after monolayer culture. Science 149: 634–636

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Deome KB et al. (1959) Development of mammary tumors from hyperplastic alveolar nodules transplanted into gland-free mammary fat pads of female C3H mice. Cancer Res 19: 515–520

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Kordon EC and Smith GH (1998) An entire functional mammary gland may comprise the progeny from a single cell. Development 125: 1921–1930

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stingl J et al. (2006) Purification and unique properties of mammary epithelial stem cells. Nature 439: 993–997

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Asselin-Labat ML et al. (2006) Steroid hormone receptor status of mouse mammary stem cells. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 1011–1014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Wilson CL et al. (2006) Effects of oestrogen on gene expression in epithelium and stroma of normal human breast tissue. Endocr Relat Cancer 13: 617–628

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Dontu G et al. (2004) Breast cancer, stem/progenitor cells and the estrogen receptor. Trends Endocrinol Metab 15: 193–197

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Chepko G and Smith GH (1999) Mammary epithelial stem cells: our current understanding. J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia 4: 35–52

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Bonnet D and Dick JE (1997) Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med 3: 730–737

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Al-Hajj M et al. (2003) Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 3983–3988

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Locke M et al. (2005) Retention of intrinsic stem cell hierarchies in carcinoma-derived cell lines. Cancer Res 65: 8944–8950

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Ponti D et al. (2005) Isolation and in vitro propagation of tumorigenic breast cancer cells with stem/progenitor cell properties. Cancer Res 65: 5506–5511

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Behbod F and Rosen JM (2005) Will cancer stem cells provide new therapeutic targets? Carcinogenesis 26: 703–711

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Kalirai H and Clarke RB (2006) Human breast epithelial stem cells and their regulation. J Pathol 208: 7–16

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Liu S et al. (2005) Mammary stem cells, self-renewal pathways, and carcinogenesis. Breast Cancer Res 7: 86–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Farnie G et al. (2007) Novel cell culture technique for primary ductal carcinoma in situ: role of Notch and EGF receptor signaling pathways. J Natl Cancer Inst 99: 616–627

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Laakso M et al. (2006) Basoluminal carcinoma: a new biologically and prognostically distinct entity between basal and luminal breast cancer. Clin Cancer Res 12: 4185–4191

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Korsching E et al. (2002) Cytogenetic alterations and cytokeratin expression patterns in breast cancer: integrating a new model of breast differentiation into cytogenetic pathways of breast carcinogenesis. Lab Invest 82: 1525–1533

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Kouros-Mehr H et al. (2006) GATA-3 maintains the differentiation of the luminal cell fate in the mammary gland. Cell 127: 1041–1055

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Asselin-Labat ML et al. (2007) Gata-3 is an essential regulator of mammary-gland morphogenesis and luminal-cell differentiation. Nat Cell Biol 9: 201–209

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Liu R et al. (2007) The prognostic role of a gene signature from tumorigenic breast-cancer cells. N Engl J Med 356: 217–226

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Sheridan C et al. (2006) CD44+/CD24– breast cancer cells exhibit enhanced invasive properties: an early step necessary for metastasis. Breast Cancer Res 8: R59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Balic M et al. (2006) Most early disseminated cancer cells detected in bone marrow of breast cancer patients have a putative breast cancer stem cell phenotype. Clin Cancer Res 12: 5615–5621

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. Goldhirsch A et al. (2005) Meeting highlights: international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2005. Ann Oncol 16: 1569–1583

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Haybittle JL et al. (1982) A prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Br J Cancer 45: 361–366

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Ravdin PM et al. (2001) Computer program to assist in making decisions about adjuvant therapy for women with early breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 19: 980–991

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Rouzier R et al. (2005) Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 11: 5678–5685

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. Woodward WA et al. (2007) WNT/beta-catenin mediates radiation resistance of mouse mammary progenitor cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 618–623

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Liu S et al. (2006) Hedgehog signaling and Bmi-1 regulate self-renewal of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells. Cancer Res 66: 6063–6071

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Hu C et al. (2006) Overexpression of activated murine Notch1 and Notch3 in transgenic mice blocks mammary gland development and induces mammary tumors. Am J Pathol 168: 973–990

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful for funding from Breakthrough Breast Cancer, Breast Cancer Campaign, Cancer Research UK, and Christie's Appeal.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. AH Sims is a Postdoctoral Bioinformatician in the Breast Biology Group, A Howell is Professor of Medical Oncology at the Christie Hospital, SJ Howell is a Clinical Research Fellow in the Breast Biology Group and Honorary Consultant in Medical Oncology at the Christie Hospital, and RB Clarke is a Breast Cancer Campaign Fellow and Group Leader of the Breast Biology Group at the Christie Hospital, Manchester, UK.,

    Andrew H Sims, Anthony Howell, Sacha J Howell & Robert B Clarke

Authors
  1. Andrew H Sims
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anthony Howell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sacha J Howell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Robert B Clarke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert B Clarke.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sims, A., Howell, A., Howell, S. et al. Origins of breast cancer subtypes and therapeutic implications. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 4, 516–525 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc0908

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ncponc0908

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing