Cytosolic tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) levels in ductal infiltrating carcinomas of the breast classified according to different clinical and biological parameters

J. G. Muñiz,A. Alvarez,B. Llana,P. Raigoso,M. Allende,Á. Ruibal
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/172460089501000211
1995-04-01
Abstract:Sirs, Hemostatic mechanisms are significantly altered in cancer patients. The changes affecting the hemostatic systems can be divided into four groups: 1) abnormal activation of coagulation pathways; 2) platelet aggregation and activation; 3) decreased synthesis of antithrombin III and protein C by the host, and 4) miscellaneous changes (1). In coagulation pathways, plasminogen activators play an important role. Of the two distinct types of plasminogen activators, the urokinase (u-PA) has been implicated in both normal and pathological processes of tissue remodelling, organ involution and invasion (2) and some groups have demonstrated that the cytosol levels of u-PA and its inhibitor PAI-l are an independent and strong prognostic factor with an impact equal to lymph-node status in N breast tumors (3-4). The tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA) plays an important role in fibrinolysis and thrombolysis (5), as its tissular concentrations reflect the hormone dependence of breast tumors (6-7). We have reported recently (8) that the level of pS2, an estrogendependent cytosolic protein, seems to be a more important factor than estrogen and progesterone receptors in the hormone dependence of cytosolic t-PA levels from ductal infiltrating breast carcinoma (DIBC). Only few papers in the literature discuss the correhlations between tissular t-PA levels and other non-hormonal parameters used in this tumor; therefore, in the present study we have evaluated cytosolic t-PA values in DIBC classified according to clinical (size, menopausal status, axillary lymph-node involvement) and biological (ploidy and S-phase by flow cytometry, histological grade, EGF-R, cathepsin D and neu oncoprotein) parameters. The study group included 116 women with DIBC, aged between 35 and 81 years (average 58 yrs) and 50 with non-malignant breast pathologies (33 fibroadenomas (FAD) and 17 cystic breast diseases (CBD». Tissue specimens were quickly frozen and stored in liquid nitrogen until homogenization. They were homogenized with buffer (0.1 M TRIS, 0.015 M EDTA Na2, glycerol 10%, monothioglycerol 0.01%, pH 7.5) and cooled in ice water. A microhomogenizer OMNI 1000 (Waterbury, CT, USA) was used. The homogenized samples were spun in a centrifuge at 1500 rpm for 10 minutes and the supernatant was ultracentrifuged at 100,000 g for one hour at 4 C. The supernatant obtained was used for the determination of the biological parameters. The protein concentration of homogehnized samples was measured by the Bradford method. Statistical analysis was performed with the BMDP 3D program. The methods used for the determination of the biological parameters were t-PA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit (TINT-ELISA), Biopol, Sweden); cathepsin D (IRMA-CIS, France); EGF-R (RIA, Viennalab, Austria) and neu oncoprotein (ELISADupont, USA). The clinical cutoffs for each parameter were: cathepsin D: 50 pmol/mg protein; EGF-R: 4.5 fmol/mg protein and cytosolic neu oncohprotein: 1799 NHU/mg protein. In FAD cytosolic t-PA levels oscillated between 0.1 and 18.3, with a mean of 5.3 ± 5.3 ng/mg protein, while in CBD they ranged between 0.1 and 17.4, with a mean value of 5.5 ± 5.5 ng/mg protein. In all patients with non-malignant diseases, t-PA concentrations did not show a Gaussian distribution and therefore non-parametric statistical tests were used. There were no statistically significant differences in t-PA levels between both non-malignant diseases. In DIBC, t-PA levels oscilhlated between 0.1 and 46.1, with a mean of 5.1 ± 6.9 ng/mg protein and we did not observe statistically significant differences compared with the results obtained in the non-tumoral group. Our results are similar to those described by Sumiyoshi et al. (9, 10), although their values were higher (FAD: 17.8 17.5; tumors: 20.1-23.7 ng/mg protein), possibly due to the different method used for t-PA determination. The distribution of t-PA
What problem does this paper attempt to address?