Immunohistochemical Assessment of the Peripheral Benzodiazepine ...

2058 Vol. 10, 2058 –2064, March 15, 2004

Clinical Cancer Research

Immunohistochemical Assessment of the Peripheral Benzodiazepine Receptor in Breast Cancer and Its Relationship with Survival Sylvaine Galie`gue,1 Pierre Casellas,1 Andrew Kramar,2 Norbert Tinel,1 and Joelle Simony-Lafontaine2 1

Department of Immunology-Oncology, Sanofi-Synthelabo Recherche, and 2Department of Pathology, Val d’Aurelle-Paul Lamarque Cancer Institute, Montpellier, France

ABSTRACT Purpose: The peripheral benzodiazepine receptor (PBR) expression has been shown dramatically increased in neoplastic tissues and tumor cell lines originated from ovary, liver, colon, breast, or brain relative to untransformed tissues. Its expression has been also associated with tumor progression and aggressiveness. To explore whether PBR expression level could be of prognostic value in invasive breast cancer, we studied a series of 117 patients who underwent surgery for primary breast carcinomas and were followed-up for 8 years. Experimental Design: Using an immunohistochemical approach, we first compared PBR expression in normal and tumoral tissues, then we studied PBR expression together with clinicopathological variables (histological type, histological grade, lymph node, estrogen and progesterone receptor status), and biological markers such as BclII, Ki-67, and HER2/Neu. Results: Our results revealed a significant increase of PBR expression in tumoral versus normal breast cells. We found a negative correlation between PBR expression and estrogen receptor status (P ⴝ 0.03) as well as a positive correlation between PBR and Ki-67 (P ⴝ 0.044). Although the disease-free survival was not affected by PBR in the whole population, high PBR expression level was significantly correlated with a shorter disease-free survival in the lymph node-negative patients, P ⴝ 0.038. Conclusions: As the axillary lymph node-negative status is generally considered as a good prognosis factor, the high expression of PBR in this patient subgroup may be used to identify a new high risk population, for which a more specific therapy would be beneficial.

Received 6/29/03; revised 12/22/03; accepted 12/29/03. The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact. Requests for reprints: Pierre Casellas, Immunology-Oncology Department, Sanofi-Synthelabo Recherche, 371 rue du Professeur Joseph Blayac, 34184 Montpellier cedex 04, France. Phone: 33-4-67-10-62-90; Fax: 33-4-67-10-60-00; E-mail: [email protected].

INTRODUCTION The peripheral benzodiazepine receptor (PBR) is a mitochondrial Mr 18,000 D protein, which was shown to modulate a variety of cell processes, including steroidogenesis, immune responses, apoptosis, mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, and cell proliferation (for recent review, see Ref. 1). PBR is present in peripheral tissues as well as in the central nervous system and exhibits various expression levels. Glandular and steroid producing tissues (adrenal glands and gonads) are particularly rich in PBR, whereas other tissues show relatively low to intermediate levels (2– 4). PBR expression has been shown to modulate in different pathological conditions, including brain lesions or trauma (5), stress (6), inflammation (7), and cancer (8). Specially, some of the highest densities of PBR are observed in neoplastic tissues and cell lines. For instance, ovarian, hepatic and colonic carcinomas, adenocarcinoma, and glioma (8 –10) all show increased PBR densities relative to the untransformed tissues. Higher levels of PBR density were also observed in more rapidly proliferating breast cancer cells (11, 12), and the PBR gene was recently found to be amplified in an aggressive breast cancer cell line relative to a nonaggressive cell line (13). In addition, Hardwick et al. (14) showed that PBR levels in breast cancer cell line-derived subclones correlated with the ability of cells to grow in vivo when implanted into scid mice. Taken together with the increased PBR expression and in relation to tumor aggressiveness, a nuclear and perinuclear localization of the protein was described in breast cancer cell lines, in aggressive metastatic human breast tumor biopsies (12), and in glioblastoma biopsies (15). The nuclear localization of PBR is thought to participate in the development and progression of the disease as it would regulate cell proliferation by facilitating cholesterol transport into the nucleus (12). These observations lead to the hypotheses that (a) the presence of PBR may be a determinant factor for the aggressive phenotype of the tumor, and thereby, (b) the expression of PBR may be monitored in tumor samples for diagnostic and/or prognostic purposes in the clinic. Supporting this, PBR expression was shown to be positively correlated with tumor malignancy grade and negatively with patient survival in human astrocytoma (16). In addition, one study recently demonstrated the prognostic relevance of PBR in colorectal cancer. Precisely, using an immunohistochemical approach, Maaser et al. (17) showed that the mean survival of patients with stage III colorectal cancer was reduced by 35% when patients presented with high PBR expression. In the present study, to address the relevance of PBR expression as a prognostic marker in human breast cancer, we investigated PBR expression in a series of 117 patients with invasive breast carcinomas, which were followed-up for a median 8-year period. We used a monoclonal antibody, specific for the human PBR and examined its relationship with well-established prognostic factors, including standard histological criteria

Clinical Cancer Research 2059

Table 1

Patient clinicopathological characteristics

Feature

No. of patients Percentage

Category

Total population Age (years)

⬍45 45–54 55–64 65⫹ Receptor status ER⫺ PR⫺a ER⫺ PR⫹ ER⫹ PR⫺ ER⫹ PR⫹ Histology Invasive duct Invasive lobular Other type Tumor size T1 T2 T3 SBR grade I II III Tumor-Node-Metastasis stage I IIA IIB IIIA Nodal status N⫺ N⫹

117 14 30 28 45 23 16 10 68 99 12 5 66 45 6 15 67 32 45 39 28 5 64 53

12% 26% 24% 38% 19% 13% 8% 60% 85% 11% 4% 56% 39% 5% 13% 59% 28% 38% 34% 24% 4% 55% 45%

a ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor; SBR. ScarffBloom-Richardson.

Table 2 Immunohistochemical findings Marker

Scores

No. of patients

Percentage

Peripheral benzodiazepine receptor

0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 1 2 3 0 1⫹ 2⫹ 3⫹

4 19 55 39 24 22 40 28 47 23 41 58 8 4 6

4% 16% 47% 33% 21% 19% 35% 25% 42% 21% 37% 76% 11% 5% 8%

Bcl-2

Ki-67 HER2/Neu

[tumor grading, nodal status, estrogen (ER) and progesterone (PR) receptor status] immunohistochemical markers of cell proliferation (Ki-67), cell death (using the Bcl-2 proto-oncogene), and with the disease-free survival (DFS).

PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients. From 1992 to 1993, 117 patients with primary invasive breast carcinoma underwent primary surgical tumor resection completed with axillary dissection at the Val d’Aurelle Cancer Center in Montpellier, France. One patient presented with two tumors, but only data on one specimen were included in the analysis. The median age was 61 years (range, 26 – 83

years). Patients with conservative breast surgery underwent postoperative radiotherapy. After surgery, 18% patients received adjuvant chemotherapy and 70% patients received adjuvant hormonal therapy. According to the Val d’Aurelle Cancer Center routinely assessed clinical management of the disease, patients with lymph node involvement underwent adjuvant chemotherapy, whereas patients without lymph node involvement but with positive receptors status underwent hormonotherapy. Clinicopathological parameters, which include histological type, Scarff-Bloom-Richardson (SBR) grade lymph nodes status, Tumor-Node-Metastasis classification (Union International Contre le Cancer; Ref. 18), estrogen and progesterone status, menopausal status, were documented. Patients were observed for disease recurrence and death, with a median follow-up of 98 months (range, 30 –119 months). Tumor Samples. At surgery, all patients had two small portions of the tumor removed. One portion was formalinalcohol-fixed, paraffin-embedded and subsequently processed with routine techniques followed by immunohistochemical analysis. The other portion was snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at – 80°C for ER and PR analysis as described previously (19). Histopathological Study. Five-␮m-thick tumor slides were stained with H&E for the histopathological study. Tumor grading was performed according to the methodology described in Ref. 20. Mitosis counts were performed in 10 consecutive high power fields (⫻400) using a Leica microscope (Leitz DMRB). Axillary lymph node status was assessed for each case by histopathological examination for a minimum of seven lymph nodes.

Table 3 Associations between peripheral benzodiazepine receptor expression and clinicopathological variables, Bcl2, Ki-67, and HER2/ Neu immunostaining

Variables Nodal status

No. of patients with peripheral benzodiazepine receptor scores 2, 3/total number of patients in Category the category Percentage P

N⫺ N⫹ SBR gradea I II III Tumor size T1 T2 T3 Estrogen receptor (ER) ER⫺ ER⫹ Progesterone receptor (PR) PR⫺ PR⫹ Bcl-2 0–1 2–3 Ki-67 1 2–3 HER2 0–1⫹ 2⫹/3⫹ a

54/64 40/53 13/15 49/67 29/32 49/66 39/45 6/6 30/31 48/60 22/24 54/65 39/46 53/68 34/47 56/64 57/66 10/10

84% 75% 87% 73% 91% 74% 87% 100% 97% 84% 90% 88% 85% 78% 72% 88% 86% 100%

0.23 0.10 0.12 0.03 0.31 0.36 0.044 0.21

SBR, Scarff-Bloom-Richardson; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor.

2060 The Peripheral Benzodiazepine Receptor in Breast Cancer

Fig. 1 Immunohistochemical detection of peripheral benzodiazepine receptor (PBR). Immunohistochemical detection of PBR (red) in normal breast (A) and breast carcinoma (B–D). A, normal breast lobule showed a mild homogeneous staining at basal and apical location in the cells. B, strongly positive immunohistochemical staining of breast carcinoma, score 3. C, strongly positive and heterogeneous staining of malignant cells, score 2. D, weak immunohistochemical staining, score 1. Considering tumor tissues, ⬃20% patients exhibited no or little PBR expression (scores 0, 1), whereas 80% patients exhibited a strong staining (scores 2, 3). Original magnification is ⫻250 (A, B, D) and ⫻400 (C).

Immunohistochemical Staining. The expression of PBR, BclII, Her2/Neu, and the proliferative marker Ki67 was analyzed using an immunohistochemical procedure. The antibodies used were a mouse monoclonal antihuman PBR [8D7, dilution 1:300 (21)], a mouse monoclonal anti-Bcl-2 antibody (clone 124, dilution 1:50; DAKO), a mouse monoclonal antiHer2/Neu (CB11), and the anti-Ki67 MIB-1 antibody (dilution 1:100; Immunotech). Two-␮m-thick paraffin-embedded sections of tumor samples were analyzed and mounted on DAKOsilanized slides. All procedures were carried at room temperature. Immunohistochemical detection of the different markers was done using the streptavidin-biotin (LSAB) method (LSAB kit; DAKO). The sections, which had been preincubated with 3% H2O2 solution for 10 min to block endogenous peroxidase, were incubated for 20 min with blocking agent for 2 h with the different primary antibodies; they were then rinsed and incubated with the secondary antibody for 10 min. They were then incubated with streptavidin conjugated to horseradish peroxidase: a positive reaction was visualized with 3-amino-9-ethylcarbazol. Before mounting, the sections were counterstained with Mayer’s hematoxylin. For the negative control, the primary antibody was omitted and replaced by an irrelevant antibody

(monoclonal mouse antihuman IgG; DAKO). For the positive control, sections from normal breast structures were used. Double immunostaining for PBR and Ki-67 was performed on 41 samples using a sequential immunoenzymatic double staining method as previously described (22), using the mouse monoclonal antihuman PBR and the rabbit anti-Ki-67 primary antibodies, revealed with the Envision reagent (DAKO). The different marker’s immunoreactivity was then evaluated by two observers using a high-power lens (⫻400). Semiquantitative Evaluation of PBR, Bcl-2, Ki-67, and HER2/Neu Staining. The different antibody labeling was evaluated using a semiquantitative method taking into account the staining intensity and the number of stained cells in different random fields. For PBR, the staining intensity of tumor tissue was compared with that of the corresponding normal tissue for each patient (0, no increase; 1, weak increase; 2, moderate increase; and 3, strong increase). Values were then calculated as the product of the increase in staining intensity and the frequency of stained cancer cells (the latter was 0, ⬍10%; 1, 10 –25%; 2, 25–50%; 3, ⬎50%). Finally, the staining for PBR was scored as 0, 1 (values 1 and 2), 2 (values 3 and 4), and 3 (values 6 and 9). Scores of 2 and 3 referred to the overexpres-


Fig. 2 Double immunostaining of breast carcinoma with the 8D7 antibody (red cytoplasmic staining) and with the Ki-67 antibody (brown nuclear staining): two representative images are shown (A and B). In A, both proteins are highly expressed (immunohistochemical score ⫽ 3). In B, the two markers are expressed at a different level; peripheral benzodiazepine receptor, score ⫽ 1; Ki-67, score ⫽ 2. Original magnification is ⫻400.

sion of PBR. A similar score calculation was used for Bcl-2. For Ki-67, staining 0 means no expression of the marker; 1, weak expression of the marker; 2, moderate expression of the marker; and 3, strong expression of the marker. For the determination of HER2 protein expression, only the membrane staining intensity and pattern in the infiltrating component of cancers were evaluated according to the DAKO Herceptest scale. Score 0: no staining at all, or membrane staining in ⬍10% of the tumor cells. Score 1⫹: although there is a faint membrane staining in ⬎10% of the tumor cells, with just some membrane portions stained, the labeling is considered as negative. Score 2⫹: a weak to moderate staining of the whole membrane in ⬎10% of the tumor cells, the labeling is considered as weakly positive. Score 3⫹: a strong staining of the entire membrane in ⬎10% of the tumor cells. No staining of the normal breast structures indicated a valid assay. Statistical Analysis. Correlations between the clinicopathological data and the expression of the four immunohisto-

chemical markers analyzed were assessed using the ␹2 tests. Locoregional disease relapse, distant metastasis, second primary, and death due to cancer were considered as end points for DFS. DFS curves starting from the date of surgery until the first event were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients alive without ever failing from disease were censored at the last follow-up. The statistical significance of each variable was evaluated for prognosis using the log-rank test for univariate analyses and the Cox proportional hazards model for multivariate analyses. For all statistical analyses, P ⬍ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A subgroup analysis for the nodenegative patient population was also investigated.

RESULTS Patient Clinicopathological Characteristics. Patients were characterized according to their age, their menopausal status, the tumor grade, the axillary nodal status, according to


the Elston and Ellis modification of the Scarff-Bloom-Richardson grading system (SBR) and the Tumor-Node-Metastasis staging (based on the Union International Contre le Cancer atlas criteria; Ref. 18). All of the data are included in Table 1. PBR Expression in Invasive Breast Carcinoma. PBR expression was addressed in human breast carcinoma and breast normal tissues using a monoclonal antihuman PBR antibody (8D7) targeting the COOH-terminal end of PBR (21). Normal breast components (ductal and acinar epithelial cells) showed a homogeneously distributed staining regarding cells or structures. They showed a weak granular cytoplasmic immunostaining, with a typical mitochondrial localization. In some rare cases, the staining was strong. In many ducts, there was a basal or/and a luminal increase of the staining. A very similar staining was observed in dystrophic structures (Fig. 1A). Considering tumor tissues, 23 patients (20%) exhibited no or little PBR expression (scores 0, 1), whereas 94 patients (80%) exhibited a strong staining (scores 2, 3; Table 2). In most malignant breast sections, PBR immunostaining was heterogeneously distributed in cells and structures (Fig. 1B–D). When the staining in a structure was weak, it dramatically increased at the periphery of the structure, in the infiltrating cancer lobules. Intraductal components of infiltrating carcinomas generally showed only a weak staining. At the cellular level, PBR immunostaining was cytoplasmic and granular (varying from ten to hundreds of labeled granules). A perinuclear localization was often observed. The perinuclear labeling was more intense than the cytoplasmic one in some tumor cells. No labeling was obtained on cytoplasmic membranes and nuclei. Bcl-2, Ki-67, and HER2 Expression. Bcl-2 immunoreactivity was studied on 114 patients because it could not be detected in 3 patients due to a small tumor sample available for analysis (Table 2). The staining was always cytoplasmic (data not shown). Forty-six tumors patients (40%) demonstrated no or little Bcl-2 staining (scores 0 –1), and 68 (60%) exhibited a strong staining (scores 2–3). MIB-1 anti-Ki-67 antibody nuclear staining was studied in 111 patients. The staining was weak for 47 patients (42%), intermediate for 23 patients (21%), and strong for 41 patients (37%). HER2 protein expression was determined in 76 patients and only 10 patients (13%) showed high expression levels according to the DAKO Herceptest scale (scores 2⫹ and 3⫹). Association between PBR Overexpression and Clinicopathological Variables. No correlation was obtained between PBR overexpression (scores 2, 3) and the age, menopausal status at diagnosis, clinical stage, SBR grade, or tumor size. More patients without an axillary lymph node involvement (N⫺) were found to overexpress PBR (84% in N⫺ patients versus 75% in N⫹ patients), but the difference was not statistically significant (P ⫽ 0.23, Table 3). Also, all 6 T3 patients overexpressed PBR (P ⫽ 0.12). In addition, considering the receptor status, all but 1 ER-negative patient overexpressed PBR (97% in ER- patients versus 80% in ER⫹ patients), and the difference was statistically significant (P ⫽ 0.03). However, PBR overexpression could not discriminate patients according to their PR status (P ⫽ 0.31). Associations between PBR Expression and Bcl-2, Ki-67, and HER2/Neu Immunostaining. No significant relationship was found between PBR and Bcl-2 expression (P ⫽ 0.36; Table

Fig. 3 A, overall survival and disease-free survival. B, disease-free survival in the lymph node-negative population: patients were dichotomized according to PBR expression, either low (scores 0, 1) or high expression (scores 2, 3).

3). All 10 patients who overexpressed HER2 showed high PBR expression level concomitantly (100%), but the difference with low expression HER2 population where 86% patients expressed high PBR levels was not statistically significant (P ⫽ 0.21). By contrast, a significant positive relationship was found between PBR and Ki-67. The difference considering PBR overexpression between low and high expressing Ki-67 patients was statistically significant, with P ⫽ 0.044 (72 and 88%, respectively). Consistent with this, a double labeling showed that mitotic cells were often strongly stained with PBR antibody (Fig. 2). Prognostic Relevance. The median follow-up was 98 months (range, 30 –119 years). Only 1 patient was lost to follow-up. At the time of the analysis, 36 patients failed, among them 11 died. The survival rates were 97 and 87%, and the DFS rates were 76 and 67% at 5 and 8 years, respectively (Fig. 3A). The impact of the different variables on DFS was determined in the overall population using an univariate analysis (Table 4). Patients with a SBR grade III had a lower DFS rate (50% at 5 years) than patients with SBR I or II (84% at 5 years, P ⫽ 0.001; Table 4). Patients with a T3 size tumor (⬎50 mm) had a lower DFS rate (33% at 5 years) than patients with T1 or T2 (DFS ⫽ 84 and 71% at 5 years, P ⫽ 0.006). On the contrary, lymph node involvement was not a relevant prognostic factor for DFS (P ⫽


Table 4

Variables SBR gradea Nodal status Tumor size Tumor-Node-Metastasis stage

Disease-free survival

Relapses/total no. of 5-year Category/ patients in disease-free Score the category survival I II III N⫺ N⫹ T1 T2 T3 I

IIA IIB IIIA Receptor status ER⫺PR⫺ ER⫺PR⫹ ER⫹PR⫺ ER⫹PR⫹ Peripheral benzodiazepine 0 receptor 1 2 3 Bcl-2 0 1 2 3 Ki-67 1 2 3 HER2 0 1⫹ 2⫹ 3⫹

2/15 17/67 17/32 18/64 18/53 14/66 18/45 4/6 9/45

84% 85% 50% 74% 78% 84% 71% 33% 81%

13/39 11/28 3/5 5/17 4/12 1/7 18/53 0/4

76% 74% 40% 69% 83% 100% 70% 100%

4/19 17/55 15/39 10/24 10/22 9/40 5/28 13/47 6/23 13/41 19/58 3/8 3/4 1/6

84% 77% 69% 62% 66% 84% 82% 81% 72% 74% 70% 71% 75% 80%

P

0.001 0.71 0.006

0.12

0.70

0.101b

0.006b

breast cancer. To this aim, using the 8D7 monoclonal anti-PBR antibody that specifically and exclusively recognized the human PBR, we analyzed the expression of PBR in breast tumor biopsies from a group of 117 patients with operable primary breast carcinoma, followed-up for a median 8 year-period. PBR expression was investigated together with common clinicopathological variables (histological type, histological grade, lymph node, and ER and PR status) and biological markers (BclII, Ki-67, and HER2/Neu). In this study, although no correlation was observed in the overall population, we demonstrated that high PBR expression may be of prognostic value considering the lymph node-negative patients. We evidenced that high PBR expression level correlated with a poor prognostic in lymph node-negative invasive breast carcinoma, where it is associated with a shorter DFS, P ⫽ 0.038. The comparison of PBR protein expression level in normal versus breast tumor biopsies studied here mirrors that seen in other human cancers. In normal breast tissues, PBR staining was homogeneous, either strong or weak, and of granular type, which indicates a mitochondrial localization. By contrast, PBR immunoreactivity was rather heterogeneous in breast carcinoma; very often PBR exhibited high expression level, as shown by the intense staining of many areas in a tumor and the weak staining of surrounding normal structures. Mitotic cells were positive for PBR expression, and we observed that high PBR expression was related to high expression of the proliferative marker, Ki-67 (P ⫽ 0.044). Importantly, the cellular distribution

0.58b Table 5 b

0.61

a

SBR, Scarff-Bloom-Richardson; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor. b Comparison 0 and 1 versus 2 and 3.

Variable a

SBR grade

0.71). PBR expression did not impact the DFS rate in the overall population; they were 77 and 69% for patients scored 2 and 3, respectively, which was not significantly different from that of low PBR scores (100 and 84% for scores 0 and 1, respectively, P ⫽ 0.10). Among the three other markers studied, only Bcl-2 had a significant impact on DFS with 5-year survival rates of 64 and 83% for low and high expressions, respectively (P ⫽ 0.006; Table 4). The patients were then dichotomized according to their nodal status (Table 5). Interestingly, although no specific impact of PBR expression was obtained in the n ⫹ population (data not shown), we observed that PBR expression has a negative impact on DFS in the N⫺ population. Among the 54 N⫺ patients with high PBR expression level, 18 patients (33%) relapsed (DFS ⫽ 69%), whereas no relapses (DFS ⫽ 100%) were observed among the 10 N⫺ patients with low PBR expression level. Here, the difference between PBR high and low expression levels was statistically significant with P ⫽ 0.038 (Fig. 3B).

DISCUSSION This article described for the first time the assessment of the expression of PBR as a prognostic factor in patients with

Disease-free survival among N⫺ patients Relapses/total no. of 5-year patients in disease-free Category the category survival

I II III Tumor size T1 T2 T3 Receptor status ER⫺PR⫺ ER⫺PR⫹ ER⫹PR⫺ ER⫹PR⫹ Peripheral benzodiazepine 0 receptor 1 2 3 Bcl-2 0 1 2 3 Ki-67 1 2 3 HER2 0 1⫹ 2⫹ 3⫹ a

P

2/12 8/43 8/8 9/45 8/18 1/1 5/9 1/6 0/3 10/30 0/3

80% 86% 0% ⬍0.0001 81% 61% 0% 0.007 44% 83% 100% 68% 0.25 100%

0/7 12/36 6/18 7/13 4/10 4/22 2/18 6/26 5/15 5/19 12/34 2/5 1/2 0/2

100% 71% 66% 46% 57% 85% 89% 80% 63% 73% 63% 75% 50% 100%

0.038b

0.004b 0.43b

0.92b

SBR, Scarff-Bloom-Richardson; ER, estrogen receptor; PR, progesterone receptor. b Comparison 0 and 1 versus 2 and 3.


of PBR did not differ in normal and tumoral tissues; both clearly exhibit a cytoplasmic and mostly mitochondrial pattern. In a previous study (12), PBR has been described primarily localized in and around the nucleus in aggressive metastatic human breast tumor biopsies. Contrastingly, here and as in the recently published study performed in colorectal carcinoma (17), we did not evidence a nuclear localization of the protein in breast cancer cells. We observed an increase of the labeling around the nucleus, which was always of a granular type, consistent with the mitochondrial localization of the protein. To a functional point of view, PBR has been implicated in cell proliferation and apoptotic process. On the one hand, PBR expression is associated with the regulation of the proliferation rate of cancer cells (11, 23), on the other hand, the protein per se exhibits antiapoptotic properties (24). Collectively, these PBR-mediated effects would favor tumor cell proliferation and survival and thereby contribute to the poor prognostic in patients with elevated PBR expression. Regarding breast cancer, studies in breast cancer cell lines, animals models, and human biopsies have suggested a close correlation between the expression of PBR and the progression of cancer. However, until this study, no direct data were available regarding survival. In breast cancer, the lymph node status is currently one of the best prognostic factors, but alone it is not sufficiently accurate to predict the clinical course of the disease (25). The repertoire of the predictive factors contains many different markers characterized thus far, but early prognostic markers, which are significantly sooner at the beginning of tumor growth, are scarce. In that context, given the impact of PBR high expression on DFS in lymph node-negative patients, the determination of PBR status may help to identify a high-risk population early in the tumor process. As the axillary lymph node-negative status is generally associated with a good prognostic, high PBR expression in those patients should be taken into account to establish a more adequate and likely more aggressive therapy.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We thank Nadine Lequeux and Sylvie Roques who provided expert technical assistance.

REFERENCES 1. Casellas P, Galiegue S, Basile AS. Peripheral benzodiazepine receptors and mitochondrial function. Neurochem Int 2002;40:475– 86. 2. Anholt RR, De Souza EB, Oster-Granite ML, Snyder SH. Peripheraltype benzodiazepine receptors: autoradiographic localization in wholebody sections of neonatal rats. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1985;233:517–26. 3. Anholt RR, Pedersen PL, De Souza EB, Snyder SH. The peripheraltype benzodiazepine receptor. Localization to the mitochondrial outer membrane. J Biol Chem 1986;261:576 – 83. 4. De Souza EB, Anholt RR, Murphy KM, Snyder SH, Kuhar MJ. Peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptors in endocrine organs: autoradiographic localization in rat pituitary, adrenal, and testis. Endocrinology 1985;116:567–73. 5. Owen F, Poulter M, Waddington JL, Mashal RD, Crow TJ. [3H]R054864 and [3H]flunitrazepam binding in kainate-lesioned rat striatum and in temporal cortex of brains from patients with senile dementia of the Alzheimer type. Brain Res 1983;278:373–5. 6. Holmes PV, Drugan RC. Stress-induced regulation of the renal peripheral benzodiazepine receptor: possible role of the renin-angiotensin system. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1994;19:43–54.

7. Bribes E, Bourrie B, Esclangon M, Galiegue S, Vidal H, Casellas P. Involvement of the peripheral benzodiazepine receptor in the development of rheumatoid arthritis in Mrl/lpr mice. Eur J Pharmacol 2002;452:111–22. 8. Katz Y, Ben Baruch G, Kloog Y, Menczer J, Gavish M. Increased density of peripheral benzodiazepine-binding sites in ovarian carcinomas as compared with benign ovarian tumours and normal ovaries. Clin Sci (Lond.) 1990;78:155– 8. 9. Venturini I, Alho H, Podkletnova I, et al. Increased expression of peripheral benzodiazepine receptors and diazepam binding inhibitor in human tumors sited in the liver. Life Sci 1999;65:2223–31. 10. Miyazawa N, Hamel E, Diksic M. Assessment of the peripheral benzodiazepine receptors in human gliomas by two methods. J Neurooncol 1998;38:19 –26. 11. Beinlich A, Strohmeier R, Kaufmann M, Kuhl H. Relation of cell proliferation to expression of peripheral benzodiazepine receptors in human breast cancer cell lines. Biochem Pharmacol 2000;60:397– 402. 12. Hardwick M, Fertikh D, Culty M, Li H, Vidic B, Papadopoulos V. Peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor (PBR) in human breast cancer: correlation of breast cancer cell aggressive phenotype with PBR expression, nuclear localization, and PBR-mediated cell proliferation and nuclear transport of cholesterol. Cancer Res 1999;59:831– 42. 13. Hardwick M, Cavalli LR, Barlow KD, Haddad BR, Papadopoulos V. Peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor (PBR) gene amplification in MDA-MB-231 aggressive breast cancer cells. Cancer Genet. Cytogenet 2002;139:48 –51. 14. Hardwick M, Rone J, Han Z, Haddad B, Papadopoulos V. Peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor levels correlate with the ability of human breast cancer MDA-MB-231 cell line to grow in SCID mice. Int J Cancer 2001;94:322–7. 15. Brown RC, Degenhardt B, Kotoula M, Papadopoulous V. Locationdependent role of the human glioma cell peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor in proliferation and steroid biosynthesis. Cancer Lett 2000;156: 125–32. 16. Miettinen H, Kononen J, Haapasalo H, et al. Expression of peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor and diazepam binding inhibitor in human astrocytomas: relationship to cell proliferation. Cancer Res 1995; 55:2691–5. 17. Maaser K, Grabowski P, Sutter AP, et al. Overexpression of the peripheral benzodiazepine receptor is a relevant prognostic factor in stage III colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 2002;8:3205–9. 18. Sobin LH, Hermanek P, Hutter RV. TNM classification of malignant tumors. A comparison between the new (1987) and the old editions. Cancer (Phila.) 1988;61:2310 – 4. 19. Simony-Lafontaine J, Esslimani M, Bribes E, et al. Immunocytochemical assessment of ␴-1 receptor and human sterol isomerase in breast cancer and their relationship with a series of prognostic factors. Br J Cancer 2000;82:1958 – 66. 20. Elston CW, Ellis IO. 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. C. W. Elston & I. O. Ellis. Histopathology 1991;19:403– 410. Histopathology 2002;41:151. 21. Dussossoy D, Carayon P, Feraut D, et al. Development of a monoclonal antibody to immunocytochemical analysis of the cellular localization of the peripheral benzodiazepine receptor. Cytometry 1996;24:39– 48. 22. Mason DY, Sammons R. Alkaline phosphatase and peroxidase for double immunoenzymatic labelling of cellular constituents. J Clin Pathol (Lond.) 1978;31:454 – 60. 23. Papadopoulos V, Kapsis A, Li H, et al. Drug-induced inhibition of the peripheral-type benzodiazepine receptor expression and cell proliferation in human breast cancer cells. Anticancer Res 2000;20:2835– 47. 24. Carayon P, Portier M, Dussossoy D, et al. Involvement of peripheral benzodiazepine receptors in the protection of hematopoietic cells against oxygen radical damage. Blood 1996;87:3170 – 8. 25. Mink D, von Tongelen B, Villena-Heinsen C, Heiss C, Schmidt W. Breast cancer and prognostic factors. Tumour size, degree of differentiation, proliferation kinetics and expression of steroid hormone receptors. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol 1994;15:424 –36.