Macroscopic stiffness of breast tumors predicts metastasis

Scientific Reports

Volumn 4, Issue , 2014, Pages

  Fenner, Joseph ^a   Stacer, Amanda C ^a   Winterroth, Frank ^a   Johnson, Timothy D ^a   Luker, Kathryn E ^a   Luker, Gary D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOCARCINOMA; ANIMAL; BREAST TUMOR; C57BL MOUSE; FEMALE; HARDNESS; MECHANICAL STRESS; MOUSE; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PROGNOSIS; SECONDARY; TUMOR CELL LINE; TUMOR RECURRENCE; YOUNG MODULUS;

ADENOCARCINOMA; ANIMALS; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CELL LINE, TUMOR; ELASTIC MODULUS; FEMALE; HARDNESS; MICE; MICE, INBRED C57BL; NEOPLASM RECURRENCE, LOCAL; PROGNOSIS; STRESS, MECHANICAL;

EID: 84903747684     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep05512     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Metastatic Cancer. United States National Cancer Institute http://www.cancer. gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/metastatic, Reviewed 3/28/2013, accessed 5/7/2014 (2013).
2. Brooks, J. Translational genomics: the challenge of developing cancer biomarkers. Genome Res 22, 183-187 (2012).
3. Vogelstein, B. et al. Cancer genome landscapes. Science 339, 1546-1558 (2013).
4. Carlson, J. & Roth, J. The impact of the Oncotype Dx breast cancer assay in clinical practice: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 141, 13-22 (2013).
5. Hayes, D. An audience with Daniel Hayes. Nat Rev Drug Discov 12, 734-735 (2013).
6. Sur (Pubitemid 46865787)
7. Cross, S., Jin, Y., Rao, J. & Gimzewski, J. Nanomechanical analysis of cells from cancer patients. Nat Nanotechnol 2, 780-783 (2007). (Pubitemid 350223349)
8. Byun, S. et al. Characterizing deformability and surface friction of cancer cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110, 7580-7585 (2013).
9. Swaminathan, V. et al. Mechanical stiffness grades metastatic potential in patient tumor cells and in cancer cell lines. Cancer Res 71, 5075-5080 (2011).
10. Wirtz, D., Konstantopoulos, K. & Searson, P. The physics of cancer: the role of physical interactions and mechanical forces in metastasis. Nat Rev Cancer 11, 512-522 (2011).
11. Butcher, D., Alliston, T. & Weaver, V. A tense situation: forcing tumour progression. Nat Rev Cancer 9, 108-122 (2009).
12. Lu, P., Weaver, V. & Werb, Z. The extracellular matrix: A dynamic niche in cancer progression. J Cell Biol 196, 395-406 (2012).
13. Cox, T. & Erler, J. Remodeling and homeostasis of the extracellular matrix: implications for fibrotic diseases and cancer. Dis Model Mech 4, 165-178 (2011).
14. Zaman, M. et al. Migration of tumor cells in 3D matrices is governed by matrix stiffness along with cell-matrix adhesion and proteolysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103, 10889-10894 (2006). (Pubitemid 44148391)
15. Gilkes, D. et al. Collagen prolyl hydroxylases are essential for breast cancer metastasis. Cancer Res 73, 3285-3296 (2013).
16. Stewart, T. & Abrams, S. Altered immune function during long-term host-tumor interactions can be modulated to retard autochthonous neoplastic growth. J Immunol 179, 2851-2859 (2007).
17. Orimo, A. et al. Stromal fibroblasts present in invasive human breast carcinomas promote tumor growth and angiogenesis through elevated SDF-1/CXCL12 secretion. Cell 121, 335-348 (2005). (Pubitemid 40692295)
18. Erkamp, R., Wiggins, P., Skovoroda, A., Emalianov, S. & O'Donnell, M. Gold standard system for reconstructive elasticity imaging. Ultrason Imaging 19, 60-61 (1997).
19. Erkamp, R., Wiggins, P., Skovoroda, A., Emalianov, S. & O'Donnell, M. Measuring the elastic modulus of small tissue samples. Ultrason Imaging 20, 17-28 (1998). (Pubitemid 28326008)
20. Luker, K. et al. Scavenging of CXCL12 by CXCR7 Regulates Tumor Growth and Metastasis of CXCR4-positive Breast Cancer Cells. Oncogene 31, 4570-4578 (2012).
21. Kumar, S. & Weaver, V. Mechanics, malignancy, and metastasis: the force journey of a tumor cell. Cancer Metastasis Rev 28, 113-127 (2009).
22. Coughlin, M. et al. Cytoskeletal stiffness, friction, and fluidity of cancer cell lines with different metastatic potential. Clin Exp Metastasis 30, 237-250 (2013).
23. Xu, W., Mezencev, R., Wang, K., McDonald, J. & Sulchek, T. Cell Stiffness Is a Biomarker of the Metastatic Potential of Ovarian Cancer Cells. PLoS One 7, e46609 (2012).
24. Cross, S. et al. AFM-based analysis of human metastatic cancer cells. Nanotechnology 19, 384003 (2008).
25. Lam, W. et al. Extracellular matrix rigidity modulates neuroblastoma cell differentiation and N-myc expression. Mol Cancer 10, 35 (2010).
26. Levental, K. et al. Matrix crosslinking forces tumor progression by enhancing integrin signaling. Cell 139, 891-906 (2009).
27. Calvo, F. et al. Mechanotransduction and YAP-dependent matrix remodelling is required for the generation andmaintenance of cancer-associated fibroblasts. Nat Cell Biol 15, 637-646 (2013).
28. Barcus, C., Keely, P., Eliceiri, K. & Schuler, L. Stiff collagen matrices increase tumorigenic prolactin signaling in breast cancer cells. J Biol Chem 288, 12722-12732 (2013).
29. Yoder, J. & Elliott, D. Nonlinear and anisotropic tensile properties of graft materials used in soft tissue applications. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 25, 378-382 (2010).
30. Hongmei, Y., Mouw, J. & Weaver, V. Forcing form and function: biomechanical regulation of tumor evolution. Trends Cell Biol 21, 47-56 (2011).
31. Furhmann, A. et al. AFM stiffness nanotomography of normal, metaplastic and dysplastic human esophageal cells. Phys Biol 8, 015007 (2011).
32. Zhang, W. et al. Microfluidics separation reveals the stem-cell-like deformability of tumor-initiating cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109, 18707-18712 (2012).
33. Wang, G. et al. Stiffness dependent separation of cells in a microfluidic device. PLoS One 8, e75901 (2013).
34. Schrader, J. et al. Matrix stiffness modulates proliferation, chemotherapeutic response, and dormancy in hepatocellular carcinoma cells. Hepatology 53, 1192-1205 (2011).
35. Liu, J. et al. Soft fibrin gels promote selection and growth of tumorigenic cells. Nat Mater 11, 734-741 (2012).
36. Lopez, J., Kang, I., You, W.-K., McDonald, D. & Weaver, V. In situ force mapping of mammary gland transformation. Integr Biol 3, 910-921 (2011).
37. McCormack, V. & dos Santos Silva, I. Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 15, 1159-1169 (2006).
38. Kakkad, S. et al. Collagen I fiber density increases in lymph node positive breast cancers: pilot study. J Biomed Opt 17, 116017 (2012).
39. Eriksson, L., Czene, K., Rosenberg, L., Humphreys, K. & Hall, P. Possible influence of mammographic density on local and locoregional recurrence of breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res 15, R56 (2013).
40. Wasuthit, Y., Kongdan, Y., Suvikapakornkul, R., Lertsithichai, P. & Chirappapha, P. Predictive factors of axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer. J Med Assoc Thai 94, 65-70 (2011).
41. Gierach, G. et al. Relationship between mammographic density and breast cancer death in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. J Natl Cancer Inst 104, 1218-1227 (2012).
42. Sinkus, R. et al. High-resolution tensor MR elastography for breast tumour detection. Phys Med Biol 45, 1649-1664 (2000). (Pubitemid 30408924)
43. Evans, A. et al. Invasive breast cancer: relationship between shear-wave elastographic findings and histologic prognostic factors. Radiology 263, 673-677 (2012).
44. Smith, M. et al. CXCR4 regulates growth of both primary and metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Res 64, 8604-8612 (2004). (Pubitemid 39552073)
45. Ray, P. et al. Carboxy-terminus of CXCR7 regulates receptor localization and function. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 44, 669-678 (2012).
46. Luker, G., Pica, C., Song, J., Luker, K. & Piwnica-Worms, D. Imaging 26S proteasome activity and inhibition in living mice. Nat Med 9, 969-973 (2003). (Pubitemid 36889943)