Volume 2020, Issue 1 4736091

Review Article

Open Access

Heterogeneity of Tumors in Breast Cancer: Implications and Prospects for Prognosis and Therapeutics

Corresponding Author

Nigatu Tuasha

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0002-9474-4574

Addis Ababa University, College of Natural Science, Department of Microbial, Cellular and Molecular Biology, P.O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia aau.edu.et

Search for more papers by this author

Beyene Petros,

Beyene Petros

Addis Ababa University, College of Natural Science, Department of Microbial, Cellular and Molecular Biology, P.O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia aau.edu.et

Search for more papers by this author

Nigatu Tuasha,

Corresponding Author

Nigatu Tuasha

[email protected]

orcid.org/0000-0002-9474-4574

Addis Ababa University, College of Natural Science, Department of Microbial, Cellular and Molecular Biology, P.O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia aau.edu.et

Search for more papers by this author

Beyene Petros,

Beyene Petros

Addis Ababa University, College of Natural Science, Department of Microbial, Cellular and Molecular Biology, P.O. Box 1176, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia aau.edu.et

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 09 October 2020

https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/4736091

Citations: 18

Academic Editor: Buyong Ma

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed form of cancer in women comprising 16% of all female cancers. The disease shows high intertumoral and intratumoral heterogeneity posing diagnostic and therapeutic challenges with unpredictable clinical outcome and response to existing therapy. Mounting evidence is ascertaining that breast cancer stem cells (CSCs) are responsible for tumor initiation, progression, recurrence, evolution, metastasis, and drug resistance. Therapeutics selectively targeting the CSCs based on distinct surface molecular markers and enhanced intracellular activities of these cells continue to evolve and hold significant promise. Having plethora of heterogeneity accompanied with failure of existing conventional therapeutics and poor prognosis, the present review focuses on elucidating the main signaling pathways in breast CSCs as major therapeutic targets. The role of developments in nanomedicine and miRNA as targeted delivery of therapeutic anticancer agents is also highlighted.

1. Introduction

Cancer is a group of diseases where cells in the body grow and divide without normal control [1]. It remains a global public health threat despite therapeutic endeavor over the years [2]. Cancer could be grouped as carcinoma (arises from the epithelial cells), sarcoma (tumor of connective or supportive tissues), lymphoma and myeloma (of the cells of the immune system), leukemia (starts in blood forming tissue), and brain and spinal cord cancers (of the central nervous system). To date, there are about 200 known types of cancers with many subtypes and there is no single cause for any one type. Next to cardiovascular diseases, cancer is the second leading cause of global death where about 18.1 million new cancer cases and 9.6 million deaths occurred in 2018 [3–5]. Lung and breast cancer accounted each for 2.09 million new cases in 2018 [3, 6]. Colorectal and prostate cancers followed with 1.8 million and 1.28 million cases, respectively, in the same year [6]. The most common causes of cancer deaths worldwide in 2018 include lung (1.76 million), colorectal (862, 000), stomach (783, 000), liver (782, 000), and breast (627, 000) cancers [6]. Overall, 57 % of new cancer cases, 65 % of the cancer deaths, and 48 % of the 5-year prevalent cancer cases occurred in the less developed regions of the world [4].

Breast cancer remains number one killer among females in less developed countries while it is the second leading cause of cancer death among females in more developed countries, next to lung cancer [4, 7]. Metastasis to the lungs, bone, and the brain are main causes of mortality in breast cancer patients.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the number of new cases will rise by about 70% over the next 2 decades. The main factors are said to be the growth and aging of the population and an increasing prevalence of established risk factors such as smoking, overweight, physical inactivity, and changing reproductive patterns associated with urbanization and economic development. It is asserted that around one third of deaths from cancer are due to the five leading behavioral and dietary risks: high body mass index, low fruit and vegetable intake, lack of physical activity, tobacco use, and alcoholism [5, 7].

Given the above epidemiological data on breast cancer and the failure of available treatments and poor patient outcomes, identifying the root cause of the problem and finding a novel treatment target remains indispensable. The present review discusses the diversity of breast cancer subtypes and intratumoral heterogeneity and its mechanisms, the biology of breast cancer stem cells (CSCs), their identification markers, and major signaling pathways taking a position that breast CSCs could be used as a potential therapeutic target for a durable breast cancer management approach. Advancements in nanomedicine and the role of miRNA in the direction of beating breast CSCs by a better diagnosis and therapeutics are also discussed.

2. Breast Cancer: Epidemiology and Risk Factors

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer of all cancers in women. It comprises 25% both in the developed and less developed world [4, 5]. It comes next to lung cancer as an overall cause of death for women (15.4% in more developed and 14.3% in less developed world) [4, 8]. Around the world, there is no population and woman with a truly low risk of developing breast cancer these days. Since the 2008 estimates by GLOBOCAN (an International Agency for Research on Cancer—IARC), both breast cancer incidence and mortality have increased by more than 20% and 14%, respectively [9]. The incidence rate of breast cancer varies from 19.3 per 100,000 women in Eastern Africa to 89.7 per 100,000 women in Western Europe [10]. Better awareness about the disease, identification of its early signs, and availability of screening programs are contributing to variable incidence rates across different regions of the world [11]. In most of the developing regions, the incidence rates are below 40 per 100,000 [5]. In advanced breast cancer, brain metastases develop in approximately 10–16% of patients and are associated with poor prognosis and survival. Different subtypes of breast cancer are associated with different risks of developing central nervous system metastases, however [12].

Mortality is relatively low in most of the low-incidence countries, but the likelihood that an individual dies of breast cancer is much higher (nearly 17%) in low-incidence countries than in high-incidence countries [13]. The reasons for the differential survival are multiple and include cultural influences, stage of presentation, and standards of healthcare [14]. Among the established risk factors are being a female, early onset of menstruation, late onset of menopause, long menstrual history, use of oral contraceptives, never having children/having them later in life, age, family history, genetics, personal history of breast cancer, radiation to chest or face before age of 30, race/ethnicity, pregnancy, and breastfeeding [2, 13, 15]. Potentially avoidable risk factors include overweight/obesity, using hormone replacement therapy (HRT), drinking alcohol, smoking, and lack of exercise [15, 16]. Low levels of vitamin D [17], light exposure at night [18], certain kinds of noncancerous breast diseases [19], and exposure to multiple sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from the environment [20] are among the emerging risk factors for breast cancer. Recent finding reported that women with dense breasts have a roughly 2-fold higher breast cancer risk relative to women with nondense breasts [21]. Height (above average) was positively associated with risk of all breast cancer molecular subtypes [22]. Grilled, barbecued, and smoked meats were reported not only as increasing the risk for breast cancer but also as increasing the death risk for breast cancer survivors [23].

Previously, it was argued that risk of breast cancer is lower among low- and middle-income countries [24]. Lifestyle including nature of food consumed was the main reason for low incidence in those countries [25]. Nowadays, however, this belief is only a myth as around 45% of the cases and 55% of deaths due to breast cancer occur in low- and middle-income countries, according to recent estimates [11, 26]. Adoption of “western lifestyle” is largely implied in increasing the incidence and burden of breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries [11, 27].

Male breast cancer is an uncommon form that comprises less than 1% of all breast cancers globally, although an increasing trend in incidence is seen recently [28]. Due to its rarity, there are few clinical trials, and many clinical recommendations are, hence, derived from studies of female breast cancer [29]. Relatively little is known about the etiology of male breast cancer. Epidemiologic risk factors for male breast cancer encompass disorders related with hormonal imbalances and radiation exposure [29, 30].

3. Diversity in Tumors of Breast Cancer and the Mechanisms of Heterogeneity

Human breast cancer is a group of highly heterogeneous lesions of about 20 different subtypes, morphologically [31]. It is highly heterogeneous in terms of its etiology and pathological characteristics, and some show slow growth with excellent prognosis, whereas others are clinically aggressive [32]. Understanding the specific driving forces behind different subtypes of cancer is indispensable for better management of the disease [33]. Besides, development of more effective treatments against breast cancer necessitates thorough understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in breast tumor development and the acquisition of malignancy [34].

The mechanisms accounting for breast cancer heterogeneity remain elusive [35]. However, two conventional theories (clonal evolution and CSC) hold possible explanations [31]. The clonal evolution theory is the first model to describe a way in which cancer cells with diverse phenotypes could arise within a tumor. It states that distinct cancer cell populations evolve progressively due to heritable genetic and epigenetic changes during a multistep tumorigenesis process [33]. These random events create conducive environment for the selection and clonal outgrowth of novel cell populations resulting from accumulating mutations [36].

The CSC model suggests that cancer cells with similar genetic backgrounds can be hierarchically organized according to their tumorigenic potential [37]. Accordingly, CSCs reside at the apex of the hierarchy and are thought to possess the majority of a cancer’s tumor-initiating and metastatic ability [35]. Unidirectional nature is a defining feature of the CSC model, whereby they undergo symmetric division to replenish the CSC pool and irreversible asymmetric division to generate daughter cells (non-CSCs) with low tumorigenic potential [36]. Tumorigenic cells can be distinguished from nontumorigenic cells based on marker expression by the CSCs [35]. Both proponents argue that the tumor microenvironment substantially influences the processes of carcinogenesis and tumor progression [31].

The plastic CSC theory, a third and evolving model, states that bidirectional conversions exist between non-CSCs and CSCs [36]. According to this model, the missing link between the two conventional models is that non-stem cells and non-CSCs can undergo a dedifferentiation process and reenter the stem cell/CSC state due to aberrant changes in gene expression [36]. Factors such as hepatocyte growth factor (HGF), CXC chemokine receptor-7 (CXCR7), and IL-6, which are derived from mesenchymal cells, contribute for the dedifferentiation [38]. Microenvironment specific for the individual tumor affects the plasticity-driven CSC niche, and an understanding of this phenomenon is critical for developing a more effective cancer treatment [39].

4. Implications of Intratumoral Heterogeneity for Cancer Treatment

Intratumoral heterogeneity arises due to complex genetic, epigenetic, and protein modifications resulting in phenotypic selection in response to environmental insult. This feature gives the tumor significant adaptability to thrive under unfamiliar conditions such as hypoxia or chemical weaponry [40]. Cell-to-cell variability, either genetic or not, can compromise responses to cancer therapies by increasing the repertoire of possible cellular responses [33]. One of the clinical implications of intratumoral heterogeneity is drug resistance and treatment failure [33]. Therefore, identification of intratumoral heterogeneity, which represents genetic characteristics of different cell subpopulations within the primary tumor, could provide important clinical implications to overcome this considerable challenge [41]. CSCs and interaction with their nurturing microenvironment (niche) were implicated as potential mechanisms underlying the intratumoral heterogeneity [42], and destroying these tumor microenvironments is recently considered to be one of the therapeutic targets against CSCs [43]. The hypothetical implication of this heterogeneity on therapeutic approach may include either concurrent combination or sequential treatments with multiple mutation-targeting agents [33]. Targeting these breast CSCs with therapeutics could be instrumental to achieve durable clinical responses. Therefore, expanded understanding of biology of breast CSCs and their key signaling pathways, molecular diagnosis of breast tumors, and identification of appropriate clinical trial endpoints are essential for the development of CSC targeting agents [44].

5. Biology and Biomarkers of Breast CSCs

Stem cells are undifferentiated cells defined by their properties of self-renewal and potency and are rare in nature [45]. Breast cancers contain CSCs, and these cells are thought to be involved in tumor initiation, progression, evolution, and metastasis [46]. CSCs were first identified in acute myeloid leukemia in 1994 and are defined by their unlimited self-renewal ability and their capacity to initiate and maintain malignancy [47, 48]. CSCs, typically constituting 1–5 % (could be as high as 11–35 % in breast cancer) of the tumor size, are tumorigenic multipotential cells with dysregulated self-renewal properties in which upon division, one daughter cell retains stemness and the other becomes committed to a lineage [49]. Characteristically, these cells are slow-dividing and have a lower ability to undergo apoptosis and a higher ability of DNA repair [50]. Breast CSCs are the best characterized subpopulations being the first CSCs prospectively demonstrated in human solid tumors [51]. Correlation between epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) and CSCs was reported, and CSCs displaying mesenchymal characteristics are resistant to chemo- and radiotherapy and are considered responsible for recurrence of the disease after treatment [52, 53]. The EMT promotes cancer cell migration and invasion resulting in the reconstitution of metastatic colonies at distant sites [54].

Phenotypic markers including EPCAM/ESA⁺ (epithelial cell adhesion molecule/epithelial specific antigen), CD44⁺, CD24⁻, CD90, CD133, and α6-integrin [51, 55] and hedgehog-GLI and high aldehyde dehydrogenase (ALDH+) activity [56] best characterize breast CSCs. Cells rich with CD44⁺/CD24⁻/ALDH⁺ markers were reported to be more tumorigenic, metastatic, invasive, more migratory, and associated with poor clinical outcome and decreased patient survival [57, 58].

6. CSC Signaling Pathways as a Potential Target for Cancer Treatment

Conventional therapies against cancer have multiple limitations that lead to treatment failure and cancer recurrence (Figure 1) [59]. Dysregulation of signal pathway network plays an important role in retaining the stemness of CSCs [60] and thus can possibly be eradicated by targeted therapeutics against those signaling pathways. The signaling pathways which are crucial for the biological functions of normal stem cells are abnormally activated or repressed in CSCs. Distinct and specific surface biomarker phenotypes and upregulated intracellular features can be used to distinguish CSCs from normal stem cells [60]. Seemingly, in addition, CSCs have their own specific enhanced signaling pathways [61]. They are also protected against xenobiotics by the high expression of ATP-binding cassette (ABC) transporter proteins, the characteristic feature that differentiates the CSCs from normal cells. Targeting these transporter proteins can be one of the key strategies to overcome resistance to chemotherapy [62, 63].

Details are in the caption following the image — **Figure 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

Graphic elucidation of the theory of CSC-based therapeutics. The CSCs (pink) are resistant to conventional therapeutics than their nontumorigenic counterparts (blue). The bulk tumor initially shrinks by the conventional therapeutics, though it repopulates by the virtue of treatment-resistant CSCs. If the CSCs are eradicated, on the other hand, the tumor regresses and eventually disappears.

Breast CSCs exhibit high levels of Wnt, Notch, Hedgehog, JAK/STAT, PTEN, PI3K/Akt, NF-κB, and ROS activity. These pathways play fundamental roles in maintaining self-renewal capacity of the CSCs [64]. Depending on these aberrant pathways, breast CSCs acquire their unique ability to initiate carcinoma and promote recurrence even after surgery [60]. Therefore, these pathways could be employed for the selective and targeted breast CSC therapeutics for better prognosis, patient care, and lasting cure.

6.1. Wnt/β-Catenin Signaling Pathway

Wints are secreted, cysteine-rich glycoproteins that act as short-range ligands. Its name is derived by joining the name of the Drosophila segment polarity gene “wingless” and the name of the vertebrate homolog, “int-1” [65]. Wnt/β-catenin pathway is initiated by evolutionarily conserved growth factors of Wnts encoded by 19 different Wnt genes and shares a high degree of sequence homology [66]. The canonical Wnt signaling cascade, also referred to as β-catenin-dependent Wnt pathway, is initiated by the binding of secreted Wnt proteins to a receptor complex consisting of a member of the Frizzled (FZD) family (seven-pass transmembrane receptor) [67]. Co-receptors like low-density lipoprotein receptor-related proteins 5 or 6 (LRP5/6) or tyrosine kinase-like orphan receptor 2 (ROR2) aid the binding of Wnt proteins to the receptor [68]. In the absence of Wnt signaling, the cytoplasmic β-catenin is maintained at a low level through ubiquitin-proteasome-mediated degradation and is regulated by a multiprotein destruction complex comprising Axin, adenomatous polyposis coli (APC), and glycogen synthase kinase-3β (GSK-3β) [69]. During the signal transduction, the adaptor protein Dishevelled (DVL) is phosphorylated and interacts with proteins in the complex and inhibits enzymatic activity of GSK3β within the destruction complex [69]. This action promotes unphosphorylated β-catenin accumulation and translocation into the nucleus, where it interacts with transcription factors to activate transcription of Wnt target genes, including cyclin D1 (CCND1), T-cell factor/lymphoid enhancer-binding factor (LEF1), and fibronectin (FN1) [70].

Abnormal activation of this pathway has been identified in breast cancer and is associated with the maintenance of CSC properties [71, 72], and this aberrant activation has not yet been clearly understood [69]. Mutations, epigenetic changes, or cells in the tumor microenvironment have been implicated, however [42]. Increase in cell motility due to its activation [73] and suppression of aggressive behavior by blocking the pathway were also noted [72]. Aberrant β-catenin expression was associated with poor clinical outcome in advanced breast cancer, especially basal and TNBC subtypes [74]. Hence, the inhibition of Wnt signaling pathway could be a potential therapeutic strategy to target CSCs and the high β-catenin expression can be used as a biomarker of advanced breast cancer.

6.2. Notch Signaling Pathway

Notch signaling, an evolutionarily conserved pathway, is composed of mammalian transmembrane receptors (notch 1–4) and their membrane-bound ligands (JAG1, JAG2, and δ-like ligand 1, 3, and 4 from Delta/Serrate/LAG-2 (DSL) families) [75]. Notch signaling requires a direct cell-cell contact allowing for short-range communication [76], and the pathway is, hence, ideally suited to control self-renewal and differentiation in stem cell microenvironment [77]. It is the pathway involved in the development of the breast and is frequently dysregulated in invasive breast cancer [78]. There is high expression of notch1 in basal-like 1 and mesenchymal-stem-like TNBCs, and positive correlation is established between high expression of notch1 and its ligand JAG1 and poor prognosis [79]. It is also responsible for the crucial steps of the EMT and angiogenesis [80]. EMT is mediated, in part, by SNAI1 (snail) and SNAI2 (slug) genes, two transcription repressors of E-cadherin that are known to be targets of the notch signaling pathway, and JAG1-induced notch activation increases EMT [81].

In a notch signaling, a ligand should carry out a receptor proteolysis in order to release an active notch fragment. The transduction of this pathway is activated by ligand binding, followed by a cleavage by metalloprotease and γ-secretase enzymes that produce the notch intracellular domain (NICD), a co-activator of transcription through inhibition of transcriptional repressors [82]. Upon translocation to the nucleus, NICD induces proliferation by directly activating myc, cyclin D1, and CDK5 [83]. In breast CSCs, the relationships between notch deregulated signaling and the carcinogenesis process reinforced by notch crosstalk with many oncogenic signaling pathways suggest that notch signaling may be a critical drug target for breast cancer [84].

6.3. Hedgehog Signaling Pathway

Hedgehog signaling involves a complex network of molecules. Its transduction is effected by canonical or noncanonical mechanisms. Canonically, it is initiated by three glycoprotein ligands: Desert hedgehog (DHH), Indian hedgehog (IHH), or Sonic hedgehog (SHH) which bind to the 12-pass transmembrane protein receptors Patched (PTCH), located on the plasma membrane [85]. The aberrant activation of the pathway is effected through the overexpression of hedgehog ligands, loss of function of the receptor, or dysregulation of the transcription factors [85, 86]. All these aberrations have been implicated in initiation and progression of breast cancer [87].

The PTCH receptor sequesters a protein smoothened (SMO), a 7-pass transmembrane G-protein coupled signal transduction molecule, in a cytoplasm in the absence of hedgehog ligands. Glioma associated oncogene homolog proteins (GLI) are also sequestered in the cytoplasm by forming a large complex with SUFU (suppressor of fused) and KIF7 (kinesin family member 7). These inhibitors block PKA (protein kinase A), CK1 (casein kinase 1), and GSK-3β (glycogen synthase kinase-3β) from phosphorylating the GLI proteins, maintaining its repressive form. When the ligand binds to PTCH, PTCH-mediated inhibition of the SMO complex is relieved and signal transduction is initiated in the receiving cell resulting in the translocation of the GLI transcription factors to the nucleus. Its translocation results in modulation of the transcription of genes such as Fox, Myc, and cyclin D among others, and the downstream effects include proliferation, differentiation, epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition, metastasis, and maintaining the stemness [85, 87–89].

6.4. NF-κB Signaling Pathway

NF-κB (nuclear factor-kappa B) refers to a family of transcription factors that control multiple cellular processes in cancer including inflammation, transformation, proliferation, survival, angiogenesis, invasion, metastasis, chemoresistance, and radioresistance [90]. It is also implicated to regulate the transcription of EMT transcription factor genes in breast cancer [91]. The NF-κB family consists of five transcription factors: RelA (p65), RelB, c-Rel, p100/p52 (NF-κB2) (p100 is a larger precursor from which p52 is derived), and p105/p50 (NF-κB1) (p105 is a larger precursor from which p50 is derived); these factors can homo- or heterodimerize to form active transcription factors [92]. The p65 (RelA), RelB, and c-Rel proteins harbor a C-terminal transactivation domain (TAD) that interacts with the transcription machinery that promotes gene transcription, whereas the homodimers of p50 or p52 lack a TAD and serve as transcription repressors that provide a threshold for NF-κB activation [93].

The principle inactive form of the NF-kB complex is found primarily located in the cytoplasm associated with IκB proteins, inhibitor of NF-κB, as a p50–p65–IkBα trimer [90]. For the NF-κB complex to be released from its inhibitor, the IκB protein must be phosphorylated by the IκB kinase (IKK) complex, which leads to IκB ubiquitination (addition of ubiquitin—a signal for degradation) and subsequent degradation by the proteasome. NF-κB is then translocated into the nucleus and activates gene transcription by binding to sequence-specific target DNA [94].

For activation of NF-kB by canonical and noncanonical pathways, the regulatory kinase is IKK, which is a complex of three proteins, two catalytic (IKKα and IKKβ) and one regulatory (IKKγ, also known as the NF-kB essential modulator (NEMO)) [90]. Induction of phosphorylation by signals and subsequent degradation of NF-κB inhibitors (IκB proteins) is basis for the activation, both canonically and noncanonically. After degradation of NF-κB inhibitors, the NF-κB pathway is canonically activated by translocation of NF-κB dimmers (p50:p65 dimer) [92]. The canonical pathway is the major pathway in most cell types and it involves p65, c-Rel, and p50 [95]. This pathway consists of IKK (an IκB kinase heterodimer), IκB, and NF-κB (typically a p65/p50 heterodimer) [96]. Proinflammatory cytokines, IL-1β and TNF-α, and variety of cellular stresses were found to activate the pathway [93].

In breast cancer, activation of NF-κB is one of the frequent features of chronic inflammation [97]. In addition, the constitutive activation of NF-κB in almost all breast cancer forms shows its oncogenic feature and reveals its association with initiation and progression of breast cancer [98]. Aberrant NF-κB activation has been shown to be involved in breast CSC phenotypic features by cross-talking to several other signaling pathways [90]. The transcriptional activation of genes associated with cell proliferation, angiogenesis, metastasis, and suppression of apoptosis appears to lie at the heart of the ability of NF-κB to promote oncogenesis and cancer therapy resistance; targeting this pathway is, therefore, of great therapeutic importance against breast CSCs [99].

6.5. JAK/STAT Signaling Pathway

The Janus kinase (JAK)/signal transducer and activator of transcription (STAT) pathway was originally identified as an intracellular signaling pathway mediating cytokine signals [100], and there are seven STAT proteins (STAT1-4, 5A, 5B and 6) and four JAK kinases (JAK1–3 and tyrosine kinase 2 (TYK2)) in mammals [101]. Canonical signaling is based on STAT tyrosine phosphorylation by activated JAKs. Downstream of interferon (IFN) receptors, activated JAKs cause the formation of the transcription factors IFN-stimulated gene factor 3 (ISGF3), a heterotrimer of STAT1, STAT2, and interferon regulatory factor 9 (IRF9) subunits, and gamma interferon-activated factor (GAF), a STAT1 homodimer [102]. Precisely, binding of the protein to the receptor induces dimerization, which activates the associated JAKs [79]. The JAKs also phosphorylate STATs, which lead to their dimerization, nuclear translocation, and transcriptional regulation of genes [103]. It has widely been assumed that the effects of STAT activation are mediated by direct transcriptional induction of STAT target genes, providing a mechanism for transcriptional regulation without second messengers [100, 104]. Aberrant JAK/STAT signaling pathway has been identified to contribute to cancer progression and metastatic development [104]. There is emerging preclinical evidence that disruption of the JAK2/STAT3 signaling could be an effective clinical strategy to treat breast cancer, especially TNBC [103].

6.6. PI3K/Akt Signaling Pathway

The phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3Ks) pathway comprises a family of intracellular signal transducer enzymes—PI3K, Akt (serine/threonine kinase), and mammalian (or mechanistic) target of rapamycin (mTOR) [105]. It is activated by the binding of a growth factor or ligand to its cognate growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases (RTKs) (e.g., HER, insulin, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) receptor) [106].The pathway mediates complicated multiple cellular processes including cell survival, metabolism, proliferation, motility, migration, invasion, and angiogenesis [79]. It also confers resistance to conventional therapies and results in poor breast cancer prognosis [107]. PI3K/Akt pathway is deregulated by gain- or loss-of-functional mutations in the tumor development of various cancer types, and it activates a number of oncogenic pathways in breast cancer and is implicated in cellular transformation and tumorigenesis [108]. Akt pathway is one of the promising targets of therapy in breast cancer [105], and several inhibitors including PI3K inhibitors, Akt inhibitors, mTOR catalytic site inhibitors, and dual PI3K-mTOR inhibitors have already been designed and few are under clinical trials [109].

6.7. PTEN Signaling Pathway

PTEN (phosphatase and tensin homolog) plays an important role in tumor suppression by negatively regulating the oncogenic phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway [110]. It plays an important role in the regulation of cell growth and apoptosis, and it is dysregulated in breast cancer, often [111]. Though the mechanism by which PTEN is downregulated is poorly understood, mutations, copy number loss, rearrangements, epigenetic silencing, and posttranslational regulation may contribute [112]. Somatic loss-of-function mutations of PTEN in sporadic breast carcinomas are estimated to be about 30–40 % and are found across the entire spectrum of tumor types [113]. It is also implicated in breast cancer progression and resistance to targeted therapies and is thought to promote tumorigenesis by activating PI3K signaling [114]. Of note, permanent PI3K/Akt pathway activation was associated with the loss of PTEN activity [115]. PTEN has been reported to be targeted by many miRNAs, and MiRNA-21, for instance, induces EMT via the PTEN/Akt pathway in breast cancer [111]. Since PTEN is dedicated to inhibit the PI3K-Akt pathway, targeting PTEN aims to control an aberrant activation of oncogenic PI3K-Akt pathway, a major survival pathway activated in breast cancer [116].

6.8. Intracellular ROS Signaling

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are crucial role players in various biological functions including tissue homeostasis, differentiation, cellular signaling, and survival. In cancer, its location, local concentration, and type of the ROS generated are important determinants for its cellular functions. Due to high metabolic rate, gene mutation, and relative hypoxia, the production of ROS is enhanced in CSCs and this causes this subpopulation to differentiate, become senescent, and commit an apoptosis [117, 118]. However, CSCs are known to contain lower levels of ROS attributable to the increased production of free radical scavengers, when compared to the nontumorigenic breast cancer mass. The lower ROS level is associated with maintaining the stemness of the CSCs and is accounted for resistance to radiotherapy [118–120]. For novel breast cancer therapeutic strategies, this feature poses unprecedented challenge. The ROS are required to early events in tumor development. On the other hand, lower levels of ROS are required to CSCs maintenance. Therefore, identification of cancer cell-specific ROS-sensing signaling pathways mediating the diverse stress-regulated cellular functions is indispensable to curb this challenge [120].

7. Emerging Therapeutic Frontiers

7.1. Nanomedicine

Nanomedicine has revolutionized drug delivery, allowing the therapeutic agents to selectively targeting CSCs and minimizing toxicity to normal cells [121]. Nanocarriers (e.g., polymeric and metal nanoparticles, polymeric micelles, liposomes, and carbon nanotubes) possess the properties of high drug loading capacity, solubility enhancement effects, site-specific delivery mechanism, negligible release of drug prematurely, and controlled release mechanism that provides effective drug doses to the target site [43, 122]. During conventional breast cancer drug delivery, major limitations include offsite effects, instability, poor solubility, short circulation half-life, undesirable bioavailability, and poor cellular uptake among others. Though further efforts are needed, advancements in nanomedicine will help curb these hurdles [123].

7.2. Role of miRNAs in Diagnostics and Therapeutics

MiRNAs are endogenous, small noncoding RNA molecules that are approximately 20–22 nucleotides long. They exert their gene-regulatory function on the posttranscriptional level via inhibition of mRNA translation or degradation, depending on the complementarity to their mRNA target [104]. Depending on the target gene regulated, miRNAs can either serve as tumor suppressor miRNAs by repressing oncogenes or “OncomiRNAs” by targeting tumor suppressor genes [124]. In breast cancer, a number of miRNAs have been identified as tumor suppressors or oncogenes and have been characterized as critical regulators of tumor initiation, metastasis, and chemoresistance [125]. Dysregulation of oncogenic miRNA-21 and miRNA-125b, for instance, was found to promote tumor growth by inhibiting apoptosis pathways, allowing cell cycle progression, stimulating tumor proliferation, and promoting invasion and metastasis [126]. MiRNA-155 was overexpressed in breast cancer and downregulated the repressor SOCS1 (suppressor of cytokine signaling 1), resulting in an aberrant activation of STAT3 signaling pathway [127]. MiRNAs have cancer-specific expression profiles and can be used in tracing cancer origin of metastasis. In addition to their significance as therapeutic targets, they are important diagnostic and therapeutic response biomarkers [124].

8. Prospective Remarks

As new technologies allow for easier descriptions of genetic, epigenetic, and environmental chemical exposure profiles of individual tumors, the number and specificity of tumor classifications will inevitably increase substantially. Single cell sequencing and analysis of cell-free DNA might broaden the means to understand intratumoral heterogeneity with greater precision and would further help to overcome the diagnostic and therapeutic challenges [44]. Differences in gene expression among patients with the same subtype of breast cancer are correlated with the response to treatment. This strongly suggests a personalized approach to treat breast cancer [128]. This complicated therapeutic approach requirement would further necessitate targeting CSCs as a root cause of the problem. Though not effective to date, attempts to reactivate tumor cell death pathways to induce cancer regression are also among the current anticancer strategies, and it could augment CSC-based strategies for a lasting breast cancer cure [129].

Abbreviations

AKT:: Serine/threonine kinase (also called protein kinase B)
ALDH:: Aldehyde dehydrogenase
CK1:: Casein kinase 1
CSCs:: Cancer stem cells
DSL:: Delta/Serrate/LAG-2
EMT:: Epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition
ER:: Estrogen receptor
ERBB2:: Erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2
GLI:: Glioma associated oncogene homolog
GSK-3β:: Glycogen synthase kinase-3β
IDC-NST:: Invasive ductal carcinomas of no special type
IKK:: Inhibitor of kappa light polypeptide gene enhancer in B-cells, kinase
IκBα:: NF-κB inhibitor, α
JAK:: Janus kinase
KIF7:: Kinesin family member 7
mTOR:: Mammalian (or mechanistic) target of rapamycin
NEMO:: NF-κB essential modulator
NF-κB:: Nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B-cells
NICD:: Notch intracellular domain
P53/TP53:: Tumor protein 53
PI3Ks:: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase
PKA:: Protein kinase A
PR:: Progesterone receptor
PTCH:: 12-pass transmembrane protein receptors Patched
PTEN:: Phosphatase and tensin homolog
ROS:: Reactive oxygen species
RTK:: Receptor tyrosine kinase
SMO:: Smoothened protein encoded by SMO gene
STAT:: Signal transducer and activator of transcription
SUFU:: Suppressor of fused
TAD:: C-terminal transactivation domain
TCGA:: Cancer Genome Atlas
TNBC:: Triple negative breast cancers
TNF:: Tumor necrosis factor
WHO:: World Health Organization.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

Nigatu Tuasha (Ph.D.) conceived and designed the review, searched and screened the literature, and prepared the draft manuscript according to the authors’ guideline of the journal. Beyene Petros (Professor) rigorously reviewed the draft manuscript and provided invaluable comments and suggestions. Both authors have read, approved, and agreed on submission of the final manuscript.

References

1 Long J. S. and Ryan K. M., New frontiers in promoting tumour cell death: targeting apoptosis, necroptosis and autophagy, Oncogene. (2012) 31, no. 49, 5045–5060, https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2012.7, 2-s2.0-84870850140.
10.1038/onc.2012.7
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 Font-Burgada J., Sun B., and Karin M., Obesity and cancer: the oil that feeds the flame, Cell Metabolism. (2016) 23, no. 1, 48–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2015.12.015, 2-s2.0-84955268118.
10.1016/j.cmet.2015.12.015
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 Bray F., Ferlay J., Soerjomataram I., Siegel R. L., Torre L. A., and Jemal A., Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. (2018) 68, no. 6, 394–424, https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21492, 2-s2.0-85053395052.
10.3322/caac.21492
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 Torre L. A., Bray F., Siegel R. L. et al., Global cancer statistics, 2012, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. (2015) 65, no. 2, 87–108.
10.3322/caac.21262
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 WHO, Fact sheet no. 297 cancer, Febuary 2019, http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs297/en.
Google Scholar
6 World Health Organization, Febuary 2019, http://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer.
Google Scholar
7 Torre L. A., Siegel R. L., Ward E. M., and Jemal A., Global cancer incidence and mortality rates and trends-an update, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention. (2016) 25, no. 1, 16–27, https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-0578, 2-s2.0-84955299344.
10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0578
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 Levitsky D. O. and Dembitsky V. M., Anti-breast cancer agents derived from plants, Natural Products and Bioprospecting. (2015) 5, no. 1, 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13659-014-0048-9, 2-s2.0-85071230435.
10.1007/s13659-014-0048-9
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 Burney I. A., Furrukh M., and Al-Moundhri M. S., What are our options in the fight against breast cancer?, Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal. (2014) 14, no. 2.
Google Scholar
10 WHO, Breast Cancer: Prevention and Control, 2019, World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland.
Google Scholar
11 Tfayli A., Temraz S., Abou Mrad R., and Shamseddine A., Breast cancer in low- and middle-income countries: an emerging and challenging epidemic, Journal of Oncology. (2010) 2010, 5, 490631, https://doi.org/10.1155/2010/490631, 2-s2.0-79251631225.
10.1155/2010/490631
PubMed Google Scholar
12 Minisini A. M., Moroso S., Gerratana L. et al., Risk factors and survival outcomes in patients with brain metastases from breast cancer, Clinical & Experimental Metastasis. (2013) 30, no. 8, 951–956, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10585-013-9594-5, 2-s2.0-84890440392.
10.1007/s10585-013-9594-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Tao Z., Shi A., Lu C., Song T., Zhang Z., and Zhao J., Breast cancer: epidemiology and etiology, Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics. (2015) 72, no. 2, 333–338, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-014-0459-6, 2-s2.0-84931268898.
10.1007/s12013-014-0459-6
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 May F., Novel drugs that target the estrogen-related receptor alpha: their therapeutic potential in breast cancer, Cancer Management and Research. (2014) 6, 225–252, https://doi.org/10.2147/cmar.s35024, 2-s2.0-84901410696.
10.2147/CMAR.S35024
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
15 Facts for life: What is breast cancer? January 2017, http://www.komen.org.
Google Scholar
16 Chlebowski R. T., Manson J. E., Anderson G. L. et al., Estrogen plus progestin and breast cancer incidence and mortality in the women’s health initiative observational study, JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. (2013) 105, no. 8, 526–535, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt043, 2-s2.0-84876551405.
10.1093/jnci/djt043
CAS Google Scholar
17 Jacobs E. T., Kohler L. N., Kunihiro A. G., and Jurutka P. W., Vitamin D and colorectal, breast, and prostate cancers: a review of the epidemiological evidence, Journal of Cancer. (2016) 7, no. 3, 232–240, https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.13403, 2-s2.0-84973278430.
10.7150/jca.13403
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 Spivey A., Light pollution: light at night and breast cancer risk worldwide, Environmental Health Perspectives. (2010) 118, no. 12, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.118-a525, 2-s2.0-78650299040.
10.1289/ehp.118-a525
Google Scholar
19 Clagett O., Plimpton N., and Root G., Lesions of the breast: the relationship of benign lesions to carcinoma, Surgery. (2016) 15, 413–419.
Google Scholar
20 White A. J., Bradshaw P. T., Herring A. H. et al., Exposure to multiple sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and breast cancer incidence, Environment International. (2016) 89-90, 185–192, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2016.02.009, 2-s2.0-84957837940.
10.1016/j.envint.2016.02.009
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 Engmann N. J., Golmakani M. K., Miglioretti D. L., Sprague B. L., and Kerlikowske K., Population-attributable risk proportion of clinical risk factors for breast cancer, JAMA Oncology. (2017) 3, no. 9, https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6326, 2-s2.0-85021200051.
10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.6326
PubMed Google Scholar
22 Warner E. T., Hu R., Collins L. C. et al., Height and body size in childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood and breast cancer risk according to molecular subtype in the nurses’ health studies, Cancer Prevention Research. (2016) 9, no. 9, 732–738, https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.capr-16-0085, 2-s2.0-84987909337.
10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-16-0085
PubMed Google Scholar
23 Parada H., Steck S. E., Bradshaw P. T. et al., Grilled, barbecued, and smoked meat intake and survival following breast cancer, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. (2017) 109, no. 6, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djw1299.
10.1093/jnci/djw299
PubMed Google Scholar
24 Belpomme D., Irigaray P., Sasco A. et al., The growing incidence of cancer: role of lifestyle and screening detection (review), International Journal of Oncology. (2007) 30, no. 5, 1037–1049.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
25 Jemal A., Bray F., Center M. M., Ferlay J., Ward E., and Forman D., Global cancer statistics, CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. (2011) 61, no. 2, 69–90, https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.20107, 2-s2.0-79952232216.
10.3322/caac.20107
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 Ginsburg O. M., Breast and cervical cancer control in low and middle-income countries: human rights meet sound health policy, Journal of Cancer Policy. (2013) 1, no. 3-4, e35–e41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpo.2013.07.002.
10.1016/j.jcpo.2013.07.002
Google Scholar
27 Baburin A., Aareleid T., Rahu M., Reedik L., and Innos K., Recent changes in breast cancer incidence and mortality in Estonia: transition to the west, Acta Oncologica. (2016) 55, no. 6, 728–733, https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186x.2015.1125014, 2-s2.0-84954171233.
10.3109/0284186X.2015.1125014
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 Giordano S. H., A review of the diagnosis and management of male breast cancer, The Oncologist. (2005) 10, no. 7, 471–479, https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.10-7-471, 2-s2.0-24644432489.
10.1634/theoncologist.10-7-471
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29 Fentiman I., Fourquet A., and Hortobagyi G., Male breast cancer: a review, Ecancermedicalscience. (2009) 3, no. 9510, 140–147.
PubMed Google Scholar
30 Weiss J. R., Moysich K. B., and Swede H., Epidemiology of male breast cancer, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. (2005) 14, no. 1, 20–26.
10.1158/1055-9965.20.14.1
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 Hsiao Y.-H., Chou M.-C., Fowler C., Mason J. T., and Man Y.-G., Breast cancer heterogeneity: mechanisms, proofs, and implications, Journal of Cancer. (2010) 1, no. 1, 6–13, https://doi.org/10.7150/jca.1.6, 2-s2.0-79952469959.
10.7150/jca.1.6
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 Verma R., Bowen R., Slater S. et al., Pathological and epidemiological factors associated with advanced stage at diagnosis of breast cancer, British Medical Bulletin. (2012) 103, https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/lds018, 2-s2.0-84865713980.
10.1093/bmb/lds018
PubMed Google Scholar
33 Sun X.-x. and Yu Q., Intra-tumor heterogeneity of cancer cells and its implications for cancer treatment, Acta Pharmacologica Sinica. (2015) 36, no. 10, 1219–1227, https://doi.org/10.1038/aps.2015.92, 2-s2.0-84943267727.
10.1038/aps.2015.92
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
34 Cho N., Molecular subtypes and imaging phenotypes of breast cancer, Ultrasonography. (2016) 35, no. 4, 281–288, https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.16030, 2-s2.0-85013425415.
10.14366/usg.16030
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
35 Shackleton M., Quintana E., Fearon E. R., and Morrison S. J., Heterogeneity in cancer: cancer stem cells versus clonal evolution, Cell. (2009) 138, no. 5, 822–829, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.08.017, 2-s2.0-69449096005.
10.1016/j.cell.2009.08.017
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
36 Marjanovic N. D., Weinberg R. A., and Chaffer C. L., Cell plasticity and heterogeneity in cancer, Clinical Chemistry. (2013) 59, no. 1, 168–179, https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2012.184655, 2-s2.0-84872008395.
10.1373/clinchem.2012.184655
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
37 Yang T., Rycaj K., Liu Z.-M., and Tang D. G., Cancer stem cells: constantly evolving and functionally heterogeneous therapeutic targets, Cancer Research. (2014) 74, no. 11, 2922–2927, https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-14-0266, 2-s2.0-84902131034.
10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-14-0266
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
38 Medema J. P., Cancer stem cells: the challenges ahead, Nature Cell Biology. (2013) 15, no. 4, 338–344, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2717, 2-s2.0-84876489727.
10.1038/ncb2717
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
39 Lee G., Hall R. R., and Ahmed A. U., Cancer stem cells: cellular plasticity, niche, and its clinical relevance, Journal of Stem Cell Research & Therapy. (2016) 6, no. 10.
10.4172/2157-7633.1000363
PubMed Google Scholar
40 Y-Cajal S. R., Sesé M., Capdevila C. et al., Clinical implications of intratumor heterogeneity: challenges and opportunities, Journal of Molecular Medicine. (2020) 98, no. 2, 1–17.
PubMed Google Scholar
41 Ziogas D. E., Spiliotis J., Lykoudis E. G., Zografos G. C., and Roukos D. H., Intratumor and circulating clonal heterogeneity shape the basis of precision breast cancer therapy, Future Oncology. (2017) 13, no. 2, 113–116, https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2016-0307, 2-s2.0-85002730730.
10.2217/fon-2016-0307
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
42 Korkaya H., Liu S., and Wicha M. S., Breast cancer stem cells, cytokine networks, and the tumor microenvironment, Journal of Clinical Investigation. (2011) 121, no. 10, 3804–3809, https://doi.org/10.1172/jci57099, 2-s2.0-80053401068.
10.1172/JCI57099
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
43 Shen S., Xia J.-X., and Wang J., Nanomedicine-mediated cancer stem cell therapy, Biomaterials. (2016) 74, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.1009.1037.
10.1016/j.biomaterials.2015.09.037
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
44 Pareja F., Marchiò C., Geyer F. C., Weigelt B., and Reis-Filho J. S., Breast cancer heterogeneity: roles in tumorigenesis and therapeutic implications, Current Breast Cancer Reports. (2017) 9, no. 1, 34–44, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-017-0233-z, 2-s2.0-85012239704.
10.1007/s12609-017-0233-z
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
45 Li M., Cascino P., Ummarino S., and Di Ruscio A., Application of induced pluripotent stem cell technology to the study of hematological diseases, Cells. (2017) 6, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.3390/cells6010007.
10.3390/cells6010007
Google Scholar
46 Ahmed M., Chaudhari K., Babaei-Jadidi R., Dekker L. V., and Shams Nateri A., Concise review: emerging drugs targeting epithelial cancer stem-like cells, Stem Cells. (2017) 35, no. 4, 839–850, https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.2579, 2-s2.0-85014127643.
10.1002/stem.2579
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
47 Lapidot T., Sirard C., Vormoor J. et al., A cell initiating human acute myeloid leukaemia after transplantation into SCID mice, Nature. (1994) 367, no. 6464, 645–648, https://doi.org/10.1038/367645a0, 2-s2.0-0028091194.
10.1038/367645a0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
48 Relation T., Dominici M., and Horwitz E. M., Concise review: an (Im) penetrable shield: how the tumor microenvironment protects cancer stem cells, Stem Cells. (2017) 35, no. 5, 1123–1130, https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.2596, 2-s2.0-85017146776.
10.1002/stem.2596
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
49 Nigam A., Breast cancer stem cells, pathways and therapeutic perspectives 2011, Indian Journal of Surgery. (2013) 75, no. 3, 170–180, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0616-3, 2-s2.0-84879955999.
10.1007/s12262-012-0616-3
Google Scholar
50 Morrison B. J., Schmidt C. W., Lakhani S. R. et al., Breast cancer stem cells: implications for therapy of breast cancer, Breast Cancer Research. (2008) 10, no. 4, https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr2111, 2-s2.0-56749114437.
10.1186/bcr2111
PubMed Google Scholar
51 Al-Hajj M., Wicha M. S., Benito-Hernandez A., Morrison S. J., and Clarke M. F., Prospective identification of tumorigenic breast cancer cells, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (2003) 100, no. 7, 3983–3988, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0530291100, 2-s2.0-0037388204.
10.1073/pnas.0530291100
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
52 Wu Y., Sarkissyan M., and Vadgama J. V., Epithelial-mesenchymal transition and breast cancer, Journal of Clinical Medicine. (2016) 5, no. 2, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm5020013.
10.3390/jcm5020013
Web of Science® Google Scholar
53 Shah M. and Allegrucci C., Keeping an open mind: highlights and controversies of the breast cancer stem cell theory, Breast Cancer: Targets and Therapy. (2012) 4, 155–166.
PubMed Google Scholar
54 Bill R. and Christofori G., The relevance of EMT in breast cancer metastasis: correlation or causality?, FEBS Letters. (2015) 589, no. 14, 1577–1587, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2015.05.002, 2-s2.0-84930179858.
10.1016/j.febslet.2015.05.002
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
55 Horimoto Y., Arakawa A., Sasahara N. et al., Combination of cancer stem cell markers CD44 and CD24 is superior to ALDH1 as a prognostic indicator in breast cancer patients with distant metastases, PloS One. (2016) 11, no. 10, e0165253, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165253, 2-s2.0-84992413231.
10.1371/journal.pone.0165253
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
56 Ginestier C., Hur M. H., Charafe-Jauffret E. et al., ALDH1 is a marker of normal and malignant human mammary stem cells and a predictor of poor clinical outcome, Cell Stem Cell. (2007) 1, no. 5, 555–567, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2007.08.014, 2-s2.0-35848955428.
10.1016/j.stem.2007.08.014
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
57 Velasco-Velázquez M. A., Popov V. M., Lisanti M. P., and Pestell R. G., The role of breast cancer stem cells in metastasis and therapeutic implications, The American Journal of Pathology. (2011) 179, no. 1, 2–11, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2011.03.005, 2-s2.0-80052479916.
10.1016/j.ajpath.2011.03.005
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
58 Marcato P., Dean C. A., Pan D. et al., Aldehyde dehydrogenase activity of breast cancer stem cells is primarily due to isoform ALDH1A3 and its expression is predictive of metastasis, Stem Cells. (2011) 29, no. 1, 32–45, https://doi.org/10.1002/stem.563, 2-s2.0-79951818699.
10.1002/stem.563
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
59 Li X., Lewis M. T., Huang J. et al., Intrinsic resistance of tumorigenic breast cancer cells to chemotherapy, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. (2008) 100, no. 9, 672–679, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djn123, 2-s2.0-44049100934.
10.1093/jnci/djn123
CAS Web of Science® Google Scholar
60 Chen K., Huang Y.-H., and Chen J.-L., Understanding and targeting cancer stem cells: therapeutic implications and challenges, Acta Pharmacologica Sinica. (2013) 34, no. 6, 732–740, https://doi.org/10.1038/aps.2013.27, 2-s2.0-84881453720.
10.1038/aps.2013.27
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
61 Pardal R., Clarke M. F., and Morrison S. J., Applying the principles of stem-cell biology to cancer, Nature Reviews Cancer. (2003) 3, no. 12, 895–902, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc1232, 2-s2.0-0345059767.
10.1038/nrc1232
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
62 Fletcher J. I., Haber M., Henderson M. J., and Norris M. D., ABC transporters in cancer: more than just drug efflux pumps, Nature Reviews Cancer. (2010) 10, no. 2, 147–156, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2789, 2-s2.0-75149143363.
10.1038/nrc2789
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
63 Sridharan S., Howard C. M., Tilley A. M. et al., Novel and alternative targets against breast cancer stemness to combat chemoresistance, Frontiers in Oncology. (2019) 9, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.01003.2019.
10.3389/fonc.2019.01003
Google Scholar
64 Hinohara K. and Gotoh N., Inflammatory signaling pathways in self-renewing breast cancer stem cells, Current Opinion in Pharmacology. (2010) 10, no. 6, 650–654, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coph.2010.08.003, 2-s2.0-78149495949.
10.1016/j.coph.2010.08.003
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
65 Niehrs C., The complex world of WNT receptor signalling, Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. (2012) 13, no. 12, 767–779, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3470, 2-s2.0-84870252814.
10.1038/nrm3470
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
66 Clevers H. and Nusse R., Wnt/β-Catenin signaling and disease, Cell. (2012) 149, no. 6, 1192–1205, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.05.012, 2-s2.0-84861986053.
10.1016/j.cell.2012.05.012
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
67 Dandawate P. R., Subramaniam D., Jensen R. A. et al., Targeting cancer stem cells and signaling pathways by phytochemicals: novel approach for breast cancer therapy, Proceedings of the Seminars in Cancer Biology, 2016, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Elsevier, 192–208.
Google Scholar
68 Rosso S. B. and Inestrosa N. C., WNT signaling in neuronal maturation and synaptogenesis, Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience. (2013) 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fncel.2013.00103, 2-s2.0-84879153349.
10.3389/fncel.2013.00103
Google Scholar
69 Kazi M. M., Trivedi T. I., Kobawala T. P. et al., The potential of Wnt signaling pathway in cancer: a focus on breast cancer, Cancer Translational Medicine. (2016) 2, no. 2, 55–60.
10.4103/2395-3977.181437
Google Scholar
70 MacDonald B. T., Tamai K., and He X., Wnt/β-Catenin signaling: components, mechanisms, and diseases, Developmental Cell. (2009) 17, no. 1, 9–26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.devcel.2009.06.016, 2-s2.0-67650230896.
10.1016/j.devcel.2009.06.016
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
71 Zeng Y. A. and Nusse R., Wnt proteins are self-renewal factors for mammary stem cells and promote their long-term expansion in culture, Cell Stem Cell. (2010) 6, no. 6, 568–577, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2010.03.020, 2-s2.0-77956628008.
10.1016/j.stem.2010.03.020
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
72 Jang G.-B., Kim J.-Y., Cho S.-D. et al., Blockade of Wnt/β-catenin signaling suppresses breast cancer metastasis by inhibiting CSC-like phenotype, Scientific Reports. (2015) 5, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep12465, 2-s2.0-84937880263.
10.1038/srep12465
Google Scholar
73 Schlange T., Matsuda Y., Lienhard S., Huber A., and Hynes N. E., Autocrine WNT signaling contributes to breast cancer cell proliferation via the canonical WNT pathway and EGFR transactivation, Breast Cancer Research. (2007) 9, no. 5, https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr1769, 2-s2.0-40449138006.
10.1186/bcr1769
PubMed Google Scholar
74 Khramtsov A. I., Khramtsova G. F., Tretiakova M., Huo D., Olopade O. I., and Goss K. H., Wnt/β-Catenin pathway activation is enriched in basal-like breast cancers and predicts poor outcome, The American Journal of Pathology. (2010) 176, no. 6, 2911–2920, https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2010.091125, 2-s2.0-77953183234.
10.2353/ajpath.2010.091125
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
75 Nowell C. S. and Radtke F., Notch as a tumour suppressor, Nature Reviews Cancer. (2017) 17, no. 3, 145–159, https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc.2016.145, 2-s2.0-85011628751.
10.1038/nrc.2016.145
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
76 Kopan R. and Ilagan M. X. G., The canonical notch signaling pathway: unfolding the activation mechanism, Cell. (2009) 137, no. 2, 216–233, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.03.045, 2-s2.0-64249172203.
10.1016/j.cell.2009.03.045
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
77 Perdigoto C. N. and Bardin A. J., Sending the right signal: notch and stem cells, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - General Subjects. (2013) 1830, no. 2, 2307–2322, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagen.2012.08.009, 2-s2.0-84872502135.
10.1016/j.bbagen.2012.08.009
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
78 Farnie G. and Clarke R. B., Mammary stem cells and breast cancer-role of notch signalling, Stem Cell Reviews. (2007) 3, no. 2, 169–175, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12015-007-0023-5, 2-s2.0-36248953716.
10.1007/s12015-007-0023-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
79 Lehmann B. D., Pietenpol J. A., and Tan A. R., Triple-negative Breast Cancer: Molecular Subtypes and New Targets for Therapy: American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 2015, no. 35, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA, USA.
Google Scholar
80 Garcia-Heredia J. M., Lucena-Cacace A., Verdugo-Sivianes E. M. et al., The cargo protein MAP17 (PDZK1IP1) regulates the cancer stem cell pool activating the notch pathway by abducting NUMB, Clinical Cancer Research. (2017) 23, no. 14, https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-1116-2358.
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-16-2358
PubMed Google Scholar
81 Chen J., Imanaka N., Chen J., and Griffin J. D., Hypoxia potentiates notch signaling in breast cancer leading to decreased E-cadherin expression and increased cell migration and invasion, British Journal of Cancer. (2010) 102, no. 2, 351–360, https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605486, 2-s2.0-75549083984.
10.1038/sj.bjc.6605486
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
82 Guo S., Liu M., and Gonzalez-Perez R. R., Role of notch and its oncogenic signaling crosstalk in breast cancer, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Reviews on Cancer. (2011) 1815, no. 2, 197–213, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbcan.2010.12.002, 2-s2.0-78951481235.
10.1016/j.bbcan.2010.12.002
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
83 Haider S., Pollheimer J., and Knöfler M., Notch signalling in placental development and gestational diseases, Placenta. (2017) 56, 65–72, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.placenta.2017.1001.1117.
10.1016/j.placenta.2017.01.117
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
84 Astudillo L. and Capobianco A. J., A small molecule inhibitor of the notch transcriptional activation complex, Proceedings of the AACR Precision Medicine Series: Targeting the Vulnerabilities of Cancer, May 2017, Philadelphia, PA, USA, AACR-American Association for Cancer Research.
Google Scholar
85 Hanna A. and Shevde L. A., Hedgehog signaling: modulation of cancer properies and tumor mircroenvironment, Molecular Cancer. (2016) 15, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-12016-10509-12943.
10.1186/s12943-12016-10509-12943
Google Scholar
86 Sachin G., Naoko T., and Patricia L., Targeting the hedgehog pathway in cancer, Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. (2010) 2, no. 4, 237–250.
10.1177/1758834010366430
PubMed Google Scholar
87 Gupta S., Takebe N., and LoRusso P., Review: targeting the hedgehog pathway in cancer, Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology. (2010) 2, no. 4, 237–250, https://doi.org/10.1177/1758834010366430, 2-s2.0-78649247495.
10.1177/1758834010366430
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
88 Rimkus T., Carpenter R., Qasem S., Chan M., and Lo H.-W., Targeting the sonic hedgehog signaling pathway: review of smoothened and GLI inhibitors, Cancers. (2016) 8, no. 2, https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers8020022, 2-s2.0-84958751503.
10.3390/cancers8020022
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
89 Ryu J. S. and Raucher D., Inhibition of breast cancer stem cells by Hedgehog-inhibitory peptide conjugated with Elastin-like biopolymers, Proceedings of the 107th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research, April 2016, Philadelphia, PA, USA, American Association for Cancer Research (AACR).
Google Scholar
90 Chaturvedi M. M., Sung B., Yadav V. R., Kannappan R., and Aggarwal B. B., NF-κB addiction and its role in cancer: ‘one size does not fit all’, Oncogene. (2011) 30, no. 14, 1615–1630, https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2010.566, 2-s2.0-79953782203.
10.1038/onc.2010.566
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
91 Pires B. R., Mencalha A. L., Ferreira G. M. et al., NF-kappaB is involved in the regulation of EMT genes in breast cancer cells, PloS One. (2017) 12, no. 1, e0169622, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169622, 2-s2.0-85010422688.
10.1371/journal.pone.0169622
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
92 Vazquez-Santillan K., Melendez-Zajgla J., Jimenez-Hernandez L. E. et al., NF-kappaΒ-inducing kinase regulates stem cell phenotype in breast cancer, Scientific Reports. (2016) 6, no. 1, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37340, 2-s2.0-84997386090.
10.1038/srep37340
Google Scholar
93 Hayden M. S. and Ghosh S., Signaling to NF- B, Genes & Development. (2004) 18, no. 18, 2195–2224, https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1228704, 2-s2.0-4444376712.
10.1101/gad.1228704
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
94 Gilmore T. D. and Garbati M. R., Inhibition of NF-κB signaling as a strategy in disease therapy, Current Topics in Microbiology and Immunology. (2011) 349, 245–263.
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
95 Brock T. G., NF-κB, Febuary 2017, https://www.caymanchem.com/Article/2174.
Google Scholar
96 Lin Y., Bai L., Chen W., and Xu S., The NF-κB activation pathways, emerging molecular targets for cancer prevention and therapy, Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Targets. (2010) 14, no. 1, 45–55, https://doi.org/10.1517/14728220903431069, 2-s2.0-72549111131.
10.1517/14728220903431069
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
97 Yamaguchi N., Ito T., Azuma S. et al., Constitutive activation of nuclear factor-κB is preferentially involved in the proliferation of basal-like subtype breast cancer cell lines, Cancer Science. (2009) 100, no. 9, 1668–1674, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1349-7006.2009.01228.x, 2-s2.0-70149106789.
10.1111/j.1349-7006.2009.01228.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
98 Neil J. R. and Schiemann W. P., Altered TAB1:I B kinase interaction promotes transforming growth factor -mediated nuclear factor- B activation during breast cancer progression, Cancer Research. (2008) 68, no. 5, 1462–1470, https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-07-3094, 2-s2.0-40449092814.
10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-07-3094
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
99 Li F. and Sethi G., Targeting transcription factor NF-κB to overcome chemoresistance and radioresistance in cancer therapy, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta. (2010) 1805, no. 2, 167–180.
10.1016/j.bbcan.2010.01.002
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
100 Aaronson D. S. and Horvath C. M., A road map for those who don’t know JAK-STAT, Science. (2002) 296, no. 5573, 1653–1655, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1071545, 2-s2.0-0037204953.
10.1126/science.1071545
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
101 Li W. X., Canonical and non-canonical JAK-STAT signaling, Trends in Cell Biology. (2008) 18, no. 11, 545–551, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2008.08.008, 2-s2.0-54049101441.
10.1016/j.tcb.2008.08.008
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
102 Majoros A., Platanitis E., Kernbauer-Hölzl E., Rosebrock F., Müller M., and Decker T., Canonical and non-canonical aspects of JAK-STAT signaling: lessons from interferons for cytokine responses, Frontiers in Immunology. (2017) 8, https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.00029, 2-s2.0-85012168846.
10.3389/fimmu.2017.00029
PubMed Google Scholar
103 Aittomäki S. and Pesu M., Therapeutic targeting of the Jak/STAT pathway, Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology. (2014) 114, no. 1, 18–23, https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.12164, 2-s2.0-84890806562.
10.1111/bcpt.12164
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
104 Pencik J., Pham H. T. T., Schmoellerl J. et al., JAK-STAT signaling in cancer: from cytokines to non-coding genome, Cytokine. (2016) 87, 26–36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cyto.2016.06.017, 2-s2.0-84977575424.
10.1016/j.cyto.2016.06.017
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
105 Mayer I. A. and Arteaga C. L., The PI3K/AKT pathway as a target for cancer treatment, Annual Review of Medicine. (2016) 67, no. 1, 11–28, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-062913-051343, 2-s2.0-84954523816.
10.1146/annurev-med-062913-051343
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
106 Porta C., Paglino C., and Mosca A., Targeting PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling in cancer, Frontiers in Oncology. (2014) 4, no. 64, 1–11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2014.00064, 2-s2.0-84901008792.
10.3389/fonc.2014.00064
PubMed Google Scholar
107 Saini K. S., Loi S., de Azambuja E. et al., Targeting the PI3K/AKT/mTOR and Raf/MEK/ERK pathways in the treatment of breast cancer, Cancer Treatment Reviews. (2013) 39, no. 8, 935–946, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.03.009, 2-s2.0-84883556505.
10.1016/j.ctrv.2013.03.009
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
108 Carmona F. J., Montemurro F., Kannan S. et al., AKT signaling in ERBB2-amplified breast cancer, Pharmacology & Therapeutics. (2016) 158, 63–70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pharmthera.2015.11.013, 2-s2.0-84957438863.
10.1016/j.pharmthera.2015.11.013
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
109 Yang S. X., Polley E., and Lipkowitz S., New insights on PI3K/AKT pathway alterations and clinical outcomes in breast cancer, Cancer Treatment Reviews. (2016) 45, 87–96, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.03.004, 2-s2.0-84960946714.
10.1016/j.ctrv.2016.03.004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
110 Chen Y., van de Vijver M. J., Hibshoosh H., Parsons R., and Saal L. H., PTEN and NEDD4 in human breast carcinoma, Pathology & Oncology Research. (2016) 22, no. 1, 41–47, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12253-015-9971-2, 2-s2.0-84951574068.
10.1007/s12253-015-9971-2
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
111 Wu Z.-H., Tao Z.-H., Zhang J. et al., MiRNA-21 induces epithelial to mesenchymal transition and gemcitabine resistance via the PTEN/AKT pathway in breast cancer, Tumor Biology. (2016) 37, no. 6, 7245–7254, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-015-4604-7, 2-s2.0-84949770766.
10.1007/s13277-015-4604-7
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
112 Cancer Genome Atlas Network, Comprehensive molecular portraits of human breast tumors, Nature. (2012) 490, no. 7418, 61–70.
10.1038/nature11412
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
113 Zhang H.-Y., Liang F., Jia Z.-L., Song S.-T., and Jiang Z.-F., PTEN mutation, methylation and expression in breast cancer patients, Oncology Letters. (2013) 6, no. 1, 161–168, https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2013.1331, 2-s2.0-84878283510.
10.3892/ol.2013.1331
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
114 Ebbesen S. H., Scaltriti M., Bialucha C. U. et al., PTEN loss promotes MAPK pathway dependency in HER2/neu breast carcinomas, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (2016) 113, no. 11, 3030–3035, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523693113, 2-s2.0-84962556055.
10.1073/pnas.1523693113
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
115 Cheung L. W. T., Hennessy B. T., Li J. et al., High frequency of PIK3R1 and PIK3R2 mutations in endometrial cancer elucidates a novel mechanism for regulation of PTEN protein stability, Cancer Discovery. (2011) 1, no. 2, 170–185, https://doi.org/10.1158/2159-8290.cd-11-0039, 2-s2.0-80054778946.
10.1158/2159-8290.CD-11-0039
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
116 Georgescu M.-M., PTEN tumor suppressor network in PI3K-Akt pathway control, Genes & Cancer. (2010) 1, no. 12, 1170–1177, https://doi.org/10.1177/1947601911407325, 2-s2.0-79960050610.
10.1177/1947601911407325
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
117 Zhou D., Shao L., and Spitz D. R., Reactive oxygen species in normal and tumor stem cells, Advances in Cancer Research. (2014) 122, 1–67.
10.1016/B978-0-12-420117-0.00001-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
118 Perillo B., Di Donato M., Pezone A. et al., ROS in cancer therapy: the bright side of the moon, Experimental & Molecular Medicine. (2020) 52, no. 2, 192–203, https://doi.org/10.1038/s12276-020-0384-2.
10.1038/s12276-020-0384-2
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
119 Diehn M., Cho R. W., Lobo N. A. et al., Association of reactive oxygen species levels and radioresistance in cancer stem cells, Nature. (2009) 458, no. 7239, 780–783, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07733, 2-s2.0-64749093574.
10.1038/nature07733
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
120 Liou G.-Y. and Storz P., Reactive oxygen species in cancer, Free Radical Research. (2010) 44, no. 5, 479–496, https://doi.org/10.3109/10715761003667554, 2-s2.0-77951279075.
10.3109/10715761003667554
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
121 He L., Gu J., Lim L. Y. et al., Nanomedicine-mediated therapies to target breast cancer stem cells, Frontiers in Pharmacology. (2016) 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00313, 2-s2.0-84991790911.
10.3389/fphar.2016.00313
Google Scholar
122 Estanqueiro M., Amaral M. H., Conceição J., and Sousa Lobo J. M., Nanotechnological carriers for cancer chemotherapy: the state of the art, Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces. (2015) 126, 631–648, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.12.041, 2-s2.0-84923065229.
10.1016/j.colsurfb.2014.12.041
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
123 He L., Gu J., Lim L. Y., Yuan Z.-X., and Mo J., Nanomedicine-mediated therapies to target breast cancer stem cells, Frontiers in Pharmacology. (2016) 7, https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2016.00313, 2-s2.0-84991790911.
10.3389/fphar.2016.00313
Google Scholar
124 Muluhngwi P. and Klinge C. M., Identification of miRNAs as biomarkers for acquired endocrine resistance in breast cancer, Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology. (2017) 456, 76–86, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2017.1002.1004.
10.1016/j.mce.2017.02.004
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
125 Wu Q., Wang C., Lu Z., Guo L., and Ge Q., Analysis of serum genome-wide microRNAs for breast cancer detection, Clinica Chimica Acta. (2012) 413, no. 13-14, 1058–1065, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cca.2012.02.016, 2-s2.0-84860383096.
10.1016/j.cca.2012.02.016
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
126 Baranwal S. and Alahari S. K., miRNA control of tumor cell invasion and metastasis, International Journal of Cancer. (2010) 126, no. 6, 1283–1290.
10.1002/ijc.25014
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
127 Jiang S., Zhang H. W., Lu M. H. et al., MicroRNA-155 functions as an OncomiR in breast cancer by targeting the suppressor of cytokine signaling 1 gene, Cancer Research. (2010) 70, no. 8, 3119–3127, https://doi.org/10.1158/0008-5472.can-09-4250, 2-s2.0-77951026718.
10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-09-4250
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
128 Jhan J. and Andrechek E., Effective personalized therapy for breast cancer based on predictions of cell signaling pathway activation from gene expression analysis, Oncogene. (2017) 36, 3553–3561, https://doi.org/10.1038/onc.2016.1503.
10.1038/onc.2016.503
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
129 Manjari D. and Dimri G. P., W. B. Coleman and G. J. Tsongalis, Senescence, apoptosis, and cancer, The Molecular Basis of Human Cancer, 2017, Humana Press, New York, NY, USA, 183–196.
Google Scholar

Citing Literature

All articles

Heterogeneity of Tumors in Breast Cancer: Implications and Prospects for Prognosis and Therapeutics

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Breast Cancer: Epidemiology and Risk Factors

3. Diversity in Tumors of Breast Cancer and the Mechanisms of Heterogeneity

4. Implications of Intratumoral Heterogeneity for Cancer Treatment

5. Biology and Biomarkers of Breast CSCs

6. CSC Signaling Pathways as a Potential Target for Cancer Treatment

6.1. Wnt/β-Catenin Signaling Pathway

6.2. Notch Signaling Pathway

6.3. Hedgehog Signaling Pathway

6.4. NF-κB Signaling Pathway

6.5. JAK/STAT Signaling Pathway

6.6. PI3K/Akt Signaling Pathway

6.7. PTEN Signaling Pathway

6.8. Intracellular ROS Signaling

7. Emerging Therapeutic Frontiers

7.1. Nanomedicine

7.2. Role of miRNAs in Diagnostics and Therapeutics

8. Prospective Remarks

Abbreviations

Conflicts of Interest

Authors’ Contributions

References

Citing Literature

Figures

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Heterogeneity of Tumors in Breast Cancer: Implications and Prospects for Prognosis and Therapeutics

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Breast Cancer: Epidemiology and Risk Factors

3. Diversity in Tumors of Breast Cancer and the Mechanisms of Heterogeneity

4. Implications of Intratumoral Heterogeneity for Cancer Treatment

5. Biology and Biomarkers of Breast CSCs

6. CSC Signaling Pathways as a Potential Target for Cancer Treatment

6.1. Wnt/β-Catenin Signaling Pathway

6.2. Notch Signaling Pathway

6.3. Hedgehog Signaling Pathway

6.4. NF-κB Signaling Pathway

6.5. JAK/STAT Signaling Pathway

6.6. PI3K/Akt Signaling Pathway

6.7. PTEN Signaling Pathway

6.8. Intracellular ROS Signaling

7. Emerging Therapeutic Frontiers

7.1. Nanomedicine

7.2. Role of miRNAs in Diagnostics and Therapeutics

8. Prospective Remarks

Abbreviations

Conflicts of Interest

Authors’ Contributions

References

Citing Literature

Figures

References

Related

Information