Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a heterogeneous group of tumours that vary depending on their anatomical sites, functionality and hormones produced. They are often silent clinically, and diagnosis is usually delayed. Chromogranin A (CgA) is the best-known general biomarker which is used for the diagnosis and management of NETs. It can be measured in serum or plasma using different analytical methods that include RIA, IRMA or ELISA. Raised circulating CgA is considered to be a relatively sensitive marker for the diagnosis of NET. As the test is rather non-specific, the diagnostic yield can be improved if other non-NET related conditions with raised CgA including renal failure, cardiac, hepatic and inflammatory diseases and use of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) are excluded.

by Dr Elham AlRisi and Prof. Waad-Allah S. Mula-Abed

Introduction
Neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) are a group of tumours that are usually derived from the cells of the nervous and endocrine systems. The tumours are characterized by being rare, heterogeneous and may affect different tissues and organs with neuroendocrine elements including the gastroenteropancreatic system, lungs, thyroid, parathyroid, pituitary, sympathoadrenals, and other tissues [1]. The NETs are distinctive in that their structural components of cells have the ability to synthesize, store, and secret bioactive amines and peptide hormones, a phenomenon termed ‘amine precursor uptake and decarboxylation’ (APUD) [2]. Although NETs may be considered rare, there is, however, increasing interest in their diagnosis, reported incidence and increased survival duration over time, suggesting that NETs are more prevalent than were previously reported.

The US Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program registries in their search from 1973 to 2004, identified 35 618 patients with NETs with a significant increase in the reported annual age-adjusted incidence of NETs from 1973 (1.09/100 000) to 2004 (5.25/100 000). Using the SEER registry data, the estimated 29-year limited-duration prevalence of NETs in January 2004, was found to be 9263 and the estimated 29-year limited-duration prevalence in the United States on that date was 103 312 cases (35/100 000) [3]. The clinical presentations in patients with NETs vary according to the site where the tumour develops, which can be anywhere in the body and can range from a silent tumour, to one that is associated with an overproduction of the hormone/peptide (with their pathophysiological and clinical sequels) known to be produced by that tissue, or to a metastatic tumour. The growing interest in NETs in recent years is attributed to the increasing medical awareness, availability of laboratory markers for the detection of NETs particularly the chromogranins and the wide use of radiological imaging that have increased the diagnostic yields of these tumours.

Physiology of the granin family including chromogranin A
The secretory granules of the neuroendocrine and endocrine cells contain a family of highly acidic proteins, the granins. The most abundant forms of granins are chromogranin A (CgA), chromogranin B (CgB), secretogranin II (SgII), whereas granins the other forms that include SgIII, VGF, 7B2, and proSAAS are much less distributed in these granules. The granins are involved in the granulogenesis of the secretory granule biogenesis, with some being processed to form numerous peptides that have different physiological activities. CgA, the most studied chromogranin, was first isolated from the chromaffin cells of the adrenal medulla. It is a single polypeptide chain of 439 amino acids and 10 dibasic cleavage sites; the CgA gene is localized on chromosome 14q32 [4, 5].

Chromogranins contribute intracellularly to the overall vesicle biogenesis and facilitate the processing and regulation of other secretory proteins. Processing of chromogranins gives rise to multiple bioactive peptides that include the vasodilator vasostatin (human CgA 1–76), catecholamine release inhibitor catestatin (human CgA 352–372) and dysglycemic peptide pancreastatin (human CgA 250–301) [6]. Pancreastatin regulates glucose metabolism in cells and certain organs by inhibiting glucose-mediated insulin release from pancreatic islet cells, and inhibiting glucose uptake by adipocytes and hepatocytes. Other contributing functions of CgA include its involvement in regulating endothelial barrier, tumour angiogenesis, anti-apoptosis, and vascular structure and permeability [7].

Laboratory methods for the measurement of chromogranin A
There are different approaches for the determination of circulating CgA. The currently available methods include radioimmunoassay (RIA), immunoradiometric assay (IRMA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The introduction of commercially available ELISA kits for CgA assay (with their advantages of having long shelf life, technical ease, safety of use, and reported reasonable validity) has greatly improved the measurement of CgA in the diagnosis and clinical management of patients with of NETS. Currently there is increasing availability of these kits for measuring CgA in many hospital laboratories.

CgA can be measured using plasma or serum specimens. Although plasma CgA has been reported in a few studies to be higher than in serum, the difference may not affect clinical interpretation, particularly if there is consistent use of a single specimen type [6]. Different results might be reported by the different techniques, which might affect the validity indicators using these techniques. There are no universal standards for the techniques used and no universally accepted technique. There are reports that favour RIA over other methods; however, the practical advantages of ELISA techniques, especially the long shelf life, might make them attractive methods for use by many laboratories and might explain their widespread use in today’s practice [8]. Nevertheless, the selection of the analytical method to be used depends on the technical feasibility and convenience in the laboratory.

Chromogranin A and neuroendocrine tumours
CgA and its fragments are usually present in the circulation in equimolar concentration with the secretory activity of the secreting neuroendocrine tissue of both normal subjects and patients with different NETs; hence, CgA concentration in the circulation can be measured to provide information on the diagnosis, prognosis and monitoring of patients with these tumours, if other non-NET related physiological, pathological and pharmacological causes are excluded.

CgA is usually secreted by a variety of NETs, which include: carcinoids, pheochromocytoma, paraganglioma, medullary carcinoma of thyroid, parathyroid adenomas, pulmonary NETs including small cell lung cancer, gastroenteropancreatic (GEP-NETs) including functioning and nonfunctioning pancreatic islet cell tumours, some pituitary adenomas and other APUD tumours. The highest CgA values are observed in small intestine NETs and GEP-NETs associated with MEN1. Moderate-to-high CgA values are noted in pancreatic NETs, Zollinger-Ellison syndrome and gastrinomas. CgA is more frequently elevated in well-differentiated tumours compared to poorly differentiated NETs [9]. Different clinical validity indicators for CgA have been reported by different workers in the different patient cohorts. Yang et al. through their search of 13 studies that included 1260 patients with NETs and 967 healthy controls, reported an overall sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of 0.73, 0.95 and 56.3, respectively, while the summary positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 14.56 and 0.26, respectively [10]. In addition, the area under the curve (AUC) of the circulating CgA in the diagnosis of NETs was 0.896. The pooled sensitivity and specificity values of CgA were 0.73 and 0.95, respectively, whereas the pooled PLR and NLR values were 14.56 and 0.26, respectively for the diagnosis of NETs. All these data suggested a higher diagnostic accuracy of CgA for the diagnosis of NETs. Among the included studies, three different assays were used to measure the circulating CgA, the sensitivity was both 0.74 by ELISA and RIA assays, and 0.69 by IRMA assay. The specificity was 0.93, 0.95 and 1.00 for ELISA, RIA and IRMA assays, respectively.

CgA values also have a prognostic role, as their high levels correlate with poor prognosis and short survival in certain NETS [11]. This relationship is usually limited in patients with gastrinomas, who have high CgA values despite the small primary tumour size and absence of metastases, possibly due to CgA secretion from G cells. Also, CgA values reflect the tumour burden, and monitoring the disease by CgA usually helps in detecting tumour recurrence or progression following treatment by surgery or radiotherapy. In patients with midgut NET, serum CgA level was the first marker to reflect tumour recurrence compared with urinary 5HIAA and radiological measurements [12]. Also, in pheochromocytoma, especially when large and lacking the proper hormonal characterization, CgA may be the only laboratory guide in the diagnosis and management of patients with such tumours [13].

Pitfalls in the interpretation of chromogranin A values
Although CgA is a useful general marker for the diagnosis and management of NETs, its universal secretion by almost all neuroendocrine cells makes its use confounded by its co-elevation in a variety of non-NET conditions including non-NET malignancies [14–16]. Hence, interpretation of CgA results must be done in the context of the overall confounding factors, whether physiological, pharmacological or pathological. Such conditions include the use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) or H2-receptor blockers, chronic atrophic gastritis, impaired renal function, cardiac failure, hepatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, benign prostatic hypertrophy or malignancy, rheumatoid arthritis, untreated essential hypertension, and some non-NET neoplasms. The pattern of elevation in serum CgA in certain non-NET conditions has been suggested recently to be utilized as a biomarker and prognostic marker in the stratification of some chronic diseases. This is particularly the case for heart failure where CgA might have a role in identifying those at higher risk of short- or long-term mortality [17]. The role of CgA in diabetes is not clear. However, CgA and its cleavage fragments, including WE-14, might play a part in the pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes mellitus, possibly as a T-cell autoantigen in pancreatic β-cell destruction [18]. Therefore, CgA might have a potential use as a biomarker in the future [18].

Conclusion
Chromogranin A is a secretory protein of neuroendocrine origin that is usually present with its fragments in the circulation as a result of the secretory activity of the secreting neuroendocrine cells of both normal subjects and patients with different NETs. It is the best-known general biomarker which is increasingly used for the diagnosis and management of NETs. It can be measured in plasma or serum using different analytical methods that include RIA, IRMA or ELISA. Raised circulating CgA is considered to be a relatively sensitive marker for the diagnosis of NET particularly if there is clinical suspicion and other work-up investigations that are in plan. Its measurement is also of value in monitoring the progress of treatment and prognosis of the disease. The diagnostic yield is improved if other non-NET related diseases or conditions are considered and excluded prior to the interpretation of CgA values. These conditions include the use of PPIs or H2-receptor blockers, chronic atrophic gastritis, impaired renal, cardiac, or hepatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and some non-NET neoplasms.

References
1. Kaltsas GA, Besser GM, Grossman AB. The diagnosis and medical management of advanced neuroendocrine tumors. Endocr Rev. 2004; 25(3): 458–511.
2. Pearse AG. Common cytochemical and ultrastructural characteristics of cells producing polypeptide hormones (the APUD series) and their relevance to thyroid and ultimobranchial C cells and calcitonin. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1968; 170(1018): 71–80.
3. Yao JC, Hassan M, Phan A, Dagohoy C, Leary C, Mares JE, Abdalla EK, Fleming JB, Vauthey JN, Rashid A, Evans DB. One hundred years after “carcinoid”: epidemiology of and prognostic factors for neuroendocrine tumors in 35,825 cases in the United States. J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26(18): 3063–3072.
4. Banks P, Helle K. The release of protein from the stimulated adrenal medulla. Biochem J 1965; 97(3): 40C–41C.
5. Bartolomucci A, Possenti R, Mahata SK, Fischer-Colbrie R, Loh YP, Salton SR. The extended granin family: structure, function, and biomedical implications. Endocr Rev. 2011; 32(6): 755–797.
6. Bech PR, Martin NM, Ramachandran R, Bloom SR. The biochemical utility of chromogranin A, chromogranin B and cocaine- and amphetamine-regulated transcript for neuroendocrine neoplasia. Ann Clin Biochem. 2014; 51(1): 8–21.
7. Taupenot L, Harper KL, O’Connor DT. The chromogranin-secretogranin family. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348(12): 1134–1149.
8. Stridsberg M, Eriksson B, Oberg K, Janson ET. A comparison between three commercial kits for chromogranin a measurements. J Endocrinol. 2003; 177(2): 337–341.
9. Modlin IM, Gustafsson BI, Moss SF, Pavel M, Tsolakis AV, Kidd M. Chromogranin A- biological function and clinical utility in neuro endocrine tumor disease. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010; 17(9): 2427–2443.
10. Yang X, Yang Y, Li Z, Cheng C, Yang T, Wang C, Liu L, Liu S. Diagnostic value of circulating chromogranin a for neuroendocrine tumors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2015; 10(4): e0124884.
11. Ekeblad S, Skogseid B, Dunder K, Oberg K, Eriksson B. Prognostic factors and survival in 324 patients with pancreatic endocrine tumours treated at a single institution. Clin Cancer Res. 2008; 14(23): 7789–7803.
12. Welin S, Strisberg M, Cunningham J, Granberg D, Skogseid B, Oberg K, Eriksson B, Janson ET. Elevated plasma chromogranin A is the first indication of recurrence in radically operated midgut carcinoid tumors. Neuroendocrinology 2009; 89(3): 302–307.
13. Mula-Abed WA, Ahmed R, Ramadhan FA, Al-Kindi MK, Al-Busaidi NB, Al-Muslahi HN, Al-Lamki MA. A rare case of adrenal pheochromocytoma with unusual clinical and biochemical presentation: A case report and literature review. Oman Med J. 2015; 30(5): 382–390.
14. Gut P, Czarnywojtek A, Fischbach J, Bączyk M, Ziemnicka K,  Wrotkowska E, Gryczyńska M, Ruchała M. Chromogranin A – unspecific neuroendocrine marker. Clinical utility and potential diagnostic pitfalls. Arch Med Sci. 2016; 12(1): 1–9.
15. Glinicki P, Jeske W. Chromogranin A (CgA) – the influence of various factors in vivo and in vitro, and existing disorders on its concentration in blood. Endokrynol Pol. 2011; 62(Suppl 1): 25–28 (in Polish).
16. Capellino S, Lowin T, Angele P, Falk W, Grifka J, Straub RH. Increased chromogranin A levels indicate sympathetic hyperactivity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol. 2008; 35(1): 91–99.
17. Goetze JP, Hilsted LM, Rehfeld JF, Alehagen U. Plasma chromogranin A is a marker of death in elderly patients presenting with symptoms of heart failure. Endocr Connect. 2014; 3(1): 47–56.
18. Stadinski BD, Delong T, Reisdorph N, Reisdorph R, Powell RL, Armstrong M, Piganelli JD, Barbour G, Bradley B, Crawford F, Marrack P, Mahata SK, Kappler JW, Haskins K. Chromogranin A is an autoantigen in type 1 diabetes. Nat Immunol. 2010; 11(3): 225–231.

The authors
Elham AlRisi MD; Waad-Allah S. Mula-Abed* MBChB MSc FRCPath
Directorate of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Royal Hospital, Muscat, Oman

*Corresponding author
E-mail: drsharef@live.com

Metastatic breast cancer is a highly heterogeneous, rapidly evolving and devastating disease that challenges our ability to find curative therapies. RAS pathway activation is an understudied research area in breast cancer. EGFR/RAS pathway activation is prevalent in breast cancer with poor prognosis. The prognostic RAS pathway biomarkers can be used to identify resistant tumour clones, stratify patients and guide therapies.

by L. L. Siewertsz van Reesema, M. P. Lee, Dr V. Zheleva, Dr J. S. Winston,
Dr C. F. O’Connor, Prof. R. R. Perry, Prof. R. A. Hoefer and Prof. A. H. Tang

Introduction
Breast cancer currently represents the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women in the United States [1]. In 2016 alone, an estimated 246 660 women will be diagnosed and an additional 40 450 women are expected to succumb to the disease process [1, 2]. By 2030, there are projected to be 294 000 new cases, making breast cancer a growing public health concern [3–5]. The increased breast cancer screenings, major technical advancements in breast cancer imaging and early detection, and targeted anti-cancer therapies have contributed to significant decreases in morbidity and mortality since the 1970s, and now more than 90% of patients with early-stage breast cancer have expected survival of much more than 5 years [2, 5]. Despite these amazing advancements, the prognosis for patients with high-grade, locally advanced and metastatic breast cancers remains poor with average survival less than 2 years [2, 6–8]. State-of-the-art treatments, such as anti-HER2 therapy, anti-ER therapy, anti-PI3K and anti-mTOR therapy, tumour genome-guided combination therapies, stem cell therapy, and anti-CTLA-4/PD1 immunotherapy, alone or in combination, are not curative in eradicating metastatic breast cancer [9–14]. The clinical reality is that despite similar clinical diagnoses and presentation, patients often display diverse tumour response to standard therapies. The intrinsic diversity and evolving heterogeneity of their mammary tumours can become more pronounced in relapsed or metastatic tumours after therapeutic intervention and clonal selection by ineffective treatment. This de novo and acquired tumour heterogeneity leads to diverse tumour responses in neoadjuvant and adjuvant setting following standard-of-care therapies, which in turn leads to varied clinical outcome and disparity in patient survival [6, 15, 16].

Currently, there are no reliable clinical biomarkers that can be used to consistently predict survival of patients with late-stage or metastatic breast cancers [6]. Classically utilized breast cancer biomarkers, such as estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) molecular subtypes, do not correlate with survival outcomes nor do they predict tumour responses to guided therapies in invasive disease [6]. Patients with malignant tumours are often subjected to full regimens of toxic therapies followed by a period of uncertainty awaiting to learn the response of their tumours and efficacy of their treatments. Unfortunately, some patients may be over-treated, which compromises their long-term quality of life, or, conversely, some patients may be under- or incorrectly treated and thus miss a critical window of opportunity to change prescribed anticancer regimens if therapy-resistant tumours persist after aggressive therapy. There is a pressing need to identify reliable, sensitive, and robust prognostic biomarkers to closely monitor tumour response in real-time, and, importantly, to determine whether first-line standard therapies prescribed are effective against high-risk and invasive mammary tumours, given diverse tumour response and intrinsic tumour heterogeneity [7, 16–21].

Current prognostic biomarkers used in breast cancer
Clinicopathological parameters such as patient age, TMN (tumour size, lymph node status, metastasis) staging, tumour grade and histology, and molecular subtype of breast tumours have become commonplace in justifying medical decision making and prescribing treatment modalities. Therapies for invasive and high-risk breast cancer (luminal, basal-like, HER2-positive and triple-negative breast cancer) are routinely selected based on tumour ER, PR and HER2 status, in addition to aforementioned clinicopathological parameters [22–25]. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) updated their clinical practice guidelines this year and according to the panel, only the current gold-standard biomarkers ER, PR, and HER2 should be used to guide treatment decisions, despite the fact they do not correlate with survival outcomes, nor predict tumour response to standard-of-care therapies [26].

ER-positive breast tumours account for the majority of cases worldwide [27]. Estrogen is the main stimulation for growth in the mammary tumours allowing this clinical biomarker to direct treatment planning and assess the benefit of mainstay anti-hormone therapies such as tamoxifen and aromatase inhibitors. The expression of PR is frequently associated with ER-positive tumours where less than 1% of mammary tumours are PR-positive and ER negative [27]. Furthermore, PR expression has shown strong prognostic value with high level PR expression in invasive breast tumours displaying better outcomes to anti-hormone treatment when compared to low level PR expression [28]. Current guidelines put forth by the ASCO recommend ER and PR testing of all new cases of primary and distant recurrent breast tumours [29].

HER2 status has been identified as a strong indicator of patient overall survival. Overexpression of the HER2 oncogene leads to higher chances of relapse with shorter survival times. The development of anti-HER2 therapies, such as trastuzumab, in treating HER2 have been shown to have major benefit and therefore HER2 status is tested in the majority of breast cancer diagnoses [30]. Other emerging biomarkers such as Ki67 have a possible prognostic role in invasive breast cancers [31]. While the exact function is unknown, Ki67 is expressed in cycling tumour cells and it has strong correlation with tumour grade [31, 32]. Approaches to combining Ki67 with established biomarkers ER, PR, and HER2 are now being used to further distinguish breast cancers into clinical subtypes. However, the ASCO did not recommend using Ki67 to guide adjuvant therapies [29].

The ASCO has recognized the clinical utility of six multigene expression assays for specific subgroups of patients, including OncotypeDX (Genomic Health), EndoPredict (Sividon Diagnostics), PAM50 (Prosigna Breast Cancer Prognostic Gene Signature Assay), Breast Cancer Index, urokinase plasminogen activator, and plasminogen activator inhibitor type 1 [33–37]. Most of these assays are recommended for patients with early-stage breast cancers only; none of these multi-gene assays were encouraged for patients with HER2-positive or triple-negative cancers, in addition to late-stage or metastatic cancers [34, 35]. The development of these promising gene signature-based molecular assessment tools for breast cancer is encouraging for the personalization of breast cancer therapies; however, there still remains an unmet medical need for patients with locally advanced and metastatic breast cancers.

The potential role of RAS pathway proteins in the prognosis and treatment of breast cancer
The oncogenic K-RAS carries the most common gain-of-function mutations in human cancer (30% of all human cancers) and its oncogenic role has been well-established in many types of human cancers [38, 39]. Thus, focusing on this tumour-promoting RAS signalling pathway is a logical choice of investigation for prognostic biomarker discovery and novel anticancer therapy development against oncogenic K-RAS-driven human cancer [40, 41]. The RAS pathway has been an intensely studied area of cancer research due to its activation of downstream effectors resulting in tumour proliferation, survival and motility (Fig. 1A). The loss of its most essential downstream signalling gatekeeper, SIAH (seven in absentia homologue), impeded oncogenic K-RAS-driven human pancreatic cancer and lung cancer [40, 42, 43]. Although oncogenic K-RAS mutations are rarely detected in mammary tumours (observed in about 5% of patients), genomic studies have indicated that the EGFR/HER2/K-RAS ‘pathway’ is activated in a large proportion of aggressive and malignant breast cancers [44, 45]. EGFR/HER2/K-RAS activation has been correlated with shortened survival, resistance to therapy, and tumour relapse despite aggressive treatments in breast cancer [44–47]. The mechanism and function of persistent RAS pathway activation remains elusive in breast cancer. This lack of mechanistic understanding, along with the low mutation rate of oncogenic RAS/RAF/MARK detected in mammary tumours, may contribute to the tumour-driving RAS pathway activation being understudied in the area of breast cancer research. It should also be noted that activation of RAS pathway in mammary tissues of animal models is adequate to induce oncogenic transformation and malignancy [48, 49]. Therefore, although there may not be any detectable RAS mutations in high-grade, locally advanced and metastatic breast tumours, alternative RAS pathway activation mechanisms of the RAS pathway downstream effectors may be present, promoting mammary tumorigenesis and metastasis.

Since RAS pathway activation is a major and essential signalling hub to promote human malignancies, we investigated whether EGFR/HER2/RAS pathway biomarker expression can be added to evaluate therapy efficacy and predict patient survival in breast cancer (Fig. 1A). It has been established that expression of SIAH, the most downstream signalling module and the most evolutionarily conserved component of the RAS signalling pathway, reflects RAS pathway activation, cell proliferation, and tumour growth [40, 42, 43]. In a retrospective study, 364 matched pairs of breast tumour specimens from 182 patients who received neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) were analysed to determine whether SIAH and/or EGFR outperform ER, PR, HER2, and Ki67 as a prognostic biomarker in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer. The prognostic power of SIAH and EGFR, alone or in combination, is comparable to the clinical gold standards of clinical predictors (lymph node positivity, mammary tumour size, grade, stage and molecular subtypes in combination), and imaging-guided technology [50]. The activation/inactivation of the tumour-promoting RAS pathway biomarkers, SIAH and EGFR, is associated with tumour progression/regression in mammary tumours post-neoadjuvant systemic therapies (NST). We found that a marked reduction in SIAH/EGFR expression post-NST would indicate effective therapy and increased survival, while persistent high SIAH/EGFR expression post-NST would indicate ineffective therapy and decreased survival [50]. These results suggest that NST-induced reduction of SIAH and EGFR expression may be used as two useful surrogate prognostic biomarkers to quantify therapeutic efficacy, determine tumour responses, detect emerging resistant clones, and predict patient survival in high-grade and aggressive molecular subtype of breast cancer in the neoadjuvant setting in the future (Fig. 1B).

Conclusion
Early stage breast cancer is highly responsive to commonly prescribed standard of care therapies with excellent long-term survival. Locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer has a much worse prognosis despite aggressive chemo- and radiation therapies and locoregional surgical interventions. This disparity in prognosis underlines the acute need to tailor therapy and stratify patients in order to improve patient survival. The discovery of incorporating tumour heterogeneity-independent, therapy-responsive and tumour-driven RAS pathway biomarkers is prognostic in breast cancer, have a clear clinical impact to benefit breast cancer patients with locally advanced and metastatic diseases.

References
1. Siegel RL, et al. Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin. 2016; 66: 7–30.
2. DeSantis C, et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014; 64: 52–62.
3. Anderson WF,  et al. Incidence of breast cancer in the United States: current and future trends. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011; 103: 1397–1402.
4. Rahib L, et al. Projecting cancer incidence and deaths to 2030: the unexpected burden of thyroid, liver, and pancreas cancers in the United States. Cancer Res. 2014; 74: 2913–2921.
5. Graham LJ, et al. Current approaches and challenges in monitoring treatment responses in breast cancer. J Cancer 2014; 5: 58–68.
6. Tevaarwerk AJ, et al. Survival in patients with metastatic recurrent breast cancer after adjuvant chemotherapy: little evidence of improvement over the past 30 years. Cancer 2013; 119: 1140–1148.
7. Zardavas D, et al. Emerging targeted agents in metastatic breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2013; 10: 191–210.
8. Lobbezoo DJ, et al. Prognosis of metastatic breast cancer subtypes: the hormone receptor/HER2-positive subtype is associated with the most favorable outcome. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013; 141: 507–514.
9. El Saghir NS, et al. Treatment of metastatic breast cancer: state-of-the-art, subtypes and perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2011; 80: 433–449.
10. Engelman JA. Targeting PI3K signalling in cancer: opportunities, challenges and limitations. Nat Rev Cancer 2009; 9: 550–562.
11. McKeage K, Perry CM. Trastuzumab: a review of its use in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer overexpressing HER2. Drugs 2002; 62: 209–243.
12. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, et al. Trastuzumab after adjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 1659–1672.
13. Robert N, et al. Randomized phase III study of trastuzumab, paclitaxel, and carboplatin compared with trastuzumab and paclitaxel in women with HER-2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2006; 24: 2786–2792.
14. Romond EH, et al. Trastuzumab plus adjuvant chemotherapy for operable HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353: 1673–1684.
15. Vogelstein B, et al. Cancer genome landscapes. Science 2013; 339: 1546–1558.
16. Zardavas D, et al. Clinical management of breast cancer heterogeneity. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015; 12: 381–394.
17. Coley HM. Mechanisms and strategies to overcome chemotherapy resistance in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rev. 2008; 34: 378–390.
18. Haddad TC, Goetz MP. Landscape of neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015; 22: 1408–1415.
19. Holohan C, et al. Cancer drug resistance: an evolving paradigm. Nat Rev Cancer 2013; 13: 714–726.
20. Hutchinson L. Breast cancer: challenges, controversies, breakthroughs. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010; 7: 669–670.
21. King TA, Morrow M. Surgical issues in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015; 12: 335–343.
22. Baselga J, et al. Pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366: 109–119.
23. Bevers TB, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2009; 7: 1060–1096.
24. Redden MH, Fuhrman GM. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer. Surg Clin North Am. 2013; 93: 493–499.
25. Tolaney SM, et al. Adjuvant paclitaxel and trastuzumab for node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 134–141.
26. Hammond ME, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College Of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2010; 28: 2784–2795.
27. Viale G, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of centrally reviewed expression of estrogen and progesterone receptors in a randomized trial comparing letrozole and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal early breast cancer: BIG 1–98. J Clin Oncol. 2007; 25: 3846–3852.
28. Dowsett M, et al. Benefit from adjuvant tamoxifen therapy in primary breast cancer patients according oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, EGF receptor and HER2 status. Ann Oncol. 2006; 17: 818–826.
29. Runowicz CD, et al. American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer Survivorship Care Guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2016; 34: 611–635.
30. Weigel MT, Dowsett M. Current and emerging biomarkers in breast cancer: prognosis and prediction. Endocr Relat Cancer 2010; 17: R245–262.
31. Falato C, et al. Ki67 measured in metastatic tissue and prognosis in patients with advanced breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014; 147: 407–414.
32. Bulfoni M, et al. In patients with metastatic breast cancer the identification of circulating tumor cells in epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition is associated with a poor prognosis. Breast Cancer Res. 2016; 18: 30.
33. Sparano JA, et al. Prospective validation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2015;.
34. Gyorffy B, et al. Multigene prognostic tests in breast cancer: past, present, future. Breast Cancer Res. 2015; 17: 11.
35. Goncalves R, Bose R. Using multigene tests to select treatment for early-stage breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2013; 11: 174–182; quiz 182.
36. van ‘t Veer LJ, et al. Gene expression profiling predicts clinical outcome of breast cancer. Nature 2002; 415: 530–536.
37. Oakman C, et al. Breast cancer assessment tools and optimizing adjuvant therapy. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2010; 7: 725–732.
38. Downward J. Targeting RAS signalling pathways in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003; 3: 11–22.
39. Pylayeva-Gupta Y, et al. RAS oncogenes: weaving a tumorigenic web. Nat Rev Cancer 2011; 11: 761–774.
40. Van Sciver RE, et al. Blocking SIAH proteolysis, an important K-RAS vulnerability, to control and eradicate K-RAS-driven metastatic cancer. In: A. Azmi (Ed.) Conquering RAS, Elsevier, 2016.
41. McCormick F. KRAS as a therapeutic target. Clin Cancer Res. 2015; 21: 1797–1801.
42. Ahmed AU, et al. Effect of disrupting seven-in-absentia homolog 2 function on lung cancer cell growth. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008; 100: 1606–1629.
43. Schmidt RL, et al. Inhibition of RAS-mediated transformation and tumorigenesis by targeting the downstream E3 ubiquitin ligase seven in absentia homologue. Cancer Res. 2007; 67: 11798–11810.
44. Arteaga CL, et al. Treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer: current status and future perspectives. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012; 9: 16–32.
45. Foulkes WD, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363: 1938–1948.
46. Tebbutt N, et al. Targeting the ERBB family in cancer: couples therapy. Nat Rev Cancer 2013; 13: 663–673.
47. Wright KL, et al. Ras signaling is a key determinant for metastatic dissemination and poor survival of luminal breast cancer patients. Cancer Res. 2015; 75: 4960–4972.
48. Creedon H, et al. Use of a genetically engineered mouse model as a preclinical tool for HER2 breast cancer. Dis Model Mech. 2016; 9: 131–140.
49. Politi K, Pao W. How genetically engineered mouse tumor models provide insights into human cancers. J Clin Oncol. 2011; 29: 2273–2281.
50. van Reesema LL, et al. SIAH and EGFR, two RAS pathway biomarkers, are highly prognostic in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer. EBioMedicine 2016; 11: 183–198.

The authors
Lauren L. Siewertsz van Reesema†*¹ BS; Michael P. Lee†¹ MS; Vasilena Zheleva² MD; Janet S. Winston³ MD; Caroline F. O’Connor4 MD; Roger R. Perry² MD, FACS; Richard A. Hoefer^5,6,7 DO, FACS; Amy H. Tang*^4,8 PhD
¹Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA 23507, USA
²Department of Surgery, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA 23507, USA
³Sentara Pathology and Pathology Sciences Medical Group, Sentara Norfolk General Hospital (SNGH), Norfolk, VA 23507, USA
⁴Department of Microbiology and Molecular Cell Biology, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA 23507, USA
⁵Sentara Cancer Network, ⁶Dorothy G. Hoefer Comprehensive Breast Center, ⁷Sentara CarePlex Hospital, Newport News, Virginia 23606, USA
⁸Leroy T. Canoles Jr. Cancer Research Center, Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, VA 23507, USA

†Authors contributed equally to this publication.
*Corresponding author
E-mail: Tangah@evms.edu