Submitted Successfully!
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Ver. Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 + 2348 word(s) 2348 2021-12-14 09:49:53 |
2 format correct Meta information modification 2348 2021-12-17 03:29:52 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Koorse Germans, S. Cancer Stem Cells in TNBC. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 10 December 2023).
Koorse Germans S. Cancer Stem Cells in TNBC. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed December 10, 2023.
Koorse Germans, Sharon. "Cancer Stem Cells in TNBC" Encyclopedia, (accessed December 10, 2023).
Koorse Germans, S.(2021, December 14). Cancer Stem Cells in TNBC. In Encyclopedia.
Koorse Germans, Sharon. "Cancer Stem Cells in TNBC." Encyclopedia. Web. 14 December, 2021.
Cancer Stem Cells in TNBC

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) remains an aggressive disease due to the lack of targeted therapies and low rate of response to chemotherapy that is currently the main treatment modality for TNBC. Breast cancer stem cells (BCSCs) are a small subpopulation of breast tumors and recognized as drivers of tumorigenesis. TNBC tumors are characterized as being enriched for BCSCs. Growing evidence has shown that breast cancer stem cells are associated with tumor initiation and metastasis and may play a critical role in chemoresistance. Multiple targets against breast cancer stem cells are now under investigation. Recent advances in the role of breast cancer stem cells in triple negative breast cancer and the identification of cancer stem cell biomarkers have paved the way for the development of new targeted therapies.

cancer stem cells breast cancer stem cells tumor biomarker triple negative breast cancer chemoresistance metastasis

1. Cancer Stem Cells in Breast Cancer

BCSCs are a small cell subpopulation among all tumor cells, with unique stem cell characteristics such as self-renewal, high proliferation and differentiation potential to multiple lineages within the breast. BCSCs interact with their tumor microenvironment (TME) as well as on the inducing factors and elements. Markers that have been identified in BCSCs include ALDH1+, CD24− and CD44+. Cells which simultaneously express these markers have the highest tumor initiating and proliferative capacity. Several theories have been proposed about the origin of BCSCs. One of them suggests mutations in dormant normal stem cells results in their transformation to cancer stem cells, a process similar to that of non-stem cells [1][2].
Several markers have been used for the isolation and identification of BCSCs. In 2003, Al-Hajj M et al. first described and isolated the BCSC phenotypes CD24− and CD44+ [3]. CD24 is a cell surface glycoprotein, which has been shown to play a role in tumor progression and metastasis. As a ligand for P-selectin, CD24 is proposed to interact with endothelial cells and platelets during metastasis and ultimately has been linked to poor prognosis and decreased survival [4][5]. As another cell surface glycoprotein and specific receptor to hyaluronan, CD44 plays a key role in breast cancer adhesion, motion, migration and invasion, all of which have a significant impact on early tumor metastasis. [6] ALDH1 is a recently described BCSC marker which belongs to a family of cytosolic enzymes involved in oxidation of intracellular aldehydes that convert retinaldehydes to retinoic acid [7].
Six molecular subtypes of TNBC have been proposed: immunomodulatory, mesenchymal, mesenchymal stem-like, luminal androgen receptor and two basal-like subtypes [8]. The CD44+/CD24− lineage cells generally possess a mesenchymal or myoepithelial-like phenotype and are found more peripherally at the tumor edge. ALDH1-expressing BCSCs have a more epithelial or luminal phenotype and are located more centrally in tumors. These characteristics enable effective epithelial-mesenchymal transition and vice versa [9]. This explains the increased rate of metastasis in BCSC enriched tumors.
Cancer cells with the CD44+/CD24−/ALDH1+ phenotype in breast cancer can therefore be distinguished from other cancer cells by their stem-like features, ability to maintain survival and the role in cancer invasion and metastasis, particularly in TNBC.

2. Breast Cancer Stem Cell Regulation Pathways in Triple Negative Breast Cancer

TNBC tumors are known as being enriched for BCSCs. Transcription factors, signaling pathways and tumor suppressor genes have played a pivotal role to maintain the state of stemness of BCSCs. The Wnt, Notch, and Shh pathways have been identified as playing an important role in BCSC and TNBC biology [10][11][12]. Like in many other epithelia, Wnt pathway activity is critical for stem cell self-renewal and multipotency in the breast [13]. Although canonical Wnt signaling is the most well-known path to β-catenin stabilization, numerous other signaling pathways also regulate β-catenin stability and transcriptional activity [14]. For instance, the β-catenin mediated Wnt pathway has several downstream targets including MMP7 and PTEN, as characterized by Dey and colleagues [15]. In TNBC, differential activation of the Wnt pathway correlates with increased MMP7 and decreased expression of PTEN. Patients with increases in MMP7 have a lower rate of pathologic complete response and a high residual disease burden [16]. Inhibition of the Wnt pathway leads to decreased proliferation and induction of apoptosis, bringing to light possible therapeutic targets [17]. Additionally, wnt10B/β-catenin modulates HMGA2, and expression of HMGA2 has been shown to predict the metastasis rate and relapse-free survival [18]. Sulaiman and colleagues found that increased Wnt and histone deacetylase (HDAC) activities are associated with loss of ER and PR expression, poor survival, and increased relapse in patients with invasive breast cancer. Furthermore, in a subset of TNBC cell lines, Wnt signaling and the repression of ER and PR was found to be inversely correlated [19].
The canonical Notch signaling pathway is initiated by activating Notch receptors upon binding to Serrate- and Delta-like ligands present on the cell membranes of adjacent cells. Notch receptors have intracellular domains that are releases into the nucleus after proteolytic cleavages. These Notch intracellular domains can recruit MAML1 and histone acetyltransferase p300 to form active transcriptional complexes, which is the final regulator of the Notch target genes [20]. It was found that the Notch 4, one of the four Notch receptors, is involved in the constitutive ligand-independent activation of Notch 4, and could facilitate the development of mammary adenocarcinoma [21]. BCSCs ectopically expressing Notch 4 in TNBC have shown increased proliferation and invasiveness, whereas inhibition/knockdown of Notch4 decreases cell proliferation, invasion, tumor volume, and tumorigenicity [20].
The canonical Shh pathway is activated by releasing its ligands to bind and inhibit transmembrane receptor Patched-1 (PTCH1). PTCH1 can subsequent initiate an intracellular signal cascade to activate of the downstream transcription factors of glioma-associated oncogene (GLI) [22]. Common Shh target genes include Cyclin D1/2 [23]PDGFRMYC [24]BCL2 [25]VEGF [26]MMP9 [27] and SOX2 [28]. The non-canonical Shh pathway, on the other hand, does not reply on the PTCH1 to activate GLI. Instead, it can cross talk with a variety of other signaling cascades [22]. Of note, Shh pathway activation is involved in the TME of the CD44+/CD24−/ALDH1+-expressing BCSCs. Shh pathway activation has been found to mediate the self-renewal of BCSCs after radiation or chemotherapy, which, not surprisingly, results in therapy resistance.
The self-renewal mechanism of CSCs, involving the signal transduction pathways noted above and including Wnt, Notch, and Shh [29], is illustrated in Figure 1A. Further investigation of these signaling pathway functions and their interactions with other pathways can aid the development of CSC-targeted therapy for the treatment of TNBC.
Figure 1. Summary of CSC specific mechanisms and pathways targeting breast cancer stem cells (A) and non-CSC specific mechanisms and pathways targeting breast cancer cells (B).

3. Tumor Metastasis in Triple Negative Breast Cancer

Using CSCs as a prognostic marker in patients with breast cancer has profound clinical significance and has been discussed in one of our prior reviews [30]. The prognostic value of these CSC markers in breast cancer, especially the association with metastasis occurrence and survivals, has been summarized in Table 1. Based on the accumulating evidence, it appears as if combining the three stem cell markers CD44, CD24, and ALDH1 has tremendous value in predicting prognosis, including risk of metastasis and overall survival.
Table 1. Summary of studies on metastasis occurrence and survivals in stem like breast cancer.
Study TNBC All Cases Metastasis Occurrence Survival
(Abraham et al., 2005) [31] NA 112 12 (80%) cases with CD44+/CD24−/low phenotype had distant metastasis (p = 0.04). All 5 cases with more than 20% CD44+/CD24−/low tumor cells had osseous metastasis (p = 0.02). The percentage of CD44+/CD24−/low tumor cells had no influence on DFS or OS
(Liu et al., 2007) [32] N/A 581 The IGS * in CD44+/CD24−/low cancer cells was significantly associated with the risk of metastasis regardless of tumor size or lymph-node status (p < 0.05). Of patients treated with chemotherapy,
IGS in CD44+/CD24−/low cancer cells was
associated with lower 10-year metastasis-free survival (p < 0.001).
(Lin et al., 2012) [33] 62 147 The proportion of CD44+/CD24− tumor cells was correlated with lymph node involvement (p = 0.026). The proportion of CD44+/CD24− tumor
cells was significantly associated with DFS (p = 0.002) and OS (p = 0.001).
(Adamczyk et al., 2014) [34] 35 156 NA In patients treated with anthracyclines and taxanes, significantly longer survival was associated with CD44+ phenotype (DFS p = 0.019, OS p = 0.062) and CD44+/CD24− phenotype (DFS p=0.006, OS p = 0.019).
(Chen et al., 2015) [35] 21 140 The proportion of CD44+/CD24− tumor cells was significantly associated with lymph node involvement (p = 0.016), distant metastasis (p = 0.001), and recurrence (p = 0.013) High CD44+/CD24− phenotype had worse response to chemotherapy (p = 0.001), and worse DFS (p = 0.0012) and OS (p = 0.017)
(Collina et al., 2015) [36] 160 160 Only CD44, not CD24, CD133, ALDH1 and ABCG2, was significantly associated with metastases (p = 0.011). Among CD44, CD24, CD133, ALDH1 and ABCG2, only CD44 was significantly associated with DFS (p = 0.051).
(Wang et al., 2017) [37] 67 67 CD44+/CD24− subtype possessed slightly increased risk of metastasis or recurrence compared with CD44−/CD24− subtype. CD44+/CD24− tumor cells were associated with worse OS (p = 0.005).
(Ma et al., 2017) [38] 158 158 ALDH1 expression was significantly correlated with tumor stage (p = 0.04). ALDH1 expression was associated with shorter RFS (p = 0.01) and OS (p = 0.001).
(Lee & Kim, 2018) [39] 1 2 Both cutaneous metastatic cases had high expression of CD44+/CD24− and ALDH1+. NA
(Rabinovich et al., 2018) [40] 31 144 NA CD44+/CD24− phenotype was associated with a greater risk of relapse (p = 0.011) and a worse outcome (p = 0.019). TNBC was associated with ALDH+ (p = 0.039).
(Althobiti et al., 2020) [41] 178 930 NA The high expression of ALDH1 was significantly associated with poor survival (p < 0.001), and particularly in the luminal B (p = 0.042) and TNBC (p = 0.003) subtypes.
* IGS: invasiveness gene signature; DFS: disease-free survival; OS: overall survival; RFS: relapse-free survival; NA: not available.
The epithelial–mesenchymal transition (EMT) has been recently recognized to have the ability to convert epithelial cells to mesenchymal cells and subsequently acquire motile and migratory propensity [42]. This propensity, as expected, plays a key role for CSCs to metastasize to distant tissues or organs regardless of chemotherapy [43]. Several signaling pathways in the TME, including, but not limited to, Wnt, Notch, and Shh, as mentioned earlier, produce transcription factors to regulate tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis. If these tumor cells are present in patient vessels and/or lymphatics, they are called circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and have been hypothesized to be involved in the metastatic process [44][45]. Increasing evidence has demonstrated that CSC markers are conserved without alteration during tumor metastasis, with CTCs serving as intermediate cells from primary tumor cells and the distant metastatic tumor cells [46]. BCSCs have been identified in a CTC population among patient peripheral blood samples [47]. Accordingly, this finding makes it possible to detect CTCs by using stem cell markers mentioned above [48][49]. These markers, while indicating the stemness of the CTCs, may be used for the early diagnosis of tumor metastasis, prognosis prediction and therapeutic effect monitoring.
It has been shown that TNBC exhibits more traits possessed by CSC than other breast cancer subtypes and is more likely to develop metastases [50][51]. Driven by the aggregation of CD44+ CSC, more CTC clusters and polyclonal metastasis of TNBC were found to be associated with an unfavorable prognosis [52]. The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) family has been found to be involved in the regulation of cancer metastasis, including TNBC [50][53]. Interactions between the receptor tyrosine kinases EGFR and metastasis with extracellular matrix (ECM)-binding integrins enhance metastatic colonization in model systems [53][54][55]. The current evidence supports dynamic crosstalk between CSCs and metastatic site TME, with contributions by surrounding non-stem cells, including stromal cells, immune cells, and ECM, which are crucial for tumor growth after CTCs seed in the metastatic site [56][57]. CSCs in TNBC have been shown to have characteristic their high invasiveness and metastatic behavior, with increased expression of pro-invasive genes, including those for interleukin (IL)-1, IL-6, IL-8, and urokinase plasminogen activator [57][58].
All the above mechanisms have been shown to be possibly involved in the high propensity for invasiveness and metastasis of BCSCs in TNBC. Targeting these mechanisms can potentially prevent metastasis and therefore improve survival in TNBC.

4. Chemoresistance in Triple Negative Breast Cancer

TNBC, the most aggressive and deadliest type of breast cancer, lacks a targeted therapy and has therapy-resistance to the majority of chemotherapy regimens. Since none of the current chemotherapies specifically targets CSCs, CSCs serve as a tumor reservoir for self-renewal and proliferation. This causes inevitable tumor invasion and metastasis, which is more common in TNBC than non-TNBC, ultimately resulting in poor prognosis. Studies have shown CSCs are associated with chemoresistance, particularly in TNBC due to the higher propensity of developing stemness compared to those found in non-TNBC [10][59].
Doxorubicin (Dox), for instance, is widely used in the treatment of TNBC. However, resistance by tumor cells limits its effectiveness. CSCs have been found to be associated with Dox resistance. Signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (Stat3) and its downstream pathway can convert non-CSCs to CSCs [60]. More recently, a novel signaling pathway that involves Stat3, Oct-4 and c-Myc has been demonstrated to regulate stemness-mediated Dox resistance in TNBC [61][62]. To overcome the mechanism of Dox resistance, WP1066, a Stat3 inhibitor that was more widely studied to treat CNS tumors, is being explored to reduce proliferation of BCSCs in Dox-resistant TNBC [63][64].
Since the CD44+/CD24−/ALDH1+ phenotypes have been recognized as BCSC markers in many studies, a hypothetical approach to targeting CSCs against cell surface membrane antigens such as CD44 would be justified [65][66]. Target options include monoclonal, competitive protein/peptide, HD-CD44 crosstalk, and others [65]. In addition, ALDH1 can be a possible therapeutic target [67], although only limited in vitro data is available through ALDH1 knockdown [68].
Immune evasion has also been suggested to result in chemoresistance in TNBC, as well as tumorigenesis in other tumor types. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have been shown to be present in some TNBC and non-TNBC breast cancers and have been associated with favorable prognosis [69][70]. Programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) receptor expression on tumor cells and programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression on TILs are therefore indicators of the enrichment of the adaptive immune response against tumor cells. Lack of TIL or PD-1/PD-L1 expression in the tumor microenvironment has been suggested to be associated with less favorable prognosis, especially in early-stage breast cancer [71]. The blockade of PD-1/PD-L1 with checkpoint inhibitors has become a promising immunotherapy to enhance anti-tumor immunity in TNBC after success in treating other types of cancer and is being widely investigated in many ongoing studies.
The involvement of any of the above mechanisms may result in chemoresistance in TNBC. It is essential to take these mechanisms into account when developing novel targeted therapies to overcome chemoresistance.


  1. Wang, R.-A.; Li, Z.-S.; Zhang, H.-Z.; Zheng, P.-J.; Li, Q.-L.; Shi, J.-G.; Yan, Q.-G.; Ye, J.; Wang, J.-B.; Guo, Y.; et al. Invasive Cancers Are Not Necessarily from Preformed in Situ Tumours—An Alternative Way of Carcinogenesis from Misplaced Stem Cells. J. Cell Mol. Med. 2013, 17, 921–926.
  2. Hartwig, F.P.; Nedel, F.; Collares, T.; Tarquinio, S.B.C.; Nör, J.E.; Demarco, F.F. Oncogenic Somatic Events in Tissue-Specific Stem Cells: A Role in Cancer Recurrence? Ageing Res. Rev. 2014, 13, 100–106.
  3. Al-Hajj, M.; Wicha, M.S.; Benito-Hernandez, A.; Morrison, S.J.; Clarke, M.F. Prospective Identification of Tumorigenic Breast Cancer Cells. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 3983–3988.
  4. Kristiansen, G.; Winzer, K.-J.; Mayordomo, E.; Bellach, J.; Schlüns, K.; Denkert, C.; Dahl, E.; Pilarsky, C.; Altevogt, P.; Guski, H.; et al. CD24 Expression Is a New Prognostic Marker in Breast Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2003, 9, 4906–4913.
  5. Schabath, H.; Runz, S.; Joumaa, S.; Altevogt, P. CD24 Affects CXCR4 Function in Pre-B Lymphocytes and Breast Carcinoma Cells. J. Cell Sci. 2006, 119, 314–325.
  6. Herrera-Gayol, A.; Jothy, S. Adhesion Proteins in the Biology of Breast Cancer: Contribution of CD44. Exp. Mol. Pathol. 1999, 66, 149–156.
  7. Balicki, D. Moving Forward in Human Mammary Stem Cell Biology and Breast Cancer Prognostication Using ALDH1. Cell Stem Cell 2007, 1, 485–487.
  8. Lehmann, B.D.; Bauer, J.A.; Chen, X.; Sanders, M.E.; Chakravarthy, A.B.; Shyr, Y.; Pietenpol, J.A. Identification of Human Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Subtypes and Preclinical Models for Selection of Targeted Therapies. J. Clin. Investig. 2011, 121, 2750–2767.
  9. Liu, S.; Cong, Y.; Wang, D.; Sun, Y.; Deng, L.; Liu, Y.; Martin-Trevino, R.; Shang, L.; McDermott, S.P.; Landis, M.D.; et al. Breast Cancer Stem Cells Transition between Epithelial and Mesenchymal States Reflective of Their Normal Counterparts. Stem Cell Rep. 2014, 2, 78–91.
  10. Palomeras, S.; Ruiz-Martínez, S.; Puig, T. Targeting Breast Cancer Stem Cells to Overcome Treatment Resistance. Molecules 2018, 23, 2193.
  11. Lindvall, C.; Bu, W.; Williams, B.O.; Li, Y. Wnt Signaling, Stem Cells, and the Cellular Origin of Breast Cancer. Stem Cell Rev. 2007, 3, 157–168.
  12. Rangel, M.C.; Bertolette, D.; Castro, N.P.; Klauzinska, M.; Cuttitta, F.; Salomon, D.S. Developmental Signaling Pathways Regulating Mammary Stem Cells and Contributing to the Etiology of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2016, 156, 211–226.
  13. Zeng, Y.A.; 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, 568–577.
  14. Incassati, A.; Chandramouli, A.; Eelkema, R.; Cowin, P. Key Signaling Nodes in Mammary Gland Development and Cancer: β-Catenin. Breast Cancer Res. 2010, 12, 213.
  15. Dey, N.; Young, B.; Abramovitz, M.; Bouzyk, M.; Barwick, B.; De, P.; Leyland-Jones, B. Differential Activation of Wnt-β-Catenin Pathway in Triple Negative Breast Cancer Increases MMP7 in a PTEN Dependent Manner. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e77425.
  16. Dey, N.; Barwick, B.G.; Moreno, C.S.; Ordanic-Kodani, M.; Chen, Z.; Oprea-Ilies, G.; Tang, W.; Catzavelos, C.; Kerstann, K.F.; Sledge, G.W.; et al. Wnt Signaling in Triple Negative Breast Cancer Is Associated with Metastasis. BMC Cancer 2013, 13, 537.
  17. Bilir, B.; Kucuk, O.; Moreno, C.S. Wnt Signaling Blockage Inhibits Cell Proliferation and Migration, and Induces Apoptosis in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cells. J. Transl. Med. 2013, 11, 280.
  18. Wend, P.; Runke, S.; Wend, K.; Anchondo, B.; Yesayan, M.; Jardon, M.; Hardie, N.; Loddenkemper, C.; Ulasov, I.; Lesniak, M.S.; et al. WNT10B/β-Catenin Signalling Induces HMGA2 and Proliferation in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. EMBO Mol. Med. 2013, 5, 264–279.
  19. Sulaiman, A.; Sulaiman, B.; Khouri, L.; McGarry, S.; Nessim, C.; Arnaout, A.; Li, X.; Addison, C.; Dimitroulakos, J.; Wang, L. Both Bulk and Cancer Stem Cell Subpopulations in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Are Susceptible to Wnt, HDAC, and ERα Coinhibition. FEBS Lett. 2016, 590, 4606–4616.
  20. Krishna, B.M.; Jana, S.; Singhal, J.; Horne, D.; Awasthi, S.; Salgia, R.; Singhal, S.S. Notch Signaling in Breast Cancer: From Pathway Analysis to Therapy. Cancer Lett. 2019, 461, 123–131.
  21. Gallahan, D.; Callahan, R. Mammary Tumorigenesis in Feral Mice: Identification of a New Int Locus in Mouse Mammary Tumor Virus (Czech II)-Induced Mammary Tumors. J. Virol. 1987, 61, 66–74.
  22. Bhateja, P.; Cherian, M.; Majumder, S.; Ramaswamy, B. The Hedgehog Signaling Pathway: A Viable Target in Breast Cancer? Cancers 2019, 11, 1126.
  23. Kasper, M.; Schnidar, H.; Neill, G.W.; Hanneder, M.; Klingler, S.; Blaas, L.; Schmid, C.; Hauser-Kronberger, C.; Regl, G.; Philpott, M.P.; et al. Selective Modulation of Hedgehog/GLI Target Gene Expression by Epidermal Growth Factor Signaling in Human Keratinocytes. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2006, 26, 6283–6298.
  24. Zuo, M.; Rashid, A.; Churi, C.; Vauthey, J.-N.; Chang, P.; Li, Y.; Hung, M.-C.; Li, D.; Javle, M. Novel Therapeutic Strategy Targeting the Hedgehog Signalling and MTOR Pathways in Biliary Tract Cancer. Br. J. Cancer 2015, 112, 1042–1051.
  25. Regl, G.; Kasper, M.; Schnidar, H.; Eichberger, T.; Neill, G.W.; Philpott, M.P.; Esterbauer, H.; Hauser-Kronberger, C.; Frischauf, A.-M.; Aberger, F. Activation of the BCL2 Promoter in Response to Hedgehog/GLI Signal Transduction Is Predominantly Mediated by GLI2. Cancer Res. 2004, 64, 7724–7731.
  26. Po, A.; Silvano, M.; Miele, E.; Capalbo, C.; Eramo, A.; Salvati, V.; Todaro, M.; Besharat, Z.M.; Catanzaro, G.; Cucchi, D.; et al. Noncanonical GLI1 Signaling Promotes Stemness FeatuRes. and in Vivo Growth in Lung Adenocarcinoma. Oncogene 2017, 36, 4641–4652.
  27. Corte, C.M.D.; Bellevicine, C.; Vicidomini, G.; Vitagliano, D.; Malapelle, U.; Accardo, M.; Fabozzi, A.; Fiorelli, A.; Fasano, M.; Papaccio, F.; et al. SMO Gene Amplification and Activation of the Hedgehog Pathway as Novel Mechanisms of Resistance to Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Drugs in Human Lung Cancer. Clin. Cancer Res. 2015, 21, 4686–4697.
  28. Merchant, A.A.; Matsui, W. Targeting Hedgehog—A Cancer Stem Cell Pathway. Clin. Cancer Res. 2010, 16, 3130–3140.
  29. Geng, S.-Q.; Alexandrou, A.T.; Li, J.J. Breast Cancer Stem Cells: Multiple Capacities in Tumor Metastasis. Cancer Lett. 2014, 349, 1–7.
  30. O’Conor, C.J.; Chen, T.; González, I.; Cao, D.; Peng, Y. Cancer Stem Cells in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Potential Target and Prognostic Marker. Biomark. Med. 2018, 12, 813–820.
  31. Abraham, B.K.; Fritz, P.; McClellan, M.; Hauptvogel, P.; Athelogou, M.; Brauch, H. Prevalence of CD44+/CD24−/Low Cells in Breast Cancer May Not Be Associated with Clinical Outcome but May Favor Distant Metastasis. Clin. Cancer Res. 2005, 11, 1154–1159.
  32. Liu, R.; Wang, X.; Chen, G.Y.; Dalerba, P.; Gurney, A.; Hoey, T.; Sherlock, G.; Lewicki, J.; Shedden, K.; Clarke, M.F. The Prognostic Role of a Gene Signature from Tumorigenic Breast-Cancer Cells. N. Engl. J. Med. 2007, 356, 217–226.
  33. Lin, Y.; Zhong, Y.; Guan, H.; Zhang, X.; Sun, Q. CD44+/CD24− Phenotype Contributes to Malignant Relapse Following Surgical Resection and Chemotherapy in Patients with Invasive Ductal Carcinoma. J. Exp. Clin. Cancer Res. 2012, 31, 59.
  34. Adamczyk, A.; Niemiec, J.A.; Ambicka, A.; Mucha-Małecka, A.; Mituś, J.; Ryś, J. CD44/CD24 as Potential Prognostic Markers in Node-Positive Invasive Ductal Breast Cancer Patients Treated with Adjuvant Chemotherapy. J. Mol. Histol. 2014, 45, 35–45.
  35. Chen, Y.; Song, J.; Jiang, Y.; Yu, C.; Ma, Z. Predictive Value of CD44 and CD24 for Prognosis and Chemotherapy Response in Invasive Breast Ductal Carcinoma. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Pathol. 2015, 8, 11287–11295.
  36. Collina, F.; Di Bonito, M.; Li Bergolis, V.; De Laurentiis, M.; Vitagliano, C.; Cerrone, M.; Nuzzo, F.; Cantile, M.; Botti, G. Prognostic Value of Cancer Stem Cells Markers in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 158682.
  37. Wang, H.; Wang, L.; Song, Y.; Wang, S.; Huang, X.; Xuan, Q.; Kang, X.; Zhang, Q. CD44+/CD24− Phenotype Predicts a Poor Prognosis in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Oncol. Lett. 2017, 14, 5890–5898.
  38. Ma, F.; Li, H.; Li, Y.; Ding, X.; Wang, H.; Fan, Y.; Lin, C.; Qian, H.; Xu, B. Aldehyde Dehydrogenase 1 (ALDH1) Expression Is an Independent Prognostic Factor in Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). Medicine 2017, 96, e6561.
  39. Lee, J.S.; Kim, W.G. Cutaneous Metastases of Breast Cancer during Adjuvant Chemotherapy Correlates with Increasing CD44+/CD24− and ALDH-1 Expression: A Case Report and Literature Review. Stem Cell Investig. 2018, 5, 7.
  40. Rabinovich, I.; Sebastião, A.P.M.; Lima, R.S.; Urban, C.D.A.; Junior, E.S.; Anselmi, K.F.; Elifio-Esposito, S.; De Noronha, L.; Moreno-Amaral, A.N. Cancer Stem Cell Markers ALDH1 and CD44+/CD24− Phenotype and Their Prognosis Impact in Invasive Ductal Carcinoma. Eur. J. Histochem. 2018, 62, 2943.
  41. Althobiti, M.; El Ansari, R.; Aleskandarany, M.; Joseph, C.; Toss, M.S.; Green, A.R.; Rakha, E.A. The Prognostic Significance of ALDH1A1 Expression in Early Invasive Breast Cancer. Histopathology 2020, 77, 437–448.
  42. Gupta, P.B.; Chaffer, C.L.; Weinberg, R.A. Cancer Stem Cells: Mirage or Reality? Nat. Med. 2009, 15, 1010–1012.
  43. Thiery, J.P.; Acloque, H.; Huang, R.Y.J.; Nieto, M.A. Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transitions in Development and Disease. Cell 2009, 139, 871–890.
  44. Baccelli, I.; Schneeweiss, A.; Riethdorf, S.; Stenzinger, A.; Schillert, A.; Vogel, V.; Klein, C.; Saini, M.; Bäuerle, T.; Wallwiener, M.; et al. Identification of a Population of Blood Circulating Tumor Cells from Breast Cancer Patients That Initiates Metastasis in a Xenograft Assay. Nat. Biotechnol. 2013, 31, 539–544.
  45. Magbanua, M.J.M.; Sosa, E.V.; Roy, R.; Eisenbud, L.E.; Scott, J.H.; Olshen, A.; Pinkel, D.; Rugo, H.S.; Park, J.W. Genomic Profiling of Isolated Circulating Tumor Cells from Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients. Cancer Res. 2013, 73, 30–40.
  46. Cristofanilli, M.; Pierga, J.-Y.; Reuben, J.; Rademaker, A.; Davis, A.A.; Peeters, D.J.; Fehm, T.; Nolé, F.; Gisbert-Criado, R.; Mavroudis, D.; et al. The Clinical Use of Circulating Tumor Cells (CTCs) Enumeration for Staging of Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC): International Expert Consensus Paper. Crit. Rev. Oncol. Hematol. 2019, 134, 39–45.
  47. Theodoropoulos, P.A.; Polioudaki, H.; Agelaki, S.; Kallergi, G.; Saridaki, Z.; Mavroudis, D.; Georgoulias, V. Circulating Tumor Cells with a Putative Stem Cell Phenotype in Peripheral Blood of Patients with Breast Cancer. Cancer Lett. 2010, 288, 99–106.
  48. Savelieva, O.E.; Tashireva, L.A.; Kaigorodova, E.V.; Buzenkova, A.V.; Mukhamedzhanov, R.K.; Grigoryeva, E.S.; Zavyalova, M.V.; Tarabanovskaya, N.A.; Cherdyntseva, N.V.; Perelmuter, V.M. Heterogeneity of Stemlike Circulating Tumor Cells in Invasive Breast Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2780.
  49. Strati, A.; Nikolaou, M.; Georgoulias, V.; Lianidou, E.S. RNA-Based CTC Analysis Provides Prognostic Information in Metastatic Breast Cancer. Diagnostics 2021, 11, 513.
  50. Bryan, S.; Witzel, I.; Borgmann, K.; Oliveira-Ferrer, L. Molecular Mechanisms Associated with Brain Metastases in HER2-Positive and Triple Negative Breast Cancers. Cancers 2021, 13, 4137.
  51. Ren, D.; Zhu, X.; Kong, R.; Zhao, Z.; Sheng, J.; Wang, J.; Xu, X.; Liu, J.; Cui, K.; Zhang, X.H.-F.; et al. Targeting Brain-Adaptive Cancer Stem Cells Prohibits Brain Metastatic Colonization of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Cancer Res. 2018, 78, 2052–2064.
  52. Liu, X.; Taftaf, R.; Kawaguchi, M.; Chang, Y.-F.; Chen, W.; Entenberg, D.; Zhang, Y.; Gerratana, L.; Huang, S.; Patel, D.B.; et al. Homophilic CD44 Interactions Mediate Tumor Cell Aggregation and Polyclonal Metastasis in Patient-Derived Breast Cancer Models. Cancer Discov. 2019, 9, 96–113.
  53. Oskarsson, T.; Batlle, E.; Massagué, J. Metastatic Stem Cells: Sources, Niches, and Vital Pathways. Cell Stem Cell 2014, 14, 306–321.
  54. Barkan, D.; Green, J.E.; Chambers, A.F. Extracellular Matrix: A Gatekeeper in the Transition from Dormancy to Metastatic Growth. Eur. J. Cancer 2010, 46, 1181–1188.
  55. Desgrosellier, J.S.; Cheresh, D.A. Integrins in Cancer: Biological Implications and Therapeutic Opportunities. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2010, 10, 9–22.
  56. Gao, X.-L.; Zhang, M.; Tang, Y.-L.; Liang, X.-H. Cancer Cell Dormancy: Mechanisms and Implications of Cancer Recurrence and Metastasis. OncoTargets Ther. 2017, 10, 5219–5228.
  57. Lee, K.-L.; Chen, G.; Chen, T.-Y.; Kuo, Y.-C.; Su, Y.-K. Effects of Cancer Stem Cells in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer and Brain Metastasis: Challenges and Solutions. Cancers 2020, 12, 2122.
  58. Sheridan, C.; Kishimoto, H.; Fuchs, R.K.; Mehrotra, S.; Bhat-Nakshatri, P.; Turner, C.H.; Goulet, R.; Badve, S.; Nakshatri, H. CD44+/CD24− Breast Cancer Cells Exhibit Enhanced Invasive Properties: An Early Step Necessary for Metastasis. Breast Cancer Res. 2006, 8, R59.
  59. Nasr, M.; Farghaly, M.; Elsaba, T.; El-Mokhtar, M.; Radwan, R.; Elsabahy, M.; Abdelkareem, A.; Fakhry, H.; Mousa, N. Resistance of Primary Breast Cancer Cells with Enhanced Pluripotency and Stem Cell Activity to Sex Hormonal Stimulation and Suppression. Int. J. Biochem. Cell Biol. 2018, 105, 84–93.
  60. Cheng, C.-C.; Shi, L.-H.; Wang, X.-J.; Wang, S.-X.; Wan, X.-Q.; Liu, S.-R.; Wang, Y.-F.; Lu, Z.; Wang, L.-H.; Ding, Y. Stat3/Oct-4/c-Myc Signal Circuit for Regulating Stemness-Mediated Doxorubicin Resistance of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Cells and Inhibitory Effects of WP1066. Int. J. Oncol. 2018, 53, 339–348.
  61. Moreira, M.P.; da Conceição Braga, L.; Cassali, G.D.; Silva, L.M. STAT3 as a Promising Chemoresistance Biomarker Associated with the CD44+/High/CD24−/Low/ALDH+ BCSCs-like Subset of the Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC) Cell Line. Exp. Cell Res. 2018, 363, 283–290.
  62. Doherty, M.R.; Cheon, H.; Junk, D.J.; Vinayak, S.; Varadan, V.; Telli, M.L.; Ford, J.M.; Stark, G.R.; Jackson, M.W. Interferon-Beta Represses Cancer Stem Cell Properties in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 13792–13797.
  63. Hussain, S.F.; Kong, L.-Y.; Jordan, J.; Conrad, C.; Madden, T.; Fokt, I.; Priebe, W.; Heimberger, A.B. A Novel Small Molecule Inhibitor of Signal Transducers and Activators of Transcription 3 Reverses Immune Tolerance in Malignant Glioma Patients. Cancer Res. 2007, 67, 9630–9636.
  64. Kong, L.-Y.; Wei, J.; Sharma, A.K.; Barr, J.; Abou-Ghazal, M.K.; Fokt, I.; Weinberg, J.; Rao, G.; Grimm, E.; Priebe, W.; et al. A Novel Phosphorylated STAT3 Inhibitor Enhances T Cell Cytotoxicity against Melanoma through Inhibition of Regulatory T Cells. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2009, 58, 1023–1032.
  65. Zöller, M. CD44: Can a Cancer-Initiating Cell Profit from an Abundantly Expressed Molecule? Nat. Rev. Cancer 2011, 11, 254–267.
  66. Yang, C.; He, Y.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Y.; Wang, W.; Du, Y.; Gao, F. Selective Killing of Breast Cancer Cells Expressing Activated CD44 Using CD44 Ligand-Coated Nanoparticles in Vitro and in Vivo. Oncotarget 2015, 6, 15283–15296.
  67. Dittmer, J. Breast Cancer Stem Cells: Features, Key Drivers and Treatment Options. Semin. Cancer Biol. 2018, 53, 59–74.
  68. Pan, M.; Li, M.; Guo, M.; Zhou, H.; Xu, H.; Zhao, F.; Mei, F.; Xue, R.; Dou, J. Knockdown of ALDH1A3 Reduces Breast Cancer Stem Cell Marker CD44 via the MiR-7-TGFBR2-Smad3-CD44 Regulatory Axis. Exp. Ther. Med. 2021, 22, 1093.
  69. Loi, S.; Sirtaine, N.; Piette, F.; Salgado, R.; Viale, G.; Van Eenoo, F.; Rouas, G.; Francis, P.; Crown, J.P.A.; Hitre, E.; et al. Prognostic and Predictive Value of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in a Phase III Randomized Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trial in Node-Positive Breast Cancer Comparing the Addition of Docetaxel to Doxorubicin with Doxorubicin-Based Chemotherapy: BIG 02-98. J. Clin. Oncol. 2013, 31, 860–867.
  70. Dieci, M.V.; Mathieu, M.C.; Guarneri, V.; Conte, P.; Delaloge, S.; Andre, F.; Goubar, A. Prognostic and Predictive Value of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes in Two Phase III Randomized Adjuvant Breast Cancer Trials. Ann. Oncol. 2015, 26, 1698–1704.
  71. Loi, S.; Michiels, S.; Adams, S.; Loibl, S.; Budczies, J.; Denkert, C.; Salgado, R. The Journey of Tumor-Infiltrating Lymphocytes as a Biomarker in Breast Cancer: Clinical Utility in an Era of Checkpoint Inhibition. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 1236–1244.
Subjects: Oncology
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to :
View Times: 381
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 17 Dec 2021