Association of p53 codon 72 polymorphisms with expression status of hormone receptors like ER, PR, and HER-2 in invasive ductal breast carcinoma in Bangladeshi women

Authors

DOI:

Keywords

invasive ductal breast carcinoma, p53 codon polymorphism, hormone receptors, PCR-RFLP 

Correspondence

Md. Zillur Rahman
Email: drzillur@bsmmu.edu.bd

Publication history

Received: 18 Mar 2025
Accepted: 20 July 2025
Published online: 30 July 2025

Responsible editor

Reviewers

D: Anonymous
G: Anonymous

Funding

Funded by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (currently, Bangladesh Medical University), Dhaka, Bangladesh (Memo no. BSMMU/2021/9853(20), dated 28 Oct 2021) and Research and Publication Cell of the University of Chittagong for the allocated fund (Memo No.: 6658/2019, dated 27 Mar 2019).

Ethical approval

Approved by IRB of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (currently, Bangladesh Medical University)(No.BSMMU/2021/5974,
dated 28 June 2021).

Trial registration number

Not applicable

Copyright

© The Author(s) 2025; all rights reserved. 
Published by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (currently Bangladesh Medical University).
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of data on prevalent genetic factors among female breast cancer patients from Bangladesh. p53, a  suppressor gene, is crucial in breast cancer’s aetiology. This study aimed to investigate the association between p53 codon 72 polymorphisms and invasive ductal breast carcinoma (IDC) in Bangladeshi women. 

Methods: This study included 203 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens of histologically confirmed IDC, with immunohistochemical analyses for ER, PR, and HER-2 status from November 2021 to October 2022. The specimens were collected from one laboratory in each of the Dhaka and Chattogram cities. p53 codon 72 genotypes were detected using PCR-RFLP.  

Results: Most patients (77%) were aged 41–60 years. All cases were IDC, with  grade II (79.3%) and stage II being most prevalent (82%). ER-positive tumours were observed in 65.5% of patients, while 69% tumours were PR-negative and HER-2-negative. The GC (Arg/Pro) genotype was predominant (58.6%), followed by CC and GG (20.7% each). Statistically significant associations were found between the GC genotype and  size less than 5 cm (P<0.01), axillary lymph node metastasis (P<0.01), and PR-negative tumours (P=0.02). Patients with GC+GG genotypes had higher odds of axillary lymph node metastasis (age, tumour grade and tumour stage adjusted odds ratio 21.8; 95% confidence interval 7.0–67.9), PR-negative tumours (aOR 0.2; 95% CI 0.1–0.6) and HER-2 negative tumours (aOR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1–0.9). 

Conclusion: Our study suggests that the Arginine allele at p53 codon 72, in either homozygous or heterozygous form, is associated with more aggressive IDC features in Bangladeshi women, including axillary lymph node metastasis and hormone receptor negative tumours.
Key messages
The study suggests that the presence of the Arginine allele in heterozygous (GC) or homozygous (GG) forms at codon 72 of the p53 gene is associated with an increased risk of axillary lymph node metastasis, as well as PR-negative and HER-2-negative tumours, in female patients with invasive ductal breast carcinoma in Bangladesh. No significant link was found between this polymorphism and the ER status of the tumour.
Introduction
The Breast cancer, characterised by the malignant proliferation of epithelial cells within the ducts or lobules of the breast, is the most common malignancy in women, accounting for roughly one-third of all cancers in women worldwide [1]. Several risk factors have been identified, including some reproductive factors (age at menarche, menopause, first pregnancy, breastfeeding, and parity) and non-reproductive factors (menopausal hormone therapy, family history of cancer, body mass index, alcohol intake, and others) that are linked with breast cancer risk [2]. Besides these, women are adopting new lifestyles and undergoing significant demographic transitions. The higher incidence rates of breast cancer may also be due to genetic risk factors, which are still less studied.
 
Breast cancer is linked to various types of somatic genetic alterations, including mutations in oncogenes and  suppressor genes [3]. The TP53 (p53 gene, chromosome 17p13) protein function is altered in all cancers, including breast carcinomas, in approximately 20–40% of cases, depending on  size and stage of disease [4]. The human tumour suppressor gene p53 encodes a transcription factor that plays a central role in maintaining cellular integrity by inhibiting cell growth and stimulating apoptosis in response to DNA damage [5]. A common single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) occurs at the second position of codon 72 in exon 4 (rs1042522: CCC to CGC, Arg72Pro polymorphism), leading to an amino acid substitution of Proline (Pro) with Arginine (Arg) in the Pro-rich region of TP53 protein [6]. The distribution of the Pro and Arg alleles across three genotypic forms—CC (Pro/Pro), GG (Arg/Arg), and GC (Arg/Pro)—largely depends on the ethnic composition of the population studied [7]. The association of p53 polymorphism at codon 72 and breast cancer development has been studied, but results have been controversial and not conclusive. Several studies have reported a significant association between the p53 codon 72 polymorphism and breast cancer risk [7, 8, 9]. whereas others have identified no such association [10, 11]. In some studies, the Pro-allele has been associated with increased breast cancer risk [12, 13]. Other studies found the homozygous Arg-allele (GG genotype) associated with breast cancer predisposition [14, 15, 16]. Yet other studies, including most of the newer and larger studies and meta-analyses, did not detect any association of the Arg72Pro polymorphism with breast cancer risk [17, 18]. These discrepancies are attributed to the failure to determine the mutational status of p53 in the study populations and/or the observed latitudinal differences in allele frequency [19].
 
The study of genetic influences in breast cancer is complex. Careful case selection is important, taking into account ethnic homogeneity, disease phenotype, and exposure to environmental risk factors. Targeted breast cancer management strategies may require not only molecular profiling but also knowledge of an individual’s genetic susceptibility to develop metastatic disease. There is still a great deal more that needs to be discovered and understood before this type of genetic knowledge will find a valid place in the clinical care of individuals and families with breast cancer. However, such genetic study data regarding the association of p53 codon 72 gene polymorphism with (a) invasive ductal breast carcinoma (IDC), and (b) hormone receptor expression status, i.e. estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2) of the IDC patients, are inadequate in Bangladesh. As p53 mutations are potential prognostic and predictive markers, as well as targets for therapy [20, 21]. this study aimed to investigate the association of p53 codon 72 polymorphisms with IDC in adult females and to assess the effect of this polymorphism on the ER, PR and HER-2 expression status of the tumour.

Groups based on pre-test marks

Pretest
marks (%)

Posttest

Marks (%)

Difference in pre and post-test marks (mean improvement)

P

Didactic lecture classes

<50%

36.6 (4.8)

63.2 (9.4)

26.6

<0.001

≥50%

52.8 (4.5)

72.4 (14.9)

19.6

<0.001

Flipped classes

<50%

36.9 (4.7)

82.2 (10.8)

45.4

<0.001

≥50%

52.8 (4.6)

84.2 (10.3)

31.4

<0.001

Data presented as mean (standard deviation)

Background characteristics

Number (%)

Age at presentation (weeks)a

14.3 (9.2)

Gestational age at birth (weeks)a

37.5 (2.8)

Birth weight (grams)a

2,975.0 (825.0)

Sex

 

Male

82 (41)

Female

118 (59)

Affected side

 

Right

140 (70)

Left

54 (27)

Bilateral

6 (3)

Delivery type

 

Normal vaginal delivery

152 (76)

Instrumental delivery

40 (20)

Cesarean section

8 (4)

Place of delivery

 

Home delivery by traditional birth attendant

30 (15)

Hospital delivery by midwife

120 (60)

Hospital delivery by doctor

50 (25)

Prolonged labor

136 (68)

Presentation

 

Cephalic

144 (72)

Breech

40 (20)

Transverse

16 (8)

Shoulder dystocia

136 (68)

Maternal diabetes

40 (20)

Maternal age (years)a

27.5 (6.8)

Parity of mother

 

Primipara

156 (78)

Multipara

156 (78)

aMean (standard deviation), all others are n (%)

Background characteristics

Number (%)

Age at presentation (weeks)a

14.3 (9.2)

Gestational age at birth (weeks)a

37.5 (2.8)

Birth weight (grams)a

2,975.0 (825.0)

Sex

 

Male

82 (41)

Female

118 (59)

Affected side

 

Right

140 (70)

Left

54 (27)

Bilateral

6 (3)

Delivery type

 

Normal vaginal delivery

152 (76)

Instrumental delivery

40 (20)

Cesarean section

8 (4)

Place of delivery

 

Home delivery by traditional birth attendant

30 (15)

Hospital delivery by midwife

120 (60)

Hospital delivery by doctor

50 (25)

Prolonged labor

136 (68)

Presentation

 

Cephalic

144 (72)

Breech

40 (20)

Transverse

16 (8)

Shoulder dystocia

136 (68)

Maternal diabetes

40 (20)

Maternal age (years)a

27.5 (6.8)

Parity of mother

 

Primipara

156 (78)

Multipara

156 (78)

aMean (standard deviation), all others are n (%)

Mean escape latency of acquisition day

Groups                 

NC

SC

ColC

Pre-SwE Exp

Post-SwE Exp

Days

 

 

 

 

 

1st

26.2 (2.3)

30.6 (2.4) 

60.0 (0.0)b

43.2 (1.8)b

43.8 (1.6)b

2nd

22.6 (1.0) 

25.4 (0.6)

58.9 (0.5)b

38.6 (2.0)b

40.5 (1.2)b

3rd

14.5 (1.8) 

18.9 (0.4) 

56.5 (1.2)b

34.2 (1.9)b 

33.8 (1.0)b

4th

13.1 (1.7) 

17.5 (0.8) 

53.9 (0.7)b

35.0 (1.6)b

34.9 (1.6)b

5th

13.0 (1.2) 

15.9 (0.7) 

51.7 (2.0)b

25.9 (0.7)b 

27.7 (0.9)b

6th

12.2 (1.0) 

13.3 (0.4) 

49.5 (2.0)b

16.8 (1.1)b

16.8 (0.8)b

Average of acquisition days

5th and 6th 

12.6 (0.2)

14.6 (0.8)

50.6 (0.7)b

20.4 (2.1)a

22.4 (3.2)a

NC indicates normal control; SC, Sham control; ColC, colchicine control; SwE, swimming exercise exposure.

aP <0.05; bP <0.01.

Categories

Number (%)

Sex

 

   Male

36 (60.0)

   Female

24 (40.0)

Age in yearsa

8.8 (4.2)

Education

 

   Pre-school

20 (33.3)

   Elementary school

24 (40.0)

   Junior high school

16 (26.7)

Cancer diagnoses

 

Acute lymphoblastic leukemia

33 (55)

Retinoblastoma

5 (8.3)

Acute myeloid leukemia

4 (6.7)

Non-Hodgkins lymphoma

4 (6.7)

Osteosarcoma

3 (5)

Hepatoblastoma

2 (3.3)

Lymphoma

2 (3.3)

Neuroblastoma

2 (3.3)

Medulloblastoma

1 (1.7)

Neurofibroma

1 (1.7)

Ovarian tumour

1 (1.7)

Pancreatic cancer

1 (1.7)

Rhabdomyosarcoma

1 (1.7)

aMean (standard deviation)

Narakas classification

Total

200 (100%)

Grade 1

72 (36%)

Grade 2

64 (32%)

Grade 3

50 (25%)

Grade 4

14 (7%)

Complete recoverya

107 (54)

60 (83)

40 (63)

7 (14)

-

Near complete functional recovery but partial deformitya

22 (11)

5 (7)

10 (16)

6 (12)

1 (7)

Partial recovery with gross functional defect    and deformity

31 (16)

7 (10)

13 (20)

10 (20)

1 (7)

No significant improvement 

40 (20)

-

1 (1.5)

27 (54)

12 (86)

aSatisfactory recovery

bGrade 1, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 2, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 3, panpalsy C5, 6, 7, 8, 9, Grade 4, panpalsy with Hornon’s syndrome.

Narakas classification

Total

200 (100%)

Grade-1

72 (36%)

Grade-2

64 (32%)

Grade-3

50 (25%)

Grade-4

14 (7%)

Complete recoverya

107 (54)

60 (83)

40 (63)

7 (14)

-

Near complete functional recovery but partial deformitya

22 (11)

5 (7)

10 (16)

6 (12)

1 (7)

Partial recovery with gross functional defect    and deformity

31 (16)

7 (10)

13 (20)

10 (20)

1 (7)

No significant improvement 

40 (20)

-

1 (1.5)

27 (54)

12 (86)

aSatisfactory recovery

bGrade 1, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 2, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 3, panpalsy C5, 6, 7,8,9, Grade 4, panpalsy with Hornon’s syndrome.

Variables in probe trial day

Groups

NC

SC

ColC

Pre-SwE Exp

Post-SwE Exp

Target crossings

8.0 (0.3)

7.3 (0.3) 

1.7 (0.2)a

6.0 (0.3)a

5.8 (0.4)a

Time spent in target

18.0 (0.4) 

16.2 (0.7) 

5.8 (0.8)a

15.3 (0.7)a

15.2 (0.9)a

NC indicates normal control; SC, Sham control; ColC, colchicine control; SwE, swimming exercise exposure.

aP <0.01.

Pain level

Number (%)

P

Pre

Post 1

Post 2

Mean (SD)a pain score

4.7 (1.9)

2.7 (1.6)

0.8 (1.1)

<0.001

Pain categories

    

   No pain (0)

-

(1.7)

31 (51.7)

<0.001

   Mild pain (1-3)

15 (25.0)

43 (70.0)

27 (45.0)

 

   Moderete pain (4-6)

37 (61.7)

15 (25.0)

2 (3.3)

 

   Severe pain (7-10)

8 (13.3)

2 (3.3)

-

 

aPain scores according to the visual analogue scale ranging from 0 to 10; SD indicates standard deviation

Surgeries

Number  

(%)

Satisfactory outcomes n (%)

Primary surgery (n=24)

 

 

Upper plexus

6 (25)

5 (83)

Pan-palsy

18 (75)

6 (33)

All

24 (100)

11 (46)

Secondary Surgery (n=26)

 

 

Shoulder deformity

15 (58)

13 (87)

Wrist and forearm deformity

11 (42)

6 (54)

All

26 (100)

19 (73)

Primary and secondary surgery

50 (100)

30 (60)

Mallet score 14 to 25 or Raimondi score 2-3 or Medical Research grading >3 to 5.

Narakas classification

Total

200 (100%)

Grade-1

72 (36%)

Grade-2

64 (32%)

Grade-3

50 (25%)

Grade-4

14 (7%)

Complete recoverya

107 (54)

60 (83)

40 (63)

7 (14)

-

Near complete functional recovery but partial deformitya

22 (11)

5 (7)

10 (16)

6 (12)

1 (7)

Partial recovery with gross functional defect    and deformity

31 (16)

7 (10)

13 (20)

10 (20)

1 (7)

No significant improvement 

40 (20)

-

1 (1.5)

27 (54)

12 (86)

aSatisfactory recovery

bGrade 1, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 2, C5, 6, 7 improvement; Grade 3, panpalsy C5, 6, 7,8,9, Grade 4, panpalsy with Hornon’s syndrome.

Trials

Groups

NC

SC

ColC

Pre-SwE Exp

Post-SwE Exp

1

20.8 (0.6)

22.1 (1.8)

41.1 (1.3)b

31.9 (1.9)b

32.9 (1.8)a, b

2

10.9 (0.6)

14.9 (1.7)

37.4 (1.1)b

24.9 (2.0)b

26.8 (2.5)b

3

8.4 (0.5)

9.9 (2.0)

32.8 (1.2)b

22.0 (1.4)b

21.0 (1.4)b

4

7.8 (0.5)

10.4 (1.3)

27.6(1.1)b

12.8 (1.2)b

13.0 (1.4)b

Savings (%)c

47.7 (3.0)

33.0 (3.0)

10.0 (0.9)b

23.6 (2.7)b

18.9 (5.3)b

NC indicates normal control; SC, Sham control; ColC, colchicine control; SwE, swimming exercise exposure.

aP <0.05; bP <0.01.

cThe difference in latency scores between trials 1 and 2, expressed as the percentage of savings increased from trial 1 to trial 2


Methods
Breast tissue specimens
This study is based on formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) specimen blocks randomly selected from two institutions with similar competency in Bangladesh: the Department of Pathology at Bangladesh Medical University, Dhaka, and the Care Investigation Histopathology and Cytopathology Laboratory in Chattogram, from November 2021 to October 2022. A simple random sampling of specimens was conducted using the sampling frame maintained by the laboratories' registry. 
 
We short-listed 374 registered IDC cases from the histopathology registries. The inclusion criteria were: (i) Bangladeshi adult females diagnosed with unilateral IDC for the first time; (ii) availability of data on expression status for three hormone receptors important for IDC diagnosis and treatment, i.e. ER, PR and HER-2; (iii) availability of other clinical and pathological data, e.g. patients’ age, tumor size, axillary lymph node metastasis, number of lymph node involved; (iv) the patients did not receive any extensive treatment for IDC prior to surgical removal of the tumour. The exclusion criteria were: (i) IDC cases other than adult females; (ii) recurrence or patients had other cancers as primary disease; (iii) core FFPE block is not available for research; (iv) FFPE blocks not in good condition for taking microtome sections for DNA isolation, histopathology imaging for the study, and immunohistochemical analysis, (v) necesssary clinical and pathological data of the cases are not available. Finally, a total of 203 cases were selected for the study. 
 
FFPE tissue blocks, along with relevant clinical and pathological data of the 203 cases, were collected from the mentioned institutions for the analyses of this study. Here, the presence of hormone receptor expression of ER, PR and HER-2 was recorded as positive, and the absence of such expression was recorded as negative for corresponding hormone receptors. Polymorphism detection of p53 codon 72 and data analyses were done at the Functional Genomics and Proteomics Laboratory of the Department of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Chittagong.

Isolation of genomic DNA
Multiple sections (4-8 sections) each measuring 2-3 µm in thickness were taken from the selected FFPE blocks using a semi-automatic microtome. These sections were used as starting material for DNA isolation. Isolation of genomic DNA from the sections was done according to the manufacturer’s protocol of GeneJET FFPE DNA Purification Kit (Thermo Scientific, USA) [22]. After isolation, the DNA were preserved at -20°C for further analysis.

Polymerise chain reaction (PCR) for p53 codon 72 region
Nested enrichment PCR and subsequent restriction enzyme digestion were done for the detection of p53 c72 SNPs. The PCR primers used in this experiment were previously described [23, 24]. For the first round PCR, the primers (IDT, Singapore) F1: 5’- GCTCTTTTCACCCATCTACAG - 3’ and R1: 5’- TGAAGTCTCATGGAAGCCAGC - 3’ were used along with 100ng DNA from FFPE block. For the second round PCR, F2: 5’ - TCCCCCTTGCCGTCCCAA - 3’ and R2: 5’ - CGTGCAAGTCACAGACTT - 3’ primers (IDT, Singapore) were used along with 2µL of 10X diluted PCR product of first round PCR. In both first and second round PCR reactions, the reaction mixture contained 1X GoTaq® Flexi reaction buffer (Promega, USA), 2mM MgCl2 (Promega, USA) 0.1mM of each dNTPs (Sigma, USA), 1U GoTaq® Flexi DNA Polymerase (Promega, USA), and Nuclease free water (Invitrogen, USA) was used to make the reaction volume upto 25µL. The PCR thermal cycler (Qantarus, UK) profile included Initial denaturation at 95°C for 5 minutes, 35 (first round) and 30 (second round) cycles of denaturation at 95°C for 30 seconds, annealing at 58.5°C for 30 seconds, and elongation at 72°C for 1 minute.

Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) for p53 codon 72 polymorphisms
RFLP for p53 codon 72 polymorphism detection was done by digesting 10µL of second round PCR products by 2U of Bsh1236I restriction enzyme which contains the restriction site 5’-CGCG-3’ (BstUI, Thermo Scientific, USA) in 0.67X Buffer R (Thermo Scientific, USA) and nuclease free water (Invitrogen, USA) was used to make reaction volume upto 25µL. The temperature profile for restriction digestion consisted of incubation at 37°C for 4 hours and 30 minutes, followed by inactivation at 65°C for 20 minutes. All the restriction digestion reactions were carried out in a heating block (WiseCube, Daihan Scientific, Korea).

Agarose gel electrophoresis and detection of p53 codon 72 polymorphisms
2% w/v low electroendosmosis (Low EEO) agarose (Promega, USA) was completely dissolved in 1X TAE buffer (pH 7.9) by using a high-temperature quick-dissolve technique with a microwave oven. Five microliters of Safe Dye (AdBio Solutions, South Korea) were added while preparing the gel for visualisation of DNA bands in a UV Gel Documentation System (Vilber, France). In each agarose gel preparation, a thickness of 3-4 mm was maintained for clearer visualisation. Horizontal submarine electrophoresis was done in either Biometra Compact XS Electrophoresis Apparatus (Analytic Jena, Germany) or Hoefer HE 33 Mini Electrophoresis Unit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA) with the corresponding power supply kits. 1X TAE (pH 7.9) was used as running buffer during electrophoresis. 10 μL of PCR or PCR-RFLP products were loaded in the wells along with 2 μL 100 bp DNA size marker (Promega, USA) in the left-most well. Electrophoresis was carried out for the required durations with constant voltage (55V) control (Figure 1).
Figure 1 p53 codon 72 polymorphism detection in invasive ductal breast carcinoma patients. 
Single-nucleotide polymorphism variants are marked in corresponding lanes. Band sizes are mentioned in base pairs (bp). Lane M: DNA size marker (100bp+ DNA marker). Lane 1: undigested p53 codon 72 PCR product (338 bp). Lane 2: Blank. Lanes 3-10: BstUI digested p53 codon 72 PCR products. Lanes 5, 8 and 10: presence of CC homozygous SNP variant caused the absence of BstUI recognition site and thus remained uncut (338 bp). Lane 3-4 and 6: presence of homozygous GG SNP variant caused complete digestion of PCR product into 198 bp and 140 bp fragments. Lanes 7 and 9: presence of heterozygous GC SNP variant caused incomplete digestion of PCR products and produced 338 bp, 198 bp and 140 bp bands.
 
Statistical analysis
A Chi-squared test was performed to determine whether there was any significant deviation from the expected distribution of p53 codon 72 genotypes among the IDC samples, considering variables such as tumour size, lymph node metastasis, and hormonal receptor expression status (ER, PR, and HER-2). To find the most influential p53 codon 72 polymorphic variant upon pathological status and ER, PR, HER-2 expression status, by applying univariate and multivariate logistic regression, which are usually done in single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) association studies to calculate odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. In the univariate analysis, the SNP counts of CC homozygotes versus GC+GG genotypes (i.e. reflecting proline versus arginine alleles) were compared according to various parameters. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to adjust the results according to patients’ age, tumour grade and tumour stages.  P<0.05 was considered statistically significant. All data were analysed with SPSS Software v25.

Group

Didactic posttest marks (%)

Flipped posttest marks (%)

Difference in marks (mean improvement)

P

<50%

63.2 (9.4)

82.2 (10.8)

19.0

<0.001

≥50%

72.4 (14.9)

84.2 ( 10.3)

11.8

<0.001

Data presented as mean (standard deviation)

Results
Pathological status of the cases
The age of the 203 patients spanned from 21 to 94 years. However, there were 99 patients from the 41-60 years age group (48.87%) (Table 1). All the samples were confirmed as invasive ductal carcinoma. Histopathological observation revealed that most patients (79.3%) had tumour grade II, and 82% were in tumour stage II.  Forty-eight per cent had metastatic ductal carcinoma in their axillary lymph nodes, and 64.3% were in N1 stage (1-3 lymph nodes involved).
Table 1 Clinical and pathological details of the study patients (n=203)   

Variables

Number (%)

Age (Years) 

21–40 

63 (31.0)

41–60 

99 (48.8)

61–94

41 (20.2)

Tumor grade 

Grade I

21 (10.3)

Grade II

161 (79.3)

Grade III

21 (10.3)

Tumor staging 

T1 (<2 cm)

8 (3.9)

T2 (2–5 cm)

167 (82.3)

T3 (>5 cm)

28 (13.8)

Axillary lymph node status 

Sinus histiocytosis

67 (33.0)

Metastatic ductal carcinoma

98 (48.3)

Follicular hyperplasia

38 (18.7)

Number of lymph node involved (n=98)

N1 stage (1–3 lymph nodes involved)

63 (64.3)

N2 stage (4–9 lymph nodes involved)

28 (28.6)

N3 stage (>10 lymph node involved)

7 (7.1)

Estrogen expression 

Positive

133 (65.5)

Negative

70 (34.5)

Progesterone expression 

Positive

63 (31.0)

Negative

140 (69.0)

HER2 expression 

Positive

63 (31.0)

Negative

140 (69.0)

p53 codon 72 SNP

CC genotype

42 (20.7)

GC genotype

119 (58.6)

GG genotype

42 (20.7)

 
ER, PR and HER-2 expression status
Immunohistochemical analysis revealed that most of the cases (65.5%) were positive for ER expression. Whereas most patients were negative for PR and HER-2 expression (Immunohistochemical features are shown in Figure 2).
Figure 2 Immunohistochemical evaluation for ER, PR and HER2 expression after histological confirmation of invasive ductal breast carcinoma grade ll.
The patient was a 45-year-old female (case no.: 26). (a) Histological image of breast tissue sections of a showing features of invasive ductal carcinoma; (b), (c) and (d) are immunohistochemical images showing positive staining for ER, PR and HER2 expressions, respectively. 
 
p53 codon 72 genotype frequencies and their associations
The GC heterozygote variant was the most common among the study patients, accounting for 58.6%. Both CC and GG homozygous variants were found in equal numbers; that is, 20.7% of patients had the CC homozygote variant, and 20.7% had the GG homozygote variant. It was suggested that the GC genotype might be associated with the disease conditions in this study population.
 
A significant association was observed between the p53 codon 72 polymorphic genotype and clinical parameters, including tumour size, axillary lymph node metastasis, and PR expression (Table 2). The Arg/Pro heterozygous allele (GC genotype) was significantly associated with tumours less than 5 cm in size (P<0.01), axillary lymph node metastasis (P<0.005). Furthermore, a statistically significant association was noted between the GC genotype and PR-negative tumours (P=0.02). No significant associations were observed between the p53 codon 72 genotypes and ER or HER-2 status.
Table 2 Distribution of p53 codon 72 CC homozygotes (Pro/Pro) versus GC heterozygotes (Arg/Pro) across variables  

Variables

Pro/Pro (CC)

(n=42)

Arg/Pro (GC)

(n=119)

P  

Tumor size (cm)

<5

21

98

<0.001

≥5

21

21

 

Axillary lymph node metastasis

No metastasis

35

49

0.01

Metastatic ductal carcinoma

7

70

 

Expression of estrogen receptor 

Negative

14

49

0.46

Positive

28

70

 

Expression of progesterone receptor 

Negative

21

84

0.02

Positive

21

35

 

Expression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 

Negative

28

91

0.23

Positive

14

28

 

 
 
From logistic regression analyses (Table 3), it was found that patients carrying Arg/Pro+Arg/Arg alleles (GC+GG genotypes) were significantly more likely to be presented with axillary lymph node metastasis compared to homozygous Pro allele (CC genotype) carriers. The crude OR was 6.5 (95% CI 2.7–15.5), while the aOR increased markedly to 21.8 (95% CI 7.0–67.9), indicating a strong probability. No significant association was found between the p53 codon 72 polymorphism and the ER expression status. The OR was 0.9 (95% CI 0.5–1.9), and the aOR was 0.6 (95% CI 0.3–1.4). In contrast, PR-negative tumours were common among GC+GG genotype carriers. The OR was 0.4 (95% CI 0.2–0.7), and the aOR was 0.2 (95% CI 0.1–0.6), suggesting a strong probability of finding these genotypes in ER-negative tumours. There was no significant representation of any p53 codon 72 genotype according to HER-2 expression status in univariate logistic regression (OR 0.9; 95% CI 0.4–1.2), whereas, adjusted multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the Arg/Pro+Arg/Arg alleles (GC+GG genotypes) were significantly more presented in HER-2-negative tumors (aOR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1–0.9).
Table 3 Likelihood of p53 codon 72 polymorphic variants and axillary lymph node metastasis and hormone receptor expression status (ER, PR and HER-2) of patients  

Variables  

Genotypes

Odds ratio

(95% confidence interval)

Adjustedaodds ratio

(95% confidence interval)

Pro/Pro  

(CC)

Arg/Pro +Arg/Arg

(GC+GG)

Axillary lymph node metastasis 

No

35

70

6.5 (2.7–15.5)b

21.8 (7.0–67.9)b

Yes

7

91

 

 

Estrogen Receptor expression status 

Negative

14

56

0.9 (0.5–1.9)

0.6 (0.3–1.4)

Positive

28

105

 

 

Progesterone Receptor expression status 

Negative

21

119

0.4 (0.2–0.7)b

0.2 (0.1–0.6)b

Positive

21

42

 

 

HER2 expressions status 

Negative

28

112

0.9 (0.4–1.2)

0.3 (0.1–0.9)b

Positive

14

49

 

 

aMultivariate logistic regression was done for adjustment of age, tumour grade and tumour staging; bStatistically significant at 5% or smaller label 

 
 
Discussion
This study investigated the association between p53 codon 72 polymorphism and IDC in Bangladeshi adult women, with a focus on clinicopathological features and hormone receptor expression status. The p53 codon 72 SNP results in either a proline or arginine residue in the TP53 protein, influencing its tumour suppressor functions and apoptotic capacity [25, 26]. Understanding this polymorphism’s role could improve insights into breast cancer susceptibility, progression, and prognosis.

Our findings showed that Bangladeshi women aged 41–60 years exhibited the highest IDC prevalence. This observation aligns with data from the Polish population, which demonstrated a linear increase in breast cancer incidence among women aged 40–59, followed by a plateau in those aged 70 and above [27]. Similarly, studies conducted by Acharya et al. and Pathak et al. reported the 41–60-year age group as the most commonly affected by breast cancer [28, 29]. This trend may be associated with hormonal fluctuations during the peri- and postmenopausal periods, which are known to influence breast cancer risk [27]. 

Numerous studies have assessed the role of the Arg72Pro polymorphism in cancer risk, but findings have been inconsistent across populations [26]. In our study, the heterozygous Arg/Pro (GC genotype) was the most common, observed in 58.6% of patients. This contrasts with a recent study from Brazil involving 96 individuals, which reported a high prevalence of the Arginine allele (68%), whereas we found equal frequencies of the Arginine and Proline alleles [30]. Similar results were observed concerning the involvement of the heterozygous Arg/Pro (GC genotype) variant and an increased risk of breast cancer in the North Indian population [31]. Another study reported that Proline homozygosity (CC genotype) at p53 codon 72 is associated with decreased breast cancer risk in Arabian women [32]. . 

The current study’s findings suggest that the presence of Arg allele (GC+GG genotypes) is significantly associated with an increased risk of axillary lymph node metastasis. Some studies have shown that the mechanism of breast carcinogenesis and its progression is associated with alterations in the expressions of ER, PR, and HER-2 [33]. Notably, a significant association was observed between the Arg-containing genotypes and PR-negative tumours, suggesting a possible link between the Arg allele and hormone-independent tumour biology. This result is consistent with findings from studies in Asian populations, where the Arg allele was more frequently associated with hormone receptor–negative tumours, which tend to be more aggressive and less responsive to endocrine therapy [33, 34].

In the case of HER-2 expression, the Arg/Pro+Arg/Arg alleles (GC+GG genotypes) were initially not associated in the univariate logistic regression analysis. However, after adjusting for patients’ age, tumour grade and tumour stages, a significant association was found between GC+GG genotypes and HER-2-negative tumours. This observation is novel in our study as previous studies found no significant association [35, 36], and requires further investigation. No significant association was found between p53 codon 72 polymorphism and ER status, which contrasts with some previous reports suggesting a genotype-specific interaction with ER expression [37]. This discrepancy may be due to population-specific genetic backgrounds, sample size, or environmental co-exposures such as heavy metals, which are particularly relevant in the Bangladeshi context. Thus, discrepancies between our findings and those of other studies may reflect population-specific genetic and environmental interactions.

Our findings suggest that patients who present a heterozygous genotype and/or Arginine allele at codon 72 of the p53 gene may have a susceptibility towards breast cancer along with axillary lymph node metastasis. This could serve as a potential biomarker for prognosis. The significant association of this genotype with PR-negative and HER-2-negative tumours highlight the potential clinical relevance of this SNP in predicting breast cancer diagnosis and guiding personalised treatment strategies and outcomes. Further investigations in larger and more diverse cohorts are needed to validate our findings.

Limitation
Some FFPE archival samples were excluded due to poor performance in the DNA isolation procedure or the unavailability of all required data, including clinical data and histology reports. Due to the limited funds, the researchers had to restrict the number of cases analysed; as a result, more cases from around Bangladesh could not be included. Ultimately, the DNA sequencing of the 203 specimens in this research work could be more informative.

Conclusion
This study found that p53 codon 72 polymorphism is significantly associated with histological and immunohistochemical features of IDC. However, for further association studies with this polymorphism and confirmation of clinical implication, the following recommendations can be considered: Case-control studies involving newly diagnosed, unilateral and bilateral breast cancer patients with age-matched healthy controls could provide more reliable information. Prognostic studies of various treatment regimens could further substantiate the evidence.  
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all the members of the Department of Pathology, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujib Medical University (currently, Bangladesh Medical University), and Faculty members and researchers of the Functional Genomics and Proteomics Laboratory at the Department of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, University of Chittagong. 
Author contributions
Conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work: MZR, MJA. Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content: MZR, MJA, AB, MARR, FBW, IIS, SRAS, LK, MAF. Final approval of the version to be published: MZR, MJA, AB, MARR, FBW, IIS, SRAS, LK, MAF. Accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved: MZR, MJA, MAF. 
Conflict of interest
We do not have any conflict of interest.
Data availability statement
We confirm that the data supporting the findings of the study will be shared upon reasonable request. 
Supplementary file
None
    References
    1. Wang W, Sun Y, Li J, Bai H, Ren C, Feng Y, Wang S. Global, regional, and national burden of breast cancer in young women from 1990 to 2021: findings from the global burden of disease study 2021. BMC Cancer. 2025 Jun 6;25(1):1015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-025-14416-1
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    2. Key TJ, Verkasalo PK, Banks E. Epidemiology of breast cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2001 Mar;2(3):133-140. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(00)00254-0
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    3. Béroud C, Soussi T. p53 gene mutation: software and database. Nucleic Acids Res. 1998 Jan 1;26(1):200-204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/26.1.200
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    4. He XF, Su J, Zhang Y, Huang X, Liu Y, Ding DP, Wang W, Arparkorn K. Association between the p53 polymorphisms and breast cancer risk: meta-analysis based on case-control study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Nov;130(2):517-529. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1583-2
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    5. Gomez-Lazaro M, Fernandez-Gomez FJ, Jordán J. p53: twenty five years understanding the mechanism of genome protection. J Physiol Biochem. 2004 Dec;60(4):287-307. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03167075
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    6. Petitjean A, Achatz MI, Borresen-Dale AL, Hainaut P, Olivier M. TP53 mutations in human cancers: functional selection and impact on cancer prognosis and outcomes. Oncogene. 2007 Apr 2;26(15):2157-2165. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1210302
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    7. Sprague BL, Trentham-Dietz A, Garcia-Closas M, Newcomb PA, Titus-Ernstoff L, Hampton JM, Chanock SJ, Haines JL, Egan KM. Genetic variation in TP53 and risk of breast cancer in a population-based case control study. Carcinogenesis. 2007 Aug;28(8):1680-1686. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgm097
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    8. Khan Y, Khan NU, Ali I, Khan S, Khan AU, Iqbal A, Adams BD. Significant association of BRCA1 (rs1799950), BRCA2 (rs144848) and TP53 (rs1042522) polymorphism with breast cancer risk in Pashtun population of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Mol Biol Rep. 2023 Jul;50(7):6087–6096. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-023-08463-9
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    9. Tommiska J, Eerola H, Heinonen M, Salonen L, Kaare M, Tallila J, Ristimäki A, von Smitten K, Aittomäki K, Heikkilä P, Blomqvist C, Nevanlinna H. Breast cancer patients with p53 Pro72 homozygous genotype have a poorer survival. Clin Cancer Res. 2005 Jul 15;11(14):5098-5103. doi: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-0173
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    10. Baynes C, Healey CS, Pooley KA, Scollen S, Luben RN, Thompson DJ, Pharoah PD, Easton DF, Ponder BA, Dunning AM; SEARCH breast cancer study. Common variants in the ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CHEK2 and TP53 cancer susceptibility genes are unlikely to increase breast cancer risk. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9(2):R27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr1669
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    11. Khadang B, Fattahi MJ, Talei A, Dehaghani AS, Ghaderi A. Polymorphism of TP53 codon 72 showed no association with breast cancer in Iranian women. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2007 Feb;173(1):38-42. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cancergencyto.2006.09.010
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    12. Huang XE, Hamajima N, Katsuda N, Matsuo K, Hirose K, Mizutani M, Iwata H, Miura S, Xiang J, Tokudome S, Tajima K. Association of p53 codon Arg72Pro and p73 G4C14-to-A4T14 at exon 2 genetic polymorphisms with the risk of Japanese breast cancer. Breast Cancer. 2003;10(4):307-311. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02967650
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    13. Själander Själander A, Birgander R, Kivelä A, Beckman G. p53 polymorphisms and haplotypes in different ethnic groups. Hum Hered. 1995 May-Jun;45(3):144-149. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000154275
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    14. Ohayon T, Gershoni-Baruch R, Papa MZ, Distelman Menachem T, Eisenberg Barzilai S, Friedman E. The R72P P53 mutation is associated with familial breast cancer in Jewish women. Br J Cancer. 2005 Mar 28;92(6):1144-1148. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6602451
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    15. Zhang Z, Wang M, Wu D, Wang M, Tong N, Tian Y, Zhang Z. P53 codon 72 polymorphism contributes to breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis based on 39 case-control studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Apr;120(2):509-517. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0480-4
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    16. Buyru N, Tigli H, Dalay N. P53 codon 72 polymorphism in breast cancer. Oncol Rep. 2003 May-Jun;10(3):711-714. PMID: 12684648
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    17. Hu Z, Li X, Yuan R, Ring BZ, Su L. Three common TP53 polymorphisms in susceptibility to breast cancer, evidence from meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010 Apr;120(3):705-714. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-009-0488-9
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    18. Ma Y, Yang J, Liu Z, Zhang P, Yang Z, Wang Y, Qin H. No significant association between the TP53 codon 72 polymorphism and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis of 21 studies involving 24,063 subjects. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Jan;125(1):201-205. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-0920-1
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    19. Pietsch EC, Humbey O, Murphy ME. Polymorphisms in the p53 pathway. Oncogene. 2006 Mar 13;25(11):1602-1611. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.onc.1209367
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    20. Chang-Claude J, Ambrosone CB, Lilla C, Kropp S, Helmbold I, von Fournier D, Haase W, Sautter-Bihl ML, Wenz F, Schmezer P, Popanda O. Genetic polymorphisms in DNA repair and damage response genes and late normal tissue complications of radiotherapy for breast cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009 May 19;100(10):1680-1686. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605036
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    21. Petitjean A, Mathe E, Kato S, Ishioka C, Tavtigian SV, Hainaut P, Olivier M. Impact of mutant p53 functional properties on TP53 mutation patterns and tumor phenotype: lessons from recent developments in the IARC TP53 database. Hum Mutat. 2007 Jun;28(6):622-629. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/humu.20495
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    22. Thermo Fisher Scientific. GeneJET FFPE DNA Purification Kit User Guide. Publication no. MAN0012673 Rev B. Waltham (MA): Thermo. Available from: https://assets.fishersci.com/TFS-Assets/LSG/manuals/MAN0012673_GeneJET_FFPE_DNA_Purification__UG.pdf [Accessed on 28 July 2025]
     
    23. Doosti A, Zamani M, Dehkordi PG, Taheri S, Banitalebi M, Mahmoudzadeh M. Association of the p53 codon 72 polymorphism with colorectal cancer in South West of Iran. Sci Res Essays. International Scholarly and Scientific Research & Innovation. 2011 Mar 1;5(2):3148-3152. doi: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1330139
    [Google Scholar]
     
    24. Mahmood S, Sivoňová MK, Matáková T, Dobrota D, Wsólová L, Dzian A, Mištuna D.  Association of EGF and p53 gene polymorphisms and colorectal cancer risk in the Slovak population. Springer Nature Link. 2014 July 8; 9:405–416. doi: https://doi.org/10.2478/s11536-013-0300-4
    [Google Scholar]
     
    25. Murphy ME. Polymorphic variants in the p53 pathway. Cell Death Differ. 2006 Jun;13(6):916-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.cdd.4401907
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    26. Whibley C, Pharoah PD, Hollstein M. p53 polymorphisms: cancer implications. Nat Rev Cancer. 2009 Feb;9(2):95-107. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2584
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    27. Kamińska M, Ciszewski T, Łopacka-Szatan K, Miotła P, Starosławska E. Breast cancer risk factors. Prz Menopauzalny. 2015 Sep;14(3):196-202. doi: https://doi.org/10.5114/pm.2015.54346
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    28. Acharya SC, Jha AK, Manandhar T. Clinical profile of patients presenting with breast cancer in Nepal. Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ). 2012 Jul-Sep;10(39):3-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.3126/kumj.v10i3.8009
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    29. Pathak R, Jha A, Neupane PR, Chalise S, Basnyat AS. Histopathological evaluation of carcinoma of breast. Journal of Pathology of Nepal. 2016 Mar 17; 6(11): 922-927. doi: https://doi.org/10.3126/jpn.v6i11.15674
    [Google Scholar]
     
    30. Costa KA, Guillo LA. TP53 codon 72 polymorphism in pigmentary phenotypes. J Biosci. 2012 Mar;37(1):33-39. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-012-9183-9
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    31. Damin AP, Frazzon AP, Damin DC, Roehe A, Hermes V, Zettler C, Alexandre CO. Evidence for an association of TP53 codon 72 polymorphism with breast cancer risk. Cancer Detect Prev. 2006;30(6):523-529. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cdp.2006.09.007
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    32. Alawadi S, Ghabreau L, Alsaleh M, Abdulaziz Z, Rafeek M, Akil N, Alkhalaf M. P53 gene polymorphisms and breast cancer risk in Arab women. Med Oncol. 2011 Sep;28(3):709-715. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-010-9505-4
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    33. Liu C, Zhang H, Shuang C, Lu Y, Jin F, Xu H, Lu P. Alterations of ER, PR, HER-2/neu, and P53 protein expression in ductal breast carcinomas and clinical implications. Med Oncol. 2010 Sep;27(3):747-752. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12032-009-9279-8
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    34. Ahn SG, Yoon CI, Lee JH, Lee HS, Park SE, Cha YJ, Cha C, Bae SJ, Lee KA, Jeong J. Low PR in ER(+)/HER2(-) breast cancer: high rates of TP53 mutation and high SUV. Endocr Relat Cancer. 2019 Feb;26(2):177-185. doi: https://doi.org/10.1530/ERC-18-0281
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    35. Chen FM, Ou-Yang F, Yang SF, Tsai EM, Hou MF. P53 codon 72 polymorphism in Taiwanese breast cancer patients. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2013 May;29(5):259-264. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2012.09.004
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    36. Kara N, Karakus N, Ulusoy AN, Ozaslan C, Gungor B, Bagci H. P53 codon 72 and HER2 codon 655 polymorphisms in Turkish breast cancer patients. DNA Cell Biol. 2010 Jul;29(7):387-392. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/dna.2009.0995
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]
     
    37. Noma C, Miyoshi Y, Taguchi T, Tamaki Y, Noguchi S. Association of p53 genetic polymorphism (Arg72Pro) with estrogen receptor positive breast cancer risk in Japanese women. Cancer Lett. 2004 Jul 16;210(2):197-203. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canlet.2004.03.031. Erratum in: Cancer Lett. 2005 Sep 28;227(2):237. PMID: 15183535
    [PubMed]     [Google Scholar]