Literature DB >> 21345264

Breast cancer genome heterogeneity: a challenge to personalised medicine?

Charles Swanton, Rebecca A Burrell, P Andrew Futreal.   

Abstract

Implementation of high-throughput genomics sequencing approaches into routine laboratory practice has raised the potential for the identification of multiple breast cancer targets suitable for future therapeutic intervention in order to improve cancer outcomes. Results from these studies have revealed bewildering breast cancer genome complexity with very few aberrations occurring in common between breast cancers. In addition, such complexity is compounded by evidence of genomic heterogeneity occurring within individual breast cancers. Such inter-tumoural and intratumoural heterogeneity is likely to present a challenge to personalised therapeutic approaches that might be circumvented through the definition of genome instability mechanisms governing such diversity and their exploitation using synthetic lethal approaches.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21345264      PMCID: PMC3109569          DOI: 10.1186/bcr2807

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Cancer Res        ISSN: 1465-5411            Impact factor:   6.466


Next-generation sequencing approaches have enabled the sequencing of the human cancer genome at unprecedented speed, resolution and cost. Several such studies have recently been reported in both oestrogen receptor-positive and oestrogen receptor-negative breast cancer [1-3]. Results of these cancer-genome sequencing studies have highlighted the tremendous complexity and heterogeneity between cancer genomes from different patients with the same breast cancer histopathological phenotype (inter-tumoural heterogeneity). For example, none of the novel fusion genes identified by Stephens and colleagues were present more than once in any of the 24 cancers studied, and three expressed in-frame fusion genes selected for follow-up were not present in an additional 288 breast cancers studied [2]. In a further twist to breast cancer complexity, Navin and colleagues have recently described profound heterogeneity within individual breast tumours (intra-tumoural heterogeneity), where multiple tumour subpopulations have been identified, each with distinct genomic profiles [4]. Both patterns of heterogeneity present challenges from a therapeutic perspective. Heterogeneity within an individual tumour raises the likelihood that if driver mutations can be identified and subsequently targeted, resistance to therapy may develop rapidly due to the genomic variation from one cancer cell clone to the next, as has recently been reported in non-small cell lung cancer [5]. Inter-tumoural heterogeneity implies that potentially different driver mutations may be responsible for cancer cell survival and growth from one patient to the next. Given the cost (approaching $1 billion [6]) and lead time (10 to 15 years) in drug development, it is economically challenging to develop the next generation of anticancer drugs against each target, suitable for only a small cohort of patients in an individualised approach. Furthermore, the prohibitive costs and challenges imposed by both industry and regulators for combining targeted therapeutics may mitigate against the development of rational drug combinations to target intra-tumoural heterogeneity to limit the acquisition of drug resistance. Such genomic heterogeneity both between and within individual tumours presents an economically intractable problem requiring a change in drug development strategic approaches. Cancer cell heterogeneity and the continued genomic diversity acquired from one cancer cell division to another may promote cancer cell stress or dependence on alternative cellular pathways that are potentially targetable, as witnessed by success with poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibition in patients who harbour germline BRCA1/2 mutations [7,8]. Recent observations clearly indicate that other patterns of genome instability leading to tumour heterogeneity, initiated by specific defects in the mismatch repair apparatus [9] or chromosome mis-segregation, may also be targetable. Unequal segregation of whole chromosomes at mitosis generates heterogeneity that is associated with poor prognosis in solid tumours [10] and early tumour relapse in animal models [11]. Studies in model eukaryotic organisms have identified that aneuploidy is associated with vulnerability to inhibitors of protein folding and synthesis [12]. Finally, evidence is emerging that cancer cell heterogeneity can be a reversible epigenetic event contributing to drug tolerance in cancer cell models that can be attenuated through insulin-like growth factor-1 receptor pathway inhibition [13]. Next-generation sequencing studies have revealed new patterns of genomic instability. Stephens and colleagues identified tandem duplications occurring in large numbers in oestrogen receptor-negative-progesterone receptor-negative breast cancers, and speculate that this pattern of genomic instability may be attributable to an underlying defective DNA maintenance process [2]. Defining the underlying mechanisms responsible for these tandem duplications and potential strategies to exploit them is clearly important. The identification of common targets upon which tumours rely to sustain and develop heterogeneity is now an experimentally tractable problem in cancer medicine. Inactivation of key cancer cell survival specific to these processes might enhance the efficacy of anticancer drug treatment. Since normal cells may not routinely require such survival pathways due to their genetic identity from cell to cell, the development of anticancer drugs that inactivate genome-instability survival pathways might have an enhanced therapeutic window. Importantly, such an approach may present a more economically viable solution compared with the current strategy of targeting diverse driver mutations in molecularly heterogeneous tumours.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
  13 in total

1.  The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs.

Authors:  Joseph A DiMasi; Ronald W Hansen; Henry G Grabowski
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 2.  Association between chromosomal instability and prognosis in colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  A Walther; R Houlston; I Tomlinson
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2008-03-25       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Oral poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor olaparib in patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations and advanced breast cancer: a proof-of-concept trial.

Authors:  Andrew Tutt; Mark Robson; Judy E Garber; Susan M Domchek; M William Audeh; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Michael Friedlander; Banu Arun; Niklas Loman; Rita K Schmutzler; Andrew Wardley; Gillian Mitchell; Helena Earl; Mark Wickens; James Carmichael
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2010-07-06       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Preexistence and clonal selection of MET amplification in EGFR mutant NSCLC.

Authors:  Alexa B Turke; Kreshnik Zejnullahu; Yi-Long Wu; Youngchul Song; Dora Dias-Santagata; Eugene Lifshits; Luca Toschi; Andrew Rogers; Tony Mok; Lecia Sequist; Neal I Lindeman; Carly Murphy; Sara Akhavanfard; Beow Y Yeap; Yun Xiao; Marzia Capelletti; A John Iafrate; Charles Lee; James G Christensen; Jeffrey A Engelman; Pasi A Jänne
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2010-01-19       Impact factor: 31.743

5.  Mad2-induced chromosome instability leads to lung tumour relapse after oncogene withdrawal.

Authors:  Rocio Sotillo; Juan-Manuel Schvartzman; Nicholas D Socci; Robert Benezra
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2010-02-21       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  DNA polymerases as potential therapeutic targets for cancers deficient in the DNA mismatch repair proteins MSH2 or MLH1.

Authors:  Sarah A Martin; Nuala McCabe; Michelle Mullarkey; Robert Cummins; Darren J Burgess; Yusaku Nakabeppu; Sugako Oka; Elaine Kay; Christopher J Lord; Alan Ashworth
Journal:  Cancer Cell       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 31.743

7.  Mutational evolution in a lobular breast tumour profiled at single nucleotide resolution.

Authors:  Sohrab P Shah; Ryan D Morin; Jaswinder Khattra; Leah Prentice; Trevor Pugh; Angela Burleigh; Allen Delaney; Karen Gelmon; Ryan Guliany; Janine Senz; Christian Steidl; Robert A Holt; Steven Jones; Mark Sun; Gillian Leung; Richard Moore; Tesa Severson; Greg A Taylor; Andrew E Teschendorff; Kane Tse; Gulisa Turashvili; Richard Varhol; René L Warren; Peter Watson; Yongjun Zhao; Carlos Caldas; David Huntsman; Martin Hirst; Marco A Marra; Samuel Aparicio
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-10-08       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  Effects of aneuploidy on cellular physiology and cell division in haploid yeast.

Authors:  Eduardo M Torres; Tanya Sokolsky; Cheryl M Tucker; Leon Y Chan; Monica Boselli; Maitreya J Dunham; Angelika Amon
Journal:  Science       Date:  2007-08-17       Impact factor: 47.728

9.  Inhibition of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase in tumors from BRCA mutation carriers.

Authors:  Peter C Fong; David S Boss; Timothy A Yap; Andrew Tutt; Peijun Wu; Marja Mergui-Roelvink; Peter Mortimer; Helen Swaisland; Alan Lau; Mark J O'Connor; Alan Ashworth; James Carmichael; Stan B Kaye; Jan H M Schellens; Johann S de Bono
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-06-24       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Complex landscapes of somatic rearrangement in human breast cancer genomes.

Authors:  Philip J Stephens; David J McBride; Meng-Lay Lin; Ignacio Varela; Erin D Pleasance; Jared T Simpson; Lucy A Stebbings; Catherine Leroy; Sarah Edkins; Laura J Mudie; Chris D Greenman; Mingming Jia; Calli Latimer; Jon W Teague; King Wai Lau; John Burton; Michael A Quail; Harold Swerdlow; Carol Churcher; Rachael Natrajan; Anieta M Sieuwerts; John W M Martens; Daniel P Silver; Anita Langerød; Hege E G Russnes; John A Foekens; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Laura van 't Veer; Andrea L Richardson; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Peter J Campbell; P Andrew Futreal; Michael R Stratton
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2009-12-24       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  17 in total

1.  Translating cancer 'omics' to improved outcomes.

Authors:  Emily A Vucic; Kelsie L Thu; Keith Robison; Leszek A Rybaczyk; Raj Chari; Carlos E Alvarez; Wan L Lam
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 9.043

2.  SDPR functions as a metastasis suppressor in breast cancer by promoting apoptosis.

Authors:  Sait Ozturk; Panagiotis Papageorgis; Chen Khuan Wong; Arthur W Lambert; Hamid M Abdolmaleky; Arunthathi Thiagalingam; Herbert T Cohen; Sam Thiagalingam
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 3.  Cancer chromosomal instability: therapeutic and diagnostic challenges.

Authors:  Nicholas McGranahan; Rebecca A Burrell; David Endesfelder; Marco R Novelli; Charles Swanton
Journal:  EMBO Rep       Date:  2012-06-01       Impact factor: 8.807

Review 4.  Recent developments in treatment stratification for metastatic breast cancer.

Authors:  Sarah Barton; Charles Swanton
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2011-11-12       Impact factor: 9.546

Review 5.  Clinical management of breast cancer heterogeneity.

Authors:  Dimitrios Zardavas; Alexandre Irrthum; Charles Swanton; Martine Piccart
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 6.  Precision medicine in breast cancer: genes, genomes, and the future of genomically driven treatments.

Authors:  Daniel G Stover; Nikhil Wagle
Journal:  Curr Oncol Rep       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 5.075

7.  A Bayesian ensemble approach with a disease gene network predicts damaging effects of missense variants of human cancers.

Authors:  Hong-Hee Won; Jong-Won Kim; Doheon Lee
Journal:  Hum Genet       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 4.132

8.  Two-dimensional adaptive dynamics of evolutionary public goods games: finite-size effects on fixation probability and branching time.

Authors:  Brian Johnson; Philipp M Altrock; Gregory J Kimmel
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 2.963

9.  Modeling the mechanics of cancer: effect of changes in cellular and extra-cellular mechanical properties.

Authors:  Parag Katira; Roger T Bonnecaze; Muhammad H Zaman
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 10.  Next generation sequencing applications for breast cancer research.

Authors:  Roxana Cojocneanu Petric; Laura-Ancuta Pop; Ancuta Jurj; Lajos Raduly; Dan Dumitrascu; Nicolae Dragos; Ioana Berindan Neagoe
Journal:  Clujul Med       Date:  2015-07-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.