PURPOSE: Deregulation of key PI3K/AKT pathway genes may contribute to endocrine resistance in breast cancer (BC). PIK3CA is the most frequently mutated gene in luminal BC (35%); however, the effect of mutations in helical versus kinase domains remains controversial. We hypothesize that improved outcomes occur in patients with estrogen receptor–positive (ER positive) BC receiving endocrine therapy and possessing PIK3CA mutations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DNA was extracted from 4,540 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded BC samples from the Exemestane Versus Tamoxifen-Exemestane pathology study. Mutational analyses were performed for 25 mutations (PIK3CAx10, AKT1x1, KRASx5, HRASx3, NRASx2 and BRAFx4). RESULTS: PIK3CA mutations were frequent (39.8%), whereas RAS/RAF mutations were rare (1%). In univariable analyses PIK3CA mutations were associated with significantly improved 5-year distant relapse-free survival (DRFS; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.91; P = .003). However, a multivariable analysis correcting for known clinical and biologic prognostic factors failed to demonstrate that PIK3CA mutation status is an independent prognostic marker for DRFS (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.12; P = .4012). PIK3CA mutations were more frequent in low-risk luminal BCs (e.g., grade 1 nodev 3, node-negative v -positive), confounding the relationship between mutations and outcome. CONCLUSION: PIK3CA mutations are present in approximately 40% of luminal BCs but are not an independent predictor of outcome in the context of endocrine therapy, whereas RAS/RAF mutations are rare inluminal BC. A complex relationship between low-risk cancers and PIK3CA mutations was identified. Although the PI3K/AKT pathway remains a viable therapeutic target as the result of ahigh mutation frequency, PIK3CA mutations do not seem to affect residual risk following treatment with endocrine therapy.
PURPOSE: Deregulation of key PI3K/AKT pathway genes may contribute to endocrine resistance in breast cancer (BC). PIK3CA is the most frequently mutated gene in luminal BC (35%); however, the effect of mutations in helical versus kinase domains remains controversial. We hypothesize that improved outcomes occur in patients with estrogen receptor–positive (ER positive) BC receiving endocrine therapy and possessing PIK3CA mutations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: DNA was extracted from 4,540 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded BC samples from the Exemestane Versus Tamoxifen-Exemestane pathology study. Mutational analyses were performed for 25 mutations (PIK3CAx10, AKT1x1, KRASx5, HRASx3, NRASx2 and BRAFx4). RESULTS:PIK3CA mutations were frequent (39.8%), whereas RAS/RAF mutations were rare (1%). In univariable analyses PIK3CA mutations were associated with significantly improved 5-year distant relapse-free survival (DRFS; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.91; P = .003). However, a multivariable analysis correcting for known clinical and biologic prognostic factors failed to demonstrate that PIK3CA mutation status is an independent prognostic marker for DRFS (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.12; P = .4012). PIK3CA mutations were more frequent in low-risk luminal BCs (e.g., grade 1 nodev 3, node-negative v -positive), confounding the relationship between mutations and outcome. CONCLUSION:PIK3CA mutations are present in approximately 40% of luminal BCs but are not an independent predictor of outcome in the context of endocrine therapy, whereas RAS/RAF mutations are rare inluminal BC. A complex relationship between low-risk cancers and PIK3CA mutations was identified. Although the PI3K/AKT pathway remains a viable therapeutic target as the result of ahigh mutation frequency, PIK3CA mutations do not seem to affect residual risk following treatment with endocrine therapy.
Authors: Ian E Krop; Ingrid A Mayer; Vinod Ganju; Maura Dickler; Stephen Johnston; Serafin Morales; Denise A Yardley; Bohuslav Melichar; Andres Forero-Torres; Soo Chin Lee; Richard de Boer; Katarina Petrakova; Susanne Vallentin; Edith A Perez; Martine Piccart; Matthew Ellis; Eric Winer; Steven Gendreau; Mika Derynck; Mark Lackner; Gallia Levy; Jiaheng Qiu; Jing He; Peter Schmid Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Heinrich Magometschnigg; Katja Pinker; Thomas Helbich; Anita Brandstetter; Margaretha Rudas; Thomas Nakuz; Pascal Baltzer; Wolfgang Wadsak; Marcus Hacker; Michael Weber; Peter Dubsky; Martin Filipits Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2019-10 Impact factor: 3.488
Authors: Dejan Juric; Filip Janku; Jordi Rodón; Howard A Burris; Ingrid A Mayer; Martin Schuler; Ruth Seggewiss-Bernhardt; Marta Gil-Martin; Mark R Middleton; José Baselga; Douglas Bootle; David Demanse; Lars Blumenstein; Karl Schumacher; Alan Huang; Cornelia Quadt; Hope S Rugo Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2019-02-14 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Michael P Lux; Peter A Fasching; Michael G Schrauder; Alexander Hein; Sebastian M Jud; Claudia Rauh; Matthias W Beckmann Journal: Breast Care (Basel) Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Stephen J Luen; Rebecca Asher; Chee Khoon Lee; Peter Savas; Roswitha Kammler; Patrizia Dell'Orto; Olivia Maria Biasi; David Demanse; Lellean JeBailey; Sinead Dolan; Wolfgang Hackl; Beat Thuerlimann; Giuseppe Viale; Marco Colleoni; Meredith M Regan; Sherene Loi Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Peter Schmid; Sarah E Pinder; Duncan Wheatley; Jane Macaskill; Charles Zammit; Jennifer Hu; Robert Price; Nigel Bundred; Sirwan Hadad; Alice Shia; Shah-Jalal Sarker; Louise Lim; Patrycja Gazinska; Natalie Woodman; Darren Korbie; Matt Trau; Paul Mainwaring; Steven Gendreau; Mark R Lackner; Mika Derynck; Timothy R Wilson; Hannah Butler; Gemma Earl; Peter Parker; Arnie Purushotham; Alastair Thompson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-03-14 Impact factor: 44.544