Kara N Maxwell1, Danielle Soucier-Ernst2, Emin Tahirovic3, Andrea B Troxel4, Candace Clark2, Michael Feldman5, Christopher Colameco2, Bijal Kakrecha1, Melissa Langer6, David Lieberman5, Jennifer J D Morrissette5, Matt R Paul7, Tien-Chi Pan7, Stephanie Yee1, Natalie Shih5, Erica Carpenter1,2, Lewis A Chodosh2,7,8, Angela DeMichele9,10,11. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 2. Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 7. Department of Cancer Biology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 8. Department of Medicine, Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 9. Department of Medicine, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. angela.demichele@uphs.upenn.edu. 10. Abramson Cancer Center, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. angela.demichele@uphs.upenn.edu. 11. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. angela.demichele@uphs.upenn.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Breast cancer metastases differ biologically from primary disease; therefore, metastatic biopsies may assist in treatment decision making. Commercial genomic testing of both tumor and circulating tumor DNA have become available clinically, but utility of these tests in breast cancer management remains unclear. METHODS: Patients undergoing a clinically indicated metastatic tumor biopsy were consented to the ongoing METAMORPH registry. Tumor and blood were collected at the time of disease progression before subsequent therapy, and patients were followed for response on subsequent treatment. Tumor testing (n = 53) and concurrent cell-free DNA (n = 32) in a subset of patients was performed using CLIA-approved assays. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with a genomic alteration was lower in tumor than in blood (69 vs. 91%; p = 0.06). After restricting analysis to alterations covered on both platforms, 83% of tumor alterations were detected in blood, while 90% of blood alterations were detected in tumor. Mutational load specific for the panel genes was calculated for both tumor and blood. Time to progression on subsequent treatment was significantly shorter for patients whose tumors had high panel-specific mutational load (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.78) or a TP53 mutation (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20-0.79), after adjusting for stage at presentation, hormone receptor status, prior treatment type, and number of lines of metastatic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treating oncologists must distinguish platform differences from true biological heterogeneity when comparing tumor and cfDNA genomic testing results. Tumor and concurrent cfDNA contribute unique genomic information in metastatic breast cancer patients, providing potentially useful biomarkers for aggressive metastatic disease.
PURPOSE:Breast cancer metastases differ biologically from primary disease; therefore, metastatic biopsies may assist in treatment decision making. Commercial genomic testing of both tumor and circulating tumor DNA have become available clinically, but utility of these tests in breast cancer management remains unclear. METHODS:Patients undergoing a clinically indicated metastatic tumor biopsy were consented to the ongoing METAMORPH registry. Tumor and blood were collected at the time of disease progression before subsequent therapy, and patients were followed for response on subsequent treatment. Tumor testing (n = 53) and concurrent cell-free DNA (n = 32) in a subset of patients was performed using CLIA-approved assays. RESULTS: The proportion of patients with a genomic alteration was lower in tumor than in blood (69 vs. 91%; p = 0.06). After restricting analysis to alterations covered on both platforms, 83% of tumor alterations were detected in blood, while 90% of blood alterations were detected in tumor. Mutational load specific for the panel genes was calculated for both tumor and blood. Time to progression on subsequent treatment was significantly shorter for patients whose tumors had high panel-specific mutational load (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.78) or a TP53 mutation (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20-0.79), after adjusting for stage at presentation, hormone receptor status, prior treatment type, and number of lines of metastatic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treating oncologists must distinguish platform differences from true biological heterogeneity when comparing tumor and cfDNA genomic testing results. Tumor and concurrent cfDNA contribute unique genomic information in metastatic breast cancerpatients, providing potentially useful biomarkers for aggressive metastatic disease.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cell-free DNA; Genomic testing; Liquid biopsy; Massively parallel sequencing; Metastatic breast cancer
Authors: William J Gradishar; Benjamin O Anderson; Ron Balassanian; Sarah L Blair; Harold J Burstein; Amy Cyr; Anthony D Elias; William B Farrar; Andres Forero; Sharon Hermes Giordano; Matthew Goetz; Lori J Goldstein; Clifford A Hudis; Steven J Isakoff; P Kelly Marcom; Ingrid A Mayer; Beryl McCormick; Meena Moran; Sameer A Patel; Lori J Pierce; Elizabeth C Reed; Kilian E Salerno; Lee S Schwartzberg; Karen Lisa Smith; Mary Lou Smith; Hatem Soliman; George Somlo; Melinda Telli; John H Ward; Dorothy A Shead; Rashmi Kumar Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Heather A Parsons; Julia A Beaver; Ashley Cimino-Mathews; Siraj M Ali; Jennifer Axilbund; David Chu; Roisin M Connolly; Rory L Cochran; Sarah Croessmann; Travis A Clark; Christopher D Gocke; Stacie C Jeter; Mark R Kennedy; Josh Lauring; Justin Lee; Doron Lipson; Vincent A Miller; Geoff A Otto; Gary L Rosner; Jeffrey S Ross; Shannon Slater; Philip J Stephens; Dustin A VanDenBerg; Antonio C Wolff; Lauren E Young; Daniel J Zabransky; Zhe Zhang; Jane Zorzi; Vered Stearns; Ben H Park Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-08-03 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Serena Nik-Zainal; Peter Van Loo; David C Wedge; Ludmil B Alexandrov; Christopher D Greenman; King Wai Lau; Keiran Raine; David Jones; John Marshall; Manasa Ramakrishna; Adam Shlien; Susanna L Cooke; Jonathan Hinton; Andrew Menzies; Lucy A Stebbings; Catherine Leroy; Mingming Jia; Richard Rance; Laura J Mudie; Stephen J Gamble; Philip J Stephens; Stuart McLaren; Patrick S Tarpey; Elli Papaemmanuil; Helen R Davies; Ignacio Varela; David J McBride; Graham R Bignell; Kenric Leung; Adam P Butler; Jon W Teague; Sancha Martin; Goran Jönsson; Odette Mariani; Sandrine Boyault; Penelope Miron; Aquila Fatima; Anita Langerød; Samuel A J R Aparicio; Andrew Tutt; Anieta M Sieuwerts; Åke Borg; Gilles Thomas; Anne Vincent Salomon; Andrea L Richardson; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; P Andrew Futreal; Michael R Stratton; Peter J Campbell Journal: Cell Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 41.582
Authors: Kara N Maxwell; Steven N Hart; Joseph Vijai; Kasmintan A Schrader; Thomas P Slavin; Tinu Thomas; Bradley Wubbenhorst; Vignesh Ravichandran; Raymond M Moore; Chunling Hu; Lucia Guidugli; Brandon Wenz; Susan M Domchek; Mark E Robson; Csilla Szabo; Susan L Neuhausen; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Kenneth Offit; Fergus J Couch; Katherine L Nathanson Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Funda Meric-Bernstam; Lauren Brusco; Kenna Shaw; Chacha Horombe; Scott Kopetz; Michael A Davies; Mark Routbort; Sarina A Piha-Paul; Filip Janku; Naoto Ueno; David Hong; John De Groot; Vinod Ravi; Yisheng Li; Raja Luthra; Keyur Patel; Russell Broaddus; John Mendelsohn; Gordon B Mills Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-05-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Young Kwang Chae; Andrew A Davis; Benedito A Carneiro; Sunandana Chandra; Nisha Mohindra; Aparna Kalyan; Jason Kaplan; Maria Matsangou; Sachin Pai; Ricardo Costa; Borko Jovanovic; Massimo Cristofanilli; Leonidas C Platanias; Francis J Giles Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-10-04
Authors: William M Strauss; Chris Carter; Jill Simmons; Erich Klem; Nathan Goodman; Behrad Vahidi; Juan Romero; Michael Masterman-Smith; Ruth O'Regan; Keerthi Gogineni; Lee Schwartzberg; Laura K Austin; Paul W Dempsey; Massimo Cristofanilli Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2016-05-03
Authors: Romualdo Barroso-Sousa; Tanya E Keenan; Eliezer M Van Allen; Sara M Tolaney; Sonia Pernas; Pedro Exman; Esha Jain; Ana C Garrido-Castro; Melissa Hughes; Brittany Bychkovsky; Renato Umeton; Janet L Files; Neal I Lindeman; Laura E MacConaill; F Stephen Hodi; Ian E Krop; Deborah Dillon; Eric P Winer; Nikhil Wagle; Nancy U Lin; Elizabeth A Mittendorf Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Young Kwang Chae; Andrew A Davis; Sarita Agte; Alan Pan; Nicholas I Simon; Wade T Iams; Marcelo R Cruz; Keerthi Tamragouri; Kyunghoon Rhee; Nisha Mohindra; Victoria Villaflor; Wungki Park; Gilberto Lopes; Francis J Giles Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-03-13
Authors: Minetta C Liu; Matthew MacKay; Matthew Kase; Aneta Piwowarczyk; Christine Lo; Jeff Schaeffer; Justin D Finkle; Christopher E Mason; Nike Beaubier; Kimberly L Blackwell; Ben Ho Park Journal: JCO Precis Oncol Date: 2022-06-06
Authors: Matt R Paul; Tien-Chi Pan; Dhruv K Pant; Natalie Nc Shih; Yan Chen; Kyra L Harvey; Aaron Solomon; David Lieberman; Jennifer Jd Morrissette; Danielle Soucier-Ernst; Noah G Goodman; S William Stavropoulos; Kara N Maxwell; Candace Clark; George K Belka; Michael Feldman; Angela DeMichele; Lewis A Chodosh Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2020-08-03 Impact factor: 19.456