C Fribbens1,2, I Garcia Murillas1, M Beaney1, S Hrebien1, B O'Leary1, L Kilburn3, K Howarth4, M Epstein4, E Green4, N Rosenfeld4,5,6, A Ring2, S Johnston2, N Turner1,2. 1. Breast Cancer Now Research Centre, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. 2. Breast Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. 3. Institute of Cancer Research Clinical Trials & Statistics Unit (ICR-CTSU), London, UK. 4. Inivata Ltd., The Portway, Granta Park, Great Abington, UK. 5. Cancer Research UK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 6. Cancer Research UK Major Centre, Robinson Way, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
Background: Selection of resistance mutations may play a major role in the development of endocrine resistance. ESR1 mutations are rare in primary breast cancer but have high prevalence in patients treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI) for advanced breast cancer. We investigated the evolution of genetic resistance to the first-line AI therapy using sequential ctDNA sampling in patients with advanced breast cancer. Patients and methods: Eighty-three patients on the first-line AI therapy for metastatic breast cancer were enrolled in a prospective study. Plasma samples were collected every 3 months to disease progression and ctDNA analysed by digital droplet PCR and enhanced tagged-amplicon sequencing (eTAm-Seq). Mutations identified in progression samples by sequencing were tracked back through samples before progression to study the evolution of mutations on therapy. The frequency of novel mutations was validated in an independent cohort of available baseline plasma samples in the Study of Faslodex versus Exemestane with or without Arimidex (SoFEA) trial, which enrolled patients with prior sensitivity to AI. Results: Of the 39 patients who progressed on the first-line AI, 56.4% (22/39) had ESR1 mutations detectable at progression, which were polyclonal in 40.9% (9/22) patients. In serial tracking, ESR1 mutations were detectable median 6.7 months (95% confidence interval 3.7-NA) before clinical progression. Utilising eTAm-Seq ctDNA sequencing of progression plasma, ESR1 mutations were demonstrated to be sub-clonal in 72.2% (13/18) patients. Mutations in RAS genes were identified in 15.4% (6/39) of progressing patients (4 KRAS, 1 HRAS, 1 NRAS). In SoFEA, KRAS mutations were detected in 21.2% (24/113) patients although there was no evidence that KRAS mutation status was prognostic for progression free or overall survival. Conclusions: Cancers progressing on the first-line AI show high levels of genetic heterogeneity, with frequent sub-clonal mutations. Sub-clonal KRAS mutations are found at high frequency. The genetic diversity of AI resistant cancers may limit subsequent targeted therapy approaches.
Background: Selection of resistance mutations may play a major role in the development of endocrine resistance. ESR1 mutations are rare in primary breast cancer but have high prevalence in patients treated with aromatase inhibitors (AI) for advanced breast cancer. We investigated the evolution of genetic resistance to the first-line AI therapy using sequential ctDNA sampling in patients with advanced breast cancer. Patients and methods: Eighty-three patients on the first-line AI therapy for metastatic breast cancer were enrolled in a prospective study. Plasma samples were collected every 3 months to disease progression and ctDNA analysed by digital droplet PCR and enhanced tagged-amplicon sequencing (eTAm-Seq). Mutations identified in progression samples by sequencing were tracked back through samples before progression to study the evolution of mutations on therapy. The frequency of novel mutations was validated in an independent cohort of available baseline plasma samples in the Study of Faslodex versus Exemestane with or without Arimidex (SoFEA) trial, which enrolled patients with prior sensitivity to AI. Results: Of the 39 patients who progressed on the first-line AI, 56.4% (22/39) had ESR1 mutations detectable at progression, which were polyclonal in 40.9% (9/22) patients. In serial tracking, ESR1 mutations were detectable median 6.7 months (95% confidence interval 3.7-NA) before clinical progression. Utilising eTAm-Seq ctDNA sequencing of progression plasma, ESR1 mutations were demonstrated to be sub-clonal in 72.2% (13/18) patients. Mutations in RAS genes were identified in 15.4% (6/39) of progressing patients (4 KRAS, 1 HRAS, 1 NRAS). In SoFEA, KRAS mutations were detected in 21.2% (24/113) patients although there was no evidence that KRAS mutation status was prognostic for progression free or overall survival. Conclusions: Cancers progressing on the first-line AI show high levels of genetic heterogeneity, with frequent sub-clonal mutations. Sub-clonal KRAS mutations are found at high frequency. The genetic diversity of AI resistant cancers may limit subsequent targeted therapy approaches.
Authors: David P Steensma; Rafael Bejar; Siddhartha Jaiswal; R Coleman Lindsley; Mikkael A Sekeres; Robert P Hasserjian; Benjamin L Ebert Journal: Blood Date: 2015-04-30 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Susumu Kobayashi; Titus J Boggon; Tajhal Dayaram; Pasi A Jänne; Olivier Kocher; Matthew Meyerson; Bruce E Johnson; Michael J Eck; Daniel G Tenen; Balázs Halmos Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-02-24 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sandra Misale; Federica Di Nicolantonio; Andrea Sartore-Bianchi; Salvatore Siena; Alberto Bardelli Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2014-10-07 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Giulio Genovese; Anna K Kähler; Robert E Handsaker; Johan Lindberg; Samuel A Rose; Samuel F Bakhoum; Kimberly Chambert; Eran Mick; Benjamin M Neale; Menachem Fromer; Shaun M Purcell; Oscar Svantesson; Mikael Landén; Martin Höglund; Sören Lehmann; Stacey B Gabriel; Jennifer L Moran; Eric S Lander; Patrick F Sullivan; Pamela Sklar; Henrik Grönberg; Christina M Hultman; Steven A McCarroll Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-11-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Charlotte Fribbens; Ben O'Leary; Lucy Kilburn; Sarah Hrebien; Isaac Garcia-Murillas; Matthew Beaney; Massimo Cristofanilli; Fabrice Andre; Sherene Loi; Sibylle Loibl; John Jiang; Cynthia Huang Bartlett; Maria Koehler; Mitch Dowsett; Judith M Bliss; Stephen R D Johnston; Nicholas C Turner Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Weiyi Toy; Yang Shen; Helen Won; Bradley Green; Rita A Sakr; Marie Will; Zhiqiang Li; Kinisha Gala; Sean Fanning; Tari A King; Clifford Hudis; David Chen; Tetiana Taran; Gabriel Hortobagyi; Geoffrey Greene; Michael Berger; José Baselga; Sarat Chandarlapaty Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2013-11-03 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Mary J Laws; Yvonne Ziegler; Sayyed Hamed Shahoei; Parama Dey; Sung Hoon Kim; Mayuri Yasuda; Ben Ho Park; Kendall W Nettles; John A Katzenellenbogen; Erik R Nelson; Benita S Katzenellenbogen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2020-04-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jeffrey Chun Hin Chan; James Chung Hang Chow; Connie Hoi Man Ho; Therese Yue Man Tsui; William C Cho Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2021-03-24 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Aparna R Parikh; Amikasra Mojtahed; Jaime L Schneider; Katie Kanter; Emily E Van Seventer; Isobel J Fetter; Ashraf Thabet; Madeleine G Fish; Bezaye Teshome; Kathryn Fosbenner; Brandon Nadres; Heather A Shahzade; Jill N Allen; Lawrence S Blaszkowsky; David P Ryan; Bruce Giantonio; Lipika Goyal; Ryan D Nipp; Eric Roeland; Colin D Weekes; Jennifer Y Wo; Andrew X Zhu; Dora Dias-Santagata; A John Iafrate; Jochen K Lennerz; Theodore S Hong; Giulia Siravegna; Nora Horick; Jeffrey W Clark; Ryan B Corcoran Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Georgios Nteliopoulos; Karen Page; Allison Hills; Karen Howarth; Warren Emmett; Emma Green; Luke J Martinson; Daniel Fernadez-Garcia; Robert Hastings; David S Guttery; Laura Kenny; Justin Stebbing; Susan Cleator; Farah Rehman; Kelly L T Gleason; Andrijac Sanela; Charlotte Ion; Amelia J Rushton; Nitzan Rosenfeld; R Charles Coombes; Jacqueline A Shaw Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-06-07 Impact factor: 4.872