| Literature DB >> 29409051 |
S T Kim1, K C Banks2, E Pectasides3, S Y Kim1, K Kim7, R B Lanman2, A Talasaz2, J An4, M G Choi4, J H Lee4, T S Sohn4, J M Bae4, S Kim4, S H Park1, J O Park1, Y S Park1, H Y Lim1, N K D Kim5, W Park5, H Lee6, A J Bass3, K Kim7, W K Kang1, J Lee8.
Abstract
Background: To identify predictive markers for responders in lapatinib-treated patients and to demonstrate molecular changes during lapatinib treatment via cell-free genomics. Patients and methods: We prospectively evaluated the efficacy of combining lapatinib with capecitabine and oxaliplatin as first line neoadjuvant therapy in patients with previously untreated, HER2-overexpressing advanced gastric cancer. A parallel biomarker study was conducted by simultaneously performing immunohistochemistry and next-generation sequencing (NGS) with tumor and blood samples.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29409051 PMCID: PMC5913644 DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdy034
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Oncol ISSN: 0923-7534 Impact factor: 32.976
Baseline characteristics
| % | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 26 | 81.3 | |
| Female | 6 | 18.8 | |
| Range | 23–80 | ||
| Median | 64 | ||
| 0 | 1 | 3.1 | |
| 1 | 31 | 96.9 | |
| 20 | 62.5 | ||
| 14 | 43.8 | ||
| TG (total gastrectomy) | 7 | ||
| STG (subtotal gastrectomy) | 6 | ||
| ESD (endoscopic submucosal dissection) | 1 | ||
| 4 | 12.5 | ||
| TG | 1 | ||
| STG | 1 | ||
| Gastrojejunostomy | 2 | ||
| O and C (open and close) | 2 | 6.3 | |
| Adenocarcinoma | 28 | 87.5 | |
| Papillary adenocarcinoma | 3 | 9.4 | |
| Signet ring cell | 1 | 3.1 | |
| W/D (well differentiated) | 1 | 3.1 | |
| M/D (modestly differentiated) | 16 | 46.9 | |
| P/D (poorly differentiated) | 13 | 34.4 | |
| Unknown | 2 | 6.3 | |
| Diffuse | 3 | 9.4 | |
| Intestinal | 6 | 18.8 | |
| Mixed | 1 | 3.1 | |
| Not determined | 22 | 68.8 | |
| Positive | 2 | 6.3 | |
| Negative | 18 | 56.3 | |
| Not determined | 12 | 37.5 | |
| MSS | 29 | 90.6 | |
| MSI-high | 0 | – | |
| Not determined | 3 | 9.4 | |
| 2+* | 4 | 12.5 | |
| 3+ | 28 | 87.5 | |
| 0 | 0.0 |
Figure 1.(A) Waterfall plot; (B) swimmer plot; (C) H index (upper panel), discordant HER2 IHC between primary and metastatic tissue specimen (lower panel); (D) H index in correlation to % tumor reduction.
Concomitant genomic alterations
| Pt# | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 |
| Response | CR | CR | PR | PR | SD | CR | CR | CR | PR | PD | PR | PR | PR | PR | PR | PR | SD | PD | PD | PR | PR | CR | CR | PR | SD | PR | PR | SD | PR |
| HER2 IHC | 3+ | 3+ | 2+ | 3+ | 2+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 2+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 2+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ | 2+ | 3+ | 3+ | 3+ |
| Site of HER2 test | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | M | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G | G |
| Tissue type | E | E | E | S | E | S | S | E | E | S | Bx | E | E | S | E | E | E | S | E | E | E | E | E | E | E | E | E | E | E |
| Heterogeneity of HER2 | HO | HO | HO | HE | HE | HO | HE | HO | HE | HE | HO | HO | HO | HO | HO | HO | HO | HO | HO | HO | HO | HE | HO | HO | HE | HO | HE | HE | HE |
| Primary-Meta (or Recurrent) matched biopsy | NA | + | + | + | NA | + | + | + | + | NA | + | NA | NA | NA | + | + | NA | NA | + | NA | + | NA | + | NA | NA | NA | + | NA | NA |
| Discrepancy between primary and metastasis | NA | NA | G (0) L (3+) | NA | NA | G (3+) L (3+) | NA | NA | G (3+) S (0) | NA | G (0) L (2+) | NA | NA | NA | G (3+) S (3+) | G (3+) L (3+) | NA | NA | G (2+) LN (0) | NA | G (3+) Sk (3+) | NA | G (3+) L (3+) | NA | NA | NA | G (3+) LN (3+) | NA | NA |
| FU biopsy during lapatinib | NA | 3+ 0 | 2+ 2+ | 3+ 3+ | NA | NA | 3+ 0 | 3+ 0 | 3+ 3+ | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 3+ 3+ | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| 300 | 270 | 300 | 100 | 55 | 300 | 200 | 280 | 80 | 190 | 240 | 270 | 290 | 300 | 250 | 290 | 100 | 30 | 180 | 270 | 300 | 200 | 250 | 270 | 80 | 180 | 70 | 60 | 210 |
G, gastric; M, metastasis; E, endoscopic biopsy; S, surgical biopsy; HO, homogeneous; HE, heterogeneous; NA, not available.
Concomitant genomic alterations
| Pt# | Best response | CCNE1 IHC | ERBB2 log2 | ERBB2 estimated copy number | Heterogeneity of HER2 staining | TP53 allele fraction | Other alterations | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 004 | PD | CCNE1 negative | −0.0333 | 1.95 | 100 | Hetero | 0.62963 | NOTCH3 amp, BRD4 amp, TERT loss, APC frameshift |
| 005 | SD | CCNE1 positive (100%) | 0.428 | 2.69 | 55 | Hetero | 0.2962 | CCNE1 amp, |
| MYC amp, APC loss, TP53 loss, ARID1A | ||||||||
| 006 | CR | NA | 0.281 | 2.43 | 300 | Homo | 0.049 | ERBB3mutation, ARID1B inframe del |
| 010 | PR | CCNE1 negative | – | 80 | Hetero | – | BCL9 frameshift | |
| 012 | PD | CCNE1 positive (100%) | 0.679 | 3.20 | 190 | Hetero | 0.2213 | PTEN loss, NOTCH2 missense |
| CCNE1 amp | ||||||||
| 013 | PD | CCNE1 positive (100%) | 0.12 | 2.17 | Hetero | 0.2 | CCNE1 amp | |
| 014 | PR | CCNE1 negative | 2.22 | 9.32 | 270 | Homo | 0.54 | loss, APC nonsense, ARID1A |
| nonsense, CTNNB1 missense, RHOA | ||||||||
| 015 | PR | CCNE1 negative | 4.31 | 39.7 | 290 | Homo | – | – |
| 016 | PR | CCNE1 negative | 3.74 | 26.72 | 300 | Homo | 0.409 | SMAD2/4, |
| BCL2, KEAP1 loss, RNF43 mut, | ||||||||
| CDK8 mut | ||||||||
| 017 | PR | CCNE1 positive (100%) | 0.307 | 2.47 | 250 | Homo | 0.084 | FGFR2 amp, IDH2 amp, |
| PIK3CG missense | ||||||||
| 018 | PR | NA | 2.37 | 10.34 | 290 | Homo | 0.3259 | CCNE1 amp, |
| VEGFA amp, CDK1NA amp, CCND3 amp | ||||||||
| 019 | SD | CCNE1 positive (80%) | 1.69 | 6.45 | 100 | Homo | 0.1185 | CCNE1 amp, |
| EGFR amp, SMAD3/4 loss | ||||||||
| 021 | N.E. | CCNE1 negative | 2.16 | 8.94 | 300 | Homo | 0.3789 | CDKN2A loss |
| 022 | PD | CCNE1 negative | – | 180 | Homo | NA | CRKL amp | |
| 023 | PR | CCNE1 negative | 5.02 | 64.89 | 270 | Homo | 0.4375 | ETV4 amp, |
| CCND3 frameshift | ||||||||
| 024 | PR | CCNE1 negative | 4.90 | 59.71 | 300 | Homo | 0.4262 | CRKL amp, |
| APC nonsense |
Figure 2.(A) CCNE1 amplification by NGS between responders and non-responders; (B) HER2 log ratio by NGS between responder and non-responders; (C) correlation between HER2 log ratio by NGS and HER2 IHC H-index.
Figure 3.(A) ERBB2 and CRKL co-amplified patient; (B) expression of HER2 and CRKL by IHC in tumor specimen; (C) short-hairpin RNA (shRNA)-mediated CRKL knockdown in HER2-amplified PDCs effectively suppressed CRKL expression in CRKL-amplified/overexpressed PDCs. The CRKL knockdown in an HER2-amplified PDC line rescued lapatinib resistance in cell-viability assays with statistical significance (P = 0.0003). The inhibition of both HER2 and CRKL with lapatinib and shCRKL, respectively, demonstrated substantial ERK and AKT downregulation by western blotting.
Figure 4.Correlation between ctDNA ERBB2 amplification and lapatinib response (A) Waterfall plot for subset of patients with ctDNA assessment at baseline; (B) CtDNA follow-up in lapatinib treated GC patients in correlation to radiologic assessment.