| Literature DB >> 31383035 |
Bradley A Hancock1, Yu-Hsiang Chen2, Jeffrey P Solzak1, Mufti N Ahmad1, David C Wedge3, Dumitru Brinza4, Charles Scafe4, James Veitch4, Rajesh Gottimukkala4, Walt Short4, Rutuja V Atale1, Mircea Ivan5, Sunil S Badve6,7, Bryan P Schneider2,8,7, Xiongbin Lu2,7, Kathy D Miller8,7, Milan Radovich9,10,11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Approximately two thirds of patients with localized triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) harbor residual disease (RD) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and have a high risk-of-recurrence. Targeted therapeutic development for TNBC is of primary significance as no targeted therapies are clinically indicated for this aggressive subset. In view of this, we conducted a comprehensive molecular analysis and correlated molecular features of chemorefractory RD tumors with recurrence for the purpose of guiding downstream therapeutic development.Entities:
Keywords: Breast; Cancer; Chemoresistance; MYC; Recurrence; Relapse; SMAD2; TGF-beta; TP53; Triple-negative
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31383035 PMCID: PMC6683504 DOI: 10.1186/s13058-019-1171-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res ISSN: 1465-5411 Impact factor: 6.466
Fig. 1Genomic analysis of BRE09-146. a Clinical trial schema. Patient samples were collected before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. b CONSORT diagram of genomic analysis. c Recurrently mutated genes in BRE09-146
Fig. 2Pairwise analysis. Copy number heatmap across 18 pairs. “Diag” denotes diagnosis/pre-chemotherapy; “Surg” denotes definitive surgery/post-chemotherapy. Gains/losses are denoted as follows: high-level amplification (red, 5.0+ copies), gain (yellow), normal (white), minor loss (royal blue), extensive loss (dark blue, < 0.5). Pairs in red recurred. Pairs in green remained recurrence free
Fig. 3Immune depletion analysis. a Immune upstream regulator analysis. Differential in silico regulator activity as called by Ingenuity Pathway Analysis. Regulator confidence (p-values) are relayed in gray with accompanying Z-scores relayed in orange (upregulated) or blue (downregulated) (n = 24 pairs). b, c Hematoxylin and eosin-stained tissues from before (b) and after (c) chemotherapy demonstrating a decrease in total lymphocytes. d Unpaired (left) and paired (right) total lymphocyte% as called before and after surgery (unpaired: n = 67,83, p = 0.04; paired: n = 49, p = 0.04). e Paired total lymphocyte% in non-relapsers (left) and relapsers (right) (non-relapse: n = 20, p = 0.01; relapse: n = 28, p = 0.10). d and e were performed with Student’s t test
Fig. 4Graduated p53 inactivation and outcome in BRE09-146. a Lollipop plot of TP53 mutations in BRE09-146. b Kaplan-Meier disease-free and overall survival analysis of TNBCs with < 2 copies vs. ≥ 2 copies of TP53 (n = 75, 53 vs. 22; DFS: HR = 2.07 (1.03–4.17), p = 0.02; OS: HR = 2.07 (0.96–4.48); p = 0.03). c Three-way Kaplan-Meier analysis of disease-free and overall survival analysis comparing outcomes based upon risk stratification predicted by the degree of genomic loss of TP53 (14 vs. 21 vs. 40; DFS: p = 0.02; OS: p = 0.02)
Fig. 5Compound TP53/MYC status and survival. a Venn diagram displaying overlap of a total of 46 TNBCs with MYC amplification and/or compound mutation of TP53. b MYC RNA expression in TNBCs (1) with MYC amplification vs. no amplification , (2) TP53 compound mutations (TP53 CM) vs. all others (*p < 0.05; n = 75, Student’s two-tailed t test), and (3) TP53 compound mutations vs. all others with all samples with MYC amplification removed. c Kaplan-Meier disease-free and overall survival analysis comparing outcomes of TNBCs with MYC amplification vs. no amplification (n = 75, 18 vs. 57). d Kaplan-Meier survival analysis of disease-free and overall survival comparing TP53 compound mutation (n = 75, 40 vs. 35; DFS: HR = 2.30 (1.26–4.20); p = 0.007; OS: HR = 2.55 (1.31–5.00); p = 0.007)
Fig. 6Gains in 18q determine recurrence and overexpression of SMAD2. a SMAD4 copy number in recurrent vs. non-recurrent cancers by ANOVA. Red and black dots represent gains and normal/loss, respectively (n = 46; Student’s t test). b Kaplan-Meier disease-free and overall survival of SMAD4 gains versus all others (n = 51, 19 vs. 32; DFS: HR = 2.30 (1.08–4.87); p = 0.01; OS: non-significant). c SMAD2 overexpression association with 18q gains by ANOVA (n = 51)