Kamila Kaminska1, Nina Akrap1, Ana Bosch2,3, Gabriella Honeth4, Johan Staaf1, Carla L Alves5, Anna Ehinger1,6, Anna Ebbesson1, Ingrid Hedenfalk1, Lukas Beumers1, Srinivas Veerla1, Katja Harbst1, Sidse Ehmsen7, Signe Borgquist1,8, Åke Borg1, Alejandro Pérez-Fidalgo9, Henrik J Ditzel5,7. 1. Division of Oncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 2. Division of Oncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. ana.bosch_campos@med.lu.se. 3. Department of Hematology, Oncology and Radiation Physics, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. ana.bosch_campos@med.lu.se. 4. Division of Oncology, Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. gabriella.honeth@med.lu.se. 5. Department of Cancer and Inflammation Research, Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 6. Division of Clinical Genetics and Pathology, Department of Laboratory Medicine, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 7. Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 8. Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 9. INCLIVA Biomedical Research Institute, Valencia, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resistance to endocrine treatment in metastatic breast cancer is a major clinical challenge. Clinical tools to predict both drug resistance and possible treatment combination approaches to overcome it are lacking. This unmet need is mainly due to the heterogeneity underlying both the mechanisms involved in resistance development and breast cancer itself. METHODS: To study the complexity of the mechanisms involved in the resistance to the selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) fulvestrant, we performed comprehensive biomarker analyses using several in vitro models that recapitulate the heterogeneity of developed resistance. We further corroborated our findings in tissue samples from patients treated with fulvestrant. RESULTS: We found that different in vitro models of fulvestrant resistance show variable stability in their phenotypes, which corresponded with distinct genomic alterations. Notably, the studied models presented adaptation at different cell cycle nodes to facilitate progression through the cell cycle and responded differently to CDK inhibitors. Cyclin E2 overexpression was identified as a biomarker of a persistent fulvestrant-resistant phenotype. Comparison of pre- and post-treatment paired tumor biopsies from patients treated with fulvestrant revealed an upregulation of cyclin E2 upon development of resistance. Moreover, overexpression of this cyclin was found to be a prognostic factor determining resistance to fulvestrant and shorter progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the complexity of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer and suggest that the development of diverse resistance mechanisms dictate levels of ER independence and potentially cross-resistance to CDK inhibitors.
BACKGROUND: Resistance to endocrine treatment in metastatic breast cancer is a major clinical challenge. Clinical tools to predict both drug resistance and possible treatment combination approaches to overcome it are lacking. This unmet need is mainly due to the heterogeneity underlying both the mechanisms involved in resistance development and breast cancer itself. METHODS: To study the complexity of the mechanisms involved in the resistance to the selective estrogen receptor degrader (SERD) fulvestrant, we performed comprehensive biomarker analyses using several in vitro models that recapitulate the heterogeneity of developed resistance. We further corroborated our findings in tissue samples from patients treated with fulvestrant. RESULTS: We found that different in vitro models of fulvestrant resistance show variable stability in their phenotypes, which corresponded with distinct genomic alterations. Notably, the studied models presented adaptation at different cell cycle nodes to facilitate progression through the cell cycle and responded differently to CDK inhibitors. Cyclin E2 overexpression was identified as a biomarker of a persistent fulvestrant-resistant phenotype. Comparison of pre- and post-treatment paired tumor biopsies from patients treated with fulvestrant revealed an upregulation of cyclin E2 upon development of resistance. Moreover, overexpression of this cyclin was found to be a prognostic factor determining resistance to fulvestrant and shorter progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the complexity of estrogen receptor positive breast cancer and suggest that the development of diverse resistance mechanisms dictate levels of ER independence and potentially cross-resistance to CDK inhibitors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cell cycle inhibitors; Cyclin E2; Endocrine treatment resistance; Fulvestrant; Metastatic breast cancer
Authors: John F R Robertson; Igor M Bondarenko; Ekaterina Trishkina; Mikhail Dvorkin; Lawrence Panasci; Alexey Manikhas; Yaroslav Shparyk; Servando Cardona-Huerta; Kwok-Leung Cheung; Manuel Jesus Philco-Salas; Manuel Ruiz-Borrego; Zhimin Shao; Shinzaburo Noguchi; Jacqui Rowbottom; Mary Stuart; Lynda M Grinsted; Mehdi Fazal; Matthew J Ellis Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Pedram Razavi; Matthew T Chang; Guotai Xu; Chaitanya Bandlamudi; Dara S Ross; Neil Vasan; Yanyan Cai; Craig M Bielski; Mark T A Donoghue; Philip Jonsson; Alexander Penson; Ronglai Shen; Fresia Pareja; Ritika Kundra; Sumit Middha; Michael L Cheng; Ahmet Zehir; Cyriac Kandoth; Ruchi Patel; Kety Huberman; Lillian M Smyth; Komal Jhaveri; Shanu Modi; Tiffany A Traina; Chau Dang; Wen Zhang; Britta Weigelt; Bob T Li; Marc Ladanyi; David M Hyman; Nikolaus Schultz; Mark E Robson; Clifford Hudis; Edi Brogi; Agnes Viale; Larry Norton; Maura N Dickler; Michael F Berger; Christine A Iacobuzio-Donahue; Sarat Chandarlapaty; Maurizio Scaltriti; Jorge S Reis-Filho; David B Solit; Barry S Taylor; José Baselga Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Nuno L Barbosa-Morais; Mark J Dunning; Shamith A Samarajiwa; Jeremy F J Darot; Matthew E Ritchie; Andy G Lynch; Simon Tavaré Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2009-11-18 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: B Giessrigl; W M Schmidt; M Kalipciyan; M Jeitler; M Bilban; M Gollinger; S Krieger; W Jäger; R M Mader; G Krupitza Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-10-29 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Neill Patani; Anita K Dunbier; Helen Anderson; Zara Ghazoui; Ricardo Ribas; Elizabeth Anderson; Qiong Gao; Roger A'hern; Alan Mackay; Justin Lindemann; Robert Wellings; Jill Walker; Irene Kuter; Lesley-Ann Martin; Mitch Dowsett Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Antonio Strillacci; Pasquale Sansone; Vinagolu K Rajasekhar; Mesruh Turkekul; Vitaly Boyko; Fanli Meng; Brian Houck-Loomis; David Brown; Michael F Berger; Ronald C Hendrickson; Qing Chang; Elisa de Stanchina; Fresia Pareja; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Ramya Segu Rajappachetty; Isabella Del Priore; Bo Liu; Yanyan Cai; Alex Penson; Chiara Mastroleo; Marjan Berishaj; Francesca Borsetti; Enzo Spisni; David Lyden; Sarat Chandarlapaty; Jacqueline Bromberg Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2022-08-23