Richard S P Huang1, James Haberberger1, Kimberly McGregor2, Douglas A Mata2, Brennan Decker2, Matthew C Hiemenz2, Mirna Lechpammer2, Natalie Danziger2, Kelsie Schiavone1, James Creeden2, Ryon P Graf3, Roy Strowd4, Glenn J Lesser4, Evangelia D Razis5, Rupert Bartsch6, Athina Giannoudis7, Talvinder Bhogal7,8, Nancy U Lin9, Lajos Pusztai10, Jeffrey S Ross2,11, Carlo Palmieri7,8, Shakti H Ramkissoon1,12,13. 1. Foundation Medicine, Inc., Morrisville, North Carolina, USA. 2. Foundation Medicine, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. 3. Foundation Medicine, Inc., San Diego, California, USA. 4. Section on Hematology and Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. 5. 3rd Oncology Department, Hygeia Hospital, Athens, Greece. 6. Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 7. Department of Molecular and Clinical Cancer Medicine, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom. 8. The Clatterbridge Cancer Centre National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom. 9. Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 10. Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 11. Department of Pathology, State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate Medical University, Syracuse, New York, USA. 12. Wake Forest Comprehensive Cancer Center, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA. 13. Department of Pathology, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Among patients with breast carcinoma who have metastatic disease, 15%-30% will eventually develop brain metastases. We examined the genomic landscape of a large cohort of patients with breast carcinoma brain metastases (BCBMs) and compared it with a cohort of patients with primary breast carcinomas (BCs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 733 BCBMs tested with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and compared them with 10,772 primary breast carcinomas (not-paired) specimens. For a subset of 16 triple-negative breast carcinoma (TNBC)-brain metastasis samples, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed concurrently. RESULTS: A total of 733 consecutive BCBMs were analyzed. Compared with primary BCs, BCBMs were enriched for genomic alterations in TP53 (72.0%, 528/733), ERBB2 (25.6%, 188/733), RAD21 (14.1%, 103/733), NF1 (9.0%, 66/733), BRCA1 (7.8%, 57/733), and ESR1 (6.3%,46/733) (p < .05 for all comparisons). Immune checkpoint inhibitor biomarkers such as high tumor mutational burden (TMB-high; 16.2%, 119/733); high microsatellite instability (1.9%, 14/733); CD274 amplification (3.6%, 27/733); and apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like mutational signature (5.9%, 43/733) were significantly higher in the BCBM cohort compared with the primary BC cohort (p < .05 for all comparisons). When using both CGP and PD-L1 IHC, 37.5% (6/16) of patients with TNBC brain metastasis were eligible for atezolizumab based on PD-L1 IHC, and 18.8% (3/16) were eligible for pembrolizumab based on TMB-high status. CONCLUSION: We found a high prevalence of clinically relevant genomic alterations in patients with BCBM, suggesting that tissue acquisition (surgery) and/or cerebrospinal fluid for CGP in addition to CGP of the primary tumor may be clinically warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study found a high prevalence of clinically relevant genomic alterations in patients with breast carcinoma brain metastasis (BCBM), suggesting that tissue acquisition (surgery) and/or cerebrospinal fluid for comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in addition to CGP of the primary tumor may be clinically warranted. In addition, this study identified higher positive rates for FDA-approved immunotherapy biomarkers detected by CGP in patients with BCBM, opening a possibility of new on-label treatments. Last, this study noted limited correlation between tumor mutational burden and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC), which shows the importance of testing patients with triple-negative BCBM for immune checkpoint inhibitor eligibility with both PD-L1 IHC and CGP.
BACKGROUND: Among patients with breast carcinoma who have metastatic disease, 15%-30% will eventually develop brain metastases. We examined the genomic landscape of a large cohort of patients with breast carcinoma brain metastases (BCBMs) and compared it with a cohort of patients with primary breast carcinomas (BCs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 733 BCBMs tested with comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and compared them with 10,772 primary breast carcinomas (not-paired) specimens. For a subset of 16 triple-negative breast carcinoma (TNBC)-brain metastasis samples, programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunohistochemistry (IHC) was performed concurrently. RESULTS: A total of 733 consecutive BCBMs were analyzed. Compared with primary BCs, BCBMs were enriched for genomic alterations in TP53 (72.0%, 528/733), ERBB2 (25.6%, 188/733), RAD21 (14.1%, 103/733), NF1 (9.0%, 66/733), BRCA1 (7.8%, 57/733), and ESR1 (6.3%,46/733) (p < .05 for all comparisons). Immune checkpoint inhibitor biomarkers such as high tumor mutational burden (TMB-high; 16.2%, 119/733); high microsatellite instability (1.9%, 14/733); CD274 amplification (3.6%, 27/733); and apolipoprotein B mRNA editing enzyme, catalytic polypeptide-like mutational signature (5.9%, 43/733) were significantly higher in the BCBM cohort compared with the primary BC cohort (p < .05 for all comparisons). When using both CGP and PD-L1 IHC, 37.5% (6/16) of patients with TNBC brain metastasis were eligible for atezolizumab based on PD-L1 IHC, and 18.8% (3/16) were eligible for pembrolizumab based on TMB-high status. CONCLUSION: We found a high prevalence of clinically relevant genomic alterations in patients with BCBM, suggesting that tissue acquisition (surgery) and/or cerebrospinal fluid for CGP in addition to CGP of the primary tumor may be clinically warranted. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study found a high prevalence of clinically relevant genomic alterations in patients with breast carcinoma brain metastasis (BCBM), suggesting that tissue acquisition (surgery) and/or cerebrospinal fluid for comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) in addition to CGP of the primary tumor may be clinically warranted. In addition, this study identified higher positive rates for FDA-approved immunotherapy biomarkers detected by CGP in patients with BCBM, opening a possibility of new on-label treatments. Last, this study noted limited correlation between tumor mutational burden and PD-L1 immunohistochemistry (IHC), which shows the importance of testing patients with triple-negative BCBM for immune checkpoint inhibitor eligibility with both PD-L1 IHC and CGP.
Authors: Pedram Razavi; Jared L Johnson; Hong Shao; Neil Vasan; Hardik Shah; Alesia Antoine; Erik Ladewig; Alexander Gorelick; Ting-Yu Lin; Eneda Toska; Guotai Xu; Abiha Kazmi; Matthew T Chang; Barry S Taylor; Maura N Dickler; Komal Jhaveri; Sarat Chandarlapaty; Raul Rabadan; Ed Reznik; Melissa L Smith; Robert Sebra; Frauke Schimmoller; Timothy R Wilson; Lori S Friedman; Lewis C Cantley; Maurizio Scaltriti; José Baselga Journal: Science Date: 2019-11-08 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Richard S P Huang; James Haberberger; Eric Severson; Daniel L Duncan; Amanda Hemmerich; Claire Edgerly; Naomi Lynn Ferguson; Erik Williams; Julia Elvin; Jo-Anne Vergilio; Jonathan Keith Killian; Douglas I Lin; Julie Tse; Matthew Hiemenz; Clarence Owens; Natalie Danziger; Priti S Hegde; Jeffrey Venstrom; Brian Alexander; Jeffrey S Ross; Shakti H Ramkissoon Journal: Mod Pathol Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 7.842
Authors: Aaron M Goodman; David Piccioni; Shumei Kato; Amélie Boichard; Huan-You Wang; Garrett Frampton; Scott M Lippman; Caitlin Connelly; David Fabrizio; Vincent Miller; Jason K Sicklick; Razelle Kurzrock Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Laxmi Silwal-Pandit; Hans Kristian Moen Vollan; Suet-Feung Chin; Oscar M Rueda; Steven McKinney; Tomo Osako; David A Quigley; Vessela N Kristensen; Samuel Aparicio; Anne-Lise Børresen-Dale; Carlos Caldas; Anita Langerød Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2014-05-06 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Priscilla K Brastianos; Scott L Carter; Gad Getz; William C Hahn; Sandro Santagata; Daniel P Cahill; Amaro Taylor-Weiner; Robert T Jones; Eliezer M Van Allen; Michael S Lawrence; Peleg M Horowitz; Kristian Cibulskis; Keith L Ligon; Josep Tabernero; Joan Seoane; Elena Martinez-Saez; William T Curry; Ian F Dunn; Sun Ha Paek; Sung-Hye Park; Aaron McKenna; Aaron Chevalier; Mara Rosenberg; Frederick G Barker; Corey M Gill; Paul Van Hummelen; Aaron R Thorner; Bruce E Johnson; Mai P Hoang; Toni K Choueiri; Sabina Signoretti; Carrie Sougnez; Michael S Rabin; Nancy U Lin; Eric P Winer; Anat Stemmer-Rachamimov; Matthew Meyerson; Levi Garraway; Stacey Gabriel; Eric S Lander; Rameen Beroukhim; Tracy T Batchelor; Jose Baselga; David N Louis Journal: Cancer Discov Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 39.397
Authors: Isabell Witzel; Leticia Oliveira-Ferrer; Klaus Pantel; Volkmar Müller; Harriet Wikman Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2016-01-19 Impact factor: 6.466
Authors: Ahmet Zehir; Ryma Benayed; Ronak H Shah; Aijazuddin Syed; Sumit Middha; Hyunjae R Kim; Preethi Srinivasan; Jianjiong Gao; Debyani Chakravarty; Sean M Devlin; Matthew D Hellmann; David A Barron; Alison M Schram; Meera Hameed; Snjezana Dogan; Dara S Ross; Jaclyn F Hechtman; Deborah F DeLair; JinJuan Yao; Diana L Mandelker; Donavan T Cheng; Raghu Chandramohan; Abhinita S Mohanty; Ryan N Ptashkin; Gowtham Jayakumaran; Meera Prasad; Mustafa H Syed; Anoop Balakrishnan Rema; Zhen Y Liu; Khedoudja Nafa; Laetitia Borsu; Justyna Sadowska; Jacklyn Casanova; Ruben Bacares; Iwona J Kiecka; Anna Razumova; Julie B Son; Lisa Stewart; Tessara Baldi; Kerry A Mullaney; Hikmat Al-Ahmadie; Efsevia Vakiani; Adam A Abeshouse; Alexander V Penson; Philip Jonsson; Niedzica Camacho; Matthew T Chang; Helen H Won; Benjamin E Gross; Ritika Kundra; Zachary J Heins; Hsiao-Wei Chen; Sarah Phillips; Hongxin Zhang; Jiaojiao Wang; Angelica Ochoa; Jonathan Wills; Michael Eubank; Stacy B Thomas; Stuart M Gardos; Dalicia N Reales; Jesse Galle; Robert Durany; Roy Cambria; Wassim Abida; Andrea Cercek; Darren R Feldman; Mrinal M Gounder; A Ari Hakimi; James J Harding; Gopa Iyer; Yelena Y Janjigian; Emmet J Jordan; Ciara M Kelly; Maeve A Lowery; Luc G T Morris; Antonio M Omuro; Nitya Raj; Pedram Razavi; Alexander N Shoushtari; Neerav Shukla; Tara E Soumerai; Anna M Varghese; Rona Yaeger; Jonathan Coleman; Bernard Bochner; Gregory J Riely; Leonard B Saltz; Howard I Scher; Paul J Sabbatini; Mark E Robson; David S Klimstra; Barry S Taylor; Jose Baselga; Nikolaus Schultz; David M Hyman; Maria E Arcila; David B Solit; Marc Ladanyi; Michael F Berger Journal: Nat Med Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: Sally E Trabucco; Kyle Gowen; Sophia L Maund; Eric Sanford; David A Fabrizio; Michael J Hall; Evgeny Yakirevich; Jeffrey P Gregg; Phil J Stephens; Garrett M Frampton; Priti S Hegde; Vincent A Miller; Jeffrey S Ross; Ryan J Hartmaier; Shih-Min A Huang; James X Sun Journal: J Mol Diagn Date: 2019-08-22 Impact factor: 5.568
Authors: James X Sun; Yuting He; Eric Sanford; Meagan Montesion; Garrett M Frampton; Stéphane Vignot; Jean-Charles Soria; Jeffrey S Ross; Vincent A Miller; Phil J Stephens; Doron Lipson; Roman Yelensky Journal: PLoS Comput Biol Date: 2018-02-07 Impact factor: 4.475
Authors: Nancy U Lin; Virginia Borges; Carey Anders; Rashmi K Murthy; Elisavet Paplomata; Erika Hamilton; Sara Hurvitz; Sherene Loi; Alicia Okines; Vandana Abramson; Philippe L Bedard; Mafalda Oliveira; Volkmar Mueller; Amelia Zelnak; Michael P DiGiovanna; Thomas Bachelot; A Jo Chien; Ruth O'Regan; Andrew Wardley; Alison Conlin; David Cameron; Lisa Carey; Giuseppe Curigliano; Karen Gelmon; Sibylle Loibl; JoAl Mayor; Suzanne McGoldrick; Xuebei An; Eric P Winer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-05-29 Impact factor: 44.544