| Literature DB >> 34471951 |
Xiaoran Liu1, Andrew A Davis2,3, Feng Xie4, Xinyu Gui1, Yifei Chen1, Qiang Zhang2, Lorenzo Gerratana2, Youbin Zhang2, Ami N Shah2, Amir Behdad2, Firas Wehbe2, Yong Huang4, Jianjun Yu4, Pan Du5, Shidong Jia4, Huiping Li6, Massimo Cristofanilli7.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Meaningful comparison of mutational landscapes across ethnic groups requires the use of standardized platform technology. We have used a harmonized NGS-based liquid biopsy assay to explore the differential genomic landscape of patients with initially hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative MBC of first line metastasis or primary Stage IV at diagnosis from the United States (US) and China (CN).Entities:
Keywords: Circulating tumor DNA; HR-positive advanced breast cancer; Next-generation sequencing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34471951 PMCID: PMC8558197 DOI: 10.1007/s10549-021-06370-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat ISSN: 0167-6806 Impact factor: 4.872
Comparison of baseline clinical characteristics between the US and CN (n = 90)
| Clinical characteristics | US | CN | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age at diagnosis | 0.400 | ||
| ≤ 45 years | 10 (37.0%) | 21 (31.7%) | |
| > 45 years | 17 (63.0%) | 44 (68.3%) | |
| HR intensity of primary tumor | 0.005 | ||
| ≤ 25% | 9 (33.3%) | 7 (9.5%) | |
| > 25% | 18 (66.7%) | 58 (90.5%) | |
| Tumor grade of primary tumor | 0.306 | ||
| I | 2 (7.4%) | 4 (6.2%) | |
| II | 13 (48.1%) | 32 (49.2%) | |
| III | 8 (29.6%) | 10 (15.4%) | |
| Unknown | 4(14.8%) | 19(29.2%) | |
| T stage of primary tumor | 0.013 | ||
| T1/2 | 15 (55.6%) | 52 (80.0%) | |
| T3/4 | 10 (37.0%) | 8 (12.3%) | |
| Unknown | 2 (7.4%) | 5 (7.7%) | |
| N stage of primary tumor | 0.776 | ||
| N0/1 | 14 (51.6%) | 33 (50.8%) | |
| N2/3 | 12 (44.4%) | 27 (41.5%) | |
| Unknown | 1 (3.7%) | 5 (7.7%) | |
| Previous neoadjuvant chemotherapy | 0.022 | ||
| No | 11 (40.8%) | 54 (83.1%) | |
| Yes | 9 (33.3%) | 11 (16.9%) | |
| Unknown | 7 (25.9%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Previous adjuvant chemotherapy | 0.987 | ||
| No | 8 (29.6%) | 24 (36.9%) | |
| Yes | 15 (55.5%) | 39 (60.0%) | |
| Unknown | 4 (14.8%) | 2 (3.1%) | |
| Previous adjuvant endocrine therapy | < 0.001 | ||
| No | 4 (14.8%) | 20 (30.8%) | |
| SERMa | 8 (29.6%) | 33 (50.8%) | |
| AIb | 8 (29.6%) | 10 (15.4%) | |
| SERM+AI | 5 (18.5%) | 1 (1.5%) | |
| Unknown | 2 (7.5%) | 1 (1.5%) | |
| Disease-free survival | 0.161 | ||
| ≤ 36.0 months | 9 (33.3%) | 11 (16.9%) | |
| > 36.0 months | 14 (51.9%) | 39 (60.0%) | |
| Primary stage IV | 4 (14.8%) | 15 (23.1%) | |
| Liver metastasis | 0.129 | ||
| No | 24 (88.9%) | 50 (75.8%) | |
| Yes | 3 (11.1%) | 15 (24.2%) | |
| Lung metastasis | 0.021 | ||
| No | 23 (85.2%) | 40 (61.3%) | |
| Yes | 4 (14.8%) | 25 (38.7%) | |
| Brain metastasis | 0.217 | ||
| No | 25 (92.6%) | 64 (98.4%) | |
| Yes | 2 (7.4%) | 1 (1.6%) | |
| Bone metastasis | 0.538 | ||
| No | 10 (37.0%) | 25 (38.7%) | |
| Yes | 17 (63.0%) | 40 (61.3%) | |
| Lymph metastasis | 0.078 | ||
| No | 16 (59.3%) | 27 (40.3%) | |
| Yes | 11 (40.7%) | 38 (59.7%) | |
| Chest metastasis | 0.156 | ||
| No | 27 (100.0%) | 60 (91.9%) | |
| Yes | 0 (0.0%) | 5 (8.1%) | |
| Other metastasis | 0.386 | ||
| No | 19 (70.4%) | 48 (75.8%) | |
| Yes | 8 (29.6%) | 17 (24.2%) | |
| Liver and/or lung metastasis | 0.021 | ||
| No | 20 (74.1%) | 31 (48.4%) | |
| Yes | 7 (25.9%) | 34 (51.6%) | |
| First-line therapeutic regimen | 0.000 | ||
| Chemotherapy | 0 (0.0%) | 22 (33.8%) | |
| Hormonal therapy | 3 (11.1%) | 15 (23.1%) | |
| Chemotherapy followed by hormonal therapy | 0 (0.0%) | 28 (43.1%) | |
| Hormonal plus CDK4/6 inhibitor | 23 (85.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | |
| Unknown | 1 (3.7%) | 0 (0.0%) |
aSERM: tamoxifen/toremifene
bAI: anastrozole/exemestane/letrozole
Fig. 1ctDNA mutation landscapes of US and Chinese HR+ MBC patients. A Mutation profile of US cohort. B Mutation profile of Chinese cohort. C Prevalence of gene mutation, copy number (CN) gain, and CN loss in US and Chinese cohorts. P value was calculated using one-side Fisher’s exact test
Fig. 2Subgroup analysis of differential mutation prevalence between US and CN patients. A, B, C Comparison of mutation prevalence between US and CN patients in primary stage IV BC subgroup; D, E, F Comparison of mutation prevalence between US and CN patients in first-line MBC subgroup. Mutations which detected more than twice in US or CN cohort were included for analysis. Comparison between groups with statistical significance were marked by corresponding P values above
Fig. 3Survival analysis of Chinese and US patients. A Prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with CDK4/6 inhibitor. HR, hazard ratio, CI, confidence interval. B PFS of patients with or without PTEN detection. C PFS of patients with or without ESR1 activating mutation or copy number gain. P value was calculated using log-rank test
Fig. 4Schematic diagram of ctDNA detection. A Detection of ctDNA from lung metastasis. B Detection of ctDNA from liver metastasis