Aikaterini Chatzipli1, Hervé Bonnefoi2, Gaetan MacGrogan2, Julie Sentis2, David Cameron3, Coralie Poncet4, Richard Iggo5. 1. Wellcome Sanger Institute, Cambridge, UK. 2. Institut Bergonié, INSERM U1218, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. 3. University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK. 4. EORTC Data Centre, Brussels, Belgium. 5. Institut Bergonié, INSERM U1218, University of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France. Richard.Iggo@u-bordeaux.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is an unmet clinical need. We hypothesised that tumour subclones showing expansion in residual disease after chemotherapy would contain mutations conferring drug resistance. METHODS: We studied oestrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor-positive, HER2-negative tumours from 42 patients in the EORTC 10994/BIG 00-01 trial who failed to achieve a pathological complete response. Genes commonly mutated in breast cancer were sequenced in pre and post-treatment samples. RESULTS: Oncogenic driver mutations were commonest in PIK3CA (38% of tumours), GATA3 (29%), CDH1 (17%), TP53 (17%) and CBFB (12%); and amplification was commonest for CCND1 (26% of tumours) and FGFR1 (26%). The variant allele fraction frequently changed after treatment, indicating that subclones had expanded and contracted, but there were changes in both directions for all of the commonly mutated genes. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that expansion of clones containing recurrent oncogenic driver mutations is responsible for resistance to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The persistence of classic oncogenic mutations in pathways for which targeted therapies are now available highlights their importance as drug targets in patients who have failed chemotherapy but provides no support for a direct role of driver oncogenes in resistance to chemotherapy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00 Trial registration number NCT00017095.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer is an unmet clinical need. We hypothesised that tumour subclones showing expansion in residual disease after chemotherapy would contain mutations conferring drug resistance. METHODS: We studied oestrogen receptor and/or progesterone receptor-positive, HER2-negative tumours from 42 patients in the EORTC 10994/BIG 00-01 trial who failed to achieve a pathological complete response. Genes commonly mutated in breast cancer were sequenced in pre and post-treatment samples. RESULTS: Oncogenic driver mutations were commonest in PIK3CA (38% of tumours), GATA3 (29%), CDH1 (17%), TP53 (17%) and CBFB (12%); and amplification was commonest for CCND1 (26% of tumours) and FGFR1 (26%). The variant allele fraction frequently changed after treatment, indicating that subclones had expanded and contracted, but there were changes in both directions for all of the commonly mutated genes. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that expansion of clones containing recurrent oncogenic driver mutations is responsible for resistance to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The persistence of classic oncogenic mutations in pathways for which targeted therapies are now available highlights their importance as drug targets in patients who have failed chemotherapy but provides no support for a direct role of driver oncogenes in resistance to chemotherapy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: EORTC 10994/BIG 1-00 Trial registration number NCT00017095.
Authors: R Condorelli; F Mosele; B Verret; T Bachelot; P L Bedard; J Cortes; D M Hyman; D Juric; I Krop; I Bieche; C Saura; C Sotiriou; F Cardoso; S Loibl; F Andre; N C Turner Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: François Bertucci; Charlotte K Y Ng; Anne Patsouris; Thomas Filleron; Christophe Le Tourneau; Fabrice André; Nathalie Droin; Salvatore Piscuoglio; Nadine Carbuccia; Jean Charles Soria; Alicia Tran Dien; Yahia Adnani; Maud Kamal; Séverine Garnier; Guillaume Meurice; Marta Jimenez; Semih Dogan; Benjamin Verret; Max Chaffanet; Thomas Bachelot; Mario Campone; Claudia Lefeuvre; Herve Bonnefoi; Florence Dalenc; Alexandra Jacquet; Maria R De Filippo; Naveen Babbar; Daniel Birnbaum Journal: Nature Date: 2019-05-22 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Hervé Bonnefoi; Martine Piccart; Jan Bogaerts; Louis Mauriac; Pierre Fumoleau; Etienne Brain; Thierry Petit; Philippe Rouanet; Jacek Jassem; Emmanuel Blot; Khalil Zaman; Tanja Cufer; Alain Lortholary; Elisabet Lidbrink; Sylvie André; Saskia Litière; Lissandra Dal Lago; Véronique Becette; David A Cameron; Jonas Bergh; Richard Iggo Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-05-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Keiran M Raine; Jonathan Hinton; Adam P Butler; Jon W Teague; Helen Davies; Patrick Tarpey; Serena Nik-Zainal; Peter J Campbell Journal: Curr Protoc Bioinformatics Date: 2015-12-17
Authors: Nadine M Tung; Mark E Robson; Steffen Ventz; Cesar A Santa-Maria; Rita Nanda; Paul K Marcom; Payal D Shah; Tarah J Ballinger; Eddy S Yang; Shaveta Vinayak; Michelle Melisko; Adam Brufsky; Michelle DeMeo; Colby Jenkins; Susan Domchek; Alan D'Andrea; Nancy U Lin; Melissa E Hughes; Lisa A Carey; Nick Wagle; Gerburg M Wulf; Ian E Krop; Antonio C Wolff; Eric P Winer; Judy E Garber Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Matthew T Chang; Saurabh Asthana; Sizhi Paul Gao; Byron H Lee; Jocelyn S Chapman; Cyriac Kandoth; JianJiong Gao; Nicholas D Socci; David B Solit; Adam B Olshen; Nikolaus Schultz; Barry S Taylor Journal: Nat Biotechnol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 54.908