Analysis of Paired Primary-Metastatic Hormone-Receptor Positive Breast Tumors (HRPBC) Uncovers Potential Novel Drivers of Hormonal Resistance

An essential gene signature of breast cancer metastasis reveals targetable pathways

BACKGROUND

The differential gene expression profile of metastatic versus primary breast tumors represents an avenue for discovering new or underappreciated pathways underscoring processes of metastasis. However, as tumor biopsy samples are a mixture of cancer and non-cancer cells, most differentially expressed genes in metastases would represent confounders involving sample biopsy site rather than cancer cell biology.

METHODS

By paired analysis, we defined a top set of differentially expressed genes in breast cancer metastasis versus primary tumors using an RNA-sequencing dataset of 152 patients from The Breast International Group Aiming to Understand the Molecular Aberrations dataset (BIG-AURORA). To filter the genes higher in metastasis for genes essential for breast cancer proliferation, we incorporated CRISPR-based data from breast cancer cell lines.

RESULTS

A significant fraction of genes with higher expression in metastasis versus paired primary were essential by CRISPR. These 264 genes represented an essential signature of breast cancer metastasis. In contrast, nonessential metastasis genes largely involved tumor biopsy site. The essential signature predicted breast cancer patient outcome based on primary tumor expression patterns. Pathways underlying the essential signature included proteasome degradation, the electron transport chain, oxidative phosphorylation, and cancer metabolic reprogramming. Transcription factors MYC, MAX, HDAC3, and HCFC1 each bound significant fractions of essential genes.

CONCLUSIONS

Associations involving the essential gene signature of breast cancer metastasis indicate true biological changes intrinsic to cancer cells, with important implications for applying existing therapies or developing alternate therapeutic approaches.

KMT2C and KMT2D aberrations in breast cancer

KMT2C and KMT2D are histone lysine methyltransferases responsible for the monomethylation of histone 3 lysine 4 (H3K4) residues at gene enhancer sites. KMT2C/D are the most frequently mutated histone methyltransferases (HMTs) in breast cancer, occurring at frequencies of 10-20% collectively. Frequent damaging and truncating somatic mutations indicate a tumour-suppressive role of KMT2C/D in breast oncogenesis. Recent studies using cell lines and mouse models to replicate KMT2C/D loss show that these genes contribute to oestrogen receptor (ER)-driven transcription in ER+ breast cancers through the priming of gene enhancer regions. This review provides an overview of the functions of KMT2C/D and outlines the recent clinical and experimental evidence of the roles of KMT2C and KMT2D in breast cancer development.

Eph receptors and ephrins in cancer progression

Evidence implicating Eph receptor tyrosine kinases and their ephrin ligands (that together make up the 'Eph system') in cancer development and progression has been accumulating since the discovery of the first Eph receptor approximately 35 years ago. Advances in the past decade and a half have considerably increased the understanding of Eph receptor-ephrin signalling mechanisms in cancer and have uncovered intriguing new roles in cancer progression and drug resistance. This Review focuses mainly on these more recent developments. I provide an update on the different mechanisms of Eph receptor-ephrin-mediated cell-cell communication and cell autonomous signalling, as well as on the interplay of the Eph system with other signalling systems. I further discuss recent advances in elucidating how the Eph system controls tumour expansion, invasiveness and metastasis, supports cancer stem cells, and drives therapy resistance. In addition to functioning within cancer cells, the Eph system also mediates the reciprocal communication between cancer cells and cells of the tumour microenvironment. The involvement of the Eph system in tumour angiogenesis is well established, but recent findings also demonstrate roles in immune cells, cancer-associated fibroblasts and the extracellular matrix. Lastly, I discuss strategies under evaluation for therapeutic targeting of Eph receptors-ephrins in cancer and conclude with an outlook on promising future research directions.

The role of EphA7 in different tumors

Ephrin receptor A7 (EphA7) is a member of the Eph receptor family. It is widely involved in signal transduction between cells, regulates cell proliferation and differentiation, and participates in developing neural tubes and brain. In addition, EphA7 also has a dual role of tumor promoter and tumor suppressor. It can participate in cell proliferation, migration and apoptosis through various mechanisms, and affect tumor differentiation, staging and prognosis. EphA7 may be a potential diagnostic marker and tumor treatment target. This article reviews the effects of EphA7 on a variety of tumor biological processes and pathological characteristics, as well as specific effects and regulatory mechanisms.

Prolonged estrogen deprivation triggers a broad immunosuppressive phenotype in breast cancer cells

Among others, expression levels of programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) have been explored as biomarkers of the response to immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer therapy. Here, we present the results of a chemical screen that interrogated how medically approved drugs influence PD-L1 expression. As expected, corticosteroids and inhibitors of Janus kinases were among the top PD-L1 downregulators. In addition, we identified that PD-L1 expression is induced by antiestrogenic compounds. Transcriptomic analyses indicate that chronic estrogen receptor alpha (ERα) inhibition triggers a broad immunosuppressive program in ER-positive breast cancer cells, which is subsequent to their growth arrest and involves the activation of multiple immune checkpoints together with the silencing of the antigen-presenting machinery. Accordingly, estrogen-deprived MCF7 cells are resistant to T-cell-mediated cell killing, in a manner that is independent of PD-L1, but which is reverted by estradiol. Our study reveals that while antiestrogen therapies efficiently limit the growth of ER-positive breast cancer cells, they concomitantly trigger a transcriptional program that favors their immune evasion.

FGFR1 amplification or overexpression and hormonal resistance in luminal breast cancer: rationale for a triple blockade of ER, CDK4/6, and FGFR1

BACKGROUND

FGFR1 amplification, but not overexpression, has been related to adverse prognosis in hormone-positive breast cancer (HRPBC). Whether FGFR1 overexpression and amplification are correlated, what is their distribution among luminal A or B HRPBC, and if there is a potential different prognostic role for amplification and overexpression are currently unknown features. The role of FGFR1 inhibitors in HRPBC is also unclear.

METHODS

FGFR1 amplification (FISH) and overexpression (RNAscope) were investigated in a N = 251 HRPBC patients cohort and the METABRIC cohort; effects on survival and FISH-RNAscope concordance were determined. We generated hormonal deprivation resistant (LTED-R) and FGFR1-overexpressing cell line variants of the ER+ MCF7 and T47-D and the ER+, FGFR1-amplified HCC1428 cell lines. The role of ER, CDK4/6, and/or FGFR1 blockade alone or in combinations in Rb phosphorylation, cell cycle, and survival were studied.

RESULTS

FGFR1 overexpression and amplification was non-concordant in > 20% of the patients, but both were associated to a similar relapse risk (~ 2.5-fold; P < 0.05). FGFR1 amplification or overexpression occurred regardless of the luminal subtype, but the incidence was higher in luminal B (16.3%) than A (6.6%) tumors; P < 0.05. The Kappa index for overexpression and amplification was 0.69 (P < 0.001). Twenty-four per cent of the patients showed either amplification and/or overexpression of FGFR1, what was associated to a hazard ratio for relapse of 2.6 (95% CI 1.44-4.62, P < 0.001). In vitro, hormonal deprivation led to FGFR1 overexpression. Primary FGFR1 amplification, engineered mRNA overexpression, or LTED-R-acquired FGFR1 overexpression led to resistance against hormonotherapy alone or in combination with the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib. Blocking FGFR1 with the kinase-inhibitor rogaratinib led to suppression of Rb phosphorylation, abrogation of the cell cycle, and resistance-reversion in all FGFR1 models.

CONCLUSIONS

FGFR1 amplification and overexpression are associated to similar adverse prognosis in hormone-positive breast cancer. Capturing all the patients with adverse prognosis-linked FGFR1 aberrations requires assessing both features. Hormonal deprivation leads to FGFR1 overexpression, and FGFR1 overexpression and/or amplification are associated with resistance to hormonal monotherapy or in combination with palbociclib. Both resistances are reverted with triple ER, CDK4/6, and FGFR1 blockade.

Acquired mutations and transcriptional remodeling in long-term estrogen-deprived locoregional breast cancer recurrences

BACKGROUND

Endocrine therapy resistance is a hallmark of advanced estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer. In this study, we aimed to determine acquired genomic changes in endocrine-resistant disease.

METHODS

We performed DNA/RNA hybrid-capture sequencing on 12 locoregional recurrences after long-term estrogen deprivation and identified acquired genomic changes versus each tumor's matched primary.

RESULTS

Despite being up to 7 years removed from the primary lesion, most recurrences harbored similar intrinsic transcriptional and copy number profiles. Only two genes, AKAP9 and KMT2C, were found to have single nucleotide variant (SNV) enrichments in more than one recurrence. Enriched mutations in single cases included SNVs within transcriptional regulators such as ARID1A, TP53, FOXO1, BRD1, NCOA1, and NCOR2 with one local recurrence gaining three PIK3CA mutations. In contrast to DNA-level changes, we discovered recurrent outlier mRNA expression alterations were common-including outlier gains in TP63 (n = 5 cases [42%]), NTRK3 (n = 5 [42%]), NTRK2 (n = 4 [33%]), PAX3 (n = 4 [33%]), FGFR4 (n = 3 [25%]), and TERT (n = 3 [25%]). Recurrent losses involved ESR1 (n = 5 [42%]), RELN (n = 5 [42%]), SFRP4 (n = 4 [33%]), and FOSB (n = 4 [33%]). ESR1-depleted recurrences harbored shared transcriptional remodeling events including upregulation of PROM1 and other basal cancer markers.

CONCLUSIONS

Taken together, this study defines acquired genomic changes in long-term, estrogen-deprived disease; highlights the importance of longitudinal RNA profiling; and identifies a common ESR1-depleted endocrine-resistant breast cancer subtype with basal-like transcriptional reprogramming.

Clinical and mutational profiles of adult medulloblastoma groups

Adult medulloblastomas are clinically and molecularly understudied due to their rarity. We performed molecular grouping, targeted sequencing, and TERT promoter Sanger sequencing on a cohort of 99 adult medulloblastomas. SHH made up 50% of the cohort, whereas Group 3 (13%) was present in comparable proportion to WNT (19%) and Group 4 (18%). In contrast to paediatric medulloblastomas, molecular groups had no prognostic impact in our adult cohort (p = 0.877). Most frequently mutated genes were TERT (including promoter mutations, mutated in 36% cases), chromatin modifiers KMT2D (31%) and KMT2C (30%), TCF4 (31%), PTCH1 (27%) and DDX3X (24%). Adult WNT patients showed enrichment of TP53 mutations (6/15 WNT cases), and 3/6 TP53-mutant WNT tumours were of large cell/anaplastic histology. Adult SHH medulloblastomas had frequent upstream pathway alterations (PTCH1 and SMO mutations) and few downstream alterations (SUFU mutations, MYCN amplifications). TERT promoter mutations were found in 72% of adult SHH patients, and were restricted to this group. Adult Group 3 tumours lacked hallmark MYC amplifications, but had recurrent mutations in KBTBD4 and NOTCH1. Adult Group 4 tumours harboured recurrent mutations in TCF4 and chromatin modifier genes. Overall, amplifications of MYC and MYCN were rare (3%). Since molecular groups were not prognostic, alternative prognostic markers are needed for adult medulloblastoma. KMT2C mutations were frequently found across molecular groups and were associated with poor survival (p = 0.002). Multivariate analysis identified histological type (p = 0.026), metastasis (p = 0.031) and KMT2C mutational status (p = 0.046) as independent prognosticators in our cohort. In summary, we identified distinct clinical and mutational characteristics of adult medulloblastomas that will inform their risk stratification and treatment.

Although c‑MYC contributes to tamoxifen resistance, it improves cisplatin sensitivity in ER‑positive breast cancer

Tamoxifen (TAM) resistance is a major challenge in the treatment of estrogen receptor‑positive (ER+) breast cancer. To date, to the best of our knowledge, there are only a few studies available examining the response of patients with TAM‑resistant breast cancer to chemotherapy, and the guidelines do not specify recommended drugs for these patients. In the present study, TAM‑resistant cells were shown to exhibit increased proliferation and invasion compared with the parent cells, and the increased expression of c‑MYC was demonstrated to play an important role in TAM resistance. Furthermore, the TAM‑resistant cells were significantly more sensitive to cisplatin compared with the parent cells, and the silencing of c‑MYC expression desensitized the cells to cisplatin through the inhibition of the cell cycle. An increased c‑MYC expression was observed in 28 pairs of primary and metastatic tumors from patients treated with TAM, and the clinical remission rate of cisplatin‑based chemotherapy was significantly higher compared with other chemotherapy‑based regimens in 122 patients with TAM resistant breast cancer. Taken together, the data of the present study demonstrated that although c‑MYC was involved in TAM resistance, it increased the sensitivity of ER+ breast cancer to cisplatin. Thus, cisplatin may be a preferred chemotherapeutic agent for the treatment of patients with TAM‑resistant breast cancer, particularly in patients where the rapid control of disease progression is required.

Histone methyltransferases regulate the transcriptional expression of ERα and the proliferation of tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer cells

Purpose

Although tamoxifen remains the frontline treatment for ERα-positive breast cancers, resistance to this drug limits its clinical efficacy. Most tamoxifen-resistant patients retain ERα expression which may support growth and progression of breast cancers. Therefore, we investigated epigenetic regulation of ERα that may provide a rationale for targeting ERα in these patients.

Methods

Expression levels of the mixed-lineage leukemia (MLL) family of proteins in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer cells and publicly available breast cancer patient data sets were analyzed. Histone methylation levels in ERα promoter regions were assessed using chromatin immunoprecipitation. Expression levels of ERα and its target gene were analyzed using western blotting and real-time qPCR. Cell-cycle was analyzed by flow cytometry.

Results

The expression of MLL3 and SET-domain-containing 1A (SET1A) were increased in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancers. An MLL3 chromatin immunoprecipitation-sequencing data analysis and chromatin immunoprecipitation experiments for MLL3 and SET1A suggested that these proteins bound to enhancer or intron regions of the ESR1 gene and regulated histone H3K4 methylation status. Depletion of MLL3 or SET1A downregulated the expression level of ERα and inhibited the growth of tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer cells. Additional treatment with fulvestrant resulted in a synergistic reduction of ERα levels and the growth of the cells.

Conclusions

The enhanced expression of MLL3 and SET1A in tamoxifen-resistant breast cancer cells supported the ERα-dependent growth of these cells by increasing ERα expression. Our results suggest that targeting these histone methyltransferases might provide an attractive strategy to overcome endocrine resistance.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10549-019-05517-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Standard and Genomic Tools for Decision Support in Breast Cancer Treatment

Over the past few decades, comprehensive characterization of the cancer genome has elucidated pathways that drive cancer and mechanisms of resistance to therapy and provided important insights for development of new therapies. These advances have resulted in the development of prognostic and predictive tools for use in clinical settings, which can assist clinicians and patients in making informed decisions about the benefits of established therapies. In early-stage breast cancer, multiparameter genomic assays are now available for decision making about the duration of adjuvant endocrine therapy and the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. Similarly, in metastatic disease, there are multiple commercially available next-generation sequencing options for identifying genetic alterations in tumors that may be targeted with a drug. Although these tools hold great promise for providing precision medicine, it can be difficult for the treating physician to evaluate their clinical utility and appropriately select tools for individual clinical situations. This review summarizes the currently available genomic tools in breast cancer, the data underlying their clinical validity and utility, and how they can be used in conjunction with standard clinicopathologic data for making adjuvant and metastatic treatment decisions.

Cross-activating c-Met/β1 integrin complex drives metastasis and invasive resistance in cancer

The molecular underpinnings of invasion, a hallmark of cancer, have been defined in terms of individual mediators but crucial interactions between these mediators remain undefined. In xenograft models and patient specimens, we identified a c-Met/β1 integrin complex that formed during significant invasive oncologic processes: breast cancer metastases and glioblastoma invasive resistance to antiangiogenic VEGF neutralizing antibody, bevacizumab. Inducing c-Met/β1 complex formation through an engineered inducible heterodimerization system promoted features crucial to overcoming stressors during metastases or antiangiogenic therapy: migration in the primary site, survival under hypoxia, and extravasation out of circulation. c-Met/β1 complex formation was up-regulated by hypoxia, while VEGF binding VEGFR2 sequestered c-Met and β1 integrin, preventing their binding. Complex formation promoted ligand-independent receptor activation, with integrin-linked kinase phosphorylating c-Met and crystallography revealing the c-Met/β1 complex to maintain the high-affinity β1 integrin conformation. Site-directed mutagenesis verified the necessity for c-Met/β1 binding of amino acids predicted by crystallography to mediate their extracellular interaction. Far-Western blotting and sequential immunoprecipitation revealed that c-Met displaced α5 integrin from β1 integrin, creating a complex with much greater affinity for fibronectin (FN) than α5β1. Thus, tumor cells adapt to microenvironmental stressors induced by metastases or bevacizumab by coopting receptors, which normally promote both cell migration modes: chemotaxis, movement toward concentrations of environmental chemoattractants, and haptotaxis, movement controlled by the relative strengths of peripheral adhesions. Tumor cells then redirect these receptors away from their conventional binding partners, forming a powerful structural c-Met/β1 complex whose ligand-independent cross-activation and robust affinity for FN drive invasive oncologic processes.

A strategy to apply quantitative epistasis analysis on developmental traits

BACKGROUND

Genetic interactions are keys to understand complex traits and evolution. Epistasis analysis is an effective method to map genetic interactions. Large-scale quantitative epistasis analysis has been well established for single cells. However, there is a substantial lack of such studies in multicellular organisms and their complex phenotypes such as development. Here we present a method to extend quantitative epistasis analysis to developmental traits.

METHODS

In the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, we applied RNA interference on mutants to inactivate two genes, used an imaging system to quantitatively measure phenotypes, and developed a set of statistical methods to extract genetic interactions from phenotypic measurement.

RESULTS

Using two different C. elegans developmental phenotypes, body length and sex ratio, as examples, we showed that this method could accommodate various metazoan phenotypes with performances comparable to those methods in single cell growth studies. Comparing with qualitative observations, this method of quantitative epistasis enabled detection of new interactions involving subtle phenotypes. For example, several sex-ratio genes were found to interact with brc-1 and brd-1, the orthologs of the human breast cancer genes BRCA1 and BARD1, respectively. We confirmed the brc-1 interactions with the following genes in DNA damage response: C34F6.1, him-3 (ortholog of HORMAD1, HORMAD2), sdc-1, and set-2 (ortholog of SETD1A, SETD1B, KMT2C, KMT2D), validating the effectiveness of our method in detecting genetic interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a reliable, high-throughput method for quantitative epistasis analysis of developmental phenotypes.

Comparative clinical utility of tumor genomic testing and cell-free DNA in metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

Breast cancer metastases differ biologically from primary disease; therefore, metastatic biopsies may assist in treatment decision making. Commercial genomic testing of both tumor and circulating tumor DNA have become available clinically, but utility of these tests in breast cancer management remains unclear.

METHODS

Patients undergoing a clinically indicated metastatic tumor biopsy were consented to the ongoing METAMORPH registry. Tumor and blood were collected at the time of disease progression before subsequent therapy, and patients were followed for response on subsequent treatment. Tumor testing (n = 53) and concurrent cell-free DNA (n = 32) in a subset of patients was performed using CLIA-approved assays.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with a genomic alteration was lower in tumor than in blood (69 vs. 91%; p = 0.06). After restricting analysis to alterations covered on both platforms, 83% of tumor alterations were detected in blood, while 90% of blood alterations were detected in tumor. Mutational load specific for the panel genes was calculated for both tumor and blood. Time to progression on subsequent treatment was significantly shorter for patients whose tumors had high panel-specific mutational load (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.78) or a TP53 mutation (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20-0.79), after adjusting for stage at presentation, hormone receptor status, prior treatment type, and number of lines of metastatic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating oncologists must distinguish platform differences from true biological heterogeneity when comparing tumor and cfDNA genomic testing results. Tumor and concurrent cfDNA contribute unique genomic information in metastatic breast cancer patients, providing potentially useful biomarkers for aggressive metastatic disease.

Comparative clinical utility of tumor genomic testing and cell-free DNA in metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

Breast cancer metastases differ biologically from primary disease; therefore, metastatic biopsies may assist in treatment decision making. Commercial genomic testing of both tumor and circulating tumor DNA have become available clinically, but utility of these tests in breast cancer management remains unclear.

METHODS

Patients undergoing a clinically indicated metastatic tumor biopsy were consented to the ongoing METAMORPH registry. Tumor and blood were collected at the time of disease progression before subsequent therapy, and patients were followed for response on subsequent treatment. Tumor testing (n = 53) and concurrent cell-free DNA (n = 32) in a subset of patients was performed using CLIA-approved assays.

RESULTS

The proportion of patients with a genomic alteration was lower in tumor than in blood (69 vs. 91%; p = 0.06). After restricting analysis to alterations covered on both platforms, 83% of tumor alterations were detected in blood, while 90% of blood alterations were detected in tumor. Mutational load specific for the panel genes was calculated for both tumor and blood. Time to progression on subsequent treatment was significantly shorter for patients whose tumors had high panel-specific mutational load (HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12-0.78) or a TP53 mutation (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.20-0.79), after adjusting for stage at presentation, hormone receptor status, prior treatment type, and number of lines of metastatic treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating oncologists must distinguish platform differences from true biological heterogeneity when comparing tumor and cfDNA genomic testing results. Tumor and concurrent cfDNA contribute unique genomic information in metastatic breast cancer patients, providing potentially useful biomarkers for aggressive metastatic disease.

New Strategies in Metastatic Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer: Searching for Biomarkers to Tailor Endocrine and Other Targeted Therapies

Although major advances in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) breast cancer have led to new therapies that have substantially improved patient outcomes, endocrine-resistant disease still remains a leading cause of breast cancer mortality. Comprehensive molecular profiling of breast cancers has highlighted tremendous tumor heterogeneity, and analysis of paired primary and metastatic tumors has shown the evolution that can occur during acquired resistance to systemic therapies. Novel techniques for monitoring tumor load under treatment pressure, including "liquid biopsy" techniques, such as circulating free tumor DNA (cfDNA) and circulating tumor cells, have shown promise as biomarkers to direct treatment without invasive tumor biopsies. However, more research is needed to deepen our understanding of breast cancer alterations under treatment pressure to reveal mechanisms of drug resistance and apply precision medicine in biomarker-driven clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res; 23(5); 1126-31. ©2016 AACR.